>his engine still doesn't have pushrods
Pushrods are superior to DOHC. The Automotive press is saying pushrods. Heck, even the Europeans are lauding the supercharged LS9 and LS2.
You cannot argue with that, expecially since the only alternatives are the V8 DOHC mills from Ferrari and Lamborghini that, while generate near-pushrod horsepower, are painfully lacking in torque. Torque, in fact, that rivals V6 family car mills. Racing history and commercial viability is screaming for the pushrod design of the powertrain in terms of overall engineering supremacy.
Despite what honda fags say, hp per cubic inch or liter or whatever never meant anything and it never will. It's a stupid marketing gimmick. The real measure of an engine is how much it weighs compared to the power it makes. In that regard pushrods are superior engineering, they get the job done making the same power with less weight, smaller size and fewer parts. There's no point in DOHC unless you're trying to impress bench racers.
I mean compare the V10 in the BMW M5 compared to the Corvette Z06 V8, BMW is about 305 ci the Corvette is 428. HP is about even but the Corvette kills it in torque, 92 plus more ft lbs of torque, and it weighs quite a bit less. All the while being about 123 ci bigger in displacement, where is the advantage of the DOHC?
>LS engines rev to 8K
>Honda pushrod engines rev to 9.5K
>3rd gen Hemi flows 300+cfm @.500 lift, massively outflowing, well, everything
>pushrod =/= 2v. Honda made roadgoing multivalce pushrods, Chevy worked on concepts for the LS7. In the end, the 4v heads didn't outflow the 2v heads.
>Why does pushrod v8 make more torks than overhead cam engines?
Torque is dictated by displacement and stroke.
Not by the cams
A 4.0l DOHC engine is going to have more torque than a 2.0l pushrod engine
A 4.0l pushrod engine is going to have more torque than a 2.0l DOHC
>they can fit more displacement with the same size packaging
>they cannot rev as high, so they need more stroke for an equal piston speed
These two factors both cause a longer stroke - which results in more torque.
Also, most modern pushrod engines are designed for both truck use and pony car use. The shared design goal these two have is torque - so the designers make sure it'll have lots of that.
lmao you want to tell the actual professional engineers they're all doing it wrong.
stroke doesn't make much difference in road cars unless you're making big leaps like going from 50mm to 100+mm
>lmao you want to tell the actual professional engineers they're all doing it wrong.
In your head they are. You could have 500 lb/ft with a curb weight of 2500 lbs but with a 4K redline and low gearing it ain't going anywhere fast.
I think I prefer pushrods in V-engines (and boxers, I guess) just because of packaging, but in an inline-engine, DOHC is breddy gud.
People who's lives didn't go the way they wanted and now they lash out against whatever things they don't have, so they can feel good about the things they do have (an '80s Chrysler with a pushrod engine).
Ikr, people need to get with the times and stop using engines that have valves
The only benefits to pushrods is engine packing, lower cg, and less complexity. ohc chains create more failure points, move the weight higher up in the engine, and make a physically bigger engine.
ITT poorfag benchracers who don't know that 2k torque feel.
Yfw had 4v dohc 5.0
Mfw 2v pushrods are better
>hurr i'll just ignore 2 extremely valid things and prove my own stupidity by not knowing what an engines internal friction is/does and thinking more cams don't add cost
5.0L vs 7.0L
F1 engineers work under extremely (displacement-) limited rules. Most of their cutting edge work does not apply to road cars.
Not true on well-designed pushrod engines. Head flow out the wazoo.
wait you can't because you are just shitposting
DOHC is just as outdated, being invented in 1912.
In an inline engine, you barely have any of the weight saving using pushrods. DOHC really is better there.
ICE is stone age. Using chemical energy to propel bullets is stone age too-doesn't mean it doesn't work to shoot stuff.
Both pushrods and OHC have their advantages. DOHC is better in inline engines, with redlines over 10K, while pushrods offer really small packaging and low weight in V engines, and can work up to 9K.
Only one cam per two cilinder banks.
You'd be amazwd how similar F1 and Nascar engines are. Not choosing any sides here, but both are great engineering. Sure, Nascar engines don't last as long, but they're made under an arguably stricter set of rules.
Two cars are traveling parallel at the same speed. Car A is at 2500 rpm and making 350 N-m of torque. Car B is at 6000 RPM making 200 N-m of torque. If the two cars start accelerating at the same time, who will pull ahead? Assume same weight, air resistance etc.
>Aardema has done SOHC conversions by building custom cam boxes that bolt to an existing overhead-valve motor's heads. On this LS motor, converting from OHV to SOHC configuration was worth 21 hp with an identical cam profile-and the engine happily revs to 7,000 rpm with no valve float.
