We can see from this video that the engine is sadly not a boxer engine:

Well, it is an it isn't. The version in the model is indeed a horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine so it looks like a Boxer, but the crankshaft configuration isn't right. It would need 6 crank pins instead of 3 to be a true Boxer, but that would make the engine much longer. Other than an inline 4, I don't think LEGO has ever had an engine with a proper crankshaft geometry. All the cranks are flat plane.

...it looks like a Boxer, but the crankshaft configuration isn't right. It would need 6 crank pins instead of 3 to be a true Boxer,...

Thanks for clarifying!

Edited May 19, 20168 yr by Didumos69

I'm not the most critical person, but that steering angle is just too bad. All sets have a pretty large turning angle IMO, but this is just ridiculous!

Thanks for clarifying!

Illustration of the difference:

http://www.autoevolu...ine-85305.html#

I guess you could use one crank shaft per side to emulate this behavior more accurately, keeping the same depth, but making the engine wider, with the two crank shafts giving 6 crank pins.

EDIT: Additional info: http://www.robertcai...ls/Boxer Motor/ The lack of piston washers makes this a challenge.

Edited May 19, 20168 yr by BrianGT

Now I understand wy there is no rear wheels steering...

With such a small front steering angle... rear steering would have been barely visible!

The drive will make the motor turn one way and reverse the other way, and neutral will just not turn the motor.

Normal Technic sets with fake engines the engine components roll with the vehicle. if you roll it forward the engine components move "forward" if you roll it backwards, so does the engine components.

The way I understand the video. If you have the gearbox in "D" and move the vehicle, say the camshaft moves to the right. Normally if you rolled the car in reverse the camshaft would roll to the left. But on the Porsche if you switch the gearbox to "R" and roll the car backwards the camshaft will still roll to the right, like it would in "D" Like an actual engine works. The engine don't turn the opposite way when in reverse. If you put the gearbox into "N" and roll the car, the engine doesn't move. The new go-kart has a similar gearbox, except that it's a speed thing instead of a direction thing.

I would also guess by changing 'gears' with the paddle shifters when rolling the car the piston RPMs would change depend on what gear the paddle shifter is.

Edited May 19, 20168 yr by P3_Super_Bee

If that is the case, then why would they not have parts keeping the gear rack perfectly centered..? Why leave that little bit of space in there..?

Looking at the underneath shot, it appears that those perpendicular connectors are still there..

Ah, true, they're also visible on the picture where the hood is open :

That's disappointing.

Now I understand wy there is no rear wheels steering...

With such a small front steering angle... rear steering would have been barely visible!

I was even thinking that using a differential doesn't really make sense given these steering angles :wink: , but let's not forget that on other aspects - gearbox, bodywork- this remains to be a truely great model. To a certain extend it resembles the state of the art that has been established by MOC-builders. Enough to complain, but also something to be proud of.

Edited May 19, 20168 yr by Didumos69

Well, it is an it isn't. The version in the model is indeed a horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine so it looks like a Boxer, but the crankshaft configuration isn't right. It would need 6 crank pins instead of 3 to be a true Boxer, but that would make the engine much longer. Other than an inline 4, I don't think LEGO has ever had an engine with a proper crankshaft geometry. All the cranks are flat plane.

There are flat plane V8s as well (i think most ferrari V8s are, giving them their distinctive howl over the cross-plane V8s like most american big blocks.

As for the inline 4, i think lego gets that wrong actually, lego defaults to up-down-up-down cranks, while most i4 engines are up-down-down-up cranks

This engine would technically be a 180 degree V6, although in real life those dont exist, and in regular 90(ish) degree v6's, a flat plane crank is waaay too unbalanced to work properly

Lego would need a complete redesign of their conrod/crankshaft parts to make a boxer work, or to properly model a V6, or a cross plan V8. A proper i4 is doable by using a 4 length axle in the middle of the crank

Illustration of the difference:

http://www.autoevolu...ine-85305.html#

I guess you could use one crank shaft per side to emulate this behavior more accurately, keeping the same depth, but making the engine wider, with the two crank shafts giving 6 crank pins.

