Review: 42111 Dom's Dodge Charger
Posted by Huw,
42111 Dom's Dodge Charger has recently been released and is interesting because it's the first Technic set that is licensed from a fictional franchise, Fast & Furious (other than the Star Wars droids, I've been reminded).
Of course, it's based on a real car, a 1970s Dodge Charger R/T, but one specific one: that driven by Vin Diesel's character in the first film in the series, The Fast and the Furious, released in 2001.
I wanted to like it, I really did, but it's hard to...
The prototype
Let's remind ourselves what the real vehicle looks like. These pictures, from Carscoops are of the one used in the 2009 entry in the franchise, Fast & Furious, which is very similar to that seen in the original.
Like most American sports cars of the era, I find it very ugly and unappealing. Perhaps that's because those of us in Europe grew up lusting after the sleek and sexy curves of Ferraris and Lamborghinis rather than big, heavy muscle cars.
Parts
Parts are packaged in numbered bags which is always a relief because it makes construction so much easier and provides 'checkpoints' whilst building.
There are only a few noteworthy parts in the set. The 'Bionicle eye' appears here for the first time in black, and the 3l axle joiner in black is new this year.
There are a couple of black biscuits, which will be new to some, and also a dark grey 15x11 frame, which so far have only been found in Spike Prime.
There's a small sticker sheet which, interestingly, includes a copyright notice sticker which is applied to the underneath of chassis, if you so wish.
Construction
Parts in the first set of bags are used to build the back half of the chassis. The rear axle is sprung, and transmission to it fed through this 'power joint' part and the corresponding part that mates with it which have been resurrected after five years out of use.
The chassis and engine are completed in part two of the build and, unusually, the wheels are attached at this point rather than at the end of construction.
The 8-cylinder engine uses parts unchanged since the 1990s. Putting the engine together is always the most tedious and fiddly part of building vehicles...
Here you can see the 'power joints', the unusual rear suspension, and the mechanism that raises the front wheels off the ground -- the 'wheelie support'.
The grey lever in the centre of what will be the interior of the car, operates it.
Bags #3 provide parts for the front bodywork, interior and engine details.
Finally, parts in bags numbered four complete the back of the car.
The completed model
I will let you peruse the pictures and make up your own mind before I tell you what I think of it.
There's a decent level of detail under the bonnet...
And nitrous oxide cylinders in the boot.
Other than the steering wheel, driver's seat and red fire extinguisher, the interior is bare. Disappointingly for a Technic set of this price the steering wheel does not operate the steering.
Instead, the vehicle is steered using a black gear at the back.
The 'wheelie support' is operated by flicking the lever inside. However, the lever is right in the middle of the interior and requires some force to push down so unless you have muscular, child-size hands you'll find it virtually impossible to operate. It's easier to just pull the support down from the bottom.
Now I'll tell you what I think. I think it looks like a black brick on wheels. The bodywork is completely square and does not look much like a Dodge Charger at all.
The wheels are set too far into the bodywork: it looks as if the chassis is not wide enough for it, although it has to be like that to allow the suspension to function. There's about a 1.5 stud gap between the wheels and the bodywork which, particularly at the front, looks terrible.
The wheels are attached using axles that are too long, so there's one stud-length of axle sticking out from the centres. I have no idea why: there are perfectly good shorter axles that could have been used. It does allow the wheels to be pulled out a bit, but then they interfere with the bodywork, particularly at the back.
The back of the car looks abysmal and the lack of rear window, or even the impression of one, makes the car look like some sort of pick-up truck.
From the front it doesn't look too bad. The engine looks cool and the trim around the headlights is pretty good, too, which will be why the box artwork emphasises this part of the model. However, it's a bit flimsy and it appears to be black on the real vehicle.
From the top, though, its faults are plain to see: it's just a square block! As I said, the Charger is an ugly car at the best of times but it's not quite as square and chunky as this!
Verdict
I am sure the designers have done the best they can, given the limitations and restrictions of the Technic parts palette, but the lack of curves and block-like appearance of the model do not do the real car -- which is something of an eyesore to start with -- any justice at all.
Being black doesn't help: even the driver's seat inside is black so that hasn't been able to provide any contrast as is usually the case.
On a more positive note, the chassis itself is actually pretty good: the suspension works well and the transmission/engine is well implemented, so I guess you could use that as a starting point for your own, more appropriate, MOC.
It was definitely a mistake to model it in Technic. It should have been a Creator Expert vehicle, where the use of the myriad curved parts available and modern construction techniques would have enabled the designers to do the vehicle's bodywork some justice. When compared to 10265 Ford Mustang, well, there is no comparison. The Creator set looks like a real car, this one doesn't.
This is one of the worst Technic cars LEGO has produced, in my opinion. It was the wrong car to model and the wrong LEGO system to model it in.
