Why do people still use pushrods? OHC engines seem to be superior

>>15773652
Why are you replying to a shitpost?

>>15773655
It's a genuine question.

Why do people still use OHC engines. It's fucking ancient technology.

Compact size and weight depending on what it's compared to.

But for example if you compare it to the 918s V8. It weighs significantly more.

and yes you can argue torque but torque doesn't really matter

>>15773688
WHY ARE YOU RESPONDING TO AN ALPHONSE POST YOU RETARDED FUCKSTICK
EVEN THE PICTURE IS ALPHONSE FOR FUCKS SAKE

>>15773688
>torque doesn't matter
spotted the retard

>>15773795
A car with 200 HP and 100 LB FT of torque will reach 60 faster than a car with 100 HP and 200 LB FT of torque.

nice ad hominem btw

>>15773688
>>15773795
>>15773801
>valvetrain affects torque
REALLY, guys?

>>15773802
>implying pushrods don't make more torque than an OHC engine

File: pizzaz cringe.png (240KB, 524x488px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 524x488px

>>15773688
>but torque doesn't really matter

>>15773805
Bullshit. Straight up bullshit.

>>15773805
Jesus fucking christ you are actually this retarded. Displacement is the largest factor of torque.

>>15773810
How?

>>15773812
>Displacement is the largest factor of torque
lol no

>>15773802
>>15773805
Pushrods don't directly make torque more torque than their OHC equivalent.

However, there's two things you need to take into account here. First of, intended use, secondly, maximum RPM.

Intended use for most current pushrod motors is either ponycars, trucks, or Corvette/Viper. All of these, mostly trucks (which account for at least half of the sales), profit from having a good torque curve. Hence, the average pushrod V8 is designed to give more torque, using cam selection, head design, and tuning.

Second, hp = tq * rpm. HP usually stays identical for any given head flow, and pushrod engines cannot reliably rev extremely high. Because of the lower RPM, you can give them a longer stroke, which, in combination with good head flow, can create gobs of torque.

Basically, pushrods don't make more torque, but the way they're designed nowadays, pushrod engines make a lot of torque.

>>15773812
>Displacement is the largest factor of torque.
Nope.

Stroke is what makes torque. Also, head flow, cam selection and timing.

>>15773816
>implying the pushrod Silverado 4500 doesn't get destroyed by the OHC F450
Pushrods are shit either way.
>>15773831
this.

>>15773626
packaging

File: sakura smug.jpg (29KB, 337x404px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 337x404px

>>15773831
>>Displacement is the largest factor of torque.
>Nope.
>Stroke is what makes torque.

>>15773831
Technically stroke is part of displacement but I will admit I goofed a bit.

>>15773865
>>15773872
Displacement = stroke * bore
Therefore, displacement =/= stroke

Simply put, two identical engines, say 1L in displacement, one with a 1'' stroke, the other with a 2'' stroke, then the 2'' one will make more torque, given the exact same head flow.

Sure, adding displacement via stroke adds torque - but that's only because you're adding stroke. Bore increases do not increase torque, barring any headflow gains.

>>15773801
>>15773802
>>15773805
OHV can profiles are tuned to make more torque because they're more limited in the RPM levels they can operate at. You could use a similar cam profile in an OHC engine to make just as much or more torque than the OHV engine, but it would be stupid because you've got all those extra RPMs, why not use them?

File: 1461999083636.jpg (87KB, 636x612px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 636x612px

>>15773876
sure thing m8

>>15773879
Uh, OHV usually tends to produce more torque because of the larger stroke and bore it allows for in a given amount of space.

>>15773885
Bore has nothing to do with torque. You're right about stroke though.

>>15773626
>filename being wrong
That's alphonse you dufus.

>>15773945
Both have the last name elric.

>>15773952
The point being is this IS a shitpost thread.

That's why he used a Alphonse image.....

>>15773822
>lol no
lol yes

>>15773831
>Stroke is what makes torque
lol no

>>15773899
>4" bore x 3" stroke pruduces the same torque as 2" bore x 3" stroke.
Rocket scientists up in here.

