Revell 1/24th scale Jaguar E-Type FHC: Test Shots

[Ace-Garageguy]

12 hours ago, the other Mike S. said:

...We are the consumers and we have ultimate control and don't have to accept these "it's good enough" efforts by Revell.  It's a 60 year car that has been photographed and measured a million times.  There's no excuse for it, IMHO.

Exactly.

The general shape and first impression of it are vastly superior to that sad old Monogram mess, but the first-generation E-type roadster kit from Revell decades ago, long before CAD and 3D printing made it entirely possible to fully evaluate a kit's accuracy prior to any tooling being cut, was really quite good.

I will probably buy one and fix the stupid stuff that the designers should have caught while doing their JOBS.

But I shouldn't have to FIX SOMEBODY ELSE'S WORK.

And that is the entire point. To US these are hobby items, not hugely significant in the overall scheme of things. Adult toys, if you will. 

But to the people who design and market this stuff, and take our money, IT'S PAYING WORK.

Folks seem to be allowing more and more slackness in doing ANYTHING to creep into every aspect of life, and the immediately obvious flaws in yet another newly-tooled and endlessly hyped kit are just another affront to those of us who take our work seriously, and strive for competence daily.

[Justin Porter]

I'm definitely disappointed by the gaffe on the pillar height. It seems that they nailed so much that has long been a complaint on FHC kits but that's really strange to miss. I can only imagine that some time between Hobbico and Blitz there was a breakdown in communication that meant these things didn't get properly handled. The separate windshield frame, at least to my eye, really exacerbates the issue because of how thick it appears to be. Thinned to about 2/3 of its current thickness it would likely at least fool the eye enough into making up some of the lost windshield height. 

That said, no prior E Type kit has had this level or quality of engineering underhood, the interior looks lovingly rendered, and they've done a remarkably good job with the actual contour of the roofline and of the main body. I feel fairly comfortable parking it alongside the Gunze Sangyo 250GTO or Cobra Daytona in terms of "not right, but not bad" sports car bodies. 

As to whether or not this SHOULD have happened, clearly not. But then, as recently as this year we had a kit manufacturer (Bronco) design a P-51D Mustang kit with an inaccurate landing gear bay so this stuff does slip through despite the tools available to prevent it. 

[peteski]

I can relate to Mark's frustration.  Here we have a newly designed kit, likely designed using modern methods (CAD/CAM), with likely better level of detail than any older offerings.  We get all excited about it (we can now leave all the older kits, with all their warts behind).  We get all giggly about it, then the kit comes out and drats, there is a visible , and not easily correctable mistake in the body shape.  It sure is disappointing.  No, it is not life and death problem, but it is disappointing. 

Yes this is just a hobby, but many of us are quite passionate about it.  Sure, some people build models that are just "good enough", but many of us take this to the next level. We enjoy doing that.  However, most of us are not Mark D. Jones, who if some kit is inaccurate will just make his own accurate parts.  Most of us depend on the kit parts being as accurate as possible.

Edited December 9, 2020 by peteski

[Jim Whalen]

I measured the windscreen on the new Revell kit and then consulted Jaguar drawings; the kit has a windscreen that is the right height for a roadster (it is 3mm too short on the model).  It probably means that Revell are planning to release a roadster version  of the kit.  To fix the fault would require a lot of work on the roof, overall I'm happy with my model - apart from the windscreen height the rest of the kit makes it the best of a FHC E-type in 1/24 scale in my opinion.  Here's a picture of the rolling chassis to back that opinion up:

[dbostream]

I wonder how much extra it would have cost Revell to tool different windscreen and frame for the FHC and OTS.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Thing is, I think they did. The way I recall the chrome trees from earlier previews gone since, there were two of them - one, with wheels, valve covers, maybe bumpers, parts common to both the roadster and coupe; and then the other, with parts specific to the coupe.

The windshield frame was on that second coupe-specific tree, if I'm not mistaken.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Chuck Kourouklis

[niteowl7710]

So here's the real question - If this were 1995 and you didn't have a billionteenth photos of E-Types at your finger tips in .000000009 seconds, would you honestly know the windshield frame was wrong?  

I mean I can clearly see it isn't right in comparison, but I don't know this car well enough to have an "Ah-HAAAAAAAAAA!!!" moment without the reference photos to compare it to...I'd judge 99% of the customers Revell will sell this to can't either.  I'm also willing to bet 100% of these that get built will never be in the same room as a real E-Type, or an actual professional expert of the 1:1 car.

