Revell AG Mini Cooper Mk1 998 c.c

[GeeBee]

I have had this model on pre-order since it was announced at the German toy fair, the model arrived yesterday, and I thought I would take some time to have a good look at it, and compare it to the earlier offering from Tamiya.

Now this body is slightly different to the one offered by Tamiya, but probably only Mini enthusiast's would know and recognize the differences between the two, Tamiya's model is a post January 1966 while Revell's version is a pre January 1966, you can easily tell by the earlier door handles and the lack of the safety boss fitted to the later models, there were a few other differences but aren't noticed on a model.

Having a flick through the instructions I am again impressed with Revell's later model releases, there Citroen 2cv seems to have more detail parts than the Tamiya version, I will be building this one in the future, as I have already built the Tamiya version, and there were fit problems with that kit.

Like the Tamiya version, the roof is molded as a seperate part, but is slightly different to the Tamiya's, the roof needs to be painted in a contrasting colour on the Cooper's, either white or black, but the rain gutter trim needs to be done in body colour, masking the roof for the Tamiya kit can be a nightmare, but Revell has done things a little different and molded the gutter trim as part of the body, so painting will be a lot easier ....

Other detail touches that are better defined in the Revell version is the seats and seat frame, Tamiya's version doesn't have any detail around the frame, but Revell has decided to mold there's as seperate parts, the frame should be painted gloss black while the seats should be in a two tone fabric, also the side door panels and pockets are also molded as seperate parts,plus in this kit you get seat belts, a very nice touch ...

Another pain in the rear end on the Tamiya kit is painting and detailing the dash, as everything is molded as one, again Revell have decided to do these different and mold them seperately,

Decals

Now one little piece that I found interesting was this ....

It is shown on the diagrams in the instructions, but of course it isn't shown in the building diagrams, and wouldn't be used on the Coopers, for one simple reason, it's the standard (Non remote gear change) Mini's, so is Revell planning further versions of the Mini ??? I sure hope so ....

So before building this, how do I compare it against the Tamiya version ? if it's builds as nice as the Tamiya version, this one from Revell will be one of my new favorite models, simply because of the better detail in the kit

For all other photo's have a look at the one's I took earlier

http://s21.photobuck...mview=slideshow

Edited November 29, 2012 by GeeBee

[Matt Bacon]

I shall have to have one of those....well, three actually. I've got a plan.

Does anyone do an aftermarket three-spot rally light frame for the front? And I'll be needing bonnet straps and an HMP729G plate...

Thanks for the encouragement, Geoff!

bestest,

M.

[Erik Smith]

Looks very promising. Thanks for the information.

[Rob Hall]

Looks good...RHD and LHD drive options, it looks like?

[Roncla]

Thanks for the review. I will definitely be buying a copy

[jbwelda]

so how does the body stack up to the body of the tamiya? is it larger since the tamiya is supposedly under-scale? also, how is the engine detail and how is it aspirated. thirdly, please expand on what you mean with the gear shift lever. "non remote"? would one iteration have the gears on the steering column or something vs on the floor?

thanks for the advance look; i may have to grab one of these myself. it looks like a worthwhile successor to the tamiya kit for all the reasons you point out.

[GeeBee]

Looks good...RHD and LHD drive options, it looks like?

Yes, there is options to build it LHD or RHD ...

[GeeBee]

so how does the body stack up to the body of the tamiya? is it larger since the tamiya is supposedly under-scale? also, how is the engine detail and how is it aspirated. thirdly, please expand on what you mean with the gear shift lever. "non remote"? would one iteration have the gears on the steering column or something vs on the floor?

thanks for the advance look; i may have to grab one of these myself. it looks like a worthwhile successor to the tamiya kit for all the reasons you point out.

I'm off for a short stay in hospital later today, but when I get back home I will get a Tamiya kit out of the stash and do a side by side comparison, and measure them both.

The Gearstick I mentioned was fitted to the early Mini's which didn't have the remote change that was fitted to the Coopers, it made the gearchange more positive, as with the old long stick sometimes you had trouble finding the gears, if you look underneath a Cooper you will see an extension coming off the back of the gearbox going under the floor and ending where the gear lever is situated inside the car, later in the Mini development they did away with the old long stick gearchange, and went with a rod linkage to the gearlever.

Early Mini with Straight long gearlever

Later (Bent) Gearlever

Cooper (Remote) Gearlever

So as Revell has indluded the very early gearlever I'm sure they have plans of releasing a kit of an early MK1 Morris or Austin Mini, I will be looking forward to that if it happens

Here a photo of the Mini cutaway, and you can see where the gearlever goes straight into the back of the gearbox

[Erik Smith]

Thanks for the additional information Geoff. I really like Minis but really don't know that much about the history. That cut away is great too.

