the other Mike S.

Maybe they went back and tooled up a new '71-'72 style front bumper for it? Yeah, I wish....

Any pics of the prototype built yet?

That's the whole point though. Don't make accuracy related to price. Amount of detail and the parts count? Yeah, that's a given. However, the basic proportions of the major parts (body) should be good whether it's a $30 kit or a $75+ kit. I don't want cartoon kits that are cheap. I wouldn't buy them if they were $2 each.

What insults? I don't see them. If you are going to continue to deny and deny even when it's readily apparent when you can see the too short windscreen in the pics, that reeks of group think and their seems to be a lot of that going around here. Why would I say this? Because if you continue to deny and deny, it tends to discredit the initital observer who initiated the observation. And, that's the whole point of it all, isn't it? Even though I'm pretty sure everyone can see it, to continue to deny that even a problem exists tends to discredit the OP of the complaint/observation That will marginalize them in a group setting or good ole boys network clic. Then, it's back to the usual "Hey guys, we really don't mind this chop top. Boy what a jerk to even mention it....blah blah blah." If you can discredit the observer, even when it's plain to see that what they're talking about is true, you can deny anything. I don't want to get political here, but it's similar to what's happening here in the states right now concerning our election results. For all the world to see? Yes, the pics are there and it shows. However, you seem to want to pivot the discussion away from that to insults you claim I made when there is no evidence of that fact. So, if you can keep claiming that, then maybe people will believe it just like the constantly denying of the windscreen height problem. 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.

It might be the failed in translation communication process between Revell and the Chinese tooling designers in wang tang or whatever China. Look at their previous new tool effort, the Fox body Mustang LX notchback. That kit looked like it had 4 scale inches missing from the greenhouse height. It was extremely noticeable, even on the box art, and encouraged me to not even consider the kit, even though I would have bought several if it looked more correct. I think Round 2 even had some trouble with their tooling modifications of the AMT '70 Camaro Z28/RS to the non RS full bumper style. Since the people who do this type of specialized work are employed in China, the people in charge at the corporate level, who may have oversight in this process, lose control fast once the ball gets rolling. When this process took place in the states, the ability to keep track of the quality control was easier, especially when it came to popular U.S. based subjects. The odd thing here is that the Jaguar XKE has international appeal, even in China for the middle class. So, something like this should not really be happening anywhere in the world for a car like the XKE no matter what the country of origin or language may be. Scanning may be the answer, but I don't think that process was readily available when Racing Champions/Ertl did a fantastic job on the new tool '70 Monte Carlo SS, '67 Impala fastback and the '62 Impala convertible. Those new tools were pretty much spot on (especially the '70 Monte Carlo SS and '62 Impala convertible) to the real counterparts in 1:1 scale. Also, we didn't have to pay more for these kits as been alluded to in this thread. These new tools were priced around the same price point as the rest of the product line up including the old tool reissues. Paying more for more "accurate" model in 1/25th scale is too ludicrous to even comprehend. If that's the corporate sentiment, they should just close up shop right now because $30-$35 is about the limit most people will pay for a 1/25th scale plastic kit.

What promo model body was this "Gasser" based on? The last C3 convertible promo was in '70. The annuals were offered in convertibles through '76, but the hoods were molded separately. Did they mix and match the molded in hardtop promo hood "insert" with the annual convertible body?

The easiest route for Round 2 would be to reissue it as the "Kotter" version, but don't call it that so they don't have to pay royalties to Travolta, Kaplan and Lawrence-Hilton Jacobs. They could do a super short run without investing that much into the tooling. Of course, that's assuming the tooling doesn't need a ton of work to get injecting plastic again. Draw up a new jazzy box art theme along with some new decals and wheels/tires and they'd be set Then, if the demand is good and they can make some money off the thing, they can start thinking about investing more into the tooling by modifying it back to stock. That's a somewhat similar approach (but to a much lesser degree) to what they did with the new tool '70 Camaro Z28/RS Baldwin Motion kit they inherited from Ertl R/C. That kit was a new tool developed under Racing Champions and they released it as the '70 Z28-RS/BM with revised box art. Then, many years later, they altered the tooling to reflect the full bumper version that we see now. If the tooling is still viable, I say do a run. If ROI is good, then use those profits to fix it up back to stock. The tooling is not making them any money sitting in mothballs at their warehouse. There will be some appeal for the car. Give it a short run and let's see what it does (sales-wise).

The version based off the '73-'77 Pontiac Grand Prix were my favorite. The increased tumblehome of those cars made it look a little less boxy from certain angles.