>>15774396
Given identical head flow, yes. The 2' might actually make more, because it'd have less ring drag.

However, in the real world, a 4'' bore head will flow better, hence more torque.

Basically, just because bore causes headflow, which causes torque, it doesn't mean bore causes torque.

>>15773652
Looks like DOHC I think

>>15774986
No, Ford cucked themselves. They complained and complained about the Race Hemi, Nascar forced Mopar to homologate a Street Hemi, and then Ford though they could get away with not homologating the Cammer. Wrong, Nascar told them to homolgate it, and then Ford realised it'd cost ludicrous amounts of money, and then payed Kar Kraft to homologate the 428 (It's not a Hemi guys, it's a Crescent! We swear we didn't rip off Mopar!) in the Mustang, to be used in the Fairlane.

Meanwhile, in dragracing, they didn't give the Cammer the factory support it needed (and the chain sucked), and it got outdone by the Hemi within a decade.

As for why the Cammer was never homologated in Nascar: it'd be ludicrously expensive. Iirc some surplus ones went for 2300 back then, which would've got you a pretty nice compact car. Cost for the factory was likely even higher. Also, weight over the nose was increased a lot, which certainly wouldn't help on the track, and the timing gear wasn't exactly ideal.

>>15774986
>remember that time ford cucked everyone with an engine that never ran a NASCAR race

>>15775033
>Remember everyone begged nascar to ban everything

That's how it worked back then. Only Nascar had every right to refuse the Cammer, since Ford never homologated it - and it was Ford (and GM) that had actually demanded the homologation process, ever since the hemi came to town.

>>15775045
>Ford sold enough crate engines for homologation
However, they didn't sell them in cars (like they did with the Boss 428). Therefore, it wasn't homologated.

On a sidenote, I'd love to know how much Cammers Ford originally made.

>>15774937
all eles being equal displacement is what makes torque. whether it's by bore or stroke doesn't matter

Because there's a good engine that still uses them

>you could
>in theory
>but what if
The only arguments to be made are motors that exist in the market today. The LS exists. Therefore people will use pushrods because the LS has them.

>>15775065
2 were factory aluminum blocks.
I'm not saying where either one is sitting today for obvious reasons.

>>15775056
>whether it's by bore or stroke doesn't matter
Bore by itself does not increase torque though. Bore only increases torque if you utilise it to improve headflow. All else being equal, including headflow, an increase in bore does not increase torque.

>>15775065
Link to the article? Genuinely curious.

I'd also love to know what happened to them. At least a big chuck probably had some excessively self clearancing conrods, or DIY crank inspection ports.

>that image
calhager is that you?

>>15775348
>All else being equal, including headflow, an increase in bore does not increase torque.
All else being equal - including head flow - any increase in displacement increases torque.

>>15773626


Why do people still use combustion engines? Electric engines seem to be superior in every way at this point.

Are there any actually worthwhile reasons to use combustion over a electric engine?

>>15775415
>any increase in displacement increases torque.
>any

No. As stated before, an increase in bore will not add torque, it might actually increase ring drag and reduce torque.

>>15775430
why wouldn't it increase torque? increasing stroke also increases ring drag

>>15775455
Yes, but stroke increases the leverage the piston has on the driveshaft. It isn't called ftlbs/Nm without reason: the pistons provides lbs/N's of force, and the crank throws add ft or m to that to create a unit of torque.

Making the piston bigger does not change anything, because force equals pressure times area. The force remains constant, because it is equal to the combustion energy of the air and gasoline in the chamber. Making the surface bigger simply reduces pressure on the piston.

The only way a bigger bore could make more torque is therefore by adding more air and gasoline, which is theoretically possible: a bigger head can have bigger ports, valves etc. and therefore will usually flow better - more air, more torque. However, if you consider headflow as a constant, a bigger bore does not equal more torque.

>>15775496
>Making the surface bigger simply reduces pressure on the piston.
this is where you fucked up

>>15775523
>this is where you fucked up
Explain me how.

>>15775542
Simple, peak average cylinder pressure doesn't drop due to an increase in bore size (assuming the cylinder head can keep up).

