Why do T-buckets get no respect?

One I have been working on for a year or so. '49 8BA industrial flathead. Old oil field mud pump motor. '39 tranny, '41 brakes and rear. Cut down '29 A grille, model A bed. It works for me. May not be anyone else's cup of tea but it ain't your cookie cutter type either!

 

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CGayle%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-AU;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:35.95pt 90.0pt 26.95pt 36.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> What ever floats your boat, if your having fun go for it. Every now and then a T comes along its just wow..as is the case with model A, 32s,40s, 50s whatever some have it and a lot don’t.

 

well I like it, reminds me of some of the stuff my dad and his brothers built when they were teenagers. They built with what they could get their hands on. some of it might be considered "rat rods" today, but he's 67 this year, so it would still be "traditional" as it was built back in the day. gets confusing around here doesn't it? they used tractor grills too,or should i say "traditional" tractor grills. He said a lot of kids did then ,they were easy to find in an old farm and industrial town, often for free.

 

I didn't read through all the post's, but they just aren't year round type of car's here in the mid west for me, plus I would have to stretch one to fit myself, or learn to drive one looking like a frog, all crunched up. As far as light and fast, they are that, just don't roll one with out a cage, probally end up flat'er than a pancake.

 

Nice "T", but you have the distributor on the wrong side of the engine.

 

I love T's!!!! I think that they are just like anything else as far as some people get it right and some people don't but what ever floats their boat right? There is nothing like have a quick and nimble T roadster to burn around in on a fall day or a warm summer night. If you have not driven a roadster in any form well T buckets are your first step to doing so. Not everyone can afford or wants a 32 roadster. T Buckets are rad....period

I have posted my car way too much but it has seen some changes since this thread has begun so here it is again......

 

When anything becomes commercial it loses its appreciation. The reason T's are not sought after is because when they started sellin the glass T's everyone and their brother built them and one was uglier than the next. No one built a traditional car out of what was supposed to be an inexpensive way to make a traditional rod. They flamed them up and put goofy things on top of the motors. They just kept gettin gayer and gayer. Not to say there are not nice T's out there, but I gaurentee the ones that are cool are much fewer than the gay ones.

If anyone can get it and make a mockery out of it, it ain't cool. Same reason imports are gay and mini trucks are gay, too many people got their hands on them!

 

broad statement, considering i've seen some really nice traditionally done glass t's , same for imports, Lots of cheesy gay ones out there, but there are some really well done ones, people have put a lot of work into, including myself, A good friend of mine has a Honda that looks bone stock,yet is dynoed at over 400 horsepower to the front wheels, doesn't sound like a fart cannon either. cheesy? fast enough to scare the shit out of passengers. point is Glass is not new, it's been around a long time. are all Vettes cheesy because they are made of glass? what about the old dry lakes racers that happened to be glass?

 

Jeffrey that T kicks ass...

 

Lostforawhile:
The subject of this thread is pretty broad. I do not mean that there aren't cool T buckets out there (if that is what you thought you mis-understood or I didnt explain well enough), but I am saying that most of the time the cool ones aren't refered to as T buckets (they are refered to as T coupes or T roadsters) whether or not they are glass. Fast Hondas can be cool too, but "most" of them that are out ther are not fast and not cool. (again though, I have seen my fair share of cool ones)

If anyone takes the time to build something right, and take the time to actually think out what they are making, there is generally something cool about it. If it is something that is simply assembled without thought or reason it is usually stupid, or not cool.

 

???
Love T-buckets,,,

Lars

 

agreed

 

Thanks.

You mean I put engine in backwards? Dang I knew something wasn't quite right.

Sorry, I'm a purest. Ford in a Ford, etc.

 

Thanks Dooley!!! It was in your neck of the woods this summer cruising on Transit and through Elma while visiting my brother for the 4th!

 

Transit.. not too far from me, I'm in West Seneca.

I keep seeing that you need a drivers side tailight for a 36.

I have the glass for them, both the lens with blue dot and clear glass for the plate light..if you need it let me know I can send it to you...

 

thats an end not a side, the sides have headers on them, but I do agree with you.

 

I have to agree. There are rules to follow to make something aesthetically pleasing. You don't have to follow those rules, It's your creation but if you don't follow the rules you run the risk of making it look all wrong.

Four examples below. All have the right parts. Three early Cad. engines one early nailhead. All V8 60 tube axles. You tell me the one that got it wrong. Then tell me what they got wrong.