I'd love to see an A70 made in 1/25th scale. The MPC Celica/Supra (A60) was the last 1/25th version that could be built stock. In fact, that kit has never been reissued. Round 2 should bring out the tool and start pumping them out again. Fairly nice kit as I recall.

I think Renwal made one back in the '60's. In 1/25th scale too....

Okay, thanks. I finally got it straight. lol!

Okay, let me get this straight..... AMT '70-'72 annual. AMT '70-'71 promo. MPC '72 promo....was there an annual kit offered that year by MPC as well? MPC '72 converted to the CooCoo Marlin car and then the dirt track racer. AMT '71 converted to the Bobby Allison car and stayed that way. AMT '70 SS (new tool) various reissues through the late '90's early to mid '00's. Stock version only. AMT, MPC and new tool AMT.

Mark, MPC never made a first generation Monte Carlo not even a promo. It was exclusively AMT from '70-'72. The promo/annual were updated through '72. Only a dealer promo and annual kit were offered. In '70 only, a special. "Motor Series" version was made which was the unassembled promo molded in white. In '71 and '72, the promo and annual were offered. Sometime afterwards, the tooling was converted into the '71-'72 stock car we see today. Since the grill was modified for the stock car kit, they fudged it to represent the '71-'72 stock car version. That way, they could do both those years. The tooling sat in storage until Model King brought it out as the '71-'72 stock car kit that was pictured above. When Round 2 came into the picture, they reissued it again as the '72 Bobby Allison stock car. The new tool was released sometime in the '90's as the '70 Monte Carlo SS. This version had full detail including a separate frame chassis, floor pan and no rear fender skirts. The original promo based annual (the stock car kit) had rear fender skirts. The current Allison stock car kit has remnants of the original rear fender skirts on them. Sorry, only two tools. The new tool '70 and the old promo/annual based '72 Bobby Allison stock car.

That's probably the Bobby Allison car with the psuedo '70 grill on it. AFAIK, there are only two tools of that generation Monte Carlo. New tool '70 that came out in the '90's(?) and the old promo/annual tool which is currently the '72 Bobby Allison stock car.

I'm not calling anyone stupid. Those are YOUR words NOT mine. Why are you so emotionally caught up in this kit? I'm not. I'm just pointing out the egregious flaws which are plain as day to see. You act like I'm criticizing a person or something. Take a deep breath, it'll be okay. The new kit looks like junk in the front windshield area. You're going to buy it and fix it. Great! I'm sure Revell will appreciate that while they're laughing all the way to the bank with this half-baked effort on a new tool. It's your money, not mine.

The pics are worth a thousand words. Deny and deny while the evidence is plain to see. I know Alexis see's it too, but he/she doesn't want to criticize a new kit. Can't really blame him/her, probably works for Revell or something For me, if the flaws are so large that they are noticeable in pics on the internet, they have to be brought to attention. These kits are not being sold for free.

Clean build! Reminds me of Dk. Forest Green Met. they had in '70. Nice job on the wheelwell molding trim.

I love the smooth fastback shape on those models. Beautiful color and even the huge wheels look great!

Violent agreement....thanks. That made me laugh. It's not about creating the most accurate model because I don't think even such a thing exists. You have to consider scale fidelity which is how a model looks in scale compared to the real thing. Like what was mentioned previously, many models won't look right if reduced exactly in scale to how the real car would look. The reason for that is due to the different perspective the viewer has when looking at a model car versus the real thing. That's where the concept of scale fidelity comes in. It's the process of getting the important details done right and slightly fudging on others. With a car like the Jaguar XKE coupe, the windshield height is one of the most critical elements of the car, If that doesn't look right or close to it, it'll throw the whole balance of the design off. A few on here seem to be accepting of the goof up Revell made on the new XKE coupe and claim they will just fix these problems after they buy it. However, I have to ask should we as model car builders have to perform major body modifications on a new tool? I mean, come on. This is not some old tool reissued from the primitive days of 1961. This is a brand new "state of art" tool of a legendary well known classic car. If people accept this type of sloppy engineering, that will encourage Revell to continue these lazy "good enough" efforts in the future. I don't know about you, but I hate performing basic body mods on a model to make them look right, especially on a new tool. I don't mine modifying chassis's, engine compartments, chrome trim, bumpers and grills, and wheels/tires to make a build more accurate, but when it come to major design elements on the body, that should be a done deal.. -mike

