Car and Driver pulled up some interesting numbers about "low tech" engines.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975


Does not rev as high, can't do VVT, usually more loud, on paper the OHC motor should get better gas milage(everything equal of course), people want the newwest tech even in their cars, etc....

my 'high tech' 4 cylinder with variable valve timing revs to all of 6500 rpm and gets worse mileage than my previous car, which was heavier and had a 3 liter pushrod v6.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt And heads with more than 2 valves provide big gains in specific output.

ZV

so does more displacement

Do you know what specific output means?

 

[TechnoKid]

from what i understand, OHC motors are more tunable than pushrods. all the high-tech and no dount high performance formula one engines and the like are OHC design.

I remember reading about a system that doesn't use either rods or OHC, its like a roller system and allows say a 350 to rev really high. Maybe someone knows what i am talking about.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

32 valve heads for a Chevy Smallblock:
http://www.ronsraceshop.com/companies/araoeng_chevySB.php

Why don't more people use them? Check the numbers at the bottom of the page.

 

[Howard]

STOP REFRESHING THE DAMN THREAD YOU PIECE OF FUSEBLOCK SH!T!!! I DON'T WANT TO KEEP SCROLLING DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
OS: and Toyota's "sports car" Celica GTS costs $25k and is slow. With VVT came the cost of making it reliable and mitigating the reliability concerns. I could compare the Celica GTS with the Mustang GT, but that wouldn't be a fair match since the Mustang has a V8.

That's like saying Dell sucks because they use Intel CPUs. Compare apples and oranges, please.

no, that would be like saying a PC with an AMD CPU was burdened with extra cooling requirements therefore would be better off with a cooler running cpu.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt And heads with more than 2 valves provide big gains in specific output.

ZV

so does more displacement

Do you know what specific output means?

oh, right, meant to say, so does less displacement. my bad.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
32 valve heads for a Chevy Smallblock:
http://www.ronsraceshop.com/companies/araoeng_chevySB.php

Why don't more people use them? Check the numbers at the bottom of the page.

The fewer made, the higher priced.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
nothing at all. i think OS seems to have forgotten what the discussion was about.

just admit the guy in the article had a point.

there is a place for pushrod engines. that was his claim and it was a valid one. this is similar to that disc vs drum brake thread.

sure discs are better, but is there that much of a difference between 4 wheel discs and disc/drum combos?? not really.

man, f*ck you. I'm not the one who is throwing around camaros and mustangs being faster than "slow" celicas in this thread.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt And heads with more than 2 valves provide big gains in specific output.

ZV

so does less displacement

Only if power output remains the same, which it typically doesn't. Four valve heads give extra power to an engine without having to up-size the block.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
plus, specific output is pointless when the other engine weighs less and is physically smaller, in addition to making more torque and horsepower.

True, but you'll note that they only mention certain dimensions, not overall exterior volume and that they only compare weight with the Caddy's engine.

ZV

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
nothing at all. i think OS seems to have forgotten what the discussion was about.

just admit the guy in the article had a point.

there is a place for pushrod engines. that was his claim and it was a valid one. this is similar to that disc vs drum brake thread.

sure discs are better, but is there that much of a difference between 4 wheel discs and disc/drum combos?? not really.

man, f*ck you. I'm not the one who is throwing around camaros and mustangs being faster than "slow" celicas in this thread.

if you go back and read his thread, there was a point relevant to the OP. that having a complex DOHC engine with VVT etc does not necessarily make a faster vehicle. but you are too busy getting defensive to read what other people post.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
if you go back and read his thread, there was a point relevant to the OP. that having a complex DOHC engine with VVT etc does not necessarily make a faster vehicle. but you are too busy getting defensive to read what other people post.

Hey dumbf*ck, the mustang doesn't even have an OHV head

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
OS: and Toyota's "sports car" Celica GTS costs $25k and is slow. With VVT came the cost of making it reliable and mitigating the reliability concerns. I could compare the Celica GTS with the Mustang GT, but that wouldn't be a fair match since the Mustang has a V8.

OS

hmmm, this was Demon OP regarding this subject. i don't see where he mentions OHV. mb you saw something i didn't.

if you wanna call someone a dumbfvck at least have the brains to read the quote you are referring to. :roll:

one more time, complexity of engine does not equal better performance.

btw, I could compare the Celica GTS with the Mustang GT, but that wouldn't be a fair match since the Mustang has a V8.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
if you go back and read his thread, there was a point relevant to the OP. that having a complex DOHC engine with VVT etc does not necessarily make a faster vehicle. but you are too busy getting defensive to read what other people post.

Hey dumbf*ck, the mustang doesn't even have an OHV head

On the contrary, the valves in the Mustang's engine are above the heads, therefore the valves are over the heads (OHV). Perhaps you meant OHC?

