Jump to content

Britains new Fords?.


Steve P

Recommended Posts

No. I disagree. Messsure the bonnet length on both the Britains TW20 & UH 7810. They are both 6cyl FORDs & their bonnet lengths are both 47mm. Now messure the old Britains 6600 & Marge 7610. Both 4cyl & both bonnet lengths 40mm. The 7710 sould fall near the 4cyls with its bonnet length.

The ERTL is hopeless next to any Britains ,Marge or UH Ford. Its sitting too high for starters, bonnet is too wide,detail is s**t, & the cab is the worst ive seen for a 1/32 in both Q & SQ . The SQ cab roof on the ERTL TW is awful.

The Britains TW20 casting is the better option by far if you want the tractor to blend in well with the rest of the Fords. Just give it bigger boots.

But just because they were both 6cyl doesn't mean that their bonnets in real life were the same length, by that logic the TW-25 and TW-35 would also be the same. I put Britains wheels and cab roof onto an Ertl TW-20 to make it an SQ TW-15 and I'm pleased with the way it blends in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

But just because they were both 6cyl doesn't mean that their bonnets in real life were the same length, by that logic the TW-25 and TW-35 would also be the same. I put Britains wheels and cab roof onto an Ertl TW-20 to make it an SQ TW-15 and I'm pleased with the way it blends in.

The big TW 25,30 & 35 have bigger fuel tanks than the TW 10,15 & 20,thats why the bonnets are longer, They all still have the same size 6.6L engine block. Ive a different eye to you i guess. But the Britains TW 20 was never marketed as a scale 1/34 . It may look it to some,but it aint & the 7710 was a bad after tought when the castings engine detail clearly represents a 6.6 L Ford 6cyl engine. But just like yourself ,im quiet pleased with the way my Britains based TW15 convo sits nicely amoung the UH & other Britains Fords in my own collection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real life machines the TW 20 and TW 10/15 was identical apart from engine power, Ford just gave the TW 25 the longer TW 30 style bonnet that housed the larger fuel tank, also the new TWs and the 10 series was basically re-vamped versions of older Ford machines only the TW 30 was all new with its aftercooled engine and long bonnet that housed a larger capacity fuel tank in front of the engine, origainlly the TW 10 and TW 20 was basically the same as the 8700 and 9700, Fords previous high horsepower offerings ok with a slight increase in power, the 7710 was itself a re-vamped 7700 that was a long wheel base, flat floor cab version of the 7600 that was indeed a modified Ford 7000, needless to say the TW series family tree can be traced back to the american built ford 8000 that was modified and improved, while the 7710s tree starts at Basildon in good old blighty with a Ford 5000 and a turbo!!...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real life machines the TW 20 and TW 10/15 was identical apart from engine power, Ford just gave the TW 25 the longer TW 30 style bonnet that housed the larger fuel tank, also the new TWs and the 10 series was basically re-vamped versions of older Ford machines only the TW 30 was all new with its aftercooled engine and long bonnet that housed a larger capacity fuel tank in front of the engine, origainlly the TW 10 and TW 20 was basically the same as the 8700 and 9700, Fords previous high horsepower offerings ok with a slight increase in power, the 7710 was itself a re-vamped 7700 that was a long wheel base, flat floor cab version of the 7600 that was indeed a modified Ford 7000, needless to say the TW series family tree can be traced back to the american built ford 8000 that was modified and improved, while the 7710s tree starts at Basildon in good old blighty with a Ford 5000 and a turbo!!...

You hit the nail on the head there Steve. ;) Have you ever had a read of Stuard Gibbards THE FORD TRACTOR STORY. Great book & an intresting read.

My 66 & 76 aint here yet, hopefully tomorrow fingers crossed.

Edited by justy 46
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big TW 25,30 & 35 have bigger fuel tanks than the TW 10,15 & 20,thats why the bonnets are longer

I know, I was being facetious to prove a point! I also know the Britains TW-20 was never marketed as 1:34, it was a measuring error, which is why they changed it to a 7710, because it was too small to be a TW!

origainlly the TW 10 and TW 20 was basically the same as the 8700 and 9700, Fords previous high horsepower offerings ok with a slight increase in power, the 7710 was itself a re-vamped 7700 that was a long wheel base, flat floor cab version of the 7600 that was indeed a modified Ford 7000, needless to say the TW series family tree can be traced back to the american built ford 8000 that was modified and improved, while the 7710s tree starts at Basildon in good old blighty with a Ford 5000 and a turbo!!...

