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

[niteowl7710]

The windshield surround is the same as it's always been, but it's not from the Roadster. The chrome parts and glass are different between the two kits. 

 

[dbostream]

4 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

The windshield surround is the same as it's always been, but it's not from the Roadster. The chrome parts and glass are different between the two kits. 

 

Interesting, how could they get it so wrong then? I thought the reason was that they could reuse the parts.

[niteowl7710]

1 hour ago, dbostream said:

Interesting, how could they get it so wrong then? I thought the reason was that they could reuse the parts.

How did Moebius botch the roof to the Chevy II in two different directions? 

Better yet how did any of us ever build models without eleventybillion images on Google and a 24/7/365 social media forum to point out every "what has been seen can not be unseen" flaw in every kit? ? ?

Edited April 10, 2022 by niteowl7710

[Ace-Garageguy]

I'm generally disappointed with the kit.

Yes, there are some pretty nice things in it, but one big negative to me (aside from the bodged coupe roof profile) is the molded-in cam covers.

The ancient Revell kit made them separate, and as they're polished alloy on the real cars, it just makes sense to do them separate if there's going to be any hope in jell of average modelers getting them to look like they really do.

The stance is wrong too, as are the proportions of the wheel/tire combo, and it all jumps out at me because I've been looking at real ones since 1963.

I'll build it...eventually...but it certainly won't be at the front of the list. It'll take heavy mods to look right to me, so rather than expend gobs of effort to build a righteous stocker, it'll be the basis for a lightweight.

And for all the hoopla and bated-breath, I'm kinda disgusted at the mediocrity all the new-fangled "technology" delivered.

For my money, this old dinosaur is a better representation of a production E-type. 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy

[keyser]

Heller and Gunze much better than that punched in face lump. Gunze rear wheel openings need tweaks, but really nice. Body on Hellers fiddly, but really nice. 
1:1 coupes and roadsters do not share windshields. People keep saying that, nope. S1 coupe, 2+2, and roadster didn’t share any glass. 
 

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, keyser said:

Heller and Gunze much better than that punched in face lump. 

Agreed the Heller and Gunze kits look pretty good.

I have every E-type ever kitted, and the "punched in the face " lumps are the coupe and roadster that started as Aurora kits, and got reboxed as Monogram and Revell...but they share absolutely nothing with the Revell kit I posted above. 

Pity they're so awful body-wise, as the early box art is lovely, and the reason I squandered my hard-earned ducats on them when I got back in the hobby.

    

Revell boxing of the hideous Aurora Jag coupe below:

[keyser]

@Ace-Garageguy Better than Aurora but still a ways off. Had a few E Jags in extended family, spent a lot of time with them, showed JCNA a bit. 61 welded louver outside release coupe, OEW/red. 98.3pt driven. 65 4.2 iridescent blue roadster/blue, and 67 4.2 red/black roadster. I had early S2 coupe, oew/black. Not as pretty as S1, but mint. Love the things. We’ve both had joy of swapping rotors/pads in back end I’d guess. ???‍♂️
Haven’t popped new one. 
Box art truly art. Even Revells. I posted a lot of pics early on iirc. Even Enzo liked it. 

[jeathray]

On 4/10/2022 at 3:26 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

I'm generally disappointed with the kit.

Yes, there are some pretty nice things in it, but one big negative to me (aside from the bodged coupe roof profile) is the molded-in cam covers.

The ancient Revell kit made them separate, and as they're polished alloy on the real cars, it just makes sense to do them separate if there's going to be any hope in jell of average modelers getting them to look like they really do.

The stance is wrong too, as are the proportions of the wheel/tire combo, and it all jumps out at me because I've been looking at real ones since 1963.

I'll build it...eventually...but it certainly won't be at the front of the list. It'll take heavy mods to look right to me, so rather than expend gobs of effort to build a righteous stocker, it'll be the basis for a lightweight.

And for all the hoopla and bated-breath, I'm kinda disgusted at the mediocrity all the new-fangled "technology" delivered.

For my money, this old dinosaur is a better representation of a production E-type. 

 

I was always hoping that Tamiya would do the XK-E after they did the Mercedes 300 Gullwing. Now I have to hope they'll do that Jaguar Low Drag Coupe.

[jeathray]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:44 PM, dbostream said:

Interesting, how could they get it so wrong then? I thought the reason was that they could reuse the parts.

 

On 4/10/2022 at 1:44 PM, dbostream said:

Interesting, how could they get it so wrong then? I thought the reason was that they could reuse the parts.

 

On 4/10/2022 at 9:29 AM, niteowl7710 said:

The windshield surround is the same as it's always been, but it's not from the Roadster. The chrome parts and glass are different between the two kits. 

 

The windshield surrounds are different, but the windshield glass on the roadster seems to be taller and closer to the right height for the coupe?

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 4/10/2022 at 9:00 PM, keyser said:

@Ace-Garageguy  We’ve both had joy of swapping rotors/pads in back end I’d guess...

Yup. And the rear brakes are seized on the '86 XJ6 from sitting since 2014. Not really looking forward to that job, but I can't even load it on the transporter otherwise.