Technic - "old" vs "new"

[Hobbes]

After sorting my old LEGO I came across my old Technic box. In a sentimentality attack I decided to rebuild my favorite set, 8040 (yeah, that old). Unfortunately I'm missing the pneumatic distribution block, but it should arrive from BL soon. So I put it aside for the moment.

In the meantime I decided to delve into the new worlds of Technic. Browsing through the current sets on S@H I liked 8435 4WD. Tough luck, I missed the 50 % offer they had by one day. On that day I found it on ebay, though. MIB even, and also for 50 % off. So I bought it. The next day I bought a 8436 for 30 Euro off at a local TRU, and while I was at it I took a 8281 Tractor, too, cos I kinda liked it.

The tractor was the first model I built. And while I was baffled over all those new pins, connectors and bricks I missed over the last 25 years, I was surprised by the detail of that little set. Then again, it does have 120+ pieces. I enjoyed building it - although I have to admit that it took me quite some time cos I wasn't used to all those pieces that had nothing to do with the Technic I grew up with (except the pins).

After that I decided to build the 4WD. Now that was something else. I kinda missed that it had 700+ pieces - and most of them connectors and pins. While the model looks great once finished it took me pretty long to build. I liked the motor and the moving zylinders and how they're connected to the rear wheels, pretty nifty. The building process left me exhausted, though. Still, I was glad I decided to buy it.

Yesterday I decided to build the truck. After opening the box the first thing that struck me was an almost entirely dog-eared instruction book. I read about that happening a lot lately, but it's an issue I handed over to the Service. What had me kinda confused was the amount of connectors and pins. Literally hundreds of them. From the heap of pieces I have on my table it looks like that set consists of pins and connectors only. There is exactly one(!) classic LEGO piece: a 1x6 black plate. The rest is pins, connectors, and studless beams. I should have sorted them, though. I noticed too late after I started to build it. It was a pain to pick out the pieces for each building step. Picking the pieces had a feeling of sorting to it, rather than building something. And those stud-less beams - I don't like 'em. It just isn't LEGO. Looking at all those pieces I had the feeling I'm building a "Fischertechnik" set (for those who don't know Fischertechnik: Fischertechnik Website).

I finished on page 39 yesterday. Considering I have 50 more pages for the truck, 30 more for the crane arm, and some necessary sorting to do, I'm not all that happy. But I will finish it, of course, cos I'm sure in the end it'll look great on the shelf. I'll let you know when I'm finished... in three years or so...

Now, after building (almost) three new Technic sets, I have to say I like the older Technic sets better. They had more of a LEGO feeling to them. And it's easier to make Model Team style models out of them to... "complete" them, so to speak :-) I might buy a few small Technic sets if I see one I like, but I'm not sure anymore if I'll get 8421, which was a sure buy up to now...

Again, I'm not saying Technic is cr@p, the sets all do look great in the end, but I guess I'm not used to that kind of building. Guess I'm too much a purist ;-)

[gylman]

I totally agree Hobbes.

Technic is where my principal interest lies in Lego, and it is vastly more fun to me to build the old sets than anything new. And not because of nostalgia either. I came out of my dark ages about 5 years ago, and have collected most Technic sets made, new or old, having never built them before.

Much of the difference is the technic stud and plate vs liftarm thing.The studless techique feels more like K'Nex. It seems to me you can do more interesting things by combining system + technic, which the studs allow easily. You can use liftarms with system lego, but it's harder and somehow doesn't look right.

The other part is simply that the older sets were more clever in their functions and technique.

There has been a rennaissance in Technic last 2 years - at least compared to what they were doing 5 years ago, but it comes nowhere near the old days. I have 8421, and built it. In fairness, there are a good number of 1x16 technic beams in there, for structural support of a very big set. It was on ok build, not as good as I had hoped for, but better than anything new (not-rereleased old good sets) for probably 5 years. The use of pneumatics in it was disappointing.

My top 5 technic sets include nothing from last 10 years. The space shuttle was 1996, and although it's a great set, it is very expensive for what it does. All the others are better value/fun for the money:

8868 airtech claw rig http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8868. Far and away this set does more than any other technic set ever did. There is no comparison.

