THE DEFINITELY NOT TRADITIONAL '32 TUDOR SEDAN

[mrm]

This was started when Revell reissued the '32 Ford Tudor Sedan earlier this year. It is my all time favorite '32 Body style and I've built plenty of them in the past. Everyone was talking about the reissue and getting one, so I started the build off thread with every intention of building not one, but two of them. Well, that plan changed quickly, but the thread took off with some truly great builds going on. So I decided to actually try to build one of the originally planned models, altho in a completely different way from what I had in mind at first. I have two weeks to complete it, which considering 4 Mustangs, a Corvette and a Hot Rod pick up truck which have to be completed in the same time frame, is quite the challenge for me.

Back when the build off started, I began by chopping a freshly reissued body.

 

 

I filled in the roof insert and made some reinforcement ribs from half-round styrene rod. It was supposed to be a full-fendered, LS powered sleek Ferrari red street rod, on a modified chassis from the kit.

 

Well, now that I am reviving this project with a super short deadline, none of the original plan is going to be applied. It is not going to be full-fendered, it's not going on the Revell chassis, it's not going to be LS powered and it is definitely not going to be red. Well, maybe the interior, but this is also questionable. 

  Instead it is going to sit on a modified  AMT Phantom Vicky Chassis with an independent rear suspension and it is going to be powered by SBF from the Tudor kit, but with some trick induction, which would be mated to the manual transmission from the Phantom Vicky kit. The interior will be the one I started putting together when I chopped the body, which consists of 3D printed front seats, scratch built rear seat and stock door panels which will most likely receive some kind of scratch built hand rests. 

 

I have to say that experimenting with some wheels had a lot to do with the motivation to restart this build.

[Bullybeef]

Pitter patter, you don’t have time to sleep lol

[RW033]

You had me at "not traditional" ?

[Kenmojr]

Looking forward to more updates. Looks like an interesting build....

[Ace-Garageguy]

Most interesting. I like the beads "rolled" into the roof filler panel.

Are you planning to use the QC center section with IRS?

Edited October 15 by Ace-Garageguy

[mrm]

3 hours ago, Bullybeef said:

Pitter patter, you don’t have time to sleep lol

Sleep is overrated.

3 hours ago, RW033 said:

You had me at "not traditional" ?

yeah, I want to try a couple of things…

2 hours ago, Kenmojr said:

Looking forward to more updates. Looks like an interesting build....

Thank you. I need to set up the frame for the IRS and build a very particular set of hoods and then it’s easy from there. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Are you planning to use the QC center section with IRS?

No. That quick change rear is just plan B, but I don’t think I’ll be needing it. 

[SpeedShift]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:52 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Most interesting. I like the beads "rolled" into the roof filler panel.

Are you planning to use the QC center section with IRS?

"Are you planning to use the QC center section with IRS?"

For the benefit of some of us guys that don't work on or build 1:1 cars...is that Quick Change not used in conjunction with Independent Rear Suspension?

Asking for a friend. LOL

Edited October 23 by SpeedShift

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, SpeedShift said:

...For the benefit of some of us guys that don't work on or build 1:1 cars...is that Quick Change not used in conjunction with Independent Rear Suspension?

Asking for a friend. LOL

Pretty much any QC center section can be made to work with independent rear suspension.  

Different side-covers / bearing carriers are used (different from the usual solid-axle "bells" that carry the axle bearings on their outboard ends).

The side covers for IRS also often include mounting "ears" and / or suspension control-arm pickup-points.

Inboard disc brakes are often part of the package as well.

Below is one fairly typical QC-IRS setup. It uses suspension geometry copied from the old Jaguar IRS popular in years past.

Below is a Winters QC diff set up with IRS side covers and stub axles.

Note the differences between it and a similar center section with solid axles and side-cover "bells" and tubes, set up for outboard disc brakes.

There's all kinds of trick QC stuff available these days, including complete subframes to convert IRS Mustangs to run quick-change diffs.

                                               

 

 

Edited October 22 by Ace-Garageguy

[Bullybeef]

??I learned something new today!

[SpeedShift]

4 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Pretty much any QC center section can be made to work with independent rear suspension.  

Different side-covers / bearing carriers are used (different from the usual solid-axle "bells" that carry the axle bearings on their outboard ends).

The side covers for IRS also often include mounting "ears" and / or suspension control-arm pickup-points.

Inboard disc brakes are often part of the package as well.

Below is one fairly typical QC-IRS setup. It uses suspension geometry copied from the old Jaguar IRS popular in years past.

Below is a Winters QC diff set up with IRS side covers and stub axles.

Note the differences between it and a similar center section with solid axles and side-cover "bells" and tubes, set up for outboard disc brakes.

There's all kinds of trick QC stuff available these days, including complete subframes to convert IRS Mustangs to run quick-change diffs.

                                               

 

 

And that's why we are glad you are here.

