big engine and nothing else

[henk4]

Originally posted by Kudosdude
The engine weights (dressed) are here

Engine weights are very subjective; I have used the heaviest listing I could find to try and remove any chance of Bias.

I have to admit the LS6 is my favourite engine.

Just looked at the specs of the LS6. It starts off with "overhead valves, pushrods". I went for a visit to my antique dealer in order to find out what pushrods are. He told me that only in very old American engines these things are still being used to manipulate the valves. Anywhere else in the world the Overhead Camshaft has made pushrods redundant.

[BPx]

Originally posted by henk4
Just looked at the specs of the LS6. It starts off with "overhead valves, pushrods". I went for a visit to my antique dealer in order to find out what pushrods are. He told me that only in very old American engines these things are still being used to manipulate the valves. Anywhere else in the world the Overhead Camshaft has made pushrods redundant.

You do realize the pushrod design is newer than the OHC design, and has less moving parts? That's how it ends up weighing less, and having a smaller physical size. As for the last line "ohc has made pushrods redundant"-- go look up "redundant". Doesn't quite fit well there.
As far as technology goes, it's right up there with any other engine made in 2003.

[guyt_x]

opinions are one thing but if you gonna state a fact about a car or specs please get it right.

It doesnt take much to go to the manufacturer's site and check something before u have read, and if its a hunch then please state so otherwise we are get people making comments on things that arnt true and it all gets very mixed up

[Kudosdude]

BPx - Spot on facts there, however, the biggest problem with pushrods is their physical weight/inertia not such a problem with todays materials.

All they need now is more than 2 valves per cylinder . . .

P.S. Any other references on the engine weights? If it only weighs 176 kg that is a light V8.

[BPx]

There is a company that makes heads for 454 Chevys that are actually 4 valves per cylinder... Although, how much do you a trust a single pushrod under that much stress?
I don't have any more links to engine weights (I've never actually had to look any others up). But, I do know of a page on the internet that has tons of weights for most older engines and a few new things, I haven't had the link for a year or two now, but I'm sure it's still floating around somewhere.

[Kudosdude]

This one has A LOT

While this has a shorter list.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of either of the above but the first seems very well researched.

[henk4]

Originally posted by BPx
You do realize the pushrod design is newer than the OHC design, and has less moving parts? That's how it ends up weighing less, and having a smaller physical size. As for the last line "ohc has made pushrods redundant"-- go look up "redundant". Doesn't quite fit well there.
As far as technology goes, it's right up there with any other engine made in 2003.

No I did not know that, can you elaborate? As Kudosdude was saying inertia is the big problem with pushrods, they have to go up and down, (just like the pistons) that's why people thought of getting rid of them. At this moment in time I cannot think of any engine currently in production that is not fitted with either one or two OHC's, (except in the USA but may be there are other examples) so obviously the weight problem is not of great importance and is very well compensated for by the better characteristics of the engine. Even modern relatively slow revving diesel engines (max 4500 revs or so) are all fitted with OHC's which is a way surprising as weight is considered to be a problem for diesel engines.

[MKielbasa]

Originally posted by henk4
No I did not know that, can you elaborate? As Kudosdude was saying inertia is the big problem with pushrods, they have to go up and down, (just like the pistons) that's why people thought of getting rid of them. At this moment in time I cannot think of any engine currently in production that is not fitted with either one or two OHC's, (except in the USA but may be there are other examples) so obviously the weight problem is not of great importance and is very well compensated for by the better characteristics of the engine. Even modern relatively slow revving diesel engines (max 4500 revs or so) are all fitted with OHC's which is a way surprising as weight is considered to be a problem for diesel engines.

Mere simplicity. A pushrod design is much simpler than any form of OHC. On an DOHC V engine you need four cams, the work involved for timing alone is restrictive.

There is nothing wrong with OHC, but in some instances it just makes more sence to go OHV.