I say all of that to say this - Using a "universal" windshield frame, which allows one windshield for both models (presuming a follow up Cabrio) is where the budget meets the road.  Sure it's two pieces, 4 cavitations, so maybe $8-10k in tooling costs.  BUT that also presumes you could wave a magic fairy wand and just add the parts to the existing parts runners as they sit.  But those things all laid out in a way to make sure all that molten plastic actually makes it from one end to another, and it's not just as simple as adding an extra part.  It might require an entire re-engineering of the clear and chrome runners, which beyond the CAD time to figure all of that out, might probably require the tooling to be cut in a such a way that it would be make the entire thing cost ineffective.

These kits are on eBay for $37 US shipped from the U.K. (probably in a trash sack with no padding, but that's another story), and will most likely be under $25 at my LHS in the U.S. rebox. 

The McLaren Senna is $63 on pre-order. 

They both have roughly the same number of parts.  Who here is willing to pay $63 for a Revell Jaguar?

 

Exactly... 

Edited December 11, 2020 by niteowl7710

[bobthehobbyguy]

6 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

So here's the real question - If this were 1995 and you didn't have a billionteenth photos of E-Types at your finger tips in .000000009 seconds, would you honestly know the windshield frame was wrong?  

I mean I can clearly see it isn't right in comparison, but I don't know this car well enough to have an "Ah-HAAAAAAAAAA!!!" moment without the reference photos to compare it to...I'd judge 99% of the customers Revell will sell this to can't either.  I'm also willing to bet 100% of these that get built will never be in the same room as a real E-Type, or an actual professional expert of the 1:1 car.

I say all of that to say this - Using a "universal" windshield frame, which allows one windshield for both models (presuming a follow up Cabrio) is where the budget meets the road.  Sure it's two pieces, 4 cavitations, so maybe $8-10k in tooling costs.  BUT that also presumes you could wave a magic fairy wand and just add the parts to the existing parts runners as they sit.  But those things all laid out in a way to make sure all that molten plastic actually makes it from one end to another, and it's not just as simple as adding an extra part.  It might require an entire re-engineering of the clear and chrome runners, which beyond the CAD time to figure all of that out, might probably require the tooling to be cut in a such a way that it would be make the entire thing cost ineffective.

These kits are on eBay for $37 US shipped from the U.K. (probably in a trash sack with no padding, but that's another story), and will most likely be under $25 at my LHS in the U.S. rebox. 

The McLaren Senna is $63 on pre-order. 

They both have roughly the same number of parts.  Who here is willing to pay $63 for a Revell Jaguar?

 

Exactly... 

Definitely makes sense. Rather than a mistake this is a compromise to make this project possible given the volumes and price point. We've had this occur in the past on various kits. Without this compromise this kit would not exist.

[dbostream]

I saw on another forum that there is indeed an E-Type roadster coming next year, planned for April. It is 1:24 not sure if Revell has an old tool for this but it would make sense if it was based on the new tool.

[unclescott58]

Interesting reading. I don’t know if I’ll be buying this kit or not? I have a copy of the old Revell Jag XKE roadster. Which always looked good to me. I’ve always liked the roasters better than the coupes. But,  I’d love to see someone put up some photos, especially of the old Aurora/Monogram coupe next to this new one. Also comparing the old Revell roadster to their new coupe would be interesting to see too. How good or bad is this new kit compared to the older ones? True, when pointed out, the windshield does not look correct to me compared to the real car either. But, if I wanted a model of a coupe, I don’t think it would stop me from building this kit. The kit looks pretty good to my eyes overall. And like other have noted here, I’m not sure most people would notice that the windshield is wrong.

Last, Jim Whalen did a beautiful job on building the new kit. But, I’m wondering why a person from England is building an English car with the steering wheel on the left? Does the kit not offer the ability to build the model as a right-hand drive version? Again, not a problem for me. But, I would hope they gave option to build it either way. Their old roadster had the option. 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, unclescott58 said:

Last, Jim Whalen did a beautiful job on building the new kit. But, I’m wondering why a person from England is building an English car with the steering wheel on the left? Does the kit not offer the ability to build the model as a right-hand drive version? Again, not a problem for me. But, I would hope they gave option to build it either way. Their old roadster had the option. 