Good model building is one thing, ............good accurate model building another.

Thanks for the pictures.

 

Edited October 23 by SpeedShift

[TopherMcGinnis]

1 hour ago, SpeedShift said:

And that's why we are glad you are here.

Good model building is one thing, ............good accurate model building another.

Thanks for the pictures.

 

Ditto

[mrm]

2 hours ago, SpeedShift said:

And that's why we are glad you are here.

Good model building is one thing, ............good accurate model building another.

Thanks for the pictures.

 

Ahhh…. But see… that’s subjective. Specially when we’re talking about hot rods and customs. Because in this century, that’s such a huge grey area, that it’s actually bigger than what’s on either one its sides. For the last 25 years I’ve seen  parts put together that have no business working together. Major award winning rods with LS motors made to look like Fords, fuel injected systems loaded with electronics disguised as individual carburetors, fake generators and magnetos, wheels made to look like white walls, motors from rear engined Ferraris used in frontengined Fords, vintage pickup trucks with carbon fiber F1 suspension etc., etc….

   In our damn age you can slap any vallve cover on any engine out there on your model and be realistically 100% doable in real life. They make ultra modern lightweight forged wheels looking like 50’s stamped steelies for Chris’sake. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

43 minutes ago, mrm said:

Ahhh…. But see… that’s subjective.

No. What's mechanically possible and good engineering that respects physics, which rule engine and gearbox and brake functions and vehicle dynamics and structural integrity, are not at all subjective.

They are absolutely entirely dependent on an understanding of objective reality, no matter how many different genres they may draw inspiration from.

Just because a pile of parts looks like an engine, it won't necessarily run. And slapping some stupid fake valve covers on an LS doesn't change the way it works internally. Since the dawn of the whole "custom car" thing there have been myriad vehicles that looked cool (or whatever the breathless oohing and ahhing word was at the time) that failed miserably as machines. Much as I like Ed Roth's styling, some of his cars were essentially boat anchors. And then there are axle-snapping donks that fall over if cornered hard, and stupidly "stanced" suspension setups that don't handle but DO destroy tires in a few blocks, and nosebleed-high "nostalgia gassers" and all the rat-rod rolling tetanus-traps that were for the most part virtually undrivable. I could go on for half a page about real cars built by idiots who had zero clue about how things actually work. There is, by the way, a reason a particular old-school front end setup is called "suicide".

A mashup of parts put together by some clown who doesn't fully comprehend how they are intimately interrelated functionally in objective reality might run and get on and off a trailer under its own power, but that's about it.

And Roth's Mysterion was reputed to have cracked its frame doing just that. 

Bottom line: knowing how real things work lets you build models that are believable.  

 

 

Edited October 23 by Ace-Garageguy

[SpeedShift]

"Bottom line: knowing how real things work lets you build models that are believable.  "

As I learned more about the real subjects I had to get more informed to be satisfied with my work.

Not easy for a kid that had never gone to a drag race and no online resources back then like today.

Brings back a memory:

I think I was twelve years old working on a Revell Anglia gasser model...I thought this would look so much cooler if I ditched the

fuel injection engine in the kit, and stuffed a big supercharged hemi in it.

Then I started trying to figure out what drag class decal I needed to scrap together to do the build.

To my disappointment I found out NHRA didn't have a class for it .....nor did they even allow supercharged engines in small wheelbase

dragsters like that. Disappointed, I quit the project...only years later to find out AHRA actually allowed supercharged small wheelbase cars like the Anglia.

Eventually NHRA followed suit. The Shores and Hess Anglia being an example, not to mention the eventual popularity of those crazy short wheelbase Fuel Altereds.

Guess my point is - having good resources makes the hobby more enjoyable for me.

I'm not a rivet counter by any means, but I like having the model I work on be more detailed than a stock kit, and represent an operational vehicle.

 

 

 

Edited October 23 by SpeedShift

[mrm]

So,I played with the idea of some different hoods. Finally I decided to cut open the smooth hoods that came in the kit. 

 

Added some modded hood vents from a rally car...

 

And completely rescaled muscle car scoop to the top hood. Now that piece took many tries to get right and posed many printing issues. I think I printed something like 12 different pieces until I got one right and grafted onto the hood without damaging it. 

 

The IRS is highly modified piece that was available at shapeways. The original was wider, the calipers were on top of the brakes and it had four shocks - two per side. And the whole thing could be ordered only as a one-piece-print. 

 

To use it and to have the right ride height, I had to modify the rear section of the Phantom Vicky frame and to make a new cross member from square styrene rod. 

 

I love the custom nonstock look of the Vicky wheelwells and I definitely liked the idea of the locating pins they come with. So I adapted them to the Revell body. Easier said than done.

 

Now that thing has some attitude and I am excited.

