The Magazine For Slot Car Enthusiasts
The Battle of the E-Type Jaguars - Faller vs. Aurora
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
By Rick Burneson
Welcome to the third in a series of comparison tests between the T-Jets of the Aurora Plastics Company, and the very similar T-Jet-like cars of the German FALLER brand. Dedicated and loyal readers of HO-World will recall the first episode put the Porsche 904's up against one another, with the final tally so close that we had to call it even-up after all the points were considered. The second battle was a decisive victory for Aurora, with its Ferrari GTO (while far from perfect) blowing the proverbial HO doors off the FALLER example. Now, after initial skirmishes with a German and an Italian bred car, we turn to the British Isles for the next set of challengers.

Note: Your pronunciation note on the name “Jaguar” in the mother tongue (British in this case) reads: Jag’-u-ah. That “r” at the end is completely silent (when spoken in British) and the first syllable is heavily accented! Please note that this is nowhere near the oft heard (at least in America) Jag’-war! Okay, well . . . thanks for bearing with me on that! I just wanted to clear things up right from the start. Please practice your pronunciation each time you see “Jaguar” in the article to follow!

While much has been written about the general design (styling) characteristics of British cars, . . . and very little of it favorable (“Give an Englishman a piece of metal and he’ll do something ugly with it!”), I would have to argue that the E-Type Jaguar is an outstanding exception to that rule. I can think of a few exceptions, really, but since our subject for today is, in fact, the E-Type Jaguar, I will resist a considerable urge to digress! Because the power plant for the full scale E-Type was the venerable Jaguar XK unit (6 cylinders in line, dual overhead cam, 3.8 litre displacement in this case), this Jaguar was often referred to as an XK-E. Or in the common American vernacular, an “XK-E Jag.” This name-tag has always sounded rather lame to me, especially since its v.famous Le Mans winning ancestors were C-Type and the D-Type, both having used the XK engine to accomplish their lofty goals. Not only were their goals lofty, I might add, but their team manager was as well. One Lofty England, in fact; a brilliant tactician, with certainly the most poetic name for a Jaguar Team Manager one could imagine!

Poetic curiosities aside, however, the simple truth of the matter is that the E-Type Jaguar descended from a wonderful lineage of racing motorcars, most of which were as beautiful in their own way as the Jaguar we are examining today. In addition to the C and D Types, I feel compelled to mention the missing link, in this case the XK-SS. While a tragic fire at the Jaguar factory stopped production of XK-SS after only 16 examples were completed, it is indeed significant because it was a road legal version of what had previously been pure racing cars. A road-going version of the D-Type, if you will. The E-Type then, was built out of the ashes of that tragic fire, yet carried on many of the design qualities of the C and D Types, while adding the road-going practicality that had been foreshadowed with the XK-SS.

It was the combination of these design attributes, including the semi monocoque body frame and basic component layout that were so artfully mixed to create the E-Type. For a short history of the full scale E-Type, along with the early racing record, please see: http://www.jaguar.com/uk/sja/ch6.html

As regards the rather smaller versions, our samples for today are, as per usual practice, whatever examples I happen to have in my collection. Please follow along with a glance at the photos, as we do a comparison critique of the “HO” scaled versions of the beautiful E-Type Jaguars as modeled by Aurora and FALLER. While I have had various Aurora E-Jaguars since the “dawn of time” (T-Jet wise) in the early 60’s, I was never one to leave well enough alone, especially when the modeler in me was sure I could improve things! While the results are certainly debatable (see Jaguar E-Type roadster photos), the sad truth of the matter is that none survived in anything like “original” condition. The Aurora Jaguar you see here was added to my collection only last week, through good timing and a bit of luck in the “ebay” Frays (not to be confused with the Fray in Ferndale, certainly!). As a mature and responsible collector, I will do my best to keep this one well away from the Dremel, #11 X-acto blades, files, sandpaper and other implements of destruction! At least for awhile . . . Yes, well anyway, . . . the FALLER was sent to me in a cross-the-Atlantic trading frenzy sometime in the mid 80’s, courtesy of Frans Schobel (of Munich). We were swapping AFX cars for FALLERs at an alarming rate back then, with great benefits to both of our collections, while not really affecting the balance of trade between Germany and the U.S. much at all!