>identical cam profile
>worth 21 extra HP and no valve float
pushrod cuckolds on suicide watch
lol who needs pushrods or cams when you got fucking nazi doritos
>totally ignoring the fact that you no longer have the weight of pushrods, rockers and lifters
you are dumb kiddo, stay mad pushrods are obsolete
stopped reading there
>grasping at straws
wanna go back to discussing how pushrods are inferior or want to benchrace some more?
Some actual info on F1 vs NASCAR.
The NASCAR engine is near as efficient as an F1 engine. Worryingly so.
>muh shitposter boogeyman
that post is irrelvant
NASCAR banned OHC due to inmense butthurt from Chrysler and their pushrod Hemi being inferior
Its all fucking bait, Jesus Christ I don't know why I even bother.
Please respond to each point, or concede that you are a retard.
1. Displacement differences make up the weight difference
2. NASCAR engines are production block engines
3. The BMEP and MPS of each engine are within under 1% and 5%, respectively.
4. Given point 3, remember the NASCAR engine at the time of calculation was also using a carb, flat tappets, and steel pushrods and steel or aluminum rockers. Again, worryingly close numbers for an engine that is much more restricted.
You assume F1 engines are stretched out to their maximum potential, they are severely limited in power output and have been for decades. Nascars meanwhile are pretty much at the peak of whats possible under their regulations and less reliable than the f1 engines (which have a much much much higher potential output)
>Displacement differences make up the weight difference
What? 90kg vs 260kg. Deal with it.
You should all take some time to learn about what dictates the amount of torks an engine produces at a certain RPM.
It is mostly down to how efficiently air gets into the cylinder due to resonance in the intake manifold and whatnot.
I think it is explained reasonably well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAZP2Rlq43c
>bbut it moves the center of gravity upwards!
shit, call all the F1 teams and tell them they've been using the wrong engines
Size: Check out the overall packaging of a Coyote vs any SBC and youll see, if you ever even seen a big block chevy (396, 454, etc) youd know its smaller than a V arranged DOHC (coyote, 4.6) motor of the same cylinder arrangement. Dont believe me go pop some hoods
Weight: Youre saving 3 cams and vastly larger heads, traded for smaller heads (less material) a single cam, and a single timing gearset, it's an absolute no brainer.
Friction: Now i disagree with this point, even using rollers in the OHV this is invalid as there is a whole lot of friction with a pushrod moving in its galley and against a rocker.
Cost: Please see above, if it means anything the latest iteration of the corvette was specifically designed to utilize pushrod technology because it was cheaper to manufacture, hence a dramatically lower cost to produce making the car more affordable. If you disagree do some reading. But if youre gonna shitpost that hard at least leave a disclaimer, theres probably someone reading this who is legitimately confused by how much arguing you dipshits do over fact.
>the coyote is the only OHC v8 being made delusional
no because its a sports car and not a fucking truck
Pushrodfags are almost as annoying as Ron Paul voters and Kony 2012 memers
I have a friend who cannot stop saying "JUST SWAP AN LS IN IT" when talking about any car ever. It gets fucking boring.
The LS is a good motor for what it does. The BMW S54 is good for what it does. Those tweaked out Nissan V6s are pretty amazing too.
Pushrods can't into VVT systems and can't vary cam profiles and timing on both their intake and exhaust sides at the same time. Advantages and disadvantages exist in all designs.
So fuck off back to Forza and LS swap everything to impress your 14 year old friends.
OHV engines are also stupid easy to work on.
I did my entire top end rebuild and valvetrain, timing set, camshaft, lifters, springs, etc. etc. all by myself in my garage with basic hand tools.
I don't think I'd attempt anything like that on a SOHC / DOHC engine for my first time around.
>Pushrods can't into VVT systems and can't vary cam profiles and timing on both their intake and exhaust sides at the same time. Advantages and disadvantages exist in all designs.
Did you miss the part about exhaust and intake valves being varied independently?
Pic related, it's what you're trying to be
>NASCAR banned OHC
>they banned OHC for being better
Post proof. Not any article about how the Cammer was made, actual proof, as in a period Nascar rulebook.
Guesswhat: you can't. They didn't ban it. Turns out putting a SOHC iron big block into a car severely hurts it's handling. It'll work in a straight line (Cammers dominated dragracing for about half a decade), but not in Nascar.
>Pushrods can't into VVT systems
Go look up the Viper's cam-in-cam VVT. Fully independent VVT right there.
Also, you try doing variable displacement on a DOHC engine. It's a mess.
>Because of strong protests from the Chrysler camp, NASCAR threatened significant weight handicaps on Cammer-powered Galaxies, and the engine was eventually banned outright from competition.
>b-b-but they banned it because it wasn't in a production car
Wrong, the reasoning was because it wouldn't fit under the stock hood. Chrysler ran the 426 hemi before it was ever in a production car.