LEGO has proved that it can make stunning Technic models of cars -- last year's Land Rover, for example -- but it needs to pick its subjects more carefully and stick to those that are suited to the medium.
I can't really recommend it to anyone other than die-hard Fast & Furious fans who, even so, are likely to be disappointed unless they are prepared to overlook its significant shortcomings. It may well draw in new customers: petrol-heads and F&F fans who have not touched LEGO since they were kids, perhaps, and I guess that is the point of it. I just hope it doesn't give a bad first impression.
Thanks to LEGO for providing the set for review. All opinions expressed are my own.
126 likes
70 comments on this article
Thanks for this excellent and thoughtful review. I had been wondering about adding this to my collection, and you've saved me some money!
Really appreciate this insight:
"Parts are packaged in numbered bags which is always a relief because it makes construction so much easier and provides 'checkpoints' whilst building."
which is so true for Technic builds! Hadn't ever thought of that before, but it is great to have that checkpoint to be sure you haven't omitted any parts in the build.
Thanks for all the great work!
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the new Bionicle Eye (48267) and the old one (41669)? The old part number appeared in black in loads of sets.
Damning review!
Not my cup of tea so wasn’t on my wish list anyway
Your review is a bit harsh, but it's good to hear things from a different point of view.
I'm not sure this car would be better in Creator Expert form, since it is after all a black box. The shaping would've definitely looked more accurate with the variety of curved slopes combined with SNOT building, as opposed to Technic panels. There would've been no suspension or faulty pop-up action, which is a functionality plus for Technic.
For me it falls into the "affordable" medium-sized Technic category: Good for its size, but not perfect.
Completely agree that this should have been a Creator Expert set.
I dread the Fiat set (sorry) and would took this any day over it, especially in the quality of the Ford Mustang.
It was a huge missed opportunity - in my opinion at least. :\
Disagree about your dislike of Charger's I really like them being a"Duke's of Hazzard" fan. But do agree that it should have been a Creator set as I really love the Mustang
I've been reading Brickset articles for many, many years and this might be the most negative review I've seen on the main page. As an American I would choose a Mustang or Charger any day over a Ferrari or Lamborghini. However, I appreciate Huw's honesty and tend to agree with him on this set. I found myself smiling throughout the review as I'm much more accustomed to the gushing reviews touting the many positive aspects of sets. Thanks again Huw!
Wasn't the Astron Martian licensed from a fictional franchise? I don't know. I shouldn't doubt this review.
I'm glad I was never planning to get this, this review totally would have changed my mind!
Can't say I've got any strong opinions on this one since I'm not really a Technic person, but I can't stop chuckling at how daft the presense of a sticker with just Universal's copyright information is. Imagine the conversations and meetings that must've happened to result in that!
The 68 to 70 Chargers are some of the best looking Muscle Cars in real life. Then the stupid movie wrecks it by putting a blower on it. There was no way to make this in LEGO, and make it look good.
@BlobfishBricks I believe the Aston Martin was Creator and not Technic.
I agree with this review completely. I'm a huge fan of American muscle (The Creator Mustang is one of my favorite sets) and the Fast and Furious series, and from the first reveal images I thought this was a dud. If you want an affordable Technic car, the Corvette from last year or the Rally Car from 2018 were great examples of how to do it right.
I very much appreciated the candor of this review. While it is true that most reviews on Brickset are very positive, I think it is fair to suggest that most LEGO models are very well done. Every fan may not like every theme or each set within a theme, but they are still generally well executed for what they are. Unfortunately, that just draws more attention to those that aren't. I haven't seen this set in person, but I didn't care for the images from the start.
Beyond the shortcomings described in this review, there are two aspects of this design that bother me. The first is that when comparing the set to the source material, the resulting model looks like it has been stepped upon, and perhaps heavily. (Maybe that is what broke out the back windshield?) The second is that it looks like it has been riddled with gunfire, almost as though Dom has come out on the short end of a gunfight with John Wick, who always seems to have more ammunition than everyone else..
I've been buzzing for this since it was announced and I have a few problems with your review!! Unfortunately, all of them are with your opinions on the Charger and not the Technic kit itself.
I love the Charger, No1 on my Dream Garage list no less, but even I have to say this looks like crap. The promo shots have hidden a myriad of sins that your review has flagged up brilliantly. Thank you for saving me the better part of £100.
Haha wow, that back window area is pathetic. They didn't even try.
I've seen some great Charger fan MOCs, ditching the suspension would have let them improve the appearance a lot
@Huw I think in all my years on the site this is probably your harshest critique. Not that I don't think it unfounded. I agree that doing this in Technic as opposed to Creator just didn't do the car justice. The charger isn't a ugly car its just its focus was raw power not sleek aerodynamic design.
I was very excited about a Lego and F&F collaboration but then I saw the model and I felt the same way as I did when I saw the Lego Aston Martin DB5 in the flesh.