[Paul H]

Many thanks for sharing the info - been wanting to find out more about this kit for ages, especially how it compares to the Tamiya. Please do let us know about how it goes together! In the test shots I've seen, the wheels & tyres looked slightly clumsy - is that still the case in reality, or do you reckon that careful detail painting will solve that? Also will be interesting to see how neat the roof panel join is - although Tamiya's method is more complicated to paint, it does hide the panel join extremely well.

[GeeBee]

When I've finished my current build (Fujimi Porsche 911 Convertible) I'm going to make a start on the Revell Mini ...

[Junkman]

Tamiya's model is a post January 1966 while Revell's version is a pre January 1966...

So using the D-reg numberplate for the Revell would be wrong.

[GeeBee]

So using the D-reg numberplate for the Revell would be wrong.

The reg' number only depicts when the car was first registered, not made, so if in 1966 there was still old stock in the compound, no...

Before 1967, a new year for car registration started on the 1st of january, so a D plate went from January 1966, to January 1967, so the new bodyshell would have only just have been started at the factory

Edited December 6, 2012 by GeeBee

[Dominik]

Thank you Gregg for show us the difference between the Revell and Tamiya kit. now i am looking forward for teh "side-by-side"-pictures of them.

I was asking my self, why the bring out this kit, while Tamya has one a looong time...

But now, it seems to be a good one in my view.

So using the D-reg numberplate for the Revell would be wrong.

Christian, did you mean the German Licenseplates? They are completely wrong! On this kind of letters and plate (befor we get the European plates withe the blue corner) there were NO Letter "I" available on the Plates, right the "minus"!

Only a kind of cities had left from the "minus" the Letter "I" - like SIG for Sigmaringen (my hometown) or KI for Kiel, but never on the right side. To read it as a "1" was the reason for that.

Why they (Revell of Germany!) couldn't make that right - i dont know and it is incomprehensible for me. Its not the first kit, they have done it wrong.

[GeeBee]

Thank you Gregg for show us the difference between the Revell and Tamiya kit. now i am looking forward for teh "side-by-side"-pictures of them.

I was asking my self, why the bring out this kit, while Tamya has one a looong time...

But now, it seems to be a good one in my view.

Christian, did you mean the German Licenseplates? They are completely wrong! On this kind of letters and plate (befor we get the European plates withe the blue corner) there were NO Letter "I" available on the Plates, right the "minus"!

Only a kind of cities had left from the "minus" the Letter "I" - like SIG for Sigmaringen (my hometown) or KI for Kiel, but never on the right side. To read it as a "1" was the reason for that.

Why they (Revell of Germany!) couldn't make that right - i dont know and it is incomprehensible for me. Its not the first kit, they have done it wrong.

I think the German plates are a bit of modellers licence from Revell, read them carefully, and you'll see they read Mini 998 .... the U.K plates that Christian mentioned are correct for 1 January 1966 – 31 December 1966, I can't remember the exact date the Mini body was modified, although I do know it was January '66, but a 'D' registation prefix would just be correct for an early non safety door handled Mini.

Edited December 27, 2012 by GeeBee

[Dominik]

Hi Geoff,

i know - we should reed MI-NI and the engine 998. In fact, it is not correct on this plates.

On other plates, the have also veiled the Messages :

Austria (Decal 40/41) W (Vienna) perhaps with the hidden Year (?) 2(Feb)64. and the engine 998

Belgium (Decal 38/39) COO>per< - and the engine 998

Netherlands (Decal 36/37) the Year? 64 - MI>ni< - why the "12"?, but the combination '64-MI-12' is registration after 1973

France (Decal 34/35) the Year? 1964 M>ini<C>ooper< "12"?

Italy (Decal 32/33) the engine 318998 and MI>ni< aka Milano - what a fluke - could this be???

Only Switzerland has no obvious system...

Geoff, are you sure, that the GB-plates are correctly to the Mini? That would mean - if i am right - that the first registration on the basis of the plates are (Decal 28/29) 'C' = 1965 , or (Decal 30/31) 'D' = 1966? And they have to often the "64" on the other plates...i understand your Point with the 'D'.

very complicated and mystical all ...I am not familiar with the details of the mini, so i am not to determine the year.

But thats all supposition

Ha - i think i know, what the "12" can mean: the year of the kit! 2012!