>>15775557
Average cilinder pressure isn't piston pressure though.

>>15775557
>assuming the cylinder head can keep up
Assuming head flow stays the same, the chemical energy contained in 1 compressed chamber stays identical. That same chamber full of air and gas creates a force, which is distributed across a surface. Pressure = force divided by surface. Bigger bore means bigger surface, therefore, pressure across the chamber should be lower.

Assuming the head delivers additional flow (which is a more practical example), then the force may increase, therefore, pressure may remain reasonably constant.

So:
All else remains equal: no higher cilinder pressure.
Headflow increases: Identical or higher cilinder pressure.

File: 1396408523170.jpg (42KB, 325x315px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 325x315px

>>15775578
I guess that's another thing you're wrong about.

Torque figure is basically a representation of airflow/engine speed ratio

>>15775425
>nearest ski resort is 180 miles away.
Good luck getting there on a battery.

Battery is only good for old people in villages or office workers who live within 30 miles of their job.
Imagine an electric uhaul.
Imagine going to visit grandma for thanksgiving and it takes 4 days to get there because you constantly have to stop for "3 hour rapid recharges"

>>15775616
Explain it then! I want to learn, so try explain what you're saying. Simply saying I'm wrong is extremely frustrating.

>>15775496
>The only way a bigger bore could make more torque is therefore by adding more air and gasoline
That's what it does. With 100% volumetric efficiency, an 86 bore by 86 stroke bottom end will draw in more air than an otherwise identical 78x86 bottom end.

>>15775613
Yep, but obviously it would "keep up". It's just a matter of where in the rev range VE starts dropping off. That doesn't matter, as we're discussing peak torque, not peak power, which would (in this hypothetical scenario) stay the same.

>>15775628
I don't know what else to say m8, not being funny.
Cylinder pressure IS "piston pressure".

>>15775496
If you consider headflow as a constant, fuel, and ignition are the only things that affect torque.

>>15775655
It wouldn't keep up if you used a 4'' bore spacing head, and then compared a 3'bore to a 3.5'' bore. Headflow would remain identical, and it wouldn't keep up.

Naturally, most engine builders wouldn't do this, because it'd be easy gains. But it stays theoretically possible to actually not make any more torque with a bigger bore.

>Cylinder pressure IS "piston pressure".
So, by making a bigger cilinder with the same explosion in it, we'd be reducing both cilinder and piston pressure.

>>15775724
Wouldn't a larger stroke increase peak torque? Constant headflow means constant horsepower, and since your piston speed is higher with a longer stroke, it'd draw more air from the head at a lower RPM. Horsepower equals orque times rpm. Lower RPm and identical Hp should mean higher torque.

>>15775741
You seem to contradict yourself in the reply you gave to me and the reply you gave to the other anon.
What you said in the reply to that anon is what I was saying, and is therefore 10/10.
What you said to me is waffle. Why did you do this anon?

>>15775783
>What you said to me is waffle. Why did you do this anon?
Because waffle are delicious.

>>15775741
>it'd draw more air from the head at a lower RPM.
and it would do the same with a bigger bore
what about this is confusing?

File: tumblr_ltbvtu6dXa1qmaa05o1_500.png (334KB, 500x411px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 500x411px

>>15773688
>torque
>doesn't matter

>>15773626
Kys Alphonse

>>15777261
>implying he is wrong

>>15774986
Yea

>>15775655

>>15775348
question from uneducated retard

if you increase the bore of a cylinder, allowing it to burn more fuel

what is the direct result?

>>15784105
desmos are ohc?????