I think the price is good (and I was going to pick one up at my work after the lockdown when we can go back to work) but even after discount I will give this a pass. The upcoming Lego Technic Lamborghini (teaser video shown earlier on here) sounds more of an interesting proposition.
I think the problems with this are:
1. It should been Lego Creator - would have looked more realistic and fun to build.
2. The wheels are TOO big and they're not period correct - the Lego Expert Ford Mustang have correct wheels for it. A gentleman on YouTube had this set and tried the Mustang wheels on this set but they looked too small. And there's no size in between so your stuck with a car with DUB-style wheels.
3. Ride height is too high - the same guy on YouTube developed a method to lower the stance making it look much better but at a compromise of suspension travel.
4. Seats could have been a different colour - I'm not expert and they're probably black in the real car but alternative colour would make it look less dreary inside. Same with the steering wheel - why make it huge? Why not make one scale correct and use that for future cars? It's not like it's a one off and never to be used ever again on a Lego set.
Think it's a hard pass for me. I still think the VW Camper Van and Ferrari F40 are the best licensed Lego vehicle sets so far made. Aston Martin? No thanks. Fiat 500? Boring. Dodge Charger. Money saved.
I may be alone here, but I actually like this set. As a fan of the late 60's and early 70's muscle cars, it's nice to see LEGO make an American muscle car technic model. It seems in your photos that the angles technic panels are misaligned that make up the rear window area. The instructions are hard to see, but on the bottom left of page 228 of the instructions, it is supposed to sit 'on top' of the light grey technic pin, not under which helps the profile look better. I agree it is boxy, but that is the nature of the cars. Also, it is interesting that the image they chose to include in the back of the instructions had the black front 'nose' bumper, but in the film it was clearly chrome. I hope they play around with different designs/cars in this franchise.
@Toa_of_Pi: Well one difference is that https://brickset.com/parts/design-41669 appeared in both solid and transparent colors, using polycarbonate as the material for both.
As of this year, LEGO has introduced not one but TWO new design IDs for the Bionicle eye: https://brickset.com/parts/design-48267 for solid colors, possibly now in ABS, and https://brickset.com/parts/design-51446 for transparent colors. I believe the transparent ones are probably in the new transparent material that LEGO has started using over the past year, which doesn't bind together like older polycarbonate parts (lightsaber blades, 1x1 cones, etc) often tended to.
This really facilitates a lot of building options that would have previously been EXTREMELY risky — for example, the connection between the lightsaber blade pieces and printed "health meters" in this year's Ninjago sets would have almost certainly been out of the question before this materials change, since it would be an ordeal to separate two polycarbonate parts attached in that fashion!
There are many other long-established parts that have likewise gotten new design IDs assigned to them over the past few years, which in many cases may be due to similar changes in material. It's a little confusing, but hopefully the updated molds and materials are high enough quality that LEGO will be able to stick with them — and with the corresponding design ID numbers — going forward.
@t You are right, they were slightly misaligned so I've corrected the images where it's visible.
Honesty should obviously be a prerequisite for all forms of reviewing, but although I agree with most of the negativity I find it something of a problem that the reviewer chosen for this set seemingly loathes this type of car to begin with. Now, I realise that Brickset does not have a vast stable of reviewers to choose from, but imagine if a review of a Star Wars or Harry Potter set started with such damning words on the subject as a whole before even getting into the set itself. There is just no way that such prejudice will not affect the review in some way. Combined with the fact that - as several others have pointed out - Brickset reviews tend to be quite positive when compared with other sites etc. this made for fascinating reading. The only other Brickset review over the last few years I can think of that has reached such depths of negativity is the review of 75201 First Order AT-ST. Is this set really THAT bad?
We do match reviews with reviewer's interests. There's no point me reviewing a Friends or Ninjago set when I care little for the subjects. But I love Technic, and have done since coming out of my dark ages 25 years ago, so it was reasonable for me to review it.
I don't necessarily like American muscle cars so perhaps someone who does should have reviewed it instead. I do however know a good (or bad) Technic set when I see one.
@Huw said:
"We do match reviews with reviewers interests. There's no point me reviewing a Friends or Ninjago set when I care little for the subjects. But I love Technic, and have done since coming out of my dark ages 25 years ago, so it was reasonable for me to review it.
I don't necessarily like American muscle cars so perhaps someone who does should have reviewed it instead. I do however know a good (or bad) Technic set when I see one."
I certainly agree regarding matching reviewers, and do not doubt your expertise in rating Technic sets, nor that this is a poor one. But, there is a difference between "[...] not necessarily liking American muscle cars" and "[...] finding it very ugly and unappealing." Wording such as the latter of these two are extremely harsh and - in my opinion - very different from the former, and when viewed against the backdrop of Brickset reviews in general indicative of a truly horrible set (which it very well might be, of course).
