Advanced Engineering Tech - GM V8 4 Valve?

Just seeing if anyone has any info on if GM will ever move to LS 4 valve V8? Ford has already made the move with the GT 500 platform and the new 5.0

All of the LS motors are very efficient and can make plenty of power, but the pushrod design has been around for decades and is basically imo old technology.

I just feel that it would be step in the right direction if they were to introduce a LS 4 valve motor.

Just looking for some of yalls opinions on this.

LT5 /thread

its all about airflow man it has nothing to do with how many valves in fact the only cars that really use the 4 valve right are f1 cars. look at top fuel still one cam in the valley plus its less things for the motor to turn if you only have one cam, so unless you plan on going 15+k rpm go with a push rod. ls3 heads outflow any ford 4 valve head and ls7 heads make big blocks look like smog pumps. we get all the power we need out of one cam.

It comes more down to cost and fitment than what shanemilleresp said! There is NO DOUBT that a LS engine with a well designed 4vavle per cylinder head would not outflow what is currently on the market.

If you want a technical answer then flow is related to valve curtain area. you draw one big circle on a page. then draw as 2 or three smaller circle in the middle of the larger one. messure, or work out, the circumference of the one large and then the 2 or 3 smalelr onces and see what you get. you will get a higher number with the 2 or 3 smaller circles. larger ciurtin area will equal more flow at the valve. Obviously you need to ensure the HEAD is designed well. if the ports flow for sh!t thenyou can have a million valves and the head wont work!

Ford V8 heads are CRAP! end of story. however the Ford Duratec inline 4 heads are very good. as are hondas Vtech units. Audis run 5 valves per cylinder (3 intake and 2 exhaust) and these should flow even better (although not greatly). another advantage is valvetrain stability. you put alot less stress on the springs with a OHC setup as you are effectively removing the pushrods from the equation. This should mean you can run lower spring presure (thanks to having less weight (F=MA so less weight requires less force for any given rate of acceleration)) for any given RPM.

For some idea of the advantages of well designed and worked 4 valve heads then take a look at the ford Pinto engine Compeard to the ford Cosworth. both are 2.0ltr engine, the cossy was design as a turbo engine but can be converted to N/A. a full on race preped pinto (2 valves per cylinder) would make around 230-250bhp and would be totally undriveable. a Cossy running 4 valves per cylinder can push 300bhp and still have reasonable maners! by the way the above two engine share the same block and are a good comparioson to each other.

I think Nelson Racing Engines are looking to manufacture SBC 4 valve per cylinder heads. have a look on their site. they recon they could build a street SBC that could spin to 9000rpm! you try doing that with the cam in the block and not needing the valvetrain re-adjusting every 1000miles! lol

Do i think the LS engine should have 4 valves per cylinder? NO. lol i think aftermarket guys, like nelson racing, SHOULD build these heads and help pushthe limits of the LS engines even further. however GM should no take away the manjor advantages the LS engines have of compact size for the displacement, low weight, easy of maintenace, lower modding costs, etc, etc. :)

Chris.

All of the LS motors are very efficient and can make plenty of power, but the pushrod design has been around for decades and is basically imo old technology.

I just feel that it would be step in the right direction if they were to introduce a LS 4 valve motor.

any poppet style valve isnot the BEST solution. look into sleeve valves used on some WW2 engines. these where rpoven to flow ALOT more air than any poppet valves of the time. they had their own problems, like sealing, but did offer more power for any given engine size.

also look at the spring design. Why not run penumatic valve spring assisters? you could presurize them at higher rpm or even have a cam that has diffrent lobe profile liket eh Vtech guys run.

Chris.

Do i think the LS engine should have 4 valves per cylinder? NO. lol i think aftermarket guys, like nelson racing, SHOULD build these heads and help pushthe limits of the LS engines even further. however GM should no take away the manjor advantages the LS engines have of compact size for the displacement, low weight, easy of maintenace, lower modding costs, etc, etc. :)

Chris.

I definitely agree with your key points, the LS heads flow great numbers and the simplicity of the 2 valve pushrod design can still yeild great power numbers.

Like you said ppl should build these heads to unlock the greater potential of the motors.

It would still be cool to be able to get a LS crate motor that can turn almost 9,000 :devil:

Just seeing if anyone has any info on if GM will ever move to LS 4 valve V8? Ford has already made the move with the GT 500 platform and the new 5.0

All of the LS motors are very efficient and can make plenty of power, but the pushrod design has been around for decades and is basically imo old technology.

I just feel that it would be step in the right direction if they were to introduce a LS 4 valve motor.

Just looking for some of yalls opinions on this.

You do realize that in the grand scheme of things OHC and OHV were both around during the birth of internal combustion engines?
It's only been in the "recent" 30 years that people have been nuthugging imports and their use of OHC.

I'll take less moving parts and overall smaller package of the OHV, oh and lighter too.

Give me pushrods!!!

Give me pushrods or give me death!!!


*fixed :chug:

*fixed :chug:

I actually say that all the time to my modular buddies

2012/2013 DOHC plans that were cancelled/shelved in late 2008.