EDIT: Additional info: http://www.robertcai...ls/Boxer Motor/ The lack of piston washers makes this a challenge.

what i also noticed is, the positions of the cilinders.

in lego it looks as following if you look at a motor at the side: [up-down-up-down] and in the exact middle they have the exact same position.

in the video, you can see that the positions are different and that the piston-heads never line up.

I was even thinking that using a differential doesn't really make sense given these steering angles, but let's not forget that on other aspects - gearbox, bodywork- this remains to be a truely great model. To a certain extend it resembles the state of the art that has been established by MOC-builders. Enough to complain, but also something to be proud of.

Not using a dif would have been insane, im already outraged enough that sets like 42022 using one wheel drive rather then work in a proper diff (which would be an extra 10 parts max?), not having a diff in a $300 flagship set would be idiotic.

then again, utterly unrealistic steering angle isnt exactly as it should be either on a set of this size

I was even thinking that using a differential doesn't really make sense given these steering angles, but let's not forget that on other aspects - gearbox, bodywork- this remains to be a truely great model. To a certain extend it resembles the state of the art that has been established by MOC-builders. Enough to complain, but also something to be proud of.

i get the feeling that they wanted the working paddleshifters and the truly amazingly shaped bodywork so bad, that the rest got sort of lost. But the bodywork is truly amazing and very well shaped.

Not using a dif would have been insane

I was kidding ofcourse..

Well, it is an it isn't. The version in the model is indeed a horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine so it looks like a Boxer, but the crankshaft configuration isn't right. It would need 6 crank pins instead of 3 to be a true Boxer, but that would make the engine much longer. Other than an inline 4, I don't think LEGO has ever had an engine with a proper crankshaft geometry. All the cranks are flat plane.

Short note on crankshadt geometry: most european and japanese v8 use flat plane crankshafts. Even more to get usefull power and revving characteristics. The cross plane crank shaft comes with really mega bloksy firing order ( two asjacent cylinders fire in sequence and this hinders gas exchange with normal exhaust headers)

Just leaves room for people to improve on what has been done.

Who knows, maybe TLG intentionally don't make a perfect model.

I was kidding ofcourse..

I know, and i agree with your point that it wouldnt even be really needed

But i had to take the chance to whine a bit about sets like 42022 and 42035 having just one wheel drive, not even a rigid axle, no, one wheel drive.... And then there is the steering on 42048. Its disappointing to see them make mistakes in their set designs like this when the AFOL community has fixes for them within days of the set releasing

Just leaves room for people to improve on what has been done.

Who knows, maybe TLG intentionally don't make a perfect model.

Sure, that's one of the reasons why Lego is great toy, it leaves the room for mods. But why making new parts and not using their full potential? It's beyond my understanding.

Edited May 19, 20168 yr by tomek9210

One more thing about the steering angles. When driving over 50km/h you must be a very experienced driver to make use of more steering angle than what seems to be offered by the Porsche right now. (For the ones who need a good reason to accept the limited angles )

Edited May 19, 20168 yr by Didumos69

Just leaves room for people to improve on what has been done.

That is true. Even if there are disappointing aspects of the model, I'm sure that people will come up with some very good and clever solutions/mods to these problems that we can all use to make the 'perfect' model.

Just leaves room for people to improve on what has been done.

Who knows, maybe TLG intentionally don't make a perfect model.

That is unlikely in my opnion. This is an ultimate set! It should take the maximum out of lego parts and have a minimum of flaws!

It also is a children toy. The 16+ is close to adults but even for teenagers, you better make not a rubbish set so people can improve it.

That is unlikely in my opnion. This is an ultimate set! It should take the maximum out of lego parts and have a minimum of flaws!

It also is a children toy. The 16+ is close to adults but even for teenagers, you better make not a rubbish set so people can improve it.

With its limitations and flaws, I hardly feel it is rubbish.