8460 pneumatic crane truck http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8460 (re-released 2003)

8094 control centre http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8094. Clever original technic, we need more of this.

8480 space shuttle http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8480

855 the original crane truck http://guide.lugnet.com/set/855 (such an old set, but I built it for the first time last year, and was totally impressed by the thoughtfulness of design in this baby).

Honourable mention goes to the Backhoe Grader http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8862. It looks klunky, but the functionality is great. That one needs to be upgraded, but that's easily done with a few system bits.

I have some hopes for the big truck of this year's collection, but we shall see. I was very enthused about 8421, but it let me down. It's an awesome parts pack though....

[Hobbes]

It's funny, I haven't read one entirely good comment about 8421. Everybody says, "It's ok, but not great." Well, saves me 135 bucks ;-)

That's a nice list of "old" sets you have collected there, gylman. I've come across all of them on ebay at some time but never bid. Now I'm considering looking for those "older" sets again...

[gylman]

I can't recommend 8868 enough. You won't believe how much they pack into this set.

[snefroe]

i'm kinda wondering how old sets would look like if they were modified with newer lego technic parts. For instance, do you guys remember the old lego technic helicopter 8844? (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?q=8844_1&v=z)

i wonder how it would look with flexible hoses instead of old lego technic bars and connectors...

Sometimes the old sets look too sturdy, too primitive, too many corners instead of curves. i guess the trick is to combine both into modified sets...

[Hobbes]

  gylman said:

I can't recommend 8868 enough. You won't believe how much they pack into this set.

I'm watching two on ebay ;-)

  snefroe1 said:

i'm kinda wondering how old sets would look like if they were modified with newer lego technic parts. For instance, do you guys remember the old lego technic helicopter 8844)

*wub*

  Quote

Sometimes the old sets look too sturdy, too primitive, too many corners instead of curves. i guess the trick is to combine both into modified sets...

With the old set being the base... ;-)

I like the sturdy look. I don't mind studs on top - although some SNOT techniques are pretty cool and give you nice effects. But overall a LEGO model has to be recognizable as a LEGO model.

[gylman]

  snefroe1 said:

i'm kinda wondering how old sets would look like if they were modified with newer lego technic parts. For instance, do you guys remember the old lego technic helicopter 8844? (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?q=8844_1&v=z)

i wonder how it would look with flexible hoses instead of old lego technic bars and connectors...

Sometimes the old sets look too sturdy, too primitive, too many corners instead of curves. i guess the trick is to combine both into modified sets...

I've done that a few times. Probably I am not very good at it, but I didn't like the results. Just adding a piece here or there doesn't really change much. You have to add a whole bunch, which changes the proportions of hte model and tends to make it look wierd, or make it flimsy.

Never photographed any of my feeble efforts, or I'd show you what I mean. Probably somewhere on Brickshelf there's someione who has done a good job with this, but mostly what I see in that regard is racing cars, which is the one aspect of Technic that never interested me.

Probably you have to redesign from the ground up. The closets I have seen to agood combination is 8464/8439 http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8439, which might make it into my top 10 list. It looks very good to my eyes. The problem there is that it doesn't too much :-(

Can somone make 8862 look sexier? Probably, but I haven't seen a good example.

HObbes, if you are buying 8868, try not to get one that's too beaten up. The pneumatic functionality in this set is awesome, but pushes the tubes and pumps to their limit. If your pneumatic elements don't work right because of age it would be disappointing.

Also, before you build it make sure the large turntable works well, otherwise same problem.

[Hobbes]

  gylman said:

HObbes, if you are buying 8868, try not to get one that's too beaten up. The pneumatic functionality in this set is awesome, but pushes the tubes and pumps to their limit. If your pneumatic elements don't work right because of age it would be disappointing.

Also, before you build it make sure the large turntable works well, otherwise same problem.

Both are MIB and according to the sellers display models. But thanks for the hint.

[Mithrandir]

I have always been a huge fan of the old technic sets; nostalgia from when I was a kid.

So when I got back into Lego last year (in May), I thought I might delve into technic again, just to see how things have changed.

My first set was 8419, the Technic Excavator.