LT5 was to replace LS3
6.2L DOHC
500HP @ 6500RPM
500lb-ft @ 4400RPM
Direct Injection
Displacement on Demand hardware
Cam Phaser
376 cu/in
11.0:1 C/R
11mm Intake valve lift
41mm Intake valves
Steel Crank.


LT6 was to replace LS7
6.2L DOHC
600HP @ 7500RPM
550lb-ft @ 5000RPM
Direct Injection
Cam Phaser
376 cu/in
11.0:1 C/R
13mm Intake valve lift
41mm Intake valves
Steel Crank.


LTC was to replace LS9
6.2L DOHC
700HP @ 6500RPM
700lb-ft @ 4400RPM
Direct Injection
Cam Phaser
376 cu/in
9.0:1 C/R
Supercharged + Intercooled
13mm Intake valve lift
41mm Intake valves
Steel Crank.

Give me pushrods!!!

The 4 valve per cylinder SBC heads (cant remember the name of them) used psuhroads to drive the valves.......

It was supposed to be a more bolt on solution to driving the valves than trying to add a cam belts or chains.

Chris.

http://www.araoengineering.com/

I love me some pushrod engines, and just because it's "old" does not make it primitive as in no longer effective. Not many people know that the development of the OHV engine with the camshaft in the middle of the block was an accident to begin with, well, not accident, but they did not intend to keep it in the middle of the block during the beginning engineering phases, but once they found it was effective, they decided to keep it around. Don't remember where I read that.

ls3 heads outflow any ford 4 valve head and ls7 heads make big blocks look like smog pumps. we get all the power we need out of one cam.

LS3s don't outflow stock GT500 or Coyote heads, peak numbers or at any lift point you want to pick. Don't bother with Hyland's 25" graphs either, they are off. Stock GT500s flow a tick over 330 cfm out of the box at 28", Coyote heads are pushing 350 cfm at 28" by .472" lift. GT500s also outflow LS7s up to about .500" lift, and by a huge amount in the .100"-.300" range. The 03/04 4V heds (Cobra, Mach) outflow all the cathedral ports (243s included), doing ~270 cfm at 28" by ~.500" lift. The other part most people overlook about 4Vs, huge low-mid lift velocity over a large 2V arrangement.

The Ford 4Vs are doing that on a 3.552" and 3.63" bores, now imagine the same 4V head designed around a 4.06" or 4.125" bore (increased port volume, increased valve diameters, DOHC would also allow for TiVCT). Not sure why you guys turn up your noses at 4V for LSxs, do you have something against ~450-500 cfm capable heads that offer good low-end and perfect driveability?

For the record OHC has been around for a VERY long time. About 90 years. I'd say thats old tech too. Caddie pioneered it, by the way.

Any links to your info, HSV?

Caddie pioneered it, by the way.


:eyes:

I just like to keep it simple, I was a ford guy back in the 5.0 days but I would not buy a sohc or dohc motor. Just not for me I like my simplicity plain and simple.


Why mess with what works????

Because it can be better. The Mod motors blow the old SBF out of the water.

ohthisthreadagain.jpg

I'm so glad everyone is wrapped up in flow numbers because its obviously the only factor that should be looked at when comparing or selecting heads.

Oh wait...

As has been said getting the mixture into and out of the cylinder is what it is all about. The good ls heads and intake do this as well or better than the 4valve heads and the heads are 30lbs lighter(each) and way less moving parts. The mpg figures for the ls engines also hint at the efficiency of the design. BTW I have a 500rwhp cobra 4 valve and I only wish it had a lightweight ls engine up front so it would not be so nose heavy.

GM could make better use of their 4.6L Northstar powerplant, but for some reason, they don't... I think it's that the LS series has been so successful and the OHV can come in a smaller package. Besides, for "serious" OHC power, multi-valve engines are almost required unless an absolute monster engine is built. That means more money in design and in building an engine. That's the case regardless of size when compared to OHV designs in general.

For the record OHC has been around for a VERY long time. About 90 years. I'd say thats old tech too. Caddie pioneered it, by the way. Cadillac did what? I think Cadillac had positively nothing to do with pioneering OHC, and as far as I can tell, other companies were using it some 20yrs earlier.

The good ls heads and intake do this as well or better than the 4valve heads and the heads are 30lbs lighter(each) and way less moving parts.

The LS heads move less total volume (only exception being the factory CNC'd LS7s on a 4.125" bore) with lower velocity despite having the advantage of much larger bores. The 4Vs have more parts but actually have less moving mass, and the cylinder heads can be made more compact than the 4V Modulars with direct acting mechanical buckets.

The mpg figures for the ls engines also hint at the efficiency of the design.

It hints more at the total package moreso than the engine alone. I would love to compare brake specific fuel consumption of the two engines, which is what will tell you about engine efficiency...the sticker on the window is just a snapshot of the whole story.

BTW I have a 500rwhp cobra 4 valve and I only wish it had a lightweight ls engine up front so it would not be so nose heavy.

Al block to Al block, the 4V Modular is within 20 lbs of the LS1.

Is that block for block or entire motor to entire motor? One has a supercharger on it.