[henk4]

Originally posted by MKielbasa
[B
There is nothing wrong with OHC, but in some instances it just makes more sence to go OHV. [/B]

As far as I know engine builders feel that in almost all instances it makes more sense to go for OHC. Any clues why?

[the_freek]

has no one heard of the DODGE SRT-4?

a V8 in a heavy car, and a V6 in the same, heavy car. the V8 may get better gas mileage than the V6, because the V6 has to work harder to get going. think about it.

American cars cant handle. Corvette Z06. 1G on the Skidpad is shitty handling?

[LT-5Fiero]

people when are the yanks going to realise now that power and speed are produced using technology and clever ideas(there is where americans fall the most short).

Ideas yes, technology no. Those ideas propelled a 1960s General Motors design and formulated it with a 4-banger and optional V6, both of them very rudimentary in design, no technology, just good ole pushrods, and formed a beast of a car in the emissions strangled 1980s, a beast that could outhandle "high performance" European and Japanese cars that ranged from 8 times to as much as 12 times as much as that old tech GM did.

you have subaru's and skyline's nocking the shit out of american boats on a stock level and little honda's doing it with a couple of modes. and still pulling of the whole handling thing off

Then tell me, who and what won this past LeMans 24Hrs? Wasn't a Skyline or a Subaru or a damn Honda, nor was it a Porsche or BMW or anything. I'll let you research it and see how stupid you are. Also find out who holds the most consecutive wins at LeMans, once again not a Japanese or European manufacturer...

I wount even think of comparing european cars becuase there is just no comtest.

Enzo Ferrari himself thought the same thing until The Ferrari Slayer showed him up at LeMans, ending factory-supported Ferraris in LeMans from that day forward.

Also dumbass, research and come back to me with what two American icons (driver and car) and tuner created a full-bodied car and took it to the Bonneville Salt Flats and outsped the McLaren F1 by 14.7 MPH. By full-bodied I mean full stock body with some aerodynamic mods to keep it planted on the ground at 254.7 MPH, stock wheels, racing tires, complete with stereo and A/C and comfortable seats.

Answers (Since I know you are too stupid to look them up yourself):

1) 1984-1988 Pontiac Fiero
2) Dodge Viper
3) Ford GT40
4) 1988 Chevrolet Callaway Sledgehammer Corvette

Callaway said they could mass produce the Sledgehammer and sell it at Chevy dealers.

[LT-5Fiero]

Originally posted by the_freek

American cars cant handle. Corvette Z06. 1G on the Skidpad is shitty handling?

1988 Pontiac Shelby Fiero GT 1.07G on the skidpad, 65 MPH slalom (Faster than some Porsches and Acuras and Ferraris), yet that is shitty handling I guess....

[PyroManiac]

Heres something a big engine can do that a marginally smaller engine CAN'T do, a flat torque curve, which is very advantageous due to the fact that the flatter the torque curve, the more evenly the power is distributed throughout the available RPM, the Dodge Viper's 8 liter V10 is a prime example of this. Large displacement also gives a large amount of torque, that’s why you don’t see puny engines hauling 5k pounds. Do NOT give me that bullshit "torque isn't relevent," I'm quite sure I could shut your mouth real quick.

If you still believe that "big displacement means a heavier engine," chew on this:
http://www.falconerengines.com/v12hi_spec.htm
Heres an AMERICAN V12, 600 cubic inches, 522lbs (dry I think), 1000hp on race gas at a :hold your breath: 6500-7000 rpm.

Compare THAT to the Mclaren F1's V12, it weighs roughly 540lbs, wet.

The Falconer V12 is also probably 20 times more reliable than the F1's, its been used in airplanes and high speed water craft, those of which require extremely reliable engines. I don't think anyone would like to stall out at 20k feet pushing 400 miles per hour. Oh yeah, don't bitch about it being an airplane engine, it is available for street use, and has been used in street legal cars.