>summit racing blog
>not a rulebook
Everyone keep telling Nascar banned them - but where's the actual, honest to god proof? I've searched for several years now, and I'm afraid there isn't any.
I suspect the engines where just too damn heavy to perform on Nascar track. They worked great when dragracing though.
The Hemi specifically created that production-car rule. As in:
>Chrysler makes Hemi
>races Hemi, dominates season
>Chrysler homologates Hemi
Ford could've done the very same with the Cammer (and it's a shame they didn't). Problem was probably that the added weight didn't work.
>Virtually all modern engines operate their valves through one or two overhead camshafts that push the valves open from above. It used to be that a single camshaft mounted in the engine block opened the valves from below, using long pushrods to activate rocker arms that pressed the valves open. This is still how the GM small-block V8 and the Chrysler Hemi V8 operate, though the Hemis splay the valves apart to fit into a pentroof combustion-chamber design (sorry, Chrysler—it isn't really a semihemispherical "hemi" shape anymore, though it's close). But Nascar engines still use the older, less efficient wedge-combustion-chamber shape with the intake and exhaust valves aligned in the same plane.
>b-b-but SOHC isn't banned, they just make the manufacturers use the same OHV design for their heads
>it wasn't banned
Top kek. Here's a newspaper clip from '65 debunking your "it wasn't banned" theory.
Get fucked overhead camshaft toddlers. Whats next? FWD is superior?
>his _____ still doesn't have _____
_____ are superior to _____. The _____ press is saying _____. Heck, even the Europeans are lauding the _____ _____ and _____.
You cannot argue with that, especially since the only alternatives are the _____ mills from _____ and _____ that, while generate near-_____ _____, are painfully lacking in _____. _____, in fact, that rivals _____ mills. _____ history and commercial viability is screaming for the _____ design of the _____ in terms of overall engineering supremacy.
Despite what _____ fags say, _____ or _____ or whatever never meant anything and it never will. It's a stupid marketing gimmick. The real measure of an _____ is how much it _____ compared to the _____ it makes. In that regard _____ are superior engineering, they get the job done making the same _____ with less _____, smaller _____ and fewer _____. There's no point in _____ unless you're trying to impress _____.
Insert Shitpost Here.
You're welcome /o/.
why is it retarded? why does it have to be "fair"
when f1 gave a choice of 1.5 litre turbo and 3 litre na engineers went turbo because that was the best solution for them.
only cosworth argued about "fair" and didn't win anything again for over a decade.
when real life gives you the choice of 6.2 litre with pushrods and 5 litres with ohc then who's to say those same f1 engineers wouldn't go for the pushrods? iirc mercedes actually did at one point
My ___ pisses in your ___'s intake, fuck off queer.
Go ahead and benchrace. I've owned more vehicles than you've seen years, and I was thoroughly underwhelmed by the ___. The interior is 90s KIA tier too.
They are what got me interested in sports coupes again, but they are a letdown in reality. And I am a ___ fanboi. The ___ blew the ___ away in the feels dept, that's why I bought one instead.
The ___ has ___ class with ___ acceleration, and the handling characteristics you'd expect from a ___ making ___+hp at the crank.
You fell for the meme, while people who actually like cars and driving chose any number of quicker sharp handling cars in the price range.
Toyota are superior to Honda. The Jewish press is saying 6gorillion. Heck, even the Europeans are lauding the Gas Chambers, Holocausters and Swimming Pools.
You're welcome /pol/
>when f1 gave a choice of 1.5 litre turbo and 3 litre na engineers went turbo because that was the best solution for them
too bad we are talking 5l v8 vs 5l v8 here. blow the fuck out of the myth "HUUR OHC ADDS SO MUCH WEIGHT AND SIZE AND HUUR FUCJKNG DUUR"
>still pronounces tomato as tomato
tomato is superior to tomato. Even the press is saying that tomato is obviously supposed to be pronounced tomato. Heck, even the Europeans are lauding the tomato as superior in both pronunciation and nourishment terms
You cannot argue with that, especially since the only alternatives are saying tomato instead of tomato, while generating near record-breaking numbers of tomato sayers to tomato sayers, are painfully lacking in tomatoes. burn that rival's tomato mills. Tomato history and commercial viability is screaming for the re-tomato-design of the tomato in terms of overall tomato supremacy.
Despite what artichoke fags say, saying tomato like that or lettuce heads or whatever never meant anything and it never will. It's a stupid marketing gimmick. The real measure of a tomato pronouncer is how much it sounds like tomato compared to the tomatoes it makes. In that regard tomato are superior engineering, they get the job done making the same number of people saying tomato instead of tomato with less unfortunate things happening to tomato, smaller stems and fewer tomato nay-sayers. There's no point in saying tomato unless you're trying to impress the wrong tomato fanbase.