Wow we got some modular nuthuggers in here. Simple fact, mod motors don't make horsepower without boost & head flow numbers don't tell the whole story. I'd bet a built 4.8L ls motor will make more HP than a built 4v modular 4.6... Similarly, I'd put money on a 5.3 over a 5.4. But I can't prove those, so back to discussing things I can prove.

You want to know why they don't move to OHC? Because manufacturers have to meet a LOT of criteria you don't even think about (a car has to run the same in Alaska in winter, and in Saudi Arabia in summer), and then they have to make money on the car afterwards. The LS motor is developed to an efficiency level other pushrod motors can't dream of reaching, and because of that it is cheaper for GM to continue putting their very efficient OHV motor in their cars than it is for them to develop a seperate OHC motor.

As a side note, the High Feature V6s are some of the most advanced OHC motors out today, GM does not eschew the development of OHC motors, they have simply developed OHV V8s to an artform. OEMs don't think like we do, it's not all about what is best and makes the most HP. It just has to be slightly better than the next guy, do everything the government wants it to do, and sell and make money. That's their criteria.


Long story short: if it's not broke, don't fix it.


ohthisthreadagain.jpg

I'm so glad everyone is wrapped up in flow numbers because its obviously the only factor that should be looked at when comparing or selecting heads.

Oh wait...

Quoted for truth.

Wow we got some modular nuthuggers in here. Simple fact, mod motors don't make horsepower without boost & head flow numbers don't tell the whole story. I'd bet a built 4.8L ls motor will make more HP than a built 4v modular 4.6... Similarly, I'd put money on a 5.3 over a 5.4. But I can't prove those, so back to discussing things I can prove. Simple fact? There are mod motors other than the 4.6L and several have made near or over 300hp without a power adder, as sold by Ford. Today, Ford offers the latest rendition, a 5.0L which makes over 400hp in stock form... To take from that, the idea that Mod motors can't make power without boost is to ignore reality. Since the Mustang no longer gets a 4.6L, and since the 4.6L offered from 2005 on was over 300hp, using that as your example is essentially a waste of time making an argument that no longer exists.

As for S/C's themselves... Well, they exist. So it wouldn't matter if one was "needed" to make power because the option is indeed available. In regards to cylinder head flow numbers... While they matter, you're surely correct that they aren't everything. Overall design can improve or hinder one engine vs another which has greater head flow numbers. It comes down to the overall package, certainly not just one aspect.

You want to know why they don't move to OHC? Because manufacturers have to meet a LOT of criteria you don't even think about (a car has to run the same in Alaska in winter, and in Saudi Arabia in summer), and then they have to make money on the car afterwards. The LS motor is developed to an efficiency level other pushrod motors can't dream of reaching, and because of that it is cheaper for GM to continue putting their very efficient OHV motor in their cars than it is for them to develop a seperate OHC motor.
I think that's about right. I've been saying for ages, it's about SALES... Keep in mind though, GM has made very good use of OHC engines already, for the past 20 plus years. They don't need to develop one... They can expand the program they have... That costs money though, and I believe GM won't push that envelope until emissions standards require it. The way our government is involved, it's coming. Some of the best engines and even entire vehicles ever created essentially go nowhere due to lack of sales. If I put 10K into production, but only get 10K for a sale, I'm not going to continue that route.

As a side note, the High Feature V6s are some of the most advanced OHC motors out today, GM does not eschew the development of OHC motors, they have simply developed OHV V8s to an artform. OEMs don't think like we do, it's not all about what is best and makes the most HP. It just has to be slightly better than the next guy, do everything the government wants it to do, and sell and make money. That's their criteria.This goes in line with what I said above... Clearly you see this as many others, including me. It's not the OHC's can't get it done, but rather, OHV's can too... short only on emissions levels, which, if our government has its way(and it always does), will be their undoing. Hopefully, brighter, more educated minds will take control in that area, and slow the process of breaking what is working... By raising a standard which simply doesn't realistically matter(emissions) in the least.

Long story short: if it's not broke, don't fix it.Enter US government... It's broken...

Al block to Al block, the 4V Modular is within 20 lbs of the LS1.

That's not the whole story. What about the weight of the heads? I imagine a complete 4v head weighs considerably more than a complete LS1 head.

I'm well aware that the most of the valve train is contained in the heads of the 4v, but I think the OHV setup would still weigh less even if you add in the weight of the lifters, pushrods, cam, timing chain and the like.

Maybe having the weight of the DOHC setup being higher up lends itself to a more "nose heavy" feel when it slightly raises the center of gravity.

http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv.html

done.

this is the only thing i would take over a simple 2 valve setup, bc the limit is non existent. the heads in the link posted, dont take any coolant, or oil. completely dry motor from the deck up. rpms would no longer be dependant on valve springs etc. they would only be limited by the bottom end. the noise reduction would be amazing too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDsRa4eT7co

this head design was created to lower emmissions. but other benefits include:

reduces emmissions
does not burn oil
eliminates cams
can use higher compression ration
more volumetric efficiency
reduces fuel consumption
lower hydrocarbons
less oil changes
engines with these type of heads have had oil tested at 50k miles, and was like the typical 3k mile oil change
doesnt require any modifications to block
no hot exhaust valve to cause detonation in high compression apps.
fully open ports, no valve to be in the way of flow
no horse power wasted to turn cams, pushrods, compress springs ect.
no valve float
no pcv system needed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDsRa4eT7co

i could see a problem there.

if the head is completely dry ( no coolant and no oil) the cylinder head will warp in a very short period of time

i could see a problem there.

if the head is completely dry ( no coolant and no oil) the cylinder head will warp in a very short period of timeSeems they've been available for at least 10yrs now. Apparently it's a 2piece design and that may help prevent warping, or make it worse.

