Projects The bucket of ugly! A de-uglifying thread...

Gotta go with the 32 shell, especially after seeing those pictures.

 

Do you have an insert for the Deuce shell? Who did you get the radiator from? It doesn't look as wide as a standard T radiator.

 

I think "build date" cars are usually a joke... because most only use parts that are pre-dated, and not building methods nor (most importantly) stance that the cars back then had.

Also, guys clean things up and are choosey when they pre-date cars. They make excuses like "Built as if it would have been built in 1949 if a guy had got back from the war and was an aircraft builder/designer/mechanic"...

I think they do this because they have creativity, and post-dating cars is more of a restoration thing than it is a hot rodding creative thing.

Sam

 

I never noticed this before now but the curve of the '32 shell actually matches the curve of the firewall better than the T shell. Maybe that's part of why they look so good on a T bucket. I don't think you could go wrong either way but I'm leaning towards the '32. It looks sportier. The T looks more antique.

 

I would change my vote to the deuce shell IF you scotched the belled panel idea..........I think it will end up looking too "heavy". Expanded metal would be a better (and era appropriate) execution. I'm especially swayed looking at the rad fitment to opening on the T. Yeah, I'm sure you have the skill and eye to deal with that, but still.........

 

Yes. Belled holes are too much of a modern interpretation of a 60's race car. Not a T thing.

 

Damn, just got back from IMS here in town to get some metal to make my underslung radiator mount. I'll explain more about that later as it unfolds. I took a look at the decorative metals that they had in stock, and the four leaf clovers that were in Ivo's "T" shell are and available stocking item. Bitchin'! They also have a small stainless expanded steel that if my belled aluminum insert doesn't work would look great in the deuce shell. Bitchin' too!

The radiator came to me via e-bay from a company in Florida, and is marked Rand BC 009. It's a tree row brazed core meant for a 3" chopped deuce application. I picked it because it's total height is 22 3/8". All of the T-Bucket radiators on E-Bay are advertised at 24 1/2" total height. As it sits I'm going to have to sink this unit down so the lower tank is about 1"-1 1/2" lower than the lower frame rail.

For those that were worried about the spaces on the sides of the radiator, the "clover" holed cover on the front would help disguise that, and the negative spaces on either side of the radiator will give me room to hide a pair of relays for the headlights, (something that is hard to do on T-Buckets) and I will make two small panels on the back side to cover those....

I can see win/win on either, and after having my mind dead set on the deuce, I'm surprised it's thinking twice about the "T". Guess I'll have to make a drink and really think tonight!


By the way, my inspiration for the solid/belled insert... Wish it could be solid. Might even stick my set of no hole Halibrands on this car every now and then, too.

 

So how hard would it be to make them interchangeable? T shell one day, 32 the next? That's a computer programming trick, when you don't know what's best, make it a run-time option.

 

Chip wsdad has point that I never noticed either but the curve of the T cowl looks more right with the 32 grill than with the square lines of the T. You just have to decide which T do you like more Norm's or Tom's.

After studying Royal's T some I would have said in the past his grill looks too high but somehow it doesn't. I guess there might be exceptions to the rules as long as you don't drift too far.

 

I like the idea of the T shell with the cloverleaf insert myself.

 

Deuce and expanded.

 

Chip, remember a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

 

alchemy, I have to respectfully disagree with you one that one. I have a hard bound book on my coffee table called Offenhauser that traces the great engine through it's development at Miller's to the end of the line in the eighties. The thing that has always got me was both the chapters on Miller in the twenties, and Kurtis in the forties and fifties. Plenty of belled tinwork in both of those chapters from two completely divergent eras of race car construction. It was out there, but maybe just not common. I have considered doing just a holed insert with out the extra fuss of the bells as well, and that can't be argued IS a fifties and sixties race car staple.

Bingo! after looking at IMS this afternoon at the perforated metal selection I was a bit inspired to think about maybe doing a couple of inserts to change as the mood hits me. We'll see.

You know Gary, I hadn't noticed that either until I loaded the pictures this afternoon. It really does compliment the cowl shape of a "T" body quite well.

As far as the Norm vs. Tommy debate, I am firmly in the Bill Roland version of Tommy's car. I like a lower, flatter stance instead of the exaggerated tail high rake. That's just the way I have always been.

As far as Royal's car, I too think the grill shell could have maybe been a half inch lower, but not really. In my opinion it is critical on these cars, but as long as the grill shell is a bit lower than the fire wall, it is acceptable.

 

Louvers, where'd you get your radiator? I've been thinking about a 3 row.