Just a few changes on one of them and it would be all right.

 

Santa's got no front brakes

 

Santa don't need no front brakes. He's got magic!

Worst case scenario, he can always toss a reindeer in front of him if he needs to stop.

 

Gosh, I have been hunting out a V8-60 tube axle for my '26. I think I am definitely lacking in that department.

 

I loved Norm's T bucket.
And Tommy Ivo's even more!

But then I saw so many T buckets that were done in poor taste that I began to despise them.

What I don't like:
Cookie cutter design.
Plastic body.
Huge rear tires.
Too tall windshield and top.
Brass carriage lamps.
Too much chrome and bling.
Built to impress, rather than functionality.
Sitting on top of rather than inside the car.

But.... after seeing some of the really nice and tastefully done Ts on this thread, I've changed my mind. I like some T buckets a lot.
Thanks for broadening my mind!

 

I think that there should be some acceptance towards glass bodies. If you look closely to a lot of 60's articles, there were tons of dudes building some really rad "T's" back then with early fiberglass bodies. I even remember reading something like....

"with the amount of real originals bodies decreasing Tommy decided to start with a brand new fiberglass one from...."

And that was in the 60's!!! Now there are even less so I can understand a dude that wants to build something and drive the shit out of it even if it's not an original body.

 

Ivo's is so close to perfect it almost brings tears, I always liked Grabowski's black version of his car better, Roth's excaliber never did for me at all ( wrong shape, rear wheels to small, back to high, etc.), The blue one needs about 7 - 10" more wheelbase twords the rear and to come down a bit on that end. Did I win?!?! I know it was a rehetorical question, and the prior is just my taste, but maybe that answer can point some body in the right direction. In my opinion it is hard to build a neat traditional bucket these days unless you build it from scratch. The kits that are left on the market have a tendancy to stretch the wheelbase a bit more than I like, and posistion the body too far back. About three years ago I came up with an idea to do a very basic, inexpensive, traditional "T bucket" kit that would be assembled using fairly common early ford stuff. I did two basic kits as rollers, and sold both very quickly. I kind of scaled up the Monogram "BIG DRAG T" with a turtle deck and conventional steering. A bunch of friends in the street rod industry here in town talked me out of it. I kind of wished I hadn't listened!!!

 

JefferyJames I have got to hand it to you, your '26 has it nailed!!! Just curious, what steering box are you using? Easily one of my favorite cars on the H.A.M.B.

 

No it wasn't retorical. I wanted some debate. You are partly right. What else. Eheelbase and just a couple more things and it would be bitchin.

 

There are quite a few little things that I would change, I just didn't want to be too hard on the guy's car. The picture looks quite current. But, here goes - rake the windshield back a bit and probably chop it a couple of inches at least, I'm good with the front tire and wheel combo, but the backs would be a set of recapped radials in cheater slick configuration from Hurst, I'm not a huge fan of "T - buckets" without a p/u bed or turtle deck so I would set it up that way, A rule of thumb for me has always been to place the rear wheels pretty much centered in the p/u bed or turtle deck, so I would do it that way, It would come down quite a bit on both ends, possibly by moving the front axle out and the spring down, That's the big stuff.

 

_________________________________________________________________

I think the fad of T-buckets might have finally been played out. For many years it was the most popular kit car. Over the years there have been many other kit cars coming along, biting into the T-bucket market. Add to that that Ts are usually a miserable ride and ill handling. Add to that the fact atleast I know in NY the laws have changed in late 70's or early 80's that any kit car built had to conform to all emission and safety standards as a current new car. In the old days you built it , registered it and enjoted it, those days are gone. As I said, that is in NY for sure, nationwide I'm not sure.

I myself like looking at the Ts, as a young man wanted to build one or buy one, but never did. I have ridden in and driven a few, that is where my comments come from about handling and ride being poor. I'm not saying that you can't invest tons of money into a T to make it ride great and handle great if you like. Just back to the basic question, just think the T fad has been played out. Just my opinion.

 

Personally how do you put a right or wrong on each? each is it's own creation. there are a lot of years between the first T buckets and today,each era and each generation has it's own ideas.

 

You got them all. You have an eye and have done your homework. So many people never step back and look at their car.
I completely agree with you about Ivo's rod. As close to T perfection As I've seed. He told he went over to Grabowski's house and took measurements. I am convinced he copied Grabowski's early work before Norm raised the back, changed the pipes and painted it blue.