Way back, seemingly in about 1997/8, I remember reading about them in several magazines and thinking it would be nice to have 5K to toss at my cylinder heads. Back then, I just couldn't see it, but I sure wanted to give it a run.

One magazine(or more) showed them on an otherwise stock(save their parts) 5.0L Mustang engine and I could swear they advertised 500hp... Then again, they also waste little time claiming the engine could theoretically reach over 14,000rpm as well, and we all know basically any V8, and certainly a 5.0L of old, would blast apart well before then. I can't imagine 10K, let alone 14 in any old style V8.

The idea though... outstanding!

2012/2013 DOHC plans that were cancelled/shelved in late 2008.


LT5 was to replace LS3
6.2L DOHC
500HP @ 6500RPM
500lb-ft @ 4400RPM
Direct Injection
Displacement on Demand hardware
Cam Phaser
376 cu/in
11.0:1 C/R
11mm Intake valve lift
41mm Intake valves
Steel Crank.


LT6 was to replace LS7
6.2L DOHC
600HP @ 7500RPM
550lb-ft @ 5000RPM
Direct Injection
Cam Phaser
376 cu/in
11.0:1 C/R
13mm Intake valve lift
41mm Intake valves
Steel Crank.


LTC was to replace LS9
6.2L DOHC
700HP @ 6500RPM
700lb-ft @ 4400RPM
Direct Injection
Cam Phaser
376 cu/in
9.0:1 C/R
Supercharged + Intercooled
13mm Intake valve lift
41mm Intake valves
Steel Crank.
they were really gonna bring back the LT5?:drool: any more info on this?

also that rotary valve set up looks pretty tit! wonder who will be the first major automaker to adopt it?

I'd bet a built 4.8L ls motor will make more HP than a built 4v modular 4.6... Similarly, I'd put money on a 5.3 over a 5.4. But I can't prove those, so back to discussing things I can prove.

You'd lose both of those bets. Built 4.6 4Vs (.030 over, stock stroke) are making over 500 rwhp N/A in Pure Street, and there are built stock displacement 5.4 4Vs making over 600 rwhp N/A.

And stock for stock, both the new 5.0L and the Boss 315 (which uses Mach 1 heads) put more to the wheels than the LS3s in the Camaro SS and HSV GTS.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/Ben99GT/LS3vsBoss315.jpg

i could see a problem there.

if the head is completely dry ( no coolant and no oil) the cylinder head will warp in a very short period of time

they have a test motor in a ford car that has over 150k miles on it.

one thing i just now realized, the rotary valve sytem would have 1 major benefit, more important than any other, no ptv clearance issues, you could have "full lift" or "full flow" at tdc!!! that would be amazing, instead of having to wait for the piston to drop to open a valve. you could have 350+ cfm(just a guess) for the entire intake stroke!

http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv.html

done.

this is the only thing i would take over a simple 2 valve setup, bc the limit is non existent. the heads in the link posted, dont take any coolant, or oil. completely dry motor from the deck up. rpms would no longer be dependant on valve springs etc. they would only be limited by the bottom end. the noise reduction would be amazing too

Only problem i can see with this is sealing thing tight enough. how are you going to seal the "valves"? Also it looks like there would need to be some bearing material on that shaft,or they would need to be oil in the head.......

An alternative might be tyo develop something like what Ducati use. The cams actually drive the valves on both down and upstrokes. The negates the need for valves springs totaly. however it dose add some complexity to the top end of the engine.

F1 cars and GP bike use pneumatic springs insted of coils. these are MUCH faster reacting and can be pushed to MUCH higher RPM.

Only problem i can see with this is sealing thing tight enough. how are you going to seal the "valves"? Also it looks like there would need to be some bearing material on that shaft,or they would need to be oil in the head.......

An alternative might be tyo develop something like what Ducati use. The cams actually drive the valves on both down and upstrokes. The negates the need for valves springs totaly. however it dose add some complexity to the top end of the engine.

F1 cars and GP bike use pneumatic springs insted of coils. these are MUCH faster reacting and can be pushed to MUCH higher RPM.From the looks of the Coates head, the "valve" and "cam" is essentially the same part. There's no real valve train and the system is sealed. Sealed bearings certainly aren't new, and sealed ball bearings have proven to be a pretty solid idea.

This technology isn't new though. If it didn't work, they'd know by now. The drawback for most seems to be initial cost. Over time, we find out what's best for the wallet and many people simply haven't seen this design at work, so they don't even consider using it themselves.