Building it was ... interesting. I couldn't really tell what the hell I was building until I was nearly done with it, and all of the new pieces really confused the heck out of me. But when I finished it, I had a serious "whoa that's neat" effect going on, and I was happy. It took me a while to figure out how the hell they got the excavator arm to work like that.

So, Okay, that was cool. Let's get some more. I got the Technic Aircraft (8434), which was kind of blah. Again, all the new pieces confused me and it didn't really feel like Lego.

I was bored though, so I kept buying sets, and I'll tell you what... the studless technic grew on me.

In fact, I think I prefer the studless lego over the studded now, but... I'm finding out that things work best when you combine the two.

The best example of this is set 8421 (Mobile Crane). They use mostly studless, adding a bunch of studded pieces where needed, and the result is truly amazing. I can safely say that this is single handedly the best technic set I have ever built; they just pack so much functionality into it, it's amazing.

It's not without it's problems, of course, but it's still great. The main problem with the set is the crane lowering mechanism; the boom crashes down because the air leaves the pneumatic cylinders too fast. I still haven't figured out a graceful way to fix this though; the only way I can think of is to put a pin-hole in a closed pneumatic loop on the output valve (small piece of hose, T-piece, small loop connecting the other two ends of the T), and I don't want to have to resort to that kind of a "hack" to get it to work.

Plus I initially thought using the RC motor was a little weird, seeing as how its speed is so damned high, but it worked well in the end; just have to gear it down a lot.

But the 6-wheel steering, 6-cylinder engine, the outriggers, boom extender (with clutch!!), and pneumatics make it really packed full of functioning.

Over the past month I've been playing around with building small modular "function blocks". For example, one I made was a 4-pump pneumatic auto-pump connected to a motor.

For my first design, I tried all studded, since I think the RC motor is too fast and I wanted to use either the Old 9V or the Clear 9V motors, which are studded. This looked ugly and was pretty clunky; it's very difficult to get gearing right when dealing with the odd heights of the studded bricks.

My second design was all studless... which was slightly less ugly, but not as stable. The problem with this design was that I was trying to shoehorn a studded motor into a studless design, and I needed to use a lot of small half-beams to adopt it into the form factor. This is because studded beams are even-lengths, and studless beams are odd-lengths.

Finally, yesterday I bit the bullet, and completely redesigned it. I decided to make the pumping mechanism and the gear train all studless, but use studded beams to secure the motor. While I was at it, I managed to shave 4 13x beams off of each side by using the newer bevel gears (which tend to fit into designs better, because their gear teeth don't stick out beyond stud boundaries), so the new design is smaller. Of course, one tradeoff I made when switching to the newer gears is that I used a 12t->36t gear down, rather than the 24t->24t even gear I had on the old design, so the newer design is 3x slower... but I switched out the grey motor with the clear motor (which is 1.5x faster than the grey one), so my new design pumps at half the speed of the old one, but has far more torque and doesn't stall when the air pressure gets high.

I also designed several screw-gear controlled pneumatic switches (for fine-control of how much air is allowed through a valve; I was hoping to use this as a solution to the 8421 boom crashing problem *sweet* ). After three huge and clumsy designs, I found out that when I mixed studded and studless beams, it worked out pretty well, and my final design is 8 studs shorter and 4 studs narrower than the other solutions.

I guess the moral of the story is that both studded and studless beams are very useful, and judging from 8421, I think Lego has realised that as well.

[Mithrandir]

I'd like to add that there have been several studless disasters;

Most notably is the 1:10 Enzo. In my opinion, a technic set needs to have at least one of two factors in order for it to be a great set.

It must either

a) Have lots of technic functions

b) be pretty

The Enzo does neither of these, and the only reason I'm not kicking myself for buying it is because it came with some cool CV joint parts, and was well worth the price as a parts-set.

Somehow, the Smaller, studded version looks a lot better.

Furthermore, I *HATE* technic panel fairings. Bloody useless...

[Ickelpete]

  Mithrandir said:

I'd like to add that there have been several studless disasters;

Most notably is the 1:10 Enzo. In my opinion, a technic set needs to have at least one of two factors in order for it to be a great set.

It must either

a) Have lots of technic functions

b) be pretty

The Enzo does neither of these, and the only reason I'm not kicking myself for buying it is because it came with some cool CV joint parts, and was well worth the price as a parts-set.