>>15775783
>>15775741
so to me it seems the the disagreement here comes from a difference in perspective, one of you is real world and the other is stuck in a physics text book, he's right, if you same amount of fuel and air enter a cylinder, the amount of force applied to the piston will be the same regardless of bore, and therefore, the larger piston, with more inertia and more friction, will transfer less of this power, but, all that is meaningless, because in the real word, people don do things like that, people increase bore explicitly to increase the amount of fuel and air being burned, even with the same head and valvetrain, the larger cylinder will create a larger pressure delta, increasing airflow slightly, for which the engine's CPU would provide fuel, and in the case of longer stroke increasing torque, the primary real world torque benefit of increasing stroke is the ability to now fir more air and fuel into the combustion chamber, though what you stated was true, and I've never considered it before, thank you for bringing it to light, I'm unsure if the small percentile increase in leverage would alone be enough to offset the small percentile increase in both inertia and friction, and the ratios which which the 3 vary is certainly different for every engine, so though you're point is valid, it fails to consider possible trade-offs and completely misses the point in the first place, good engineering knowledge though
also, Alphonse shit posting is still a thing? how is it lasting so long?

>>15784271
Alphonse king and pretty are all incredibly autistic and have nothing better to do with their lives and the mods are fucking useless, thats how.

>>15773626
ya ohc engines are all they use on drag srips beacuse there better same with funny cars i love seeing a 14000 horsepower ohc engine gets me wet

Boomers

AK47 of engines. Cheap and just werks.

>>15773626
OHC predates push rods

File: 4498732+_383efca20a2fb42b0a1ee9d8e55c62ff.jpg (25KB, 283x281px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 283x281px

>>15784271
>expecting anyone to read all that

I don't know

>>15773626
Size constraints. That's why the LS motors fit everywhere.

Idiots

>>15773626
less parts and shit
and its fine if your not planing to rev its ring off

Bumpo

>>15802059
>redditbabby saw some EPIC screen caps and thinks 4chan is only for shitposting

This place was better when no one knee about it.

>>15802075
t. redditor

>>15802081
t. redditor

>>15802086
t. redditor

>>15802088
t. redditor

>redditor ragequit
As expected

Sorry got distracted in another thread.
>>15802099
t. redditor

>trying to claim victory early

>>15802108
t. redditor

>i-i had to wipe away the tears

>>15802113
t. redditor
>projecting

>>15774283
Thats why theres 4bangers that make more power than old v8s. The V8 is unnecessary, all we need is 4 cylinder engines with CVTs.

File: not_an_argument.png (336KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 400x400px

>>15802118
t. redditor

>deflecting

>>15802126
t. redditor
>accuses me of deflecting when he started deflecting in the first place with his projection


Also real talk I'm a little scared by how entertaining this is. Does it get bad like an addiction and then you stop ironically shitposting and start unironically shitposting? Have I stared into the Abyss too much?

File: CmyXY4jWcAAt9J5.jpg (179KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1200x900px

>>15802133
t. redditor
>denial
BTFO

Just let it happen, buddy. Don't resist. Also stay triggered

>>15802142
t. redditor
>projecting his denial
>projecting his triggering
>trying to claim victory early when he in no way btfo me

File: trole_face_by_turtlesinmypantsd5h8tw9.png (86KB, 900x515px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 900x515px

>>15802153
t. redditor

>deflecting the truth

>>15802160
t. redditor
>still trying to blame me for deflection when he started it
It's been fun but I actually do have to leave for work now, had to mow lawn earlier. Gonna flood the board again anytime soon?

>>15802142
>that guy chugging a bottle of champagne in the back

File: IMG_7656.jpg (1MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3456x2304px

>>15802175
Nah. I like the condition or the board rn

Packaging. In the case of the v8, The cam in block push rod engine is extremely compact for the displacement it provides. Improvements in materials, manifolds, combustion chamber, iginition, fuel etc have made it much more power dense that push rod engines of old. It's not the BEST, but its a very good option when space is tight.

File: DP.jpg (193KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1280x720px

>Are there any actually worthwhile reasons to use pushrods over a conventional OHC engine?

Pic related blows the fucketh outta $1m supercars using OHV.