Pneumatic springs are another idea I've read about recently, but that's been around awhile. Sounds like a great idea for certain applications, just as the Coates head does... Which it's best for, or not... Well that's where people get concerned. And we don't like change as a rule, individually, which both of these ideas/designs are.

Yeah the new 5.0 motors are killer but I still am happy with pushrods..

As for comparing Pure Street, Hot Street, Factory Stock, or any other NMRA mod motor.....Really???? How much time and money are in those motors??

Here is what I will bring to the table, stock blocked - stock headed - cam only ls1's going how fast?? Sure the Ls motor has more cubes but the Mod motor has how many more valves and cams? There is a trade off with everything

Like I have said before I prefer pushrods, has nothing to do with Ford or Chevy. I would just rather have pushrods. You prefer mod motors that is cool.

Yeah the new 5.0 motors are killer but I still am happy with pushrods..

As for comparing Pure Street, Hot Street, Factory Stock, or any other NMRA mod motor.....Really???? How much time and money are in those motors??

Here is what I will bring to the table, stock blocked - stock headed - cam only ls1's going how fast?? Sure the Ls motor has more cubes but the Mod motor has how many more valves and cams? There is a trade off with everything

Like I have said before I prefer pushrods, has nothing to do with Ford or Chevy. I would just rather have pushrods. You prefer mod motors that is cool.This isn't about Ford or Chevy though... It's about GM going more toward what basically every other major manufacturer has done for over a decade now, some more than two, as their main design style. I think GM has more OHC engines out there than many of us realize. They simply don't push the advertisement on any level. I can't even begin to remember all the GM OHC engines over the years.

One big reason the stick with OHV in their performance cars, aside from cost, is the size of the overall package. Looking at the OHC's in the Cadillac, it's easy to see that GM could do some special things with them at any point. I still think the government will ultimately shut down their OHV engines at some point, due to this perceived problem of man made global warming. At that point, they'll surely bring out some really serious OHC's in performance cars, including Corvette. :nod:

GM could make better use of their 4.6L Northstar powerplant, but for some reason, they don't... I think it's that the LS series has been so successful and the OHV can come in a smaller package. Besides, for "serious" OHC power, multi-valve engines are almost required unless an absolute monster engine is built. That means more money in design and in building an engine. That's the case regardless of size when compared to OHV designs in general.

lol dude do you know anything about those north stars?
well i do im a tech at a gm dealer
those motors are junk
every one of them leaks oil and they are built stupid i hate working on those things

lol dude do you know anything about those north stars?
well i do im a tech at a gm dealer
those motors are junk
every one of them leaks oil and they are built stupid i hate working on those things

Partially correct. There are a lot of design differences between a FWD and RWD application on the Northstar. The FWD ones are the ones that give the engine a bad wrap. In RWD form they are quite reliable.

Partially correct. There are a lot of design differences between a FWD and RWD application on the Northstar. The FWD ones are the ones that give the engine a bad wrap. In RWD form they are quite reliable.

yea, i have seen many over 250k, ive always considered them a reliable, long lasting motor. sure they r a pain to work on, but what fwd car isnt, lol

also id would say there has to be tolerances that are very different. i mean look at factory compression of the DOHC 4.6l in relation to the ls1.

also in the cam department we will use the ms4 as a prime example. there obviously has to be something to untouched ls heads because that is a pretty excessive camshaft in the first place and pretty much untouched ls1s seem to love them where as if you would over cam a mod motor LONG before you got in the ballpark of the specs of the cam and what kind of power are ls1s making with just that cam? also what is the average power one of fords mod motors are making cam only N/A?

and i agree with the blower arguement for the fact of you really cant make an N/A (or at least i havent seen one yet) DOHC 4.6l with street manners the power numbers just arent there for them and when they do start makin power they get so high strung and un mannered that you cant live with them

and then again with the efficiency arguement i race quite frequently (and by frequently i mean nightly or every other night and every weekend lol) and i usually stay right at around the 20mpg area still. and forget about what the window sticker says how much mpg area you guys actually getting out of your mustangs?

FYI, that Coates spherical valve is not new and has never taken off because of sealing problems. It is a neat idea, but after a period of time it leaks.

You'd lose both of those bets. Built 4.6 4Vs (.030 over, stock stroke) are making over 500 rwhp N/A in Pure Street, and there are built stock displacement 5.4 4Vs making over 600 rwhp N/A.