Somehow, the Smaller, studded version looks a lot better.

Furthermore, I *HATE* technic panel fairings. Bloody useless...

I quite like the Enzo but it was never marketed as technic it was Racers.

If you want to look at other themes the Starwars hailfire droid 4481 is one of the coolest looking technic sets around totally studless.

Anyway back to the orignal thread my first sets were 853 and 854 the orignal chassis and gokart that I bought back in 1978. These sets had as many standard bricks and plates as they had bricks with holes.

I used to enjoy building the engine from a hand full of plates there is not as much fun in putting together engines from one piece mouldings.

The mobile crane 8421 was the set that finally brought me out of my dark ages and it is a very chalenging build and looks great on display.

But the big problem with studless is the lack of ability to integrate with standard bricks the older set were great because you could build onto studed technic and add detail to your MOC's I totally agree with Mithrandir those Fairings look awfull and ther are really difficult to get to fit right.

[dunamis]

I've been trying to pick up an 8868 and keep getting outbid on Ebay...

This is a great topic as I got back into LEGO back in Jan of 2005 after begin out for some 20 years. I had a number of the original technic sets but have recently picked up some of the new ones. I did manage to snag a MISB Space Shuttle recently and will start building it in the next couple of weeks.

Keep recommending sets as this is great for me to catch up on the late 80s and 90s sets that I might have missed.

[5150 Lego]

First off, i'd like to say this is a great topic! Great to see everyone opinions on somany differnt techinc sets!

For me, its a toss up. I think both stud,and studless builds have there advantages, as well as there disadvantages. One thing i've noticed is studded lego set are much stronger than the studless sets. A good example would be 8436 truck. The chassis has quite a bit of flex in it. Being that it doesn't have suspention, it isn't really a bad thing. It does allow it move about the floor a bit easier, but i noticed when i push it from atop the cab, it bends.

I rememeber when i got 8868 brand new when i was a kid :-) . It was my first real techinc build! I rememeber that build quite well. The most memorable part was when i found out i had to cut the hose to size. I thought there was somthing wrong,and wanted to return it thinking "lego would never make you go though all that trouble! It must be a packaging problem!!" I gotas far as building the chassis, and got so upset, that i didn't want to finish the build. My dad quickly calmed me down, and assisted me with cutting all the hoses to size, and labeling them. (man there were alot.) After to fun filled days, it was complete.

Now back in the day, i would play with all my lego sets. The side of my house was my play area. 8868, along with 8460 crane truck, (forgive me i can't remeber the set numer, but it was the red truck and trailer with the yellow forklift) and a few other sets and some mocs i made would spend hours back there. These models built many buildings, roadways, pipelines, (i built a drainage system for the water that ran off the roof of the house inot a little lake), and many other prodjects. In fact, 8460 still has 10yr old dirt on its wheels, and under the chassis! (i still have it assembled. It was my favorite and never had the heart to take it apart. *wub* )

....Anyways, back to my original point about stiffness. I remeber when driving the trucks over the dirt, oneof the things that bothered me about them was how stiff the chassis were. No flex whatsoever. At the time i thought it sucked, but it served good when towing. :-P But without suspention, it does make studded techinc slightley less enjoyable.

  Mithrandir said:

In fact, I think I prefer the studless lego over the studded now, but... I'm finding out that things work best when you combine the two.

The best example of this is set 8421 (Mobile Crane). They use mostly studless, adding a bunch of studded pieces where needed, and the result is truly amazing. I can safely say that this is single handedly the best technic set I have ever built; they just pack so much functionality into it, it's amazing.

It's not without it's problems, of course, but it's still great. The main problem with the set is the crane lowering mechanism; the boom crashes down because the air leaves the pneumatic cylinders too fast. I still haven't figured out a graceful way to fix this though; the only way I can think of is to put a pin-hole in a closed pneumatic loop on the output valve (small piece of hose, T-piece, small loop connecting the other two ends of the T), and I don't want to have to resort to that kind of a "hack" to get it to work.

Plus I initially thought using the RC motor was a little weird, seeing as how its speed is so damned high, but it worked well in the end; just have to gear it down a lot.

But the 6-wheel steering, 6-cylinder engine, the outriggers, boom extender (with clutch!!), and pneumatics make it really packed full of functioning.