@Aanchir That's pretty interesting. Thank you very much for the info! Now I kinda want to see an in depth article on other pieces that had similar situations...
@The_Cellarer , another factor in the choice of reviewers is that we are not always told exactly what sets are when they are offered. We would have been told that this one was Technic but no further details because it was offered before the reveal.
Therefore, it can be difficult to target the correct reviewer and once I'd received this I certainly didn't want to traipse down the post office with it, social distance while there, and pay to send it to someone else!
I am pleased to read your negative feedback in this. I think it looks terrible.
@Huw said:
" @The_Cellarer , another factor in the choice of reviewers is that we are not always told exactly what sets are when they are offered. We would have been told that this one was Technic but no further details because it was offered before the reveal.
Therefore, it can be difficult to target the correct reviewer and once I'd received this I certainly didn't want to traipse down the post office with it, social distance while there, and pay to send it to someone else!"
Thanks for the replies @Huw. I understand and certainly agree with the above statement regarding social distancing etc. I was just taken aback by the unusually harsh wording, but appreciate the insight into the inner workings of the reviewing process etc.
Thanks for the thorough review. Looks like a Technic car set I will pass on...
Thanks for this harsh review.
Harsh, but ultimately fair review of a truly god-awful looking lego model of a car from someone who undoubtedly knows what he is talking about. However, describing American muscle cars (and the Charger certainly is one) as “ugly and unappealing”... Well. Have to disagree there. As much as the European style cars are very sleek and sexy, the American style cars are just as appealing to the ladies as their Euro cousins. You can 100% believe me on that one.
That copyright sticker will likely be the least applied sticker in the history of Lego sets.
My recent "limiting rule" for Lego purchases was to buy only licensed Technic sets - plus the odd fantastic ones from Technic and other themes. I already had reservation about this set when I saw the pictures. The other day I "read" the building instructions from start to finish and was thoroughly underwelmed by it. As such, my "limiting rule" is now: licensed set of existing vehicle brand. This will allow me to pass on this one and also the abomination which is the Top Gear set. The only problem I can see with this set is if they decide to do a few models - then if you skip the first one, it may come back haunting you later (I'll sleep on that for a few months). The other problem I'm having with this set is the "wheelie" function. There are trans-clear Lego Technic parts - all the beams part of that wheelie thingy should have been in trans-clear. The front wheels should be narrower than the rear wheels. Finally, just like they did for the Land Rover, they should have used more system parts around the windows to smooth things up a little bit. It is not forbidden you know.
Maybe one day Lego will finally understand that blue pins are not good at all in any but one circumstance (when the model is blue) and will revert back to black pins (lesser evil). Heck, for these panels, they should come up with a new part that protrude a bit more and fills up the hole of the panel completely for a nice finish (obviously same colour as the panel).
I was also surprised at the negative tone of the review (since I am not used to it on Brickset) but I find it fine. I would assume this kind of view happens when expectations are somewhat high and are not being met. The Same happened to me and was so disappointed in the set that it prompted me to change my buying rules.
@Schmopiesdad : I had a good laugh at your reference of Dom meeting John Wick!
Here is a new contest for Brickset: fix this car! While still keeping it "Technic" do the appropriate mods to make it look like what it is supposed to be. ;-)
(basically, the whole car has to be lowered down by one beam)
@Huw You OK hun?
But seriously, great review, cheered me up for some weird reason :)
^ Lockdown must be getting to me :)
Nice to see an honest review. All Lego are not good. Hopefully some day there will be an article why Wonder Women gets one set and why they're are 50 different versions of each Star Wars ship.
That being said, yes I agree not the best technic car, but wht technic car is good?? they all have holes every where and panels never line up perfectly (like the headlights on the 911, that's just ugly) Can u imagine a bugatti with system bricks? that wud be cool.
The FF needs to be technic cuz the movies are all about car tech, a Lego charger without suspension and working engine doesn't suit the movie. shud they have made it a little better sure, but I don't think people wud buy a $350 charger. it's a cheap way to attract people to technic with an iconic franchise.
@HOBBES said:
"Here is a new contest for Brickset: fix this car! While still keeping it "Technic" do the appropriate mods to make it look like what it is supposed to be. ;-)
(basically, the whole car has to be lowered down by one beam)"
Sensational idea! When this set was announced I was so pumped to get it. I grew up watching "Dukes" and own a 1975 Valiant Charger that I'm restoring (which by the way has been voted the sexiest Australian car ever made!) A few years ago I had the opportunity to buy a Dodge Charger and passed it up based on a review of the car on Top Gear by Richard Hammond - bad financial mistake looking back now. Nonetheless, I've always loved the shape and sound of this car.
A competition to "fix" this model, complete with instructions and a parts list, may actually save this set from sitting on the shelves for years to come. I for one would buy it!