Yes,there are both LHD and RHD dashboards included in the kit, on a side note, less than 20% of all E Types were RHD from the factory. 

[Matt Bacon]

4 hours ago, dbostream said:

I saw on another forum that there is indeed an E-Type roadster coming next year, planned for April. It is 1:24 not sure if Revell has an old tool for this but it would make sense if it was based on the new tool.

This is the 1960s vintage 1/25 Revell tooling, designed and mastered by Revell UK (in Potters Bar). It's not at all bad, I would say...

The cabriolet hood (not bonnet) cover is a bit chunky but the engine bay detail is pretty good...

best,

M.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Matt Bacon

[Ace-Garageguy]

15 minutes ago, Matt Bacon said:

This is the 1960s vintage 1/25 Revell tooling, designed and mastered by Revell UK (in Potters Bar). It's not at all bad, I would say...

Agreed. I've always considered the lines and proportions of this kit to be acceptable. It has its share of nits to pick, but the major elements look very good. To somebody who's seen a lot of E-types over the years, there's nothing on this kit that's immediately jarring.

Some apparently don't know it shares nothing with the Monogram and Revell boxed roadster and coupe that started as Aurora kits.

The lines and proportions of the Aurora / Revellogram kits (though they have gorgeous box art) are pretty awful, particularly the nose.

[Jim Whalen]

I built the E-type LHD because I had chosen Opalescent Silver Blue as the colour and Revell had decided that the U.K plates would go onto a test shot they had sent to someone else who was going to paint it British Racing Green so I was instructed by AMW to build it LHD with Euro plates.  Had I been building it for myself it would have been RHD, even though the vast majority were exported.

[Casey]

 

[keyser]

Yay no heinous antenna. Boo awful rearview mirrors. at least on this car. I'll use elsewhere though. Thx Casey

[Classicgas]

According to megahobby it's now due 3rd quarter this year.

[niteowl7710]

4 hours ago, Classicgas said:

According to megahobby it's now due 3rd quarter this year.

It's already available if you want to ship one over from Europe.

[drodg]

Model Car Roundup has something  about sink marks in the plastic and Revell pushing back the release until June.  

[Classicgas]

22 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

It's already available if you want to ship one over from Europe.

I already pre-ordered it through Megahobby 

7 hours ago, drodg said:

Model Car Roundup has something  about sink marks in the plastic and Revell pushing back the release until June.  

That appears to have changed. 

[jeathray]

On 5/26/2021 at 5:30 PM, Classicgas said:

I already pre-ordered it through Megahobby 

That appears to have changed. 

As of 4/9/22, Model Roundup has both the Revell XK-E Coupe US version ($29.99) and Revel Germany XK-E Roadster version ( $44.90) in stock. My local Michael's also has the coupe in stock for $29.99 with a 20% discount. I prefer the coupe, but I think I'll pay the extra $15 and go for the roadster, and hope that the coupe body gets corrected in the future. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by jeathray

[Chris in Berwyn]

12 hours ago, jeathray said:

As of 4/9/22, Model Roundup has both the Revell XK-E Coupe US version ($29.99) and Revel Germany XK-E Roadster version ( $44.90) in stock. My local Michael's also has the coupe in stock for $29.99 with a 20% discount. I prefer the coupe, but I think I'll pay the extra $15 and go for the roadster, and hope that the coupe body gets corrected in the future. 

Isn’t the coupe body already corrected?  

 

[niteowl7710]

16 hours ago, jeathray said:

I prefer the coupe, but I think I'll pay the extra $15 and go for the roadster, and hope that the coupe body gets corrected in the future. 

It's as fixed as it's ever going to get.

[jeathray]

8 hours ago, Chris in Berwyn said:

Isn’t the coupe body already corrected?  

 

Corrected as far as sink holes, body fit, etc., but the windshield is still from the roadster and is too short unless someone tells me otherwise.

 

4 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

It's as fixed as it's ever going to get.

 

[jeathray]

6 minutes ago, jeathray said:

Corrected as far as sink holes, body fit, etc., but the windshield is still from the roadster and is too short unless someone tells me otherwise.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

It's as fixed as it's ever going to get.

We can aways hope for a transkit, or replacement windshield and surround!

6 minutes ago, jeathray said:

Corrected as far as sink holes, body fit, etc., but the windshield is still from the roadster and is too short unless someone tells me otherwise.

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by jeathray