Jump to content

Revell and Heller E Types... comparison


Recommended Posts

Having got both the Revell and Heller kits in hand now, here are a few pictures comparing the two.

 

revell-side-view.jpg

Revell

 

heller-side-view.jpg

Heller

 

front-view.jpg

 

rear-view.jpg

 

heller-top-view-vs-plans.jpg

 

Heller

 

revell-top-view-vs-plans.jpg

 

Revell

 

top-down.jpg

 

top-n-bottom-revell1.jpg

 

Revell

 

top-n-bottom-heller-2.jpg

 

Heller

 

real-thing-opalescent-blue.jpg

 

The real deal...

 

You can draw your own conclusions, but FWIW, these are mine. The Revell A pillars are a tad too short, and the top line of the windscreen goes straight across instead of canting up about 30 degrees to the horizontal, which exacerbates the short windscreen problem. On the other hand, the Revell kit gets right the high point of the side window glass house being in the middle of the door window, not at the A pillar. The Heller kit is better at the bottom of the side glass, which is more or less a straight line, not kinked as on the Revell body (I'm pretty confident in the drawings, which show it as a straight line). The Revell rear window is a better shape than the Heller, but both seem a bit small compared to the real thing. The Heller "glasshouse" is narrower than the Revell, so you can't just swap windscreens, sadly. I think probably the Revell is more accurate side to side, but things are further complicated by the Revell chrome trim for the windscreen being a separate part.

 

One of my Revells is going to be built as is alongside an OOB Heller build so I can add two really beautiful cars to my shelves. The other I'm going to spend some time figuring out how to "correct." At the moment, my thinking is that if I can figure out how to raise the line of the windscreen top, which will mean modifying the chrome part as well, that will do for the Revell. For the Heller, I'll replace the moulded in wipers, and modify the top curve of the side windows, and that should do it. I'm also going to reconfigure the Heller parts to match the design of the Revell, because I think Revell have the best way to engineer an E-type to avoid seams...

Wish me luck... if I put all that work in, Tamiya is SURE to release a state of the art kit next year...

best,

M.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed insight.  I'm very fond of the real E-type and I'd like to add a good 1:24 model of the fixed-head coupé to my collection.  Revell's interpretation might actually be better-looking than the real thing, as people sometimes criticise the windscreen for being too tall/upright.  But I dare say most of us would rather have an accurate replica rather than an idealised version.

 

Matt, I look forward to your builds, having seen what you've done with fixing the errors in other kits I'm sure you'll find a way to fix the errors in these kits.

 

I could probably live with the Revell E-type as it is and I have to admit it looks quite good value, so despite being initially disappointed I may yet add one to my collection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, many thanks for the comparison, and it has rather confirmed what I suspected about the roof on the Revell kit.  However, out of interest, how well (or not) does the Revell bonnet fit on the Heller body?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Paul H said:

However, out of interest, how well (or not) does the Revell bonnet fit on the Heller body?

The Revell bonnet will more or less fit OVER the scuttle panel on the Heller body. But I think shaving 1mm or so off the lower rear edges of the Revell bonnet and flexing the sides inward a bit would probably bring it into line...

best,

M.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the info!  There is clearly a lot to like about this new kit, based on the many pics, the instruction manual & also the video review in another thread.  I am glad to see that Revell managed to resist some of their usual inaccuracies, such as a double thickness floor, however there are still a few areas of crudeness in some detail, in ways which seem to be Revell's usual modus operandi (e.g. how the top wishbones are moulded into the top of the subframe), and which are still rather odd given the high level of detail elsewhere.  For example, Heller moulds that area far more accurately, and their rear suspension is also far more prototypically correct.  I can forgive those (the front suspension issue can be fixed by some careful scalpel work), but if only the screen and roof didn't look so wrong...  As it is, I will be waiting to see how it builds up as no doubt there will be plenty of build threads, and in particular I will be very interested to see how you go about correcting the roof.

 

In the meantime, I am tempted by it, but not to build box stock, instead as a donor for kitbashing with the Heller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both kits appear to have the windscreen angle from the 2+2 which was more vertical than the coupe to get more headroom in the car front and rear.
Also, the Revell kit (the glossier of the two?) really has got the rear side windows completely the wrong shape. Far too high at the back upper curve.

 

As suggested - it would be great if Tamiya did a kit.

That one one at least would probably be the right shape all over.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, roymattblack said:


Also, the Revell kit (the glossier of the two?) really has got the rear side windows completely the wrong shape. Far too high at the back upper curve.

To be fair, my photograph isn’t doing the Revell kit any favours on the side window line. Also worth bearing in mind that the chrome trim is on the transparent part, not the body moulding, which only has the gutter...

