18 replies to this topic

[TechnicFreak]

Just curious of what you all think of the 8053 Mobile Crane from this summer as compared to the 8421 Pneumatic Crane from 2005.  I rather like the new 8053 Crane, while it wasn't the monster that the 8421 was, I like the split 8 wheels in the 8053, it looks more realistic to the real thing than the 8421's wheel setup was, and the smaller PF motor looks better than the huge old battery box on the back of the 8421.  Another thing is that the crane actually stays up when you have the boom in the up position due to the LA keeping it up rather than the 8421's pneumatically operated boom that by the next morning had sunk back down.  I actually resorted to taking a 9L axle and a black 16-tooth double bevel gear to 'prop' the 8421's boom in the up position so the boom wouldn't slowly sink overnight.  I'm not a huge fan of linear actuators since they can be troublesome (can anybody say 8043 Excavator), but in some applications they are really advantageous like keeping a crane boom up.  Would have been nicer to see 2 actuators, one on each side of the 8053's boom for more realistic look, but it still is real nice crane for the money, but you definitely need the PF motor and battery box, all that winding manually of the LA can be a pain as has been noted in all the releases in the past couple years, the 8294 Excavator, and especially the 8295 Telehandler.

[paanjang16]

For someone who has never owned or played with the 8421 I do agree that 8053 is a great set. I think the general negative perception about it is that is lacks a few features the larger crane has such as pneumatic system, electric motor with battery box, 3 piece boom and simple outriggers (you only need to spin 1 knob to deploy all). But 8421 is a flagship set at flagship prices while 8053 is a typical large technic set which a step or 2 below the flagship, so you do get what you pay for. As shown in the picture below, it is dwarfed by the other flagship sets.    


The 8 wheel steering is nicely done. The outriggers deploy in a manner not common for most cranes we see today. The gearbox in the upper turret eases motorization and is simple to use. The cab even tilts back abit like a real crane so that the operator can see what he is lifting. A great buy.


Also do not forget the B-model which is a harbor crane. It is quite quite large when built and can be placed in a city setup!

[eMHa]

I also bought 8053 recently and I'm very satisfied with it so far.

My kids like to play with it although it is not motorized yet.

In my opinion the number of functions is adequately to the price of the set. After building I was surprised the cab can be tilt, it's a nice detail. Not so good are the outriggers, but I think for the price (and space) of the set it's OK. The steering is great. I was suprised how good it can turn altough the steering lock is very small.
A really good feature is the possibility to extend the boom and let the hook down on the same time. Is this the first time in a officially mobile crane set the two functions can be used together the same time?

[dr_spock]

TechnicFreak, on 16 October 2010 - 04:01 AM, said:

Just curious of what you all think of the 8053 Mobile Crane from this summer as compared to the 8421 Pneumatic Crane from 2005.  I rather like the new 8053 Crane, while it wasn't the monster that the 8421 was, I like the split 8 wheels in the 8053, it looks more realistic to the real thing than the 8421's wheel setup was, and the smaller PF motor looks better than the huge old battery box on the back of the 8421.  Another thing is that the crane actually stays up when you have the boom in the up position due to the LA keeping it up rather than the 8421's pneumatically operated boom that by the next morning had sunk back down.  I actually resorted to taking a 9L axle and a black 16-tooth double bevel gear to 'prop' the 8421's boom in the up position so the boom wouldn't slowly sink overnight.  I'm not a huge fan of linear actuators since they can be troublesome (can anybody say 8043 Excavator), but in some applications they are really advantageous like keeping a crane boom up.  Would have been nicer to see 2 actuators, one on each side of the 8053's boom for more realistic look, but it still is real nice crane for the money, but you definitely need the PF motor and battery box, all that winding manually of the LA can be a pain as has been noted in all the releases in the past couple years, the 8294 Excavator, and especially the 8295 Telehandler.

You could try replacing the knobs with crank handles for faster winding of the LA.  I used them on my telescopic crawler crane.  They can extent or retract the LA pretty quickly.

[DLuders]

If you see them side-by-side, the 8421 Mobile Crane from 2005 is much more "capable" than the 8053 Mobile Crane from 2010.  The 8421 has more parts (1,885 vs. 1,289), so it cost more (US $150 vs. US $100).  

  
  

[zyrex]

I soo want the old from 2005. I'm trying to find a good price somewhere, but it's quite expensive.

[Benly]

zyrex, on 17 October 2010 - 12:46 PM, said:

I soo want the old from 2005. I'm trying to find a good price somewhere, but it's quite expensive.

Likewise. It's the last large Technic kit that I want to get my hands on. But as you said, it's sooo expensive!  