Thats funny.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Dominik

[unipart]

Hi Geoff,

It's always nice to follow your blogs with Mini models.

I am an ex-British Leyland boy, so it refreshs my memory.

I hope to post soon a Mini Wip.

Cheers,

Michel

[GeeBee]

Hi Geoff,

It's always nice to follow your blogs with Mini models.

I am an ex-British Leyland boy, so it refreshs my memory.

I hope to post soon a Mini Wip.

Cheers,

Michel

Looking forward to seeing more Mini's being built, which part of the BL family were you from ??? I worked on them for close on 11 years, I like your user name, but only people working in the BL family would understand it ...

Edited December 28, 2012 by GeeBee

[PatW]

My brother bought his first Mini from the Oxford factory in 1963 through a local dealer (he saved the delivery charge by spending £2 on a bus fare to the plant). But when he got it home he took the wheels off and the backs were rusty. After a few days he found it jumped out of second gear. On speaking to a friend at the local dealership, using the chassis number, they found it was a 1961 model which had the habit of jumping out of gear, so they changed the car for a new one. But further to that there was a guy just outside town who had started tuning the first Coopers and set a up racing team with his brother. What cars they were, they tuned cars for other teams as well, in all engine sizes 997, 999 and 1275 and later bored out to 1293cc. With Silverstone only 20 miles away we were up there on a regular basis watching the Mini's waging war against Ford Anglia 105E's, NSU 1000, later Mk 1 Ford Escorts (broadspeed team) and the big Jaguar's and American Ford Falcons etc. What great days they were.

[unipart]

I got the Revell Mini Cooper kit today. Looks great.

Geoff, I worked for BL Belgium in the seventies, almost ten years. Different jobs, first as computer dept. manager, then Sales Promotion Manager and finally Racing Team Manager. I initiated with my friend Christian de Jonghe the return of BL on racing tracks, against the decision of Management in UK. We developed the Triumph Dolomite Sprint with Bill Shaw and Ralph Broad, winning the Belgian Champ in 74 and 75 and French Champ in 75, 76, ... I had the chance to visit many factories and assembly plants, such as Seneffe, Malines South and North (Belgium), Cowley, Longbridge, Coventry, Solihull, Abingdon-on-Thames, Browns Lane (UK), Innocenti (Italy). Pity to see many of those places gone today. I met also many great names of those racing glory days.

Today, I am living along the sea in Finistère, France and back to model cars. I am sometimes working on full size cars, actual project is a Jag XJS 12 V12 for a good friend of mine. That keeps me busy for a while.

Happy New Year to all Modellers.

[Erik Smith]

So, I finally managed to find one of these stateside. Very cool kit.

But...what's up with this?

On the inside of the wind screen, there is an odd mold line with an associated angled opening on the a pillar. It is indicated in the instruction sheet, but not nearly as pronounced as the actual kit.

So, is there a reason this is like that? Or should it be sanded off flush with the profile of the pillar?

Edited February 9, 2013 by Erik Smith

[Don Sikora II]

Hmm. I don't have this kit so I'm going off your pictures. To me it looks like the top shot shows the mold parting line "crossing over." By that I mean the lower part of the windshield opening is formed in the mold's top cavity but the upper section of the opening is in the core (the side where the ejection pins are). There must have been a reason to do that, maybe because of an undercut of some kind at the top of the windshield.

I agree those ribs on the core side of the body look really strange, but I would do some test fitting before sanding them away. I'd be surprised if they weren't taken into account when the patterns were made, so removing them might introduce some fit problems.

[Erik Smith]

so how does the body stack up to the body of the tamiya? is it larger since the tamiya is supposedly under-scale? also, how is the engine detail and how is it aspirated.

Just to follow up...

The body from the Revell kit and Tamiya kit are close to exact - the wheel openings are about 1-2 mm off, but other than that (size-wize) they are very similar. I don't know if that means the Tamiya kit - which I heard was undersized too - is really too small.

The engine has a single carburetor. Detail is on par with the Tamiya, based on my cursory glance (I have a few of the Tamiya kits) - the spark plug wires, though, are molded into the distributor, and look like, well, wires molded to a distributor.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Erik Smith

[GeeBee]

Before sanding off anything, have a look at the clear parts, as the windows have tabs molded into them ....

[jbwelda]

thanks erik...i was a bit skeptical that the tamiya was undersized but i usually take the experts word.

is there anything here that would lead one to prefer this release vs the tamiya? maybe just some model-specific differences but anything else?

Edited February 11, 2013 by jbwelda