 

Also, the Heller windscreen isn’t properly fitted... it needs some judicious sanding along the top so it clicks properly into its recess. If you compare the slope of the A pillar in the drawing to the A pillar on the kit, Heller seems to have got that spot on.

best,

M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting observations. If Matt only had the Gunze one as well in this comparison thread! It was reckoned to be a good kit and I think it was marketed by Airfix at on time as a High Tech kit with some white metal parts.

I have a roadster kit in white metal by SMTS in 1/24 scale that looks quite good and that is quite complex.

Did Monogram make an E Type that was originally an Aurora mould that came out with a Maserati kit in 1/24 scale?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Noel Smith That can be arranged 😜 The Gunze was only ever a convertible though, so I left it out to focus on the coupe glasshouse shape. Monogram did indeed release a coupe originally tooled by Aurora. It’s dreadful, so I don’t have one to photograph. The 250 GTO is pretty grim too, the Maserati is better, and the DB4 is actually pretty good.

best,

M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, of course. I should have remembered that the Gunze kit was a roadster. You confirmed what I thought, that Aurora made a coupe many years ago. Aurora kits were a bit hit and miss as regards accuracy as far as I can remember from way back when.  They did a range of car kits in 1/32 scale as well I think back in the sixties.

 

The big 1/8th scale E Type from Monogram originally overall did not strike me as being too bad. I also had a kit years ago made by a Japanese manufacturer that I sold on in 1/8th scale but cannot recall who made it. It definitely was not a re pop of the Monogram one and was tooled up differently.

 

Apart from the Airfix 1/32 scale kit and the 1/24th scale offerings already discussed I cannot remember if anyone ever made an E Type kit in something like 1/16th scale. This does not include any Die Cast models either ready built or in kit form.

 

What really surprises me is that Tamiya down the years have never kitted this iconic car in their 1/24 scale range.  Mind you, if they did one in 1/12 like their Caterham it would probably become the bench mark kit of this car.

 

Regards

Noel

Edited by Noel Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

In continuation of this post: 

 

could you please also make a comparison between the chrome sprues? I was assured on another forum that at least the chrome sprues between the Heller and Revell kits were the same. And if they are, can you find any other similar sprues? If none, I'll have to make a round of rectifications along this forum and two others. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Roy vd M.

 

chrome.jpg

 

Heller (L), Revell (R)

 

seats.jpg

 

Heller (L) Revell (R) (Note the cylinder head, which is on Revell's chrome sprue, is on this black Heller tree)

 

engine.jpg

 

Revell (L), Heller (R) (Compare engine/transmission parts on black Heller tree here with grey Revell tree above.)

 

underbody.jpg

 

Revell (L) Heller (R) (Note more of front subframe moulded in one piece on Revell lower body)

 

interior.jpg

 

Heller (L), Revell (R). (Note door interiors on Revell sprue: Heller has them moulded on the transparent sprue, with the windows, which is common Heller practice.)

 

I think it's pretty clear that the Revell kit owes little to the Heller in terms of design or engineering, let alone sprues. It wouldn't be a surprise to find the "chrome" sprues similar, given that there are only a certain number of parts on the real thing worth chrome-plating in a kit, but as you can see there's actually not much in common. The Heller does have plated wire wheel centres as well, but I don't have them to hand because I've replaced them in my kit box with a spare set of Tamiya Jag Mk2 wires, which are MUCH better...

 

best,

M.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the trouble to further on to this comparison. 

 

I'll rectify my post in the other topic and will take this up with the other forum. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it my imagination, or does the Revell gearbox appear to have an overdrive on the back?  I always understood that the o/d box wouldn't fit the E, and that they were always only 4 speed (or possibly automatic).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you get the chance, please could you compare the width of the windscreen bases?  Based on having seen more photos of built up versions of the new Revell FHC, plus the image that Revell have relseased of a built-up OTS model, I'm starting to wonder if the Revell may have a slightly wider body / glasshouse, which if so, would exacerbate the issue of the windscreen proportions.  However on the OTS, it could be entirely due to camera angle - it's difficult to tell from one image!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Paul H said:

Is it my imagination, or does the Revell gearbox appear to have an overdrive on the back?  I always understood that the o/d box wouldn't fit the E, and that they were always only 4 speed (or possibly automatic).

You are correct. From the factory the six-cylinder OTS and FHC E-types were 4-speed manual only; the 2+2, which was longer wheelbase, had an automatic option.  The Series III, which was always on the longer wheelbase could be had as 4-speed manual or 3-speed auto on the open car or the 2+2 coupé (there was no 2-seat FHC Series III).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

i'm surprised at how bad the new Revell kit is.   Ok it's got some good points but that roof line being too low and the stance just doesn't look right with the wheels not covered by the wheel arches properly.   Plus the tyres look too small.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...