I guess to permanently solve this conundrum people have on here who are still convinced that it's just an artifact of the camara lens focal length or the angle of the picture, we will have to have someone take an actual measurement of the windscreen height of an XKE coupe and then compare it to the measurement, adjusted for 1/24th scale, to the new tool Revell XKE coupe. I have a sneaky suspicion that there will be no takers for this endeavor because the results will be the same. The front windscreen height is too short on the new Revell XKE coupe compared to the actual 1:1 scale car. I know a guy who has an XKE, but it's a convertible and I would have to drive 40+ miles to measure it at his house. Unfortunately, we are in lockdown so any and all travel is restricted and I don't think it would be a good idea to visit him right now due to the pandemic. However, even so, I think the new Revell XKE coupe would scale out even shorter than the 1:1 scale convertible he has, but I could be wrong. For the time being, I guess we will have to just muddle though these endless thought exercises on what it could be including talking about different camera lens focal lengths, angle of attack of the image, height of viewer in relation to subject or just total and complete acceptance of Revell's goof up on the front windscreen height. The sad thing about it all is that this screw up is on a very noticeable part of the car. At the very least, you would have to extend the front windscreen pillars and then deal with extending the shorter clear glass to be a little taller which is unacceptable on a new tool for 2020 IMHO.

You can still find the new tool AMT '70 Monte Carlo for very reasonable, if not original MSRP, prices. So, that's an easy one to acquire if you want one. The '72 Monte Carlo will be harder since that one was converted to the Bobby Allison stock car. I suggested on another forum for Round 2 to restore the tooling back to a stock '72 Monte Carlo again. Unfortunately, I was shot down in mid flight by a Nascar modeling fan. They could restore it back to stock configuration and still offer the Nascar parts to make the Bobby Allison stock car version if they wanted. It's much easier to hack up and radius the stock semi-eliptical rectangular front wheelwell shape than it is to create the stock shape from the already chopped up front wheel wells of the Allison car. In fact, this would be a much easier restoration for Round 2 than the '72 Grand Prix. They could do the '72 Monte Carlo first and see how well the ROI and then proceed to the '72 Grand Prix if profits are good. Of course, some people will mention how much better the full detail new tool '70 Monte Carlo is compared to the old promo based Allison car. However, I will argue having both the new tool '70 and the old promo/annual based '72 would be a great idea. The '72 has a slightly different front grill/header panel and has molded in rear fender skirts which would differentiate it from the new tool '70 Monte Carlo. Also, it's much easier to build due to its promo based origins so they could cater this kit to the youth market by offering a simple easy to build classic muscle car. Before anyone helicopters in and tries to complain about how much of a great loss it would be to lose the "Holy Grail" Bobby Allison stock car. Well, Round 2 could offer that building version as well. The builder would just have to hack open the front wheel well shape to a radius again. This is not beyond the capability of most hard core stock car/race car builders these days. It's win/win for both markets.

That's what makes those old Johan promos/kits so highly coveted. Their "eye scale" was nearly perfect.

At least its got one out of two going for it. Wrong scale and wrong shape on that chop top XKE. lol!

Those old 1/24th scale Monogram kits were some of the worst lookingnkits of all time except for maybe Palmer. Those 1/24th scale Monogram,kits would gather dust on the LHS shelves while the 1/25th MPC/AMT kit would there one day, then gone the next. They were definitely phoning it in and it showed. The 1/25th scale kits by Johan, MPC and AMT were orders of magnitude better in scale fidelity in the basic body proportions. Of course, that stands to reason since most of those 1/25th scale kits were based on the manufacturer's blueprints (promo/annuals) of those respective years. Yes, 1/24th is an architect scale so mathematically it's easier to scale down/pantograph down details from the master buck down to the scale needed for the tooling cut. Unfortunately, most Mongram and Revell 1/24th scale kits during that time did not hold a candle to the much superior proportions of the MPC/AMT/Johan kits at that time. Revell was typically a little better, but many were still not quite right rwdy for prime time compared to the dead nuts accurate MPC/AMT/Johan kits at the time. Displaying 1/25th and 1/24th scale together is a task of immense tolerance. The mathematically close number does not reveal just how weird those two scales appear together when displaying different sized cars/trucks. Due to that issue, I like to display my 1/25th and 1/24th scale cars separately if I can. There's no right or wrong scale. However, if you're going to invest in new tooling of a vintage modeling subject like say a '70 Dodge Charger or a '68, '69 Chevelle, you would probably be much better served (from a ROI perspective) to issue them in 1/25th scale.

When those came out, I was very disappointed to find they were 1/24th scale instead of 1/25th. So, I never bought either one of them. I wonder if the values today would be much higher if they were 1/25th scale instead.