Anyways, PGold, I must be stupid or something because I can't comprehend your statement. I was only referring to his first sentence anyway. (D-X said the Celica GTS was slow, but the engine is only 1 factor of many that contribute to that "slowness")

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so does less displacement

Only if power output remains the same, which it typically doesn't. Four valve heads give extra power to an engine without having to up-size the block.

power output can go down, just at a lower rate than volume.

True, but you'll note that they only mention certain dimensions, not overall exterior volume and that they only compare weight with the Caddy's engine.

ZV

hmmm... where are those guys with the bmw engine swap...

 

[Howard]

one more time, complexity of engine does not equal better performance.

Change "does not" to "does not always" and we're fine.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
if you go back and read his thread, there was a point relevant to the OP. that having a complex DOHC engine with VVT etc does not necessarily make a faster vehicle. but you are too busy getting defensive to read what other people post.

Hey dumbf*ck, the mustang doesn't even have an OHV head

On the contrary, the valves in the Mustang's engine are above the heads, therefore the valves are over the heads (OHV). Perhaps you meant OHC?

Anyways, PGold, I must be stupid or something because I can't comprehend your statement. I was only referring to his first sentence anyway. (D-X said the Celica GTS was slow, but the engine is only 1 factor of many that contribute to that "slowness")

read my post above.

 

[Eli]

Uh, it looks like you've already got your mind made up.

Yeah, all those things mentioned add complexity, but they don't necessarily have to reduce reliability. When was the last time you heard of a car in the shop because its VTEC went out?

The pushrod engine is old technology. Just because it can be viable today doesen't mean it's the best thing out there. The days of easy to work on engines are over. We need more efficient engines, and that's what all these technologys give us. It isn't about power(although that is a byproduct of a more efficient engine).

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
hmmm, this was Demon OP regarding this subject. i don't see where he mentions OHV. mb you saw something i didn't.

if you wanna call someone a dumbfvck at least have the brains to read the quote you are referring to. :roll:

one more time, complexity of engine does not equal better performance.

btw, I could compare the Celica GTS with the Mustang GT, but that wouldn't be a fair match since the Mustang has a V8.

dumbass, the thread is about "lowtech" engines. He might have said that "it's not fair", but he makes the comparison multiple times.

 

[notfred]

Do you guys even know what you're arguing about anymore?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so does less displacement

Only if power output remains the same, which it typically doesn't. Four valve heads give extra power to an engine without having to up-size the block.

power output can go down, just at a lower rate than volume.

Which means that by reducing displacement you increase the specific output... But that isn't always true.

 

[Ornery]

He's singing my tune. I'll take low-tech grunt over hyper, high-tech anyday. I'm in it for the long haul!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Eli

The pushrod engine is old technology.

so is OHC and variable valve timing...

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
From real world experience in non-sports cars, DOHC engines have better highway speed passing power than a pushrod of equal stats.

Go hop in a GM 3.4L OHC or the Ford 3.0L OHC get behind a car doing 55 MPH and try puching it to pass them. It's hopeless. In my 30 valve 2.8L Passat or a 3.0L Nissan VQ the results are much different. They get up and run much better than the shortwinded OHC engines.

The DOHC 3.4L in my old Monte Carlo was also better at passing than the 3800 series that's in there right now.

But, the 3800 gets better milage and is indeed cheaper to work on.

Each has it's merits.

You shouldn't make that kind of comparison.

DOHC is meaningless if the car makes 120 hp and the pushrod 4 banger makes 200hp. Guess who's got better highway passing power.

If both engines in question are the same # cylinders, displacement, horsepower and torque then all things being equall they will perform the same.

The difference might be some negligable fuel economy differences.


Common you guys! This is a stupid arguement.

As for pushrod engines don't rev: be specific about application and the engine/car in question. Blanket statements are stupid statements. Take the stock 426 Hemi. Here is an engine with extremely heavy reciprocating mass and a very stiff valvetrain and 12.5 compression. 7500 rpm stock is normal. Modified they rev like no tommorrow. Pushrods are still used in drag racing. Top Fuel hemi 8000 hp and what? 12,000 rpm?

Pushrods are a weak link but, in everyday real world applications no one notices the difference. Fuel economy difference is barely even noticable. Add a roller cam and lifters and there is no detectible difference.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
if you go back and read his thread, there was a point relevant to the OP. that having a complex DOHC engine with VVT etc does not necessarily make a faster vehicle. but you are too busy getting defensive to read what other people post.

Hey dumbf*ck, the mustang doesn't even have an OHV head

On the contrary, the valves in the Mustang's engine are above the heads, therefore the valves are over the heads (OHV). Perhaps you meant OHC?

Anyways, PGold, I must be stupid or something because I can't comprehend your statement. I was only referring to his first sentence anyway. (D-X said the Celica GTS was slow, but the engine is only 1 factor of many that contribute to that "slowness")

read my post above.

I'm confused...