And stock for stock, both the new 5.0L and the Boss 315 (which uses Mach 1 heads) put more to the wheels than the LS3s in the Camaro SS and HSV GTS.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/Ben99GT/LS3vsBoss315.jpg

No they dont. Ford motors blow dick with out air being shoved down their throats. Even if they do it would be with a full race cam and 15-1 compression completely unstreetable and stupid. thats why almost nobody runs them without a blower or nitrous other than a few classes. Anyone recall when 5.4 used to shoot spark plugs out of the head. Anyway why did it take ford 10 years to catch up to chevy with the new 5.0l. which i admit is kinda badass. Would be nice to see some real factory rivalry

on another note how much hp does the 5.0 claim? 4 hundred something right? and that through lets say a 5spd with driveline loss probably is in the 350ish maybe a little more to the tires. and if i also remember correctly the new mustangs have a bit of weight to them. people claim that these cars are going to be some serious competition but havent ls1's been makin roughly 350rwhp (give or take a bit more or less) with bolt ons for years?

i think the 5.0 is a good attempt at being competitive on fords part but i think its an instance of the wrong car with the right motor but i really really think they are being played up beyond their abilities. hell people played up the 2010 camaros but when everyone saw that they were fat as hell and werent layin down anything close to impressive track times the hype obviously died down. i saw a damn near stock fbody outrun one last night i mean cmon.

id like to see a bolt on fbody race on heads up and i think that will be a decision maker on whether or not we have anything at all to worry about.

back to the idea of a GM performance mod motor i honestly think if they would do it i think they would move to the northstar platform only because theyve had it around for years and they could build on it easily but i just dont see them giving a mod motor performance platform preference over the ls series because the series has already made its mark as an extremely well set up system and can be made crazy powerful AND reliable enough to live with so i think they will be building on the line for awhile

besides just for the sake of hot rods in general pop the hood on any 500 horse old school hot rod and yank the valve covers and what will you see?

NO CAMS!!!!! :engarde:

No they dont. Ford motors blow dick with out air being shoved down their throats. Even if they do it would be with a full race cam and 15-1 compression completely unstreetable and stupid. thats why almost nobody runs them without a blower or nitrous other than a few classes. Anyone recall when 5.4 used to shoot spark plugs out of the head. Anyway why did it take ford 10 years to catch up to chevy with the new 5.0l. which i admit is kinda badass. Would be nice to see some real factory rivalryYour name explains your post wonderfully.

on another note how much hp does the 5.0 claim? 4 hundred something right? and that through lets say a 5spd with driveline loss probably is in the 350ish maybe a little more to the tires. and if i also remember correctly the new mustangs have a bit of weight to them. people claim that these cars are going to be some serious competition but havent ls1's been makin roughly 350rwhp (give or take a bit more or less) with bolt ons for years?1st, it doesn't have a 5spd. 2nd, it's making closer to 380rwhp than 350ish. 3rd, who cares what a car that's been around more than 10yrs is making with bolt ons, when comparing an entirely stock car against it...

i think the 5.0 is a good attempt at being competitive on fords part but i think its an instance of the wrong car with the right motor but i really really think they are being played up beyond their abilities. hell people played up the 2010 camaros but when everyone saw that they were fat as hell and werent layin down anything close to impressive track times the hype obviously died down. i saw a damn near stock fbody outrun one last night i mean cmon.A good attempt? Well don't look now, but that full stock GT is more than making an attempt. It's clearly head and shoulders above the tired 4th gen and everyone knows it even if they can't stand to admit it. Most people would probably say it's the right car with the wrong engine, considering how many seem to despise OHC's around here. Besides, the car has already been proven, before it got this engine. The 2010 SS may be "fat" by anyone's account... It still runs the numbers better than the 4th gen and the engine has more potential without opening things up. The hype hasn't died down just yet... look at the sales. Compare those to the 4th gen. It's not very close.

id like to see a bolt on fbody race on heads up and i think that will be a decision maker on whether or not we have anything at all to worry about.Well, right now would be a great time, considering the absolutely limited bolt on parts available for the brand new 5.0L. In a year, you may not want the same comparison to be made. After all, though it is nearly 1liter smaller, the new 5.0 makes more power than any stock LS1 ever did. And, no I don't care who you ask.

back to the idea of a GM performance mod motor i honestly think if they would do it i think they would move to the northstar platform only because theyve had it around for years and they could build on it easily but i just dont see them giving a mod motor performance platform preference over the ls series because the series has already made its mark as an extremely well set up system and can be made crazy powerful AND reliable enough to live with so i think they will be building on the line for awhileCadillac already has a performance version of the 4.4 DOHC, the XLR-V. Well, I believe it's a 4.4L. Anyway, it's a Northstar engine making nearly 450hp. Caddy claims 0-60 times of 4.6 seconds.

besides just for the sake of hot rods in general pop the hood on any 500 horse old school hot rod and yank the valve covers and what will you see?More of the cylinder heads, along with the parts used to complete them... like any other engine with valve covers I suspect.

NO CAMS!!!!! :engarde:Who cares if you see the cams or not? Does it bother you to see a camshaft? If so, just leave those valve covers in place... :D

well as i said it would all come down to the new motors ability to be proven out in the world as well because a large factor of the ls1's success is their ability to respond to modification in large ways to light modifications and i just dont see this new mod motor responding any better to mods than older mustangs did

and honestly i think both the new 5.0 mustang AND the 5th gen camaro are cases of the wrong car with the right engines. tell me (not to have preference to older cars) that the 5.0 in say an 03 mach1 and an ls3 in an fbody wouldnt be a much much better "platform" for both cars. and i wouldnt say that the 5th gen is running the number better than the 4th gens either because idk if youve ever seen them in a race setting it becomes completely apparent that the main focus was put on the retro styling and the performance capabilities were an after thought

and in the bolt on department as i said i realize that the new 5.0 is relatively one liter smaller than its compared powerplants like the ls1 and 3 but that shouldnt be super shocking in the case of the ls1 considering its a platform thats been around for 12 or so years that it should perform better but i just think that the response the new motor will have to bolt ons just wont be quite as powerful as they are for the ls series

and cadillac may have a peformance version of their modular setup but i just dont see GM taking it farther than cadillac. there might be a few exceptions but it will a long day away from now that the ls series is moved out of the way by a GM mod setup if not only for the fact of the sheer reliability and toughness of the ls platform. hell my car has 181k on it and it still screams faster than any mustang around here (with the exception of a turbo fox or 2 lol:emb:) i would love to see one of those cars make it that far

give me pushrods or give me death :D

this is gettin good :nod:

