There are T Buckets and then there are the Fad T's. The latter, I never could stand to look at. The well done T buckets are great, there is a well known thread on here all about that. My preference runs towards T based hot rods and that's what I am building with my 26 RPU.
They have really started to grow on me to. Its have been a couple of threads here that have show me to right direction. I problaby not liked them for same reasons as you mentionend.
To me, what constitutes a T bucket is an altered wheelbase (suicide spring/axle mount pushed out in front of the radiator, with the rear brought closer to the back of the body), and the 25-earlier open car body without any fenders or hood. A 23 T roadster can be built fenderless and not be a T bucket, same as a later body can be built with a suicide axle but still not be the same thing. I like T buckets when they're done right, in my mind, they're the only early Ford body that can be built out of fiberglass and still be truly historically accurate. Poor engineering and odd proportions have given them a bad name, which is a shame, as they can be great hot rods when built right.
I like the Lightnin' Bug version better as well. Norm always was an "out there" kind of guy, and some of his radical ideas were pretty good ones. He really nailed "the look" with that car. He surprised the rodding world with the car and its shortened pickup bed. Tommy Ivo liked it enough to copy it, and the ball was rolling. Both of those cars were cool, even though it was originally Norm's idea. But after seeing that body copied thousands of times, it loses its appeal for me. I much prefer a turtle on a T, so that's how I'm building mine. As Blue One said, T-based hot Rods can be very cool. The Kookie-Kutter Fad-T's have been overdone so much that they're boring.
The "Lightnin' Bug" is the gold standard. While there were and are some nice T Buckets after her, NONE got it "right". The "Kookie" was an over the top version that appeals because it was on television and reminds older people of their youthful days. Of the two, the ""Lightnin' Bug", was the REAL brain eater. IMO
Does @Anderson's T qualify as a modern era interpretation of the T bucket? It runs a turtle deck but I believe it has the proportions of a "bucket".
Like the number count of stars in the sky, it depends on who you ask. I'd call it a T Bucket, but only to drop it in a specific slot. To me, it's a bad ass roadster. I hated telling people my car was a T Bucket. When asked, I usually told them it was a Hot Rod. One day, I had driven my car to the post office. When I came out, an older lady said, "Nice roadster." She was the first and only person that ever called my car for what it was. Made my day.
If you ever get a chance to see Norm's or Tommy's.......do yourself a favor, spend some time inspecting them...... .........there is a heck of a lot to look at!
When I went to Bonneville in the early fifties, the '27 modified "T" was the coolest in my mind. They looked like something a kid would build. My dad's roadster had a 23 T body because it was FREE. Now it's cool to be different and the "old bucket" looks good! It ran 151mph in 1955 on gas. My dad's good friends from the San Diego Roadster Club in 1955. John Cramer's Ardun powered #4 car and Jack Harvey's red modified "T" with with DeSoto power and Crower U-Fab manifold with six 97's. Ardun ran 203 and Desoto ran 197, both cars running 90% nitro.
I would not call that a T bucket. No way. To me it is a very cool example of a clean T based hot rod. Turtle deck and if you read the latest updates on it you will see that he is taking it to another level with the new turtle deck he fabbed up. Classic steel bodied hot rod all the way.
I have always liked model T based Hot Rods, and though I did not like them at the time, nowadays I even like the gaudy 70's fad T's. Tommy Ivo's T was a cut down "Touring" not a Phaeton.
In my mind that's a T roadster. I know it's a small difference than a T- Bucket, but "t-bucket" carries with it many assumptions which include a shortened pickup bed, suicide front end, etc. If you changed @Anderson 's grille to a track nose, it would be a track roadster, to confuse things even more. It's closer to a track roadster that a T-bucket. Clear as mud?
Sometimes, as in a lot of things, people get carried away in the search for perfection. In other words, with T's, some folks see several very nice examples and end up trying to capture bits and pieces of each car they liked. The first version of my T was a great example. I knew what looked good on a few cars and in my haste and excitement, I inadvertently ended up with a mix matched hodge podge of styles. Looking back, it kinda sucked. After my wreck, I had a chance to correct a lot of things and while it came out better, it was still off the mark. My latest attempt is going to be a lot better. I'm taking my time and doing my best not to implement bits and pieces with the end result being a confusing pile of great styles, but no direction. It's hard, but I'm doing my best. The guys who build the memorable cars are the ones who figure out a game plan and stick to it. They ignore the latest fad or gimmick. They figure out what will work on THEIR car and it doesn't leave the garage until it's right. When the "cool kids" start talking shit and making suggestions, they walk away and go back to building. There are several T's on this site that stand out. Royal Shifter, Blue One, Anderson and Rebel, to name a few. Look at their T's. There isn't any part that's out of place. They had a theme that was specific and they stuck to it. When I see their cars, I can see what the vision was. A lot of guys see a cool part, search it out, figure out a way to attach it to their car and end up with shit. Moon tanks are a shining example of that. Moon tanks are a sweet accessory. They are still well made and have a history. But they just don't "fit" every car. Trust me, nothing says "trying too hard", like a Moon tank slapped on the front of a car because the owner thought it was cool.