I guess the moral of the story is that both studded and studless beams are very useful, and judging from 8421, I think Lego has realised that as well.

I'd have to agree. 8421 is a great build. . Visually it is one of the most beautiful techinc sets ever made. Perfect blend of old and new. There were a couple flaws, but i every set has those. The main problem as many have meantioned is the arm crashing down when air is let out. My soution was to add 2 more pnuematic cylinders, and conect the opened nozels on the cylinders, and hook them up to the open switch valve. It worked very well, and greatly improved the lifting power as well (whitch i felt was another problem).

Over all i don't know wheather i like studded, or studless better. Studded is defently easier to moc (at least for me), but i have to admit,studless is visually more appealing.

On a side note, i bought 8455 backhoe, and 8439 front end loader and should recieve them in about a week. With one being studded, and the other studless, it should be interesteing comparing the 2 side by side.

[catch-22]

I hear what you're saying. I personally feel that way far more about the system sets, though.

Some of the newer Technic sets I quite like. 8455 being my personal favorite.

[Hobbes]

  Mithrandir said:

I couldn't really tell what the hell I was building until I was nearly done with it, and all of the new pieces really confused the heck out of me. But when I finished it, I had a serious "whoa that's neat" effect going on, and I was happy.

I know exactly how you felt ;-)

  5150 Lego said:

The main problem as many have meantioned is the arm crashing down when air is let out. My soution was to add 2 more pnuematic cylinders, and conect the opened nozels on the cylinders, and hook them up to the open switch valve. It worked very well, and greatly improved the lifting power as well (whitch i felt was another problem).

Should I ever get one I'm gonna ask for a pic cos I know I'm not going to like a crashing crane arm and I don't really trust in my modding skills that much ;-)

And if you don't mind, I'd like to hear how you liked 8439 and 8455 once you built them, cos they're on my wish list, too :-$

Oh, I finished the truck yesterday. The chassis at least, the crane arm's next. I never thought it would bother me, but I ran into a color issue: 4 pieces were old dark grey where all others are new dark grey. The pieces are used in the seats of the driver cabin, so they ain't really visible. But it did bother me when I found out. And I'll always know. So, work for the Service again. I'm not a die-hard defender of the old colors, but when I buy a new set I want the colors to fit together, old or new. If I build MOCs I probably won't mind... dunno... Anyways, the entire thing should be finished tonight :-)

[Mithrandir]

  5150 Lego said:

Over all i don't know wheather i like studded, or studless better. Studded is defently easier to moc (at least for me), but i have to admit,studless is visually more appealing.

On a side note, i bought 8455 backhoe, and 8439 front end loader and should recieve them in about a week. With one being studded, and the other studless, it should be interesteing comparing the 2 side by side.

I bought 8455 last month; spent $170 on it, which was probably a bit more than I should have spent, but overall, it's an amazing set.

It's kind of frustrating at first, because pneumatics are very hard to illustrate in the instructions, so you're constantly staring at the instructions, wondering if you've got it right.

Luckily, everything turned out right :)

As far as I'm concerned, 8455 is THE pneumatic set. It has 10 (TEN!!) pneumatic cylinders, 7 switches, 500cm of tubing, and 14 T-pieces. The only thing I'm disappointed at is that it didn't come with any airtanks.

By the way, Lego has officially discontinued the blue air tank piece and will no longer be selling them anymore (I managed to grab 5 on bricklink for about $12 each, and now there's only 1 left @$20).

Anyway, back to 8455, it's simply amazing how it all fits together. The outriggers, front shovel (lift and dump functions), and back scoop (turn, lift lower arm, lift upper arm, dump scoop functions) are all pneumatic, and the way they made the pumps work is INCREDIBLY clever. Hell, they even threw a 3-cylinder engine and differential into the set, when it really didn't need it. Overall, I'm happy. Only problem is that it runs out of air very quickly (with 10 cylinders to power, that's not a surprise!), so it's a little curious why they didn't include any airtanks with this set. *shrug* I'll try to build one or two into it someday I think.

I've been pondering getting 8439/8464/8459 for a while now (does anyone know why this set was made with 3 different numbers?! It's so hard to track down because of it!), but I'm not sure if it's worth the cost. If you can, post your opinions of it after you build it, I'm interested in hearing!