Honestly I looked at it and saw Ghost Rider! I'm really disappointed in it but I guess I'll stick to the mustang. By the way, how does it compare size wise?
Wow. Usually it is me who offers such harsh words of critique. I never thought I would ever see the day where Huw would write a review this scathing.
But guess what, I completely agree with him on this godawful set.
I never understood why TLG tries to kill Technic with their efforts in recent years, with this being just another unnecessary addition to the theme.
Don't get me wrong, I quite like American muscle cars (and I really like the Dukes of Hazard TV show - I have got the complete set of DVDs - not only for the General Lee but the whole Seventies feeling).
But, for a start, I find it totally unnecessary to get the F&F licence, a franchise totally unbefitting of LEGO's values and ethics, in order to make a Dodge Charger. They had the Dodge licence already anyway, so why?
And secondly, why not a Creator Expert vehicle? It would have made a perfect companion for the Mustang, and the shape could have certainly been better replicated with system pieces rather than Technic.
My uncle had a 69 or 70 Dodge Charger in red with a black vinyl roof. It was a beautiful car and the rumble of it's V8 engine was amazing. I have fond memories of that gorgeous vehicle. That said, I was extremely disappointed in the first views of this set and this review only confirms it. The allure of American cars from this era are in the subtle undulating curves that LEGO would have to invent new Technic panels to even attempt to replicate. I think this project was ill-conceived to begin with. I agree with others that the Creator team should have taken a shot at it.
It's too bad – it might have been cool to see some of the other vehicles from the F&F franchise.
Missed opportunity by Lego not making this a Creator Expert set, last year's Mustang was a masterpiece.
That model of Charger simply is a plug-ugly car. In particular, I can't stand the graceless oval chrome trim that usually surrounds both the headlights and grille rather than creating a clean separation between the two. That said, there are a number of cars from that era that actually do look great. In particular, I absolutely love the look of the split-window Corvette Sting Ray (though that's technically a sports car, not a muscle car). The late-60's Pontiac GTOs also look pretty cool.
Bohrok eye has previously appeared in black in 42 sets, starting with Spybotics Snaptrax S45 in 2002, and ending with last year's Batman Mech Vs. Poison Ivy Mech.
@Aanchir:
That may be true, but it's irrelevant for this part. The only connection it has is an axle hole. Axles, so far, haven't come in transparent colors (there are four sellers on Bricklink who have transparent axles listed, but they don't correlate to any "known sets"). Offhand, I can't think of any transparent parts that have male axle connections (doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I'm not aware of any). So really the only trans-on-trans connection that's possible with these that I know of are bars like the lightsaber blade. And that is a pretty weak connection, that often requires rotating the bar to get a point where it'll actually have enough grip to keep the Bohrok eye from just falling off.
Hobbes said: "Here is a new contest for Brickset: fix this car!"
This sounds like a really interesting regular contest concept, pick a "swing and miss" model (one that has been highly anticipated but ends up with low ratings and negative reviews) and challenge the readers to improve it - either by modding the set or building a MOC from scratch. Any prizes should be purely symbolic (like a polybag or such), it's more about the "sense of pride and accomplishment".
Also, comparing US muscle cars with Lambos and Ferraris is a pretty "apples to oranges" thing. Sure, the latter are way more elegant and sophisticated, but also in a completely different price class. Apart from the very most well-off a Lambo will never be anything but a dream, while a Charger or Mustang was within reach for the average person. Also there's something about the spirit of the American alternative, these were cars that didn't take themselves too seriously - a relic from a time when cars were actually fun and cool, before the health & safety ideology ruined everything.
@DisCode347 said:
"Honestly I looked at it and saw Ghost Rider! "
I got the set for my son because he said he needed Robbie's (Reyes aka Ghost Rider) Charger.
Lego dropped the ball by not releasing it as a creator set inline with the Mustang [which would have been a buy for myself], but my son loves the set.
Not worst than technic Bugatti, Porsches and Ferraris. All cars that has bodies made from Technic parts would have been more beautiful if they were made from non-Technic parts.
I really appreciate the technic parts for the mechanisms and structure, but not for the finishing. It’s uglier, and most people (myself included) could not do an nice-looking construction entirely made from technic parts.
I prefer European cars than American ones, but the Mustang set is amazing. And the bodies of the technic Ferraris, etc, are not better than this one, except for color.
FYI it’s not the first licensed technic set. Back in the early 2000’s there were a bunch of Star Wars technic sets including R2-D2, C-3PO, Stormtrooper, pit droid, Darth Vader, and my favourite a droideka.
Would’ve preferred this in creator expert, it wouldn’t be too hard to mod the engine out, then put it with a mustang rebuilt to dark green
Well this article was scathing. A bit funny after all the reviews that have been so overly positive that to me they felt a bit like marketing for LEGO.