At the drag strip, which seems to be the only, if not main concern on this site, the new SS is better than a 4th gen, by ALL indications. Indeed, this isn't even debatable anymore. Pig or not, it IS quicker than the 4th gen was.

While I think it may have been better in a couple aspects, based on liking the 98-02 T/A so much, to use this engine in that body, I will not argue that the current underpinnings aren't better than the last, because I surely feel they are notably better. Chassis to chassis, this is no contest for me. The ONLY concern in that regard is weight... That's it. Everything else favors the new car, handling, acceleration and everything between. Reality is, the 4th gen wasn't that good a car based on design. It looked GREAT, but needed big help in every department other than the engine and transmissiion... Really big help impo. Still, I like the 5th gen, heavy or not.

I'm not bothered by the engines or the cars they're in. The new 5.0L is a fine engine and I don't think I'd rather in it an older Mach1 unless I prefer the Mach1 over the new body. Sure, it performs better as is, and may perform better in the Mach1, on a straight course. Do I think the Mach1 can hang with the current chassis? No... No I don't. Same as the 4th gen vs 5th. I don't see a 4th gen outright besting the 5th on any course "as a rule" and don't think it is the case. I think, if times are compared on common tracks, the 5th gen is likely to win nearly every time, and I think the current Mustang will do the same over the last. Personally, I'm certain of it already.

While I expect the 5.0 "bolt-ons" to be more expensive, I suspect they'll be much the same for the engine as they were on a 4.6L. I think the LS3 "bolt-ons" will be better than the LS1's were because it's bigger and less refined(technology) than the modular, which tends to make it easier to modify for power. That said, we'll have to "hide and watch" to see what the new 5.0 does. It may be that, since the engine has grown, bolt on parts will have a greater effect, as I suspect is or soon will be the case with the LS3. On the other hand, both make more power stock, so it's possibly going to be harder in improve upon once tuning is done. More to come...

GM doesn't care how tough these engines are once they leave the dealership and their warranty has expired... The Northstar engine is reliable enough for them, so figure that out.. The LS series isn't likely to be removed by GM "for" any DOHC... But may be BECAUSE of government intervention. They're already on it, and have been for about 4 decades. They're convinced that OHV engines produce too many emissions and unless they're stopped(by voting in people with working brains), WILL end such performance oriented engines. When that happens, OHC will be the way to go, because they "burn cleaner"... never mind the fuel economy isn't often better, and in many cases is worse... They "burn cleaner"... That is, even burning MORE isn't a problem, so long as it's cleaner as you burn... Forget the fact burning more means more emissions... anyway... At the rate we're going, the GOVERNMENT will be the end of OHV performance regardless what GM chooses...

Reliability isn't a big concern. As good as the LS series is, there are several OHC engines with better track records. Not to "bust out with" Ford, but the 4.6L modular is known to cross 300K and never be opened... Well, I've heard that many times, anyway. My dad had a 99 F-250 and not only did it not have problems(at all) in the engine, he sold it with a bit over 171K and not even a hint of trouble. The guy who bought it still drives it all the time and when last I asked, he'd crossed 200K and had no trouble. Police cruisers get abused and I still hear of them going over 200K... That's reliability in my mind... That's also something helped by lower power... Look at all the 200k+ foreign jobbers with OHC engines... They run and run and run... Like an old Dodge slant 6 or Ford 300... Ya can't hardly kill 'em! The manufacturer doesn't have to care though, what happens beyond warranty... Plus, they KILLED several, indeed all of those old push rod engines even though they were very reliable. The old SBC was quite reliable, even with it's leaks and so forth... But it's gone too. That one was because of the LS series, but others weren't. Ford had no logical reason to kill the 5.8L, but BLAM! GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!