I was so excited to build this set, but now seeing these shortcomings in areas of the design is somewhat disappointing and I am feeling my desire diminish.

There are flat plane V8s as well (i think most ferrari V8s are, giving them their distinctive howl over the cross-plane V8s like most american big blocks.

That's true, but real flat plane v-8 cranks are symmetric about the center of the block, so the LEGO version is still not right.

As for the inline 4, i think lego gets that wrong actually, lego defaults to up-down-up-down cranks, while most i4 engines are up-down-down-up cranks

True, but in this case it is easy to modify the LEGO engine to get it right. I always do!

Lego would need a complete redesign of their conrod/crankshaft parts to make a boxer work, or to properly model a V6, or a cross plan V8. A proper i4 is doable by using a 4 length axle in the middle of the crank

This one has a crossplane crank!

what i also noticed is, the positions of the cilinders.

in lego it looks as following if you look at a motor at the side: [up-down-up-down] and in the exact middle they have the exact same position.

in the video, you can see that the positions are different and that the piston-heads never line up.

That's because a real horizontally opposed 6 cylinder crank is not flat. The crank pins are 120 degrees out of phase.

As for the inline 4, i think lego gets that wrong actually, lego defaults to up-down-up-down cranks, while most i4 engines are up-down-down-up cranks. A proper i4 is doable by using a 4 length axle in the middle of the crank

This, trivial as it may be always bothered me. 853 and 8110 were easy enough to correct but from the day i got my first multi cylinder set (8850) the limitations of no 90/120° throw available with the new style round slugged engines seemed a pretty shitty oversight. I've made 8880 flat planed but 90° can't have been that much harder to make. Not owned one but the V12's just seemed hideous. That i've not yet come up with any sensible method of doing even a 6 throw boxer crank with false phasing in the less confined area of 8860 is why i've not thrown another two pots on the back of it either. The flat four seems wrong enough with just the two big end journals without chucking another pair of pots on, let alone something that should be as simple as a proper round piston inline six (square piston fan, always plenty of room) or a triple.I get that they likely don't want to create a whole new batch of parts for their engines when the bulk of the populace are astounded just to see a moving piston but it would have been nice with something touting authenticity (this porsche), even if they staggered the cylinder banks one stud side to side (as per the ancients, 8860/8865) to create room.

Are we simply expecting too much of a firm who are likely still targeting the general populace more than avid fans? I figure porsche nuts and autobild/wheels/car and driver magazine readers and the like will make up a good chunk of sales for this set no matter what we deem to be lacking or incorrect and the bulk of em won't give two hoots if its missing gears, or the steering lock is compromised or by the looks the front and rear wheels are the same diameter. They'll pay their money and look at it as the "ooooooh! Shiny!" That it is. This is lego, not Pocher.

That's because a real horizontally opposed 6 cylinder crank is not flat. The crank pins are 120 degrees out of phase.

You don't mean 180 tripled at 120 intervals as per the 911 do you? Or just a flat 6?

One more thing about the steering angles. When driving over 50km/h you must be a very experienced driver to make use of more steering angle than what seems to be offered by the Porsche right now. (For the ones who need a good reason to accept the limited angles )

Good point. Something else to consider is that the GT3 RS has less steering angle than the regular GT3. I tried to find the steering lock of the real GT3 RS, but couldn't. However, I was able to find specs of a different car. Its steering ratio is 21.4:1, and has 2.9 turns lock to lock, meaning that for each full rotation of the steering wheel its wheels turn ~16.8deg, and the maximum steering angle would therefore be ~24.4deg.

I can't say what the Porsche has, but since it's a track-focused car I would expect its steering ratio to be smaller (quicker steering), with maybe 2.7 turns lock to lock.

Even the rear wheel steering is rather limited: the RS has 1.5deg maximum angle, whereas the normal GT3 had 2.8deg. But the rear steer at low speeds would enable the car to make tighter turns with more limited front steering angle compared to normal cars.

Source: http://press.porsche.com/vehicles/2016/Press_Kit_2016_911_GT3_RS.pdf