Well...here goes! April '57 Car Craft cover car was Norm Grabowski's famous "T" bucket - as it was called on page13 of the feature story. Very few of this style were ever built using the pre-'23 Touring front half. Norm himself told me that there are only a few properly built "T" Buckets, and I know that this comment will irritate numerous Bucket owners. The '60s spawned a fiberglass Bucket revolution. Seems like if you had a chop gun and an old barn, you could churn out hundreds of bodies and put them on the market for $125. Add a mass produced frame for another $125 and for $250 you had THE KIT. A crescent wrench, a claw hammer and an electric drill, a donor car and a winter later you'd be driving one of these "bleep" buckets. I have seen a few very well put together "Ts". Excellent workmanship! These cars are meant to be exaggerations. Large engines, blowers, multiple carburation, suicide front axles, less than 100" wheel bases, big-and-littles on a decent rake and an appropriate amount of "cheesecake" make for an exciting, sensory toy difficult to achieve on any other of America's mass produced modes of transportation. My experience is that not too many people "get it". And I'm OK with that. But for those that do, THAT turns my crank! To quote Pat Ganahl from February 1989 Rod and Custom, "...riding in it, listening to the side pipes rapping in my ears, I know why this roadster (von Franco's clone) had such immediate appeal. It's pure fun - visually, aurally, dynamically. It doesn't just get your attention, it grabs you emotionally. You want to go for a ride. You want to drive it." Pat ends his write-up with, "Like, man, this car is the ginchiest, you dig?"
I'm still trying to figure out why a lot of guys put those fat ass Mickey Thompson tires on the rear. WTF, man?
Although I have never been a huge fan of the "T Bucket" I must say Mark Skipper's T is one that could bring me around. Perfect proportions.
Thanks Fred. Great to be mentioned in that group. Good to know my efforts are paying off. Can't wait to drive it Larry
Never built one but temped many times. As mentioned above some are very nice. One important thing being overlooked here. They can be/should be a cheap entry level "hot rod" for many people. And many people ( guys thing ) want a fast toy "hot rod". Look at all the companies started to market "kits"/components to make one. Frame, tiny light body & big engine. Sure, some ended up a little "hokky" but guys like to show off. Not to many '32's laying around Pa.; most old cars rusted away to dirt spots many years ago or restored & all - ALL of them worth $$$ to the owners. Note the word "cheap entry" above. Many of us can not afford a new body - the $$ thing again & fiberglass buckets start off cheap. Just saying, ease up & enjoy the hobby-welcome the new guy & teach him.
Russ Fruend and the "Take-out" T come to my mind. Turtle deck or not. (cant post a pic from work computor)
Yup. That ain't no Bucket. A little too "refined" for me, but a great looking roadster by any standard.
It's the last little bit of left over Fad-"T" stuff in this world. From about '68 on, the deal was to push the proportions and make stuff as outrageous as possible. The tallest top, the lowest cut body, the widest tires on the back, the narrowest on the front. Pipes that made no sense, and the biggest, tackiest brass headlights you could find. For some reason, the guys that ignore the history of these things seem to default to the widest tires and such. Actually, I have really identified three different "eras" in the life of T-buckets. The early cars like Ivo's and Grabowski's, generally characterized by steel touring front halfs, modified "A" rails, steel wheels, mild channel, reconfigured early Ford front suspensions and banjo rears, etc. The second group came about in '59 when fiberglass bodies first showed up. Suddenly it was the "kit car era"! Glass bodies and tube frames were the hot ticket in the magazines by about '61 or so, and tube front axles and hairpins not too far behind. The small block Chevy was the way to fly, but early sixties magazines are still full of Dodge, Buick, Chryslers, etc. too. Mag wheels were all the rage, and many are featured with a pair of mags at one end and steels at the other as money was collected to make stuff match. The proportions were very much the same as the first group, but set a little lower, with the constants being the body channeled the depth of the frame, a suicide front end, and an open engine compartment. Rear axles were generally centered under what ever was used on the back of the car, with the short pickup bed being most common, but beer kegs and Moon tanks were happening too, and the occasional turtle deck. The third era started around '68 or so, and is the "Fad - T" era. It was no longer about proportion and clean, suddenly it was about OUTRAGEOUS! Bodies cut way down, wheelbases pushed out way out in the front end, tires got super wide at the rear, and narrow wire spokes became the norm on the front. While you are at it, build a top that is at least one story tall, and add the oldest whaling lanterns you can find for tail lights, to go with your polished brass locomotive headlights and postage stamp sized brass radiator. Then, have you interior guy do the best tufted mohair possible. This, believe it or not has continued on to this day. Most of the kits you can buy now are Fad-T stuff, and taste really doesn't seem to matter. Just the tinsel, please. You can kinda guess what era strikes me the most....
The Jalopy Journal