I'm sorry, but you're very wrong, the 6700 and 7700 were shortened 8700/9700s, the design of which has no correlation with 8/900 or 8/9600. The 6700 and 7700 may have had the same engine as the 6600 and 7600 respectively, but the design was different.

To go to the original point, the 7810 bonnet was simply an extended 7610 one, the TW-15 one is the same as the 8700/9700.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I was being facetious to prove a point! I also know the Britains TW-20 was never marketed as 1:34, it was a measuring error, which is why they changed it to a 7710, because it was too small to be a TW!

I'm sorry, but you're very wrong, the 6700 and 7700 were shortened 8700/9700s, the design of which has no correlation with 8/900 or 8/9600. The 6700 and 7700 may have had the same engine as the 6600 and 7600 respectively, but the design was different.

To go to the original point, the 7810 bonnet was simply an extended 7610 one, the TW-15 one is the same as the 8700/9700.

Bigger wheels under the Britains casting makes all the difference,it does take the under scaled look from the tractor & adds height. ;) .

Just for the record. The 7600 had an 88 inch wheelbase, 7700 had 101 inches & the 9700 109 inches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just think yourselfs lucky your getting all these fords, us mf guys are suffering :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

saw the post mentioning scales, when the older "new " britains ford 5000 7600 came out a similar topic was arround on the old forum, and they were measured up and worked out scale wise, and i think then it was the new britains models were closer to scale than the older stuff from memory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just think yourselfs lucky your getting all these fords, us mf guys are suffering :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

saw the post mentioning scales, when the older "new " britains ford 5000 7600 came out a similar topic was arround on the old forum, and they were measured up and worked out scale wise, and i think then it was the new britains models were closer to scale than the older stuff from memory

UH are going to treat ye MF guys to a nice few classics soon enough. 390,690,2640 & a few more are all on the way Sean. Yes Ford fanatics are getting a right treat lately,but UH gave ye 3cyl MFs & the 1200,3080 & 590 ,while we are still waiting on 3cyl Ford models in 1/32. Marge & UH seem to be traveling down the same road tough. While UH are realising big TWs like theres no tomorrow, lots of collecters are holding there wallets back for the Marge versions instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well now its time to share your knowledge, if i get a Britains 7710, add some decent wheel and cab and mudguards from the UH 7810 then i have a TW 15?

No, then you have a series III 7710 on fat 38" wheels.

The wheelbase on the Britains 7710 is closer to 1/32 of the real 7710 than the wheelbase of the UH 7810 is to the real 7810. It is nowhere near the 1/32 wheelbase of a TW.

The only detail it falls down on are the chassis rails, which were on the 6 pots but not the 4 pots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so, but Justy does

I DO minus the 7810 wheels & stuff. Wheels from a UH TW would do the job. The cab & mudguards sould stay the same depending on ,if you want a SQ or Q cab model. Then just change the roof & paint the mudguards to suit a Series 1 or 2.Keep telling yourself the casting is nearer in size to a 4cyl.!! FNHIR. ;)::)

Funny enough as i was flicking threw the latest ed off MODEL FARMER around page 63 ,i came up on a FORD 6700 convo that was built by John Dewhurst. This tractor convo looked well ,i must say & won an AWARD . Now he used a TW-20 casting for it ,by the looks of it. BUT!! The casting looks shortened a small bit. Correct me if Im wrong ,but the skid unit in a 6700 & 7710 is much the same. RIGHT! & this award winning little beauty has a shortened casting.

Now guys I used a 5610 (TW20 casting) for my TW15 convo, for the simple reasson,is that it looked better than the ugly ERTL & convo parts are easy to get for it! Ohhh and the engine detail is a 6 CYL. ...YES A 6CYL.

On another note . If I were to build a 7710 or 7700 convo in the near future,I would use the Britains TW20 or 7710. But i would take 2 or 3 mm outa the bonnet & casting. Just like J Dewhurst did. ;)8) Then I flicked back a few pages & again 2 Ford convos that used the Britains TW20 casting. This time a 8630 with very big boots & what also looked to be an 8200 in a silage diorma. The Britains casting seems to be the more popular choice then the ERTL for these 6cyl convos & rightly so. 8)

Edited by justy 46
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but you're very wrong, the 6700 and 7700 were shortened 8700/9700s, the design of which has no correlation with 8/900 or 8/9600. The 6700 and 7700 may have had the same engine as the 6600 and 7600 respectively, but the design was different.

To go to the original point, the 7810 bonnet was simply an extended 7610 one, the TW-15 one is the same as the 8700/9700.