The Side View
The side view is as good a place to start as any, and points up the basic difference between the FALLER and the Aurora. I call it the “basic” difference, because (as well shall see) the detail differences aren’t really so different at all. When you look at a full scale E-Type you see a balanced beauty that is (unfortunately) not reflected very accurately in either the Aurora or the FALLER car. That elusive quality known as “visual distribution of mass” remained elusive, as modelers on both sides of the Atlantic tried to model this car in our chosen scale. To capture the “look” of this fantastically beautiful car in such a dramatically smaller size, is indeed the task of an artist, and not merely an attentive craftsman. While I’m afraid I have to say that, ultimately, both failed; I think there was a bit more of the artist’s eye living in the spirit of the FALLER craftsman. The lines of the FALLER seem to “flow” better, to more accurately reflect Jaguar’s vision of the 1:1 scale car. And yes, there is some “flowing” aspect to the lines of the Aurora E-Type body. To my eye, however, they are rather “over-flowing,” such that a less than attractive “chubbeyness” was introduced into the Aurora design. The FALLER seems more tight, more light and muscular, and hence more in keeping with the full scale Jaguar design. Getting down to the details, the greatest flaw of the FALLER is that they’ve gotten the door lines totally wrong. The rear lines are completely vertical, not slanted as on the real car, and the front lines have only a small off-set at the top, as opposed to the much more accurate (but only slightly over-stated) off-set seen on the Aurora Jag. Other than that, both companies came out pretty even, representing both the door handles and the bonnet releases. FALLER should lose a point or two for continuing the bottom door line behind the door, and in front of it, heading toward the bonnet, while Aurora got this part completely right. Points are split evenly on window size and shape, with FALLERs slightly on the large side, while Aurora’s are a tad too small. Regarding the shape of the wheel openings, they really are slightly rounded on the upper edge, not flat like both of Aurora’s and the rear ones on the FALLER. You’d think both companies would get this one right, but for some reason it just wasn’t as obvious as I think it should have been. Finally, the Aurora Jag is marred by some pretty obnoxious mold marks. I’m not sure if all the Aurora E-Types are as bad in this respect as my example, but the FALLER Jag looks positively clean by comparison.

The Top View
From the top, the “overall shape” aspect can be seen pretty dramatically as well, with Aurora’s Jag looking a bit over weight (only visually, of course) and FALLERs rather more sleek. Points run even on the bonnet details, with both companies doing a fine job on the vents, the center bonnet bulge, the thin metal strips connecting the side and top sections, and the correct number of windscreen wipers (3 each). FALLER picks up an unexpected point for remembering the windscreen squirters, but then Aurora comes back with the fuel filler cap on the rear fender, which FALLER has neglected. The shape and placement of the rear windscreen has them both fooled, but in different ways! FALLER’s is a tad too large, and located too low on the fastback roof-line, while Aurora’s is too small and located too high. If only they could have compared notes as each was working on their E-Type designs, the committee effort may have been spot-on! However, . . . now that I think about it . . . committee efforts rarely are. Never mind!

The Front View
From the front we see that FALLER Jag has the shape of the head lamp covers more closely correct, but loses some points for having the grill opening "closed” while Aurora’s at least seems to want to be open! The “closed mouth” look of the FALLER brings unfortunate visions of Citroen DS-19’s to mind, esp. when combined with the slightly “thick looking” bumpers, and the “droopy-eyed” headlamp covers. While that may sound slightly rude stated in those terms, one quick look at the “front” photo and you will see what I mean! The Aurora Jag simply looks “fat” from the front (non of the implied cuteness of the “chubby” label from this angle!), with the headlight covers too perfectly ovular and the same over-stating of chromey-ness that spoils the FALLER. Neither company thought to continue the thin metal fender-joining strip beneath the headlight covers! Kind of makes you wonder what set of photos they were inspecting as they went about their modeling! Both companies remembered the front marker lights, and both got them in approximately the right place.

The Rear View
Looking from the back now, we see that the license plate holders are the American shape on the Aurora Jag, and the Euro shape on the FALLER car! Both companies got the tail-lights right (however, neither painted them red!), in both shape and relative placement, but FALLER totally ignored the trademark Jaguar dual exhaust pipes! This view also emphasizes the different interpretations of the rear windscreen size and placement . . . how could that happen? Finally, I have to say once more that the Aurora looks fat, the FALLER looks smaller and far more accurately defined; more in keeping with the “look” of the full scale Jaguar XK-E Type.

The Bottom View
From this view we can clearly tell which is the male and which is the female. Oh, no, . . . wait, wrong article . . . !
From this view we can clearly tell that FALLER copied Aurora, without copying them “exactly” but they sure weren’t very subtle about it either! You can pick out detail differences here and there, but the overall design is far more similar than it is different. One day we will take the FALLER-Jet and Aurora T-Jet apart in painstaking detail (yes, just like the dead frogs in biology class!), getting a clear view of each organ (I mean “part”). At that time will see how slot car evolution really worked, but in the meantime suffice to say that “one of these things is just like the other” and save the specifics for a later report.

Sorting It All Out
After we sort it out, add it up, examine everything in detail, and total up the points . . . its clear that FALLER picks up the win on this one. Not that they won all the battles, certainly, but they definitely won the war. Aurora made a good effort, but even getting lots of the details right won’t do it if the overall shape and look is just not “right.” Looking at the big picture now we see that the overall score stands at one each for Aurora and FALLER, with one tie thrown in for good measure. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of “Aurora vs. FALLER” when our heroes will attack one of the most common cars of our time; the venerable Volkswagen Beetle.
1962 E Type
New standard of grace
Modified
Faller in Blue