>>15803843
>proves my point
Thanks :^)

Holy SHIT you guys are autistic. Like, holy shit - I spent an entire year posting ONLY on /v/, and after only three days I've seen more flamewars here than I ever did on my entire span of browsing that shithole. What's worse is that on /v/ most of it is intentional baiting and shittery, but you faggots are legitimately emotionally attached to your corporations or nationalities. And it's blind. If there was this kind of die-hard and unconditional loyalty in all men you idiots could build the perfect communist utopia.
Some notable examples:
>no matter what the discussion is about, the second someone mentions Ford, some faggot has to bring Corvettes into the convo
>even if someone's not an enthusiast, the second they mention they drive an automatic you fuckers go apeshit.
I get that manual's better, but you fuckers can't be content to do what you want and let others be
>caring about manual outside of anything that isn't a racecar
>every time someone brings up Dodge, someone else brings up black people
>those retards that always shill for Civic SIs or Miatas regardless of how relevant it is to the discussion
>those fools that swear up and down that it's not okay to ridicule Chargers about their weight because they aren't meant to be performance vehicles even though they're literally Muscle cars
>those jackasses that swear that any of the other muscle cars are better
>those faggots that always get triggered when somebody mentions the Ford GT, regardless of whether or not they were complimenting or insulting it
>all these fucking brand loyalist tripfags
I bet I could say that my comment about ">caring about manual outside of a racecar" was bait and it won't matter because one of you jackasses will have already written out a response and submitted it without even bothering to read this entire post.
I hate all of you.
I hate all of you so much.

>>15804871
>only posting on /v/
found the 12 year old.
XD lmao counterstrike! amiright?

>>15804871
I know this is pasta but most stuff here is bait and shitposting too

>>15773679
Ohc are actually older than pushrods you fucking imbecile , stop spreading memes

>OHC engines seem to be superior in every way at this point.

in what way exactly

>tfw 300whp OHV V8

File: Akira-lucky-channel-16970526-1920-1200.jpg (785KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1920x1200px

>>15804871
>I spent an entire year posting ONLY on /v

>>15805346
So it's less powerful than an na dohc v6 with almost half the displacement
Cool

File: 634262363427.jpg (88KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 612x612px

>>15773626

compact/more torque. only vehicle i will drive with a pushrod in it is an American truck. otherwise its hilarious that Corvette have pushrods and rear leaf springs to this day while Skylines have been overhead cam and independent rear suspension for over 50 years

>>15804871
>every time someone brings up Dodge, someone else brings up black people
this made me laugh more than it should have
>even though they're literally muscle cars
This one's the bait. Muscle cars don't need to be light or have good suspension because they're made for straight line street racing and nothing else. You're either baiting subtly or just new and retarded to cars in general.

Inb4 someone else quotes you saying "assmad GM fangirls btfo" or "the charger has no ecoboost"

>>15805346

higher RPM and can build boost on turbo engines. how else do you think a 1991 Nissan 180sx made more horsepower than a 1991 Ford Mustang Foxbody? thats a 2.0L turbo 4 banger OHC vs a 5.0L V8 pushrod

again, my 3/4 ton Chevy pickup i couldnt give 2 shits about having a pushrod engine because im making 400hp and it hauls my camper just fine and stays where it should under 4000rpm 90% of the time. something high revving like my Supra would shit the bed if it was a pushrod being banked past 8000rpm daily

>>15805421

more like the Ecoboost that are cracking blocks not under warranty

pro tip kids, the Japanese utilized turbos mass scale over 30 years ago and called it "turbo", they didnt come 30 years later into the game having to call it "Ecoboost" or some other fancy name

>>15805437
The fuck does this have to do with my post? Stop making me laugh with you man, god damn I love this board

I agree though Ford is shit.

They're idiots

>>15773626
shorter timing chain

File: 1ed502672a1583ad6bb57e2c9fb380a9b024fc69.png (90KB, 1078x385px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1078x385px

>>15773885
and you need a longer stroke because its a pain in the ass to operate 4 valves per cylinder with pushrods

>all these motherfuckers thinking torque is some esoteric property of displacement/stroke/valvetrain/ect
>no knowing it's just a simple forumla of "HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252"

If you have two engines, geared the same, making the same power, but one at a lower RPM, that lower RPM engine will produce more torque.

>>15806137
>forgetting about crank geometry
>using foot pounds per radian per second as a measurement

>>15806137
>this faggot thinking his post is some revelation no one knew
>this faggot thinking there is only one way to define torque

>>15806075
This