Ford used the style of the larger machines for the 5700, 6700 and 7700 machines that was my piont, this did not mean they was the same size, only the cab, bonnet and wheelbase was altered form the 600 series to make them more appealing to arable farmers, the 7810 was basically a 7610 with a 6 cly engine and the bonnet was simply lenthend to accomadate the larger power unit.

Edited by Steve P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are there any pics or more reviews on these new releases love to see an in box and out of box photo shoot ect and a comparison pic against the old classic britains ford 6600

thanks nigel

Her you go Nigel. Got mine at last.

IMG_0871.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what happend there but i replied to this post, though still in quote!!

Must say Steve. These new Fords are great value for money & a big improvement over the last lot. If i were to fault them,id be only nit picking! ;D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well urm maybe!!!, i agree mate they are stunning, looking at your old 6600 and new 6600 photo and looking at my own i can see that Britains have come a long way in the past 30 or so years, where can Briains go next i wonder, more classics i hope.

Edited by Steve P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well urm maybe!!!, i agree mate they are stunning, looking at your old 6600 and new 6600 photo and looking at my own i can see that Britains have come a long way in the past 30 or so years, where can Briains go next i wonder, more classics i hope.

Classics hopefully. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the new ford looks to be a great addition to the line up , shame about the join in the cab frame ,it needn't be there at all with modern castings it wasn't there on the old ones so no excuse to be there on a new release .

in short, another good model by britains but again let down by an outstanding error with a cab casting.

shame really ,what with the last few tractors bought out with the 74?? MF, the C-IH & IH models , the consistancy has gone right out the window with this new bubble cab & that cab has ruined the whole look of the tractor , sorry britains ,what should have been a massive hit has turned out to be an epic fail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well urm maybe!!!, i agree mate they are stunning, looking at your old 6600 and new 6600 photo and looking at my own i can see that Britains have come a long way in the past 30 or so years, where can Briains go next i wonder, more classics i hope.

really ? i assume the new 66 has no working steering & crappy hydraulic arms ? if so then britains will continue on it's journey .......backwards .

real shame britains didn't go to siku as the bottom line is ERTL ruined the britains brand, britains should have been left to go under & to be remembered for the quality brand it once was , britains should have been ERTL's premier flagship brand instead of an unhappy sideshow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really ? i assume the new 66 has no working steering & crappy hydraulic arms ? if so then britains will continue on it's journey .......backwards .

real shame britains didn't go to siku as the bottom line is ERTL ruined the britains brand, britains should have been left to go under & to be remembered for the quality brand it once was , britains should have been ERTL's premier flagship brand instead of an unhappy sideshow

So just to clarify, you are offering an opinion on a model you haven't actually seen in the flesh? I'd suggest you do a little more research before offering up your poorly informed opinion...to describe Britains recent journey as 'backwards' is just laughable in my opinion. All of the releases of the last 3-4 years have been leaps and bounds ahead of pretty much everything Britains produced in the 1990's and early 2000's and also a step forward in accuracy from many of the models from the 70s and 80s.

To describe the recent Ford releases as being 'ruined' by the gap in the cap and being an 'epic fail' is just exaggeration in the extreme (worthy of some of our current mainstream journalism). In an ideal world, the gap in the cab would not be there. But try putting the new Britains side by side with the bubble cab Marge. Yes the Marge is obviously more detailed with finer features picked out. But is it 4x as good (which is what the price difference is) - no, it isn't. From a distance of a metre or more away, they look pretty comparable in fact.

It's great that both models exist as they keep everyone happy - but if what you want is perfect accuracy, then you need to shell out 4x the cash to get it and don't buy Britains. It's not the market they are aiming for and it's a completely different cost/margin game they are having to play (toy v model).

Well done Britains for the new models, and ignore the over-inflated criticisms of the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To describe the recent Ford releases as being 'ruined' by the gap in the cap and being an 'epic fail' is just exaggeration in the extreme (worthy of some of our current mainstream journalism). In an ideal world, the gap in the cab would not be there. But try putting the new Britains side by side with the bubble cab Marge.

in an ideal world ? excuse me, but even back when the original TW20 was released, the later 77 & 56 & the TW35 etc had a single cast cab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again allways 2 sides to the story,however mjb1 is correct,the gap in the cab is awful,but there other releases have been very good,my complaint is consistancy,mjb1 mentioned the britains massey,7480 i think,not a bad model,but no beacons yet all the other modern releases have them,if this was uh releasing a model with a gap in the cab they would be slaughtered on here,and just because its a toy,still no excuse for a gapping hole in the cab,we are still stuck with our childhood memories im afraid with britains,but they have come on leaps and bounds,no doubt about that,just some consistancy and decals that stick to the model

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.