Also, while I'm on the topic of pneumatics... does anyone have any good way of attaching two of the new pneumatic cylinders together end-to-end?

I have 8421 and they use a special piece to do this, but I'm not ready to take my crane apart yet, and the damn things sell for $6+ on bricklink, so I'm not really sure I want to go down that route yet.

[Mithrandir]

  Ickelpete said:

  Mithrandir said:

I'd like to add that there have been several studless disasters;

Most notably is the 1:10 Enzo. In my opinion, a technic set needs to have at least one of two factors in order for it to be a great set.

It must either

a) Have lots of technic functions

b) be pretty

The Enzo does neither of these, and the only reason I'm not kicking myself for buying it is because it came with some cool CV joint parts, and was well worth the price as a parts-set.

Somehow, the Smaller, studded version looks a lot better.

Furthermore, I *HATE* technic panel fairings. Bloody useless...

I quite like the Enzo but it was never marketed as technic it was Racers.

Yes, that's true, but I feel that they probably could have made the darn thing look better. I built it about a month ago and I'm already tempted to take it apart (mainly so I can play with the CV joints *sweet* ), because it's just so darned ugly. The fairings are the worst part in my opinion. They were designed to be used on smaller scale models, so when you put them onto the huge 1:10 Enzo, there's a TON of open space and the entire thing ends up looking pretty ugly.

The worst part is the hood; it's about 40% open space; plus the doors are pretty flimsy too.

However, I do like the frame of the car, and I was having a TON of fun putting it together up until the very end, so maybe I'll strip off the Enzo features and try to make it into something better.

Also, I think the Nitro Menace is a beautiful car; that's what Racers should be about. Almost no technical stuff, but damn it looks good and was fun to build. I think the reason it looks great is because it's a smaller scale and the fairings actually do a good job of covering up everything; unlike the enzo.

[dunamis]

I've been pondering the following sets. Does anyone have any feedback on these:

8428/8432

8466

8485 Seems impossible to find

8862

8446 Also hard to find

Thanks for the feedback and ideas!

[gylman]

  dunamis said:

I've been pondering the following sets. Does anyone have any feedback on these:

8428/8432

8466

8485 Seems impossible to find

8862

8446 Also hard to find

Thanks for the feedback and ideas!

Here's my 0.02c

Keep in mind I don't much care for cars that just sit there and look pretty

8428: bleh. It just sits there and looks pretty. Built it, sold it.

8466: never built this one. It's supposed to be really cool for the suspension, but I find that boring. What else is there to this one? Not much.

8485: I have this one. Its very good, and an awesome source of useful parts. Highly recommended.

8862: highly recommended. Not too expensive, compared to 8485 for example, and lots of functions. Looks "blocky". But as you can see from my first post in this topic, I regard this as one of the classics.

8446: don't have it. Don't see the appeal.

  Mithrandir said:

By the way, Lego has officially discontinued the blue air tank piece and will no longer be selling them anymore (I managed to grab 5 on bricklink for about $12 each, and now there's only 1 left @$20).

.

.

.

I've been pondering getting 8439/8464/8459 for a while now (does anyone know why this set was made with 3 different numbers?! It's so hard to track down because of it!), but I'm not sure if it's worth the cost. If you can, post your opinions of it after you build it, I'm interested in hearing!

One of my all time ebay Snags. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=6036712475

"large blue pods". LMFAO

Re: your other question

I built 8464 out of spare parts a few weeks ago (I had to get the big bucket on bricklink, but the rest was pretty easy to fish out of my vast technic collection). The build is fun - no doubt. It looks good on the shelf. It feels solid in your hands.

However... the turning mechanism is a bit odd ( The front part of the cab turns, while the back does not. More importantly..... it just don't do much. Raise bucket, empty bucket. Lower bucket. Fill bucket. repeat ad infinitum. It's no 8868, that's for sure. I also don't like the wheels. It looks much better with classic technic wheels like on 8862.

Overall, I would put in in the top 11-20 technic sets ever made, but not in the top 10, especially considering cost.

[dunamis]

Great info, thanks!