 

The frame is pretty much set up. The ride height and the stance/rake is dialed in and the engine is figured out. Still some details have to be worked out like the raised engine mounts necessary not to drag the oil pan and headers on the ground and the rear shocks and their mounts. This brings us to our earlier discussion and what I meant by "the grey area" in accuracy ourdays. See, this type of IRS was derived from a Jag rear end design. The lower "A-Arms" (there are no upper and they are no longer "A" but still) were usually welded up and fabbed from tubing. This necessitated extra bracing and the usual dual shock set up, just like on the picture Ace posted. But will it be inaccurate with a single shock and without the "X" braces? In today's high tech times the answer is IT DEPENDS. Because those A-arms can be forged from solid billet aluminum or even more exotic materials and be stronger, lighter and never flex even with a single shock. And there are plenty setups like that out there. 

  Now I need a lot of putty and sanding on both the chassis and body in order to make then ready for paint, which I intend to spray this weekend.

[Zippi]

Nice progress on your 32 Tudor Sedan Dennis.  I'm really liking the hood scoop. 

[SpikeSchumacher]

That is looking very cool!

[mrm]

2 hours ago, Zippi said:

Nice progress on your 32 Tudor Sedan Dennis.  I'm really liking the hood scoop. 

Thank you. I think it gives it a little bit of an attitude and bespoke feel. But my name is definitely not Dennis. LOL. It’s Michael per my drivers license, but most people call me Mozzi. 

[mrm]

1 hour ago, SpikeSchumacher said:

That is looking very cool!

Thank you. I’m trying to get the momentum going, before this joins about ten other hotrods that are collecting dust in boxes half built. LOL.

Edited November 1 by mrm

[Dennis Lacy]

Neat work on the hood! 

Also, the stance and proportions look great and I dig the ribs on the roof.

?

[bill-e-boy]

Looking good. I like the rear end and has worked out better than the Lil John one I am using for my 32 build. I also like the ribs on the roof, the hood treatment and the 4 Weber carbs on the engine - or is that an Inglese FI set up in keeping with the other mods to the car

 

[mrm]

9 hours ago, Dennis Lacy said:

Neat work on the hood! 

Also, the stance and proportions look great and I dig the ribs on the roof.

?

Thank you Dennis. This rod will be all about attitude, so the stance is a big deal.

[mrm]

8 hours ago, bill-e-boy said:

Looking good. I like the rear end and has worked out better than the Lil John one I am using for my 32 build. I also like the ribs on the roof, the hood treatment and the 4 Weber carbs on the engine - or is that an Inglese FI set up in keeping with the other mods to the car

 

The rear end was definitely not originally designed for a "32 frame. But it wouldn't be fun if it was. LOL. I used the Buttera rear end in a '32 build (which I have not finished like many others from years back) and it worked out great. I wish there was a proper modern IRS available for a '32 chassis. With all the re-releases, all the aftermarket resin and with the literally limitless possibilities of the 3D revolution, it is absolutely astonishing that there is no proper IRS for the '32 frames. 

About the intake, the answer is both. It is an Inglese system using Webbers. It is seriously tiny stuff tho and plumbing it will be a challenge. Right now however, I am just trying to get everything ready for some color. 

 

[stitchdup]

1 hour ago, mrm said:

The rear end was definitely not originally designed for a "32 frame. But it wouldn't be fun if it was. LOL. I used the Buttera rear end in a '32 build (which I have not finished like many others from years back) and it worked out great. I wish there was a proper modern IRS available for a '32 chassis. With all the re-releases, all the aftermarket resin and with the literally limitless possibilities of the 3D revolution, it is absolutely astonishing that there is no proper IRS for the '32 frames. 

About the intake, the answer is both. It is an Inglese system using Webbers. It is seriously tiny stuff tho and plumbing it will be a challenge. Right now however, I am just trying to get everything ready for some color. 

 

this one prints out nice, maybe more of a detroit show car style though but it simple to narrow if you shorten the drive shaft and lower brace in the slicer

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/billet-irs-jag-rear-end-with-quick-change-centre

[bill-e-boy]

1 hour ago, stitchdup said:

this one prints out nice, maybe more of a detroit show car style though but it simple to narrow if you shorten the drive shaft and lower brace in the slicer

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/billet-irs-jag-rear-end-with-quick-change-centre

The rear end looks very advanced as you suggest and looks kinda cool.

I picked up a 3d printer a few months ago and have had a little play with it. First attempt was a bomb out but second showed promise. Problem is for me to get over the "short arm/long pocket syndrome" and fork out for some files and to come to grips with all the software palaver. Also being a digital agnostic to some degree does not help.

In another world I live with a TT that plays those old (and now new!) style 12" black and round things and hate those little shiny disc thingies with a passion. With tubes I might add. I use computers more than most of my contemporaries but are at an age where I have lived in both worlds with and without. I suppose we would not be communicating with likeminded people on the other side of the world if we did not have access to computers and the interweb - but!!!