 

a boner, I hear ya sir! I let my mind run away with me a bit today as I was looking at radiator height and suddenly my hard fast choice of the deuce shell was in question in my own mind. The problem with that is I never have a "due date" on the cars I build for myself, and will tend to look at a problem area for, well, years before finally deciding what is the best way to handle things. With customer cars it's a hell of a lot easier, 'cause I say "which do you like" and they say "B". Decision made. I was simply trying to clean out a blockage in the works caused by my own brain...

 

I got this from Suncoastdeals #52844 on e-bay. You guys can't believe how hard I researched radiators a few weeks ago to come up with this one. I think you guys might grasp at this point that I am kinda-maybe-borderline OCD about a few things, but radiator height is one of them. All of the T-Bucket radiators on e-bay are too tall! They all have an overall height of 24 1/2". When you sink them down to the typical 3" frame rail channel, that still leaves 21 1/2" at the peak of the shell. All well and good if your body is a high cowl and not channeled, but the firewall on mine is at about 19" tall. There is that awkward look again! This is probably a big reason why there are so many new build "T"s out there with a weird, tall grill shell. You call up to ask dimensions and you get the same reply - "look, it fits a T-Bucket, okay?

My radiator is for a chopped '32 Ford application, and only 22 3/8" tall. coupled with the channel and that brings it down to 19 3/8", I'll be dropping mine down an inch or so below the bottom of the frame for about 18" total.

 

Chip: Don't care what shell ya use but give that shiny ally radiator a shot of black paint! I hate exposed shiny ally radiators!!

 

In the grille? I'd need to see a couple pics of belled hole aluminum grille inserts to be convinced. Might be fine in other places, but right out front in the grille is not what I call traditional.

Expanded mesh would be traditional, and cool a LOT better to boot.

 

Appearance wise a "T" grille shells (and "A"s for that matter) should only have radiator showing. The exposed tubes on the new radiators do not look as clean as the old style fins; but they do not look too bad with a coat low sheen black.

Of course a '32 shell really only looks right with a deuce insert .

Besides that the cloverleaf pattern aluminum would cut down the airflow more than 50% if you compare open to closed area, a belled aluminum insert would be even more restrictive, and expanded metal does not belong on hot rods.

I think the deuce shell (with a cut down deuce insert) would look great on your project.

Just saying.

 

32!!

 

A little inspiration. Neither would be a bad decision.

 

This is a perfect example or area where an "era correct" build might dictate a T or A or maybe a '32 shell. To me, I'll do what pleases me, not a history book. Our archives are always held up to enforce an argument and understandably so. The thought of a "revisionist" approach is hot rod sacrilege (phooey on that). But to me, that will always be the best compromise of historical accuracy and the creative desire to build your own idea of that "traditional" hot rod.

With all that said.....use a '28-9 shell!!!!

 

Although a T shell would be a close second. '32 shell? Naw

 

AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!! That would be solid "NO"! Sorry, that's one of my many hot buttons. Not that I don't like '28 '29 shells, (my long time '29 roadster pickup has one, not a deuce) Just that they have always belonged on a '28 or '29. Naw, I think I'm gonna be happy with the deuce shell, and I'll make a couple of different inserts to change out at will or when I'm bored.

 

That's why I asked. I ran into the same problem when I first built my T Bucket. Not having any help or guidance or access to a welder, I raised my body 1 1/4" off the frame rails. So, my body is only 1 3/4" channeled. When it's all said and done, it comes down to planning and know what look you're after. Not wanting to "just get by" can't be an option or it will show.

I'm using a standard T radiator from Speedway, but it's a 2 core. If I went with what you have, I'd have to run a shell, but the extra cooling would be worth it. I still have some cooling ideas to try before that though.

 

Let me get mine in and up and running before we do any recommending! I have had tons of two row aluminum radiators in years past and they are pretty efficient. I'm not real sure that three rows is going to be much more so. The idea is that it presents more area to the fins to better dissipate heat. You guys will know when I do.

Oh, and I wanted to say that too did a partial channel on my last car about eight years ago. That silly inch made a huge difference in seating room. 2" Channel instead of 3"...

 

Chip ,If you run with that '32 shell what do you think about carrying that arch from the cowl and shell over to the shackle cover as well....Just a shout from the cheap seats. I'll go back to lurking now.

 

What I do intend to do, is make a "pan" if you will that will cover the bit of negative space at the front of the frame. If you look at pictures of Ivo's car you'll see what I mean.

 

Hey man if you are quick there is a set of chrome T bucket headers in the classified section for 250 bones!!!

 

I thought about doing that, but the open space grew on me. There was an OT T Bucket done as a design exercise and they made a small compartment for tools. I always thought that was a cool idea and I've only seen it done that one time. It's extreme and may get deleted, but you get the idea.