One more question: Anyone have any thoughts on the 8880 Super Car?

8880

[gylman]

It is a very fun build. I have this model, and have built it and taken it apart several times.

But, at the end of the day, it's just a car. So, it sits there....

The alternate model is bleh.

However, 8880 is an incredible black parts pack.

So, I would recommend it over any other technic car ever made. I actually like it better than the 8448 Mark II super car, but that's probably because I am biased against new technic.

[5150 Lego]

  Hobbes said:

Should I ever get one I'm gonna ask for a pic cos I know I'm not going to like a crashing crane arm and I don't really trust in my modding skills that much ;-)

No problem. :-) I was actuallythinking about doing a full review sincei've noticed that there has been alot of discusion about 8421 in the last couple months.

  Hobbes said:

And if you don't mind, I'd like to hear how you liked 8439 and 8455 once you built them, cos they're on my wish list, too :-$

Again, my pleasure. I can do a full review on both. 8455 seems to be alot of peoples favorites,i'msure it will be one of mine as well. Hopefully the'll be here by friday!!! X-D X-D Should be built by the end of next week!!

  Hobbes said:

Oh, I finished the truck yesterday. The chassis at least, the crane arm's next. I never thought it would bother me, but I ran into a color issue: 4 pieces were old dark grey where all others are new dark grey. The pieces are used in the seats of the driver cabin, so they ain't really visible. But it did bother me when I found out. And I'll always know. So, work for the Service again. I'm not a die-hard defender of the old colors, but when I buy a new set I want the colors to fit together, old or new. If I build MOCs I probably won't mind... dunno... Anyways, the entire thing should be finished tonight :-)

Whitch crane are you building? I built the folding crane, soi can still hook up a trailer to the 5th wheel. Although it can't lift much, it does look great and the funtions are nice.

  gylman said:

Re: your other question

I built 8464 out of spare parts a few weeks ago (I had to get the big bucket on bricklink, but the rest was pretty easy to fish out of my vast technic collection). The build is fun - no doubt. It looks good on the shelf. It feels solid in your hands.

However... the turning mechanism is a bit odd ( The front part of the cab turns, while the back does not. More importantly..... it just don't do much. Raise bucket, empty bucket. Lower bucket. Fill bucket. repeat ad infinitum. It's no 8868, that's for sure. I also don't like the wheels. It looks much better with classic technic wheels like on 8862.

Overall, I would put in in the top 11-20 technic sets ever made, but not in the top 10, especially considering cost.

gylman,do you think that the airtank is nesasary for 8464? Since i don't have one already (and don't want to spend $20 on one at brink link) i was thinking about using it with 8455 since it seems it would be a better use on that model.

[gylman]

Functionally, 8464 would be very bleh without the air tank - you would have to pump more or less constantly to make it do what little it does. However, it seems to me that the airtank would clearly be more useful in 8455.

Frankly, I can't think of any pneumatic set that woudl not be vastly better off with an air tank. Even 8868 would likely work a lot more smoothly,even though it has a motorized compressor.

I just had a look on eBay, and these tanks are getting nearly impossible to obtain! Wow. I can't believe TLC has decided to stop making this part.

[5150 Lego]

  gylman said:

Functionally, 8464 would be very bleh without the air tank - you would have to pump more or less constantly to make it do what little it does. However, it seems to me that the airtank would clearly be more useful in 8455.

Frankly, I can't think of any pneumatic set that woudl not be vastly better off with an air tank. Even 8868 would likely work a lot more smoothly,even though it has a motorized compressor.

I just had a look on eBay, and these tanks are getting nearly impossible to obtain! Wow. I can't believe TLC has decided to stop making this part.

Thanks for the input! I'm actually thinking of bitng the bullet and purchasing that last airtank on bricklink. Not sure if i'll have another opertunity to get one. Errrr..... Somany other ways i'd rather spend $20. *sing* But if it would make the model more enjoyable,...... I guess it would be worth it. :-)

[gylman]

<moves his pneumatic air tanks to the safety deposit box>

I'd suggest buying the bricklink one. But why not from this store. He has two for 11.50 each

http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Jungl...&itemID=5654215

Price is reasonable, shipping reasonable, he takes paypal....

Buy 'em before they are gone forever!