CG Shadow DN4 Can Am

[fotodoug]

Was really looking forward to this one...such a cool looking car! The body is very nice...the nose is a little turned up, but nicely modeled. The chassis, particularly the motor pod is garbage. I know this is a fairly new company, but this motor pod, and the way the bearings are held in, are amateurish at best. Fortunately, a Slot It sidewinder pod fits perfectly...and eventually I found gears that fit. This was the most expensive slot car I've ever purchased...unfortunately, it was also the biggest disappointment................but the body is nice.

[Modlerbob]

What??? No foto?

[fotodoug]

[HomeRacingWorld]

Did you try contacting them about the pod issue?

[Changing-Gearz]

Hello Doug - first and foremost thank you for supporting CG Slotcars and the dealer that you purchased the DN4 from.

I don't normally try to interject myself on criticisms and reviews in the various forums out there. I try to read everything on 8-9 different forums in various countries - and good or bad - it all turns around and makes a difference in the end product. But your comments have me very curious. If there is a problem with the pod, I'd certainly like to address that. If you just don't like the way it's designed - I understand that as well. I'd be happy to send a new pod if there is a problem.

For the 1:1 comparison - The nose on the DN4 was lifted to allow air under the car that was then channeled out behind the front wheels to create ground effects under the nose. They could control the balance by raising and lowering the nose - but it had a curl in it to control the airflow. A very innovative trick at that time...

[gascarnut]

I have not yet obtained one of these cars, but if they are anything like the CG Ti-22 that I have, then with a little work they will be great cars.

My experience is that the Ti-22 motor pod benefited a great deal from screwing the motor into the pod. This provided the necessary stiffness for high traction conditions. In the case of the Ti-22, it did mean that I had to drill and tap the end of the motor as it did not have these holes provided. Fortunately, I have the tools to do that.

The method chosen to retain the rear axle bushings, IMO, is an improvement over the "snap in" design more commonly used, as it does not stress the plastic when removing and installing the bushings, hence no more broken pods or chassis.

As for the rest of the chassis, I find the Ti-22 to be very nice, I like the 64DP gears and the inclusion of Quick Slicks as the stock tire saves me at least the cost of replacing the stock tires for decent performance.

I have seen the photos of the car in the latest MCR magazine and also wondered about the height of the nose. I would want to see it in the flesh before commenting more, and there may well be a way to lower it if it really offends the eye. The photos probably exaggerate the effect, as they are taken from a lower angle than one would normally view the car from.

I commend Matt on his efforts to bring us cars that no other main stream manufacturer is doing. The amount of hand building and assembly is no doubt what is driving the price, but it was not that long ago we were paying almost this much for NSR cars, and still do for some other boutique makes that look great but are awful performers.

[HomeRacingWorld]

[slothead]

I ordered a CG Shadow DN4 from SCC as soon as I heard they were released. This was my most expensive slot car ever too - $147 with PG & XPG tires and postage. I justify that by saying this is my last slot car as retirement approaches.

Okay, regarding the car - it looks fabulous and was a needed part of my can-Am series. I put it on the track expecting that since it cost twice as much as any other car it was going to be everything I've imagined about NSR and Thunderslot cars, plus some. I too was disappointed as it was slow, handled poorly, and when I was able to keep it on the track for a 5 lap qualifying session it ranked 21st out of 21 cars.

I took the body off to add XPG tires, an upgrade I do on almost all my cars. That's when I noticed the chassis is very flexible, including the motor pod especially around the rear bushings. The XPG tires were a bit larger than the original tires so I had to Dremel out the rear wheel wells a bit but they still rubbed on the body so I put a few dabs of hot glue on the motor pod to keep it from flexing. The chassis is very light so I added some lead weight just behind the front axle and secured it with hot glue. After a little more tinkering to make sure the body cleared the XPG tires I lubed it and began running more laps.

The car was much better and got better the more I drove it. It's now qualified 9th out of 21 cars of all makes. I love driving it because it looks great and still is getting better. Most of the gain now is probably me getting more comfortable with it's characteristics. It has more braking than my other cars and if I let up going into a corner at the same place I do with other cars it almost comes to a stop before gaining speed again. I'm still trying to force myself to drive it deeper into the turns but it's hard to do because of all my cars this is the one I'm most worried about leaving the track and ending up on the floor.

All in all I love the car and am glad I spent the money on it. I do wish it had a stiffer chassis and hadn't needed tuning to get it going. A Slot-It Alfa Romeo is my top qualifier and all I did to it was put on PG tires. I've never even taken the body off. But for an iconic Can-Am car, the CG Shadow DN4 is a must have for me.

Slothead

[Rleog]

I expect to tune all cars that I buy. Some obviously run better out of the box than others. Slot.it produces some of the better cars for running "out of the box."

For a little perspective on tuning the DN4, I recall this quote from a guy who is running one in the Can Am Proxy:

"1. #70 / Shadow DN4 / 5.591 / 5.69 / Amazing car! So easy to drive fast............

Ok, this is a joke? Really ? Honestly I did very little to this car and really thought I would be down at the other end. This is a real testament to CG Slot Cars that it ran this well. I did NOTHING except true the tires, align and glue in the bushings, and add weight. I rushed this car out and I don’t even remember properly adjusting the screws for the body and pod. Nice job with these cars Matt."


On the DN4 that I tuned, I kept the chassis and motor pod but changed to a Piranha motor. There were already holes in the motor pod for attaching the Piranha to the pod. The stock DN4 motor, as mentioned above, is not pre-drilled. I kept the motor pod because I found it to be quite stiff. After aligning the bushings, I glued them in place to the pod.

I treated my Ti-22 similarly.

Bob G

[fotodoug]

[fotodoug]

[slothead]

I just want to reassert that I love my CG Shadow DN4 and am happy to have paid the price to have it. The reason I don't tune most of my cars is because I'm a solo racer who does simulated races. I don't want to get into an arms race with myself - all need is a field of decent running cars that are competitive with each other and fun to drive. I don't mind that I had to tweak things with the Shadow go get it to be competitive, I just didn't expect to have to.

I agree that the Shadow body on a Slot-It chassis would be a great car from the get go without any hassles. But, I'm happy with it now.

Slothead

[Audi1]

[chappy]

Just a personal tale here.
I have never purchased a car based on statistics , only on my like or desire to own.
The reason being , that the statistics shown rarely reflect an rtr or out of the box car.
Most of these are tuned to the ability of the owner, some highly tuned others basic tuning so the stats really are reflective of the owner and in a proxy, the quality of the driver. On another note i expect to make blueprint mods to my cars and correct things i am not content with. I buy many resin shell cars and the cost soon runs up to equal the cost or exceed that of a CG car. But that is what happens if you want a car that is either not mass produced or is not made anywhere else. . I have a few of Matts cars, and have only had one issue, which was not obvious in constuction, but rectified by Matt in very short order. I can only commend him on his ability to provide rare cars and stand behind what he makes. I had a quick pm with him and problem solved.
There was no issue of dealing with a large corporation , and a friendly exp.anation of the issue not only resolved my problem, but resulted in a very good redesign of a small area on Matts product. Rarely will i spend the $ on a car , but CG produces extremely desireable cars and considering it is a small business provides good support.
Bob

[fotodoug]

I see from the responses that I am the only one that thinks $150.00 for $45.00 car is unreasonable. Oh well, the fool got relieved of his money ONCE.