This model definitely does have issues. But the thing that bugs me in this article is how Huw keeps repeatedly telling us all how the actual Charger is so UGLY!! A matter of subjective taste, hey, but it's almost like Huw thinks his personal taste is the same as universal truth. Those old Chargers have a huge fanbase around the world, so there are lot of folks who beg to differ. And when it comes to Europeans "lusting after" Ferraris and Lambos; please, speak for yourself only. I'm a European and would take any 60s or 70s American muscle over some boring Ferrari any day.
And this about the front trim: "appears to be black on the real vehicle."
Well you did pick comparison images from the wrong movie car, didn't you? You could have taken a look on the correct vehicle:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/mediaviewer/rm1014371840
So yeah, it is not black. These kind of blunders together with the personal raging about Charger's looks make a somewhat unprofessional impression.
(EDIT: apparently the manual is to be blamed for this, not Huw!)
Sorry if this feels a bit harsh. I've been enjoying your content on the site Huw. I just can't help but perceive you being a bit arrogant in this article.
Look at the shoulder line of the real car, it's pretty much sharp. Yet, the Lego model is rounded, front to back, using these curved panels and macaroni pieces. Also, the cutouts for the wheels look unfinished. No, it just looks off...
@Ssorg said:
"And this about the front trim: "appears to be black on the real vehicle."
Well you did pick comparison images from the wrong movie car, didn't you? You could have taken a look on the correct vehicle:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/mediaviewer/rm1014371840
So yeah, it is not black. "
The pictures provided in the instruction manual (https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6324427.pdf, c. page 230) are incorrect then. That was what I was basing my observation on.
Let's not forget that, by their very nature, reviews are subjective. It's my opinion that the Charger is ugly, just as it's yours that it's not. Neither of us is 'correct'.
I can't believe that we normally take flak because our reviews are mostly positive, then when one isn't, we're still getting it. We can't win...
@Huw said:
"The pictures provided in the instruction manual"
Oh dear, you're right! Whoever compiled photos for the manual is the guilty one there, NOT you! I included a correction in my previous post.
"It's my opinion that the Charger is ugly"
It seems you want to stress this subjectivity *now* that several people here have sorta triggered over your text. The thing just is, in the article you didn't exactly put it out like just *your opinion*, more like presented it as the very correct stance. (Charger is UGLY as a truth -kind of way.)
Maybe you could understand this point I'm trying to convey, if someone harshly bashed something you happen to like without showing any consideration for undeniable subjectivity.
You also wrote:
"I can't believe that we normally take flak because our reviews are mostly positive, then when one isn't, we're still getting it. We can't win..."
Well I can sure understand it may not feel entirely fair if that's how it looks to you! :) Maybe it's just that when reviews end up at some extreme end (so often near-all positive, or now near-all negative), it just sticks out and inevitably receives some critical reactions. Because, honestly, VERY rarely sets are near-perfect or total failures.
It was a critical review and that’s what made it good.
OK, I will concede that perhaps my opinion of the real car was a little overstated, but I did make it clear that it was my opinion when first mentioned: "Like most American sports cars of the era, **I find it** very ugly and unappealing"
I am used to seeing articles on Brickset that are generally positive. Even sets that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole are given at least some redeeming comments (value as a parts pack, desirable minifigs, compatibility with other sets in the theme, that sort of thing). I tend to 'edit' the article in my head to match what I would think of the set, especially if I am considering buying it.
That being said, I think the review here is getting unwarranted flak for it's unflinching assessment of the set's issues. When I first heard of it, I was thinking I might pick it up (licensed Technic that isn't Porsche, Bugatti or Lambo prices? Yes please!) but as soon as I saw the images I thought that the sides were absolutely straight which made it look awkward at best. Then I found out about the 'wheelie support' which I thought was a silly gimmick and not a feature, and thought "Well, let's see if the review puts them in a better light or context."
Spoiler alert - it did not. And that's fine. I can see what the designer was going for, and I hope it reaches its target market, but that is definitely not me. Thanks Huw for your honesty. Good to be reassured once again (if the Assault on Hoth review didn't already make it clear) that Brickset is not a mouthpiece for the Lego Marketing Department.
@ghost_target said:
" @DisCode347 said:
"Honestly I looked at it and saw Ghost Rider! "
I got the set for my son because he said he needed Robbie's (Reyes aka Ghost Rider) Charger.
Lego dropped the ball by not releasing it as a creator set inline with the Mustang [which would have been a buy for myself], but my son loves the set.
"
Glad it's not just me then! I agree with everyone saying it should of been an creator expert and unfortunately this will be one where I'll wait for the price to drop.
Still waiting for the lego house to come back on the site!
@Huw , on second look, it's *possible* I wasn't entirely correct with my reference to the "correct" car! The wheelstand thingy made me think this set is strictly based on the Charger in the very first movie from 2001 (the link I gave). However, the Fast & Furious label on the package, with such exact wording and stylizing, now made me think if this model is at least partially based on the 2009 movie. That one indeed had the Charger variant (with BLACK front) which is shown both on the package and in the manual.