It would be great to sit the 8460, 8053 and 8421 next to one another.  

Stupid dark ages...

[allanp]

I really can't see the point in me buying 8053 as I already have 8421 which is much much better.

[kostasm13]

allanp, on 17 October 2010 - 02:50 PM, said:

I really can't see the point in me buying 8053 as I already have 8421 which is much much better.

I totally agree. 8421 is one of my favourite sets ever!
I would buy 8053 only for B-model.

[Pauger]

The thing about 8421 that really does it for me is the three-section crane (even tho they could've made it longer) aswell as the overall build quality. Other than that it had a complete manual turntable, unrealistic stabilizers and bad aesthetics (way to short and fat, and quite ugly).

Even though I don't have the 8053 and know that the stabilizers don't actually do any stabilizing, I would say that for the price - It is as good as 8421.

Guess I'm quite alone on this opinion though  

[mostlytechnic]

I love the 8421, but was disappointed that the b model for it is so lame. It's the same truck base, you just remove the crane itself and rebuild into a (poorly-designed) cherry picker. I say poorly because it won't lower all the way, so it's quite tall, plus the scale's wrong. It looks like a single person bucket to me (and fairly flimsy structure lifting it) but the truck is so large.

That said, I'm keeping my pair of 8421s (have one built each way) and really want to get a 8053 mostly for the b model. When I get an 8053, I'll build the main model, play for a day with it, and then build the B and probably keep it that way. That harbor crane just looks cool and is so unique.

[CP5670]

8053 seems to be more of a successor to 8460 than 8421. 8421 is definitely the better set, but it was in a different price and size range and it had some issues of its own, especially the thing you mentioned with the boom falling (which was a problem with 8460 too, although the old 8854's boom stays up indefinitely). I like its stabilizers much better than what 8053 has though.

8053 still seems like a good buy. I won't be getting it since I have the earlier sets and it doesn't offer anything new compared to them, but it's a solid design and at nearly 1300 parts it gives good value for your money.

[Blakbird]

I've been meaning to start a thread comparing these 2 with some pictures side by side. I actually think 8053 stacks up pretty well. It is smaller and cheaper, so you can't expect it to be equivalent. Despite the 2 section boom instead of 3, it still reaches almost as high as 8421. Both have 4 axles with multi-axle steering. Obviously 8421 has a motor, but a motor can be added to 8053. Like all models with linear actuators, it is almost unusable without a motor. The little crank gears on the side will give you cramps in your hand each time you raise or lower the boom which takes forever. An actual crank would have been much preferred. They are both very good looking models, and both look even better when sitting side by side! The outriggers on 8053 are not very sturdy, but this type of "cross" supports can't be made much stronger at this scale since they need to be supported at a single axle. Overall, I was very pleased with it, even as an owner of 8421. If you don't have 8421 and don't want to spend the money on it, I'd certainly recommend 8053 as a reasonable substitute which is only slightly less functional.

[Paul B]

I purchased 8053 on the weekend and built it up, so far I quite like it and feel it was a good build and looks good.

Paul

[TechnicFreak]

Is this the body of the 8294 Excavator?  Although I can't see the entire crane, it looks really interesting and would like to see the whole thing.  Looks like a better looking one just from the partial pic than the 8288 Crawler Crane.  That one was too tippy and the tracks looked out of scale, I actually put the 8294's tracks on my 8288, and though those were actually a bit too large, they looked better than the original ones and gave the crane more stability.  

dr_spock, on 16 October 2010 - 01:45 PM, said:

You could try replacing the knobs with crank handles for faster winding of the LA.  I used them on my telescopic crawler crane.  They can extent or retract the LA pretty quickly.

[Frequency]

http://www.eurobrick...=1

here is the thread on that model

[TechnicFreak]

One thing that is missing on the 8053 is a lack of an engine, surprising considering the cost.  Heck, even at $79.99 USD the 8265 Front Loader had an engine.  Not really a complaint, its a great crane and loaded with gears and such, just thought I'd throw it out there...

[Zblj]

TechnicFreak, on 22 October 2010 - 05:13 AM, said:

One thing that is missing on the 8053 is a lack of an engine, surprising considering the cost.  Heck, even at $79.99 USD the 8265 Front Loader had an engine.  Not really a complaint, its a great crane and loaded with gears and such, just thought I'd throw it out there...

all wheel steering makes it harder to put an engine in it...

[TechnicFreak]

Makes sense, maybe if it had a larger frame like the 8421 there would be room for an engine block, but I still really enjoy the crane, engine or not...

Zblj, on 22 October 2010 - 06:58 AM, said:

all wheel steering makes it harder to put an engine in it...