Try getting 2k-5k plus horsepower out of a small displacement engine without using exotic materials, it’ll be damn near impossible. Top Fuel engines, believe it or not, require every bit as much technology and attention to detail as a Formula 1 engine, if not more, since the slightest fluctuation in fuel pressure can mean the difference between an all out win or a ticking time bomb.

Heres some American engines that are as high tech as anything else you can bring up
LS1/6
LT5
The entire Vortec lineup
XV12/16
Northstar 1st and 2nd gen.

Also, You people also say that big displacement doesn't require thinking? You are wrong, you couldn't be any more wrong than that, its just that simple.

And I hope you guys don't think that new equals high tech, and high tech equals OHC, you would have just contradicted yourself, further making yourself look like a major moron.

You haven’t seen the last of me, its only just begun.

[Tahoeman]

holy shit ive never seen so much mis-information in one thread in all my life, now let me get started

first of all

1. HP/L means JACK SHIT, im tired of all you damn ricers running around "oooooh my honda makes 100 hp per liter!!!" big deal, the only thing that says is that its strung out and has less headroom to make more power. HP/L doesnt give any indication about gas mileage, or weight, or anything, its a worthless stat, the only reason it even exists is due to displacement tax in certain countries, which isnt even a valid way to determine if a car pollutes more than another. (the whole reason the tax was put in place)

2. Just because an engine has more displacement doesnt make it heavy, a 5.0 block actually weighs close to the same, if not less than the SR20DET, and doesnt take up more room either. bet none of you stupid ricers knew that did you?

3. all this "pushrod is ancient technology" bullshit needs to stop now, overhead cams are just as old. OHC, is what makes your tiny little engines so big, and weigh so much. OHV is a much more compact design, when i find the picture, i'll post one of a ford dohc 4.6 liter sitting next to a pushrod 5.0, and you'll see how huge the difference in size is. Another thing that totaly proves that pushrod designs are in no way inferrior, is the chevy LS1/LS6 engines in the corvette line. the LS1 makes an easy 350 hp, weighs maybe 100 more lbs than the 1.6 liter sitting in your 17 second civic. and the vetts and F-bodys they are in get 20+ mpg for regular driving and 30 or more on the highway. now tell me one thing chevy did wrong? would putting a smaller dohc engine in their vetts make it better? no not at all, to extract that kind of power, then engine would have to rev a lot higher, sacrificing low end power, and then have to be geared differently and end up getting WORSE gas mileage and having a weaker powerband, not to mention, the engine would likely weigh the same or more, whats the advantage in that? The LS6 makes 405 hp!!! 405 hp!!! and STILL gets 20 mpg in town and 30 on the highway!! thats not much if any worse than a V6 accord with almost half the hp. now tell me why dohc designs are so much better again??

4. Handling, you people kill me, seriously, sure if you have a tiny ass economy car, that doesnt weigh much its going to naturaly handle better. but saying that american cars cant handle is the most stereotypical thing ive heard. you want proof?? the $50K corvette z06 can beat the 120k NSX-R and the 160k Ferrari 360 modena around the Nurburgring track, that is the 02/03 model, the 04 has improved handling, and made it around in under 8 minutes, which is very very rare, beating both the NSX-R and modena by more than 10 seconds. on the Hockenheim Club Circuit, an 01 z06 with 20 less hp than newer ones, beat a modena, and lost to an NSX-R by 3 tenths of a second, the new one would beat it without much trouble. and you know those F-bodys that all you ricers say handle like trailor houses? they can pull 68 mph on the slalom. and dont forget the SRT-4 which out-accellerates and out handles the WRX for less money

now would you dumbass ricers please shut up

[PyroManiac]

Originally posted by guyt_x
why build a car with a huge engine?

#1 all it does is add more weight (ok american cars are as heavy as shit anyway so who cares)

#2 your fuel economy goes out the window(only countries who can bully other coutries for cheap oil can afford it)

#3 and while techology every creep into american cars using less cc's and still get the same power (most times more than crappy american v8's)

Oh Jesus Christ... Every point you made right there is wrong.