I don't remember a wheelie pose from 2009 movie (might have been there, can't remember), only remember it from the final scene of the 2001 film. Maybe LEGO tried to make this set represent both movies/cars?!! And so included grey front & wheelie mechanism from 2001 movie yet in photos and with label wanted to emphasize the 2009 movie? Or maybe they just botched it, not really knowing what they're doing...
EDIT: I would edit my previous post, maybe erasing my blunt remark about your "blunder" now that I'm not sure anymore, but looks like I can't edit that post anymore.. :/
Huw, I've only read the review as of 10 AM Central on May 6 so I can't speak about any wording choices in its original form, but I found your review to be fair and subjective vs objective in the correct ways, and this is coming from someone who loves the '70 Charger and American muscle in general. I feel you've struck a fine balance amd I think this is a very good review.
As for the model itself, I personally think it's even worse than you mentioned. I won't say you went easy on it by any means, just that there's more you could have picked at. Although the overall form is lacking in subtle curves, the body edge radius is TOO generous with the very rounded pieces they picked. The steering wheel is enormous and you can't even imagine a person fitting into that (underdeveloped) seat. The rim choice is awful. The color locked blue technic pins, which are a classic issue not at all unique to this model, show up so much more on an all-black build. All of these criticisms in addition to what you pointed out make this a total dud to me.
And yet, I can't help but think: if I were the designer assigned to this task, given the parameters that designers usually receive (the subject matter, theme/system, and price point), could it have been executed much better? In other words, a designer was told to build a $100 Technic Charger from F&F. Considering what a terrible set of parameters that was in the first place, and considering the designer clearly was not allowed the budget to make new wheels or steering wheels and such, I at least "understand" this model a lot more, though I still don't like it.
Thanks for the review. Well, even though it isn't an exact replica, I still like it. The negative reception hopefully will make for more discounts :-)
Standing on it's own, I think the model has the right "feel" to it, as an over-the-top muscle car that can be played with, with neat functions.
I wonder how it would have been received had it not been intended to be a real life vehicle.
@Wrecknbuild said:
"I wonder how it would have been received had it not been intended to be a real life vehicle. "
That's a good question and I think the answer is that I would have found it more acceptable. It's quite a cool muscule car/pick-up truck hybrid but nothing much like a Charger!
I think I will get this one even though it doesn't look like a dodge charger, is too tall, and I have never watched fast and furious.
Yes... It IS ugly...
Nothin of innate grace and force of real Charger.
Somehow reminds to me about "Yugo" or "Kolhida" in their horrendousness and poor execution.
"Like most American sports cars of the era, I find it very ugly and unappealing." Lmao, worst opinion ever Huw! The correct answer is, "like most American sports cars of the era, it's totally Bad A$$!" - the original IRL version mind you. Yes, the LEGO set sucks.
Somehow I get a feeling Huw doesn't like Dodge Chargers. =P
Chargers are interesting cars, but one of the best style attributes is has, the 'coke bottle' sides is not represented here in the Technic model, and would have been very hard to represent in Technic.
Perhaps the reason Lego went with Technic is that the Dodge Charger has already been executed in Minifig scale 75893-1. Still looks like a brick.
If Lego had done this in Creator scale, it would pair with the Mustang and we can have two cars from the Steve McQueen movie Bullet!
Sigh, alas. I have to agree with you Huw, this is one was not done well by Lego. I guess they can't all be great.
I haven't seen a Fast and Furious movie in more than a decade but was excited when this model was initially announced. I'm a huge fan of the show "Burn Notice." The show hasn't been on since 2013 but I watch it every single day when I row.
In the show Michael Weston drives a black 1973 Dodge Charger. That car looks much better than the pictures you reference in your article. I was going to buy the model and modify it to look like the Charger from Burn Notice. That one has white seats and looks a lot better than this one. I have already done that with the smaller model.
For those interested you can catch "Burn Notice" on Amazon Prime.
@jaredhinton:
Hoo, boy. You forgot the Battle Droid that came out with the Pit Droid and Droideka, all in 2000. 2001 was C-3PO and the Stormtrooper. In 2002, they dropped the Technic branding from all relevent SW sets (there was a move to eliminate Technic and Duplo as standalone brands in favor of rolling sets into whatever theme they fit with based on IP). That year is when R2-D2 and Darth Vader came out, but you also forgot Jango Fett, and the Super Battle Droid. Rounding out the line is 2003's Hailfire Droid (also forgot, and also lacking the Technic brand). I'm not sure when they restored the Technic brand, but 2003 was the last year they mixed SW and Technic, and Bionicle made it all the way from 2002-2016 without having the Technic branding restored.
@Ssorg:
Wouldn't be the first time they got the wrong car. Ecto-1 has messed up images as well:
https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Ecto-1?file=Ecto-103.png
You can see two sets of fog lamps embedded in the front bumper in this shot from the first time they get a call (Slimer in the ballroom), but the pics in the front of the instruction book show triple fog lamps. There were reportedly three cars used for the first movie (two in livery, and one the black heap that Ray first drives up in), and I think they may have had to buy a new one for the sequel, but I can't find any stills from either movie that show triple fog lamps. It sorta looks like concept art, which could certainly explain the error.
@Khamsin:
You'd need to rebuild the Mustang in solid dark-green to make it match the car from Bullitt. And you'd need a fifth hubcap for the Charger (my dad likes to note that you see the same hubcap come off twice because they repeated some of the footage to make the chase longer).
@darcaesar:
Oh, dude, I couldn't even stand watching the main "actor" in the ad spots, much less sit through an entire episode. It was like someone stapled his chin to his chest.
The Charger, not this model per se, but the line overall...one of my favorite auto brands. Love em. I concur that many of them are very boxey. Part of the charm, to me.
But, this set is an abomination...Technic was an AWFUL decision. Would CE have been better? I dunno, maybe. The Mustang looked good but the Mustang has a more pleasing shape overall anyway.
I love this review. It was refreshing to read the honest dislike. We all express our own, OFTEN...great to see the hosts express theirs. Hey, waddya know? They’re Human, after all! :D
The C pillar looks awful from the side, otherwise a pretty decent designer job. Time for Lego to quit licensed stuff and promote original ideas.
For a little bit more money above the RRP you could purchase the 42096: Porsche 911 RSR, which with 50% more pieces seems a far more substantial and interesting build, plus more eye-catching when on display. Guessing the actual sale price will fall in time to reflect this.
Is the 41999 actually the same vehicle? My intention was to replace that one, but the blue color and the better curves makes me rethink that maybe I should just keep the original 41999 and skip this black car.
As a fellow long-time Technic fan and scale modeller in other themes, I agree with most of what Huw said in his review. I would stop short of describing the Charger as the "worst ever" Technic car because that may be only for its display potential, along with an average amount of technical issues. I think most of the design imperfections are a result of the limitations of the Technic theme and the price point restrictions that all professional LEGO set designers have to meet. These include the selection of parts; the fewest part types being an objective.
There is no way this set could compare favourably with a more-expensive Technic car, just as the white Porsche is a shadow of the more-expensive orange one. The restrictions of a Technic car with bodywork (as opposed to a car chassis) are that it has to have some basic mechanisms (select from steering, engine, differential, gearbox, suspension according to price) but it must have a complete body shell. This latter constraint forces a significant proportion of the price to be taken up with panels, at an average of £1 each.
For those of us who build MOCs more than we display kits, the choice of panels is very important as a significant part of the cost. For me the Corvette 42093 scored better than the Bugatti Chiron 42083 because I would make more re-use of those colours of panels in orange than in the shades of blue. This is where I would improve the review score for the Dodge Charger because it is now the definitive supply of black panels, taking over from the Hovercraft 42076.
A particular use I have for panels in Technic sets is to revive the Space themes from Classic Space onwards with added Technic functionality that increases the movement potential, and hence public interest, for exhibition displays. Medium Grey, Bright Blue, Black, Red and White panels are all welcome for those themes. Other colours are more subjective but with enough orange over a few years I was able to build a working model of Nemo; Technic Creatures have great potential for using some of the brighter colours that are seen in Technic sets now.
This means that, for me, the Charger is a good parts pack and I will buy according to how many black panels I need or would plan to use in the next few years, especially for Technic-enhanced Blacktron. I would naturally look for discounts where they are available; if a kit is less-popular and more-discounted then that's good for me!
If the Charger is less-good as a display model and better as a parts pack then that makes it more of a traditional Technic kit, rather than one that aspires to be a super-car. As a balance, that is not a bad thing; we don't want Technic to be just super-cars at the expense of traditional building, learning and rebuilding. Re-use is the intention of the LEGO system as it builds engineers and architects.
As such the value goes more on the mechanisms than the display value. Of the regular mechanisms, steering, engine, differential, 2x suspension are present, with a pair of doors and opening bonnet (hood) and boot (trunk). I suspect the steering rake would be less than the real car has, which is unfortunately too common in Technic kits, but the photo suggests it is not the worst in this respect. The new mechanism is the wheelie support. Huw has addressed the imperfections in steering control and wheelie support actuation. For the price of £90 I would be hoping for 9 manual mechanisms, so it aligns with the play value expectation; the cost of the panels has not caused a play value deficit as it did with the Corvette 42093. 8.35p/p is at the high end for traditional Technic its but is explained by the complement of 36 panels.
Despite the imperfect looks, I would be happy to build one and perhaps to rebuild a couple of them into MOCs if the price was right.