PS... The 97+LS1 was indeed a great engine from the start, but as for sheer durability, there are several other LS series engines I'd choose over it. Indeed, I'd prefer most other LS series as for durability with aftermarket modification. The quickest GM's aren't likely to have that block under the hood... And there are reasons which have been discussed many times by now. The best engine block durability doesn't often come in aluminum..

and the notion of picking a cleaner engine over a more efficient engine is just pointless because we can do things about emission. maybe us performance orientied guys wont be the ones to do it but it can be done. it just makes no sense to use a system that uses MORE fuel thats just counter productive. i think the only way if they were to ever choose to go that direction would be to move to the DOHC platform but scrap the v8 idea because the v6 and 4cyl applications are proven to get excelent mpg but a v8 platform just really hasnt done it yet in a big way.

im aware reliability isnt terrible with the over head cam set up in a more refined state but i have many experiences of my own helpin buddies with random odd problems with their mustangs and also a good buddy of mine and who is also my go to mechanic that works at a local "do everything" shop constantly has random assortments of mustangs and imports in there with anything from head gaskets to rod bearings going down. i dont necessaruly think the DOHC setup is wrong or bad i just think it has a long way to go to match the proven current set up

and yes i do agree with you that the ls1 wasnt the very best it could have been in comparrison to other ls series engines but it was excelent for what it was and is still proving itself all over the place. as far as the block goes there are stronger things than alluminum we all know that but its also in the nature of weight because build an iron block 5.3 and an ls1 with identical rwhp numbers through the same trans and roughly the same weight cars with identical gearing and tire and logic would tell you that the ls1 would win because of weight

i base my opinions of what i see on the street and track and on the street i havent been impressed by bolt on mustangs of any sort nor have i been impressed by newer body style gt's even cammed and what not they just dont deliver quite the power numbers as their boosted counter parts. also the 5th gen makes excelent power and handles great around tracks and the such but it doesnt perform in a straight line out here anyway that you figure a 380-390 something rwhp sports car should simply because of weight. hell it would perform tons better on a circut if it shed some of the bulky nonsense its just tough to make a newer car faster than an older when you add more horsepower and several hundred pounds its just doesnt necessarily work

and with bolt ons i say we should maybe on this site have some sort of a bet. just a gentlemens bet more than anything. im curious to see if the new 5.0 will respond to bolt ons and free mods and the such in the way that a 5th gen ls3 would. bolt ons have long been our big pride because of the power than can be added without diggin into the engine itself so lets see if the new mustang can "hang"

ill buy dinner if it wins:D
:chug:

I think it would just be fine to wait for performance numbers from the Cadillac... It's going to be the proving ground all by itself. If it does really well, GM will have gained nearly invaluable information and, no doubt, will use it in a lighter, far less luxurious vehicle. They'll probably bump the size as well, if they can make it fit into a smaller vehicle. An engine like the 4.4L in 6.0L size... might just produce massive power.

Allow me to throw some logic into the pot.
Why spend more more and get a physically bigger, heavier engine that isn't any more efficient?
Stop, how many performance cars today can get at least 19/27mpg?
Now how many of those (what 3 or so?) have at least 400hp?

If OHC engines are a "solution" then why is it the GM pushrod engine is leading in everything? Look at weight, physical size, power, torque curve and cost. All comparable OHC engines are massively bigger, heavier and more expensive while getting worse gas mileage and costing more.
Does anyone think its a coincidence that the LSx engines are being swapping into everything these days? Their compact pushrod design allows them to be physically smaller than many V6s, and lighter as well.
Example:
http://www.fordcortina.net/pix/4.6-DOHC-vs-302W.jpg
And the LSx series for example:
LS2 compared to a Nissan VQ 3.5L V6
http://harrismarine.co.nz/bbpress/?bb_attachments=750&bbat=551&inline
LSx compared to a RB26 I6
http://lh5.ggpht.com/__nU6LVAAgH8/SXP4yyDGVuI/AAAAAAAAABo/WAxiCCf62PQ/s720/LS1%20and%20RB26%20front.JPG
LS1 compared to 1UZ 4L V8
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/81/l_5f3400a7a0a34f7ca8deec92cf5595f7.jpg
http://harrismarine.co.nz/bbpress/?bb_attachments=750&bbat=551&inline
Or check out how massive nissans VH V8 is or Toyota's newer 5.6L V8 is.

Allow me to throw some logic into the pot.
Why spend more more and get a physically bigger, heavier engine that isn't any more efficient?That's been much of this discussion already. The answer is, the GOVERNMENT!
Stop, how many performance cars today can get at least 19/27mpg?
Now how many of those (what 3 or so?) have at least 400hp?I only know of two possibilities which make over 400hp in American cars(excluding supercharged Ford models), but several in foreign cars. None I know of gets 19/27, but the new Camaro SS is only rated at 16city 24hwy, and the standard Corvette is 16/26. Cadillacs 443hp rated 4.4L DOHC is rated at 23, just 1 behind Camaro, while making more power thanks to a supercharger(which is fine be me), while the 5.0 DOHC Ford is rated at 17/26(manual) and 18/25(auto) on the hwy.

The new V6 Camaro is rated at 17/29... btw. The V6 Mustang is rated at 19/29 or 19/31. If economy is your thing, you probably aren't looking for a V8.

If OHC engines are a "solution" then why is it the GM pushrod engine is leading in everything?What's it leading? Compactness? Coolness? There are probably 50 engines available today, which happen to be DOHC and also happen to make at least the LS series power. Many are certainly close on economy as well, including GM's own. There are probably a dozen companies which offer 500hp or more in America today, most of them with OHC engines. I'm all for OHV, but there is potential in OHC, that's all.

Look at weight, physical size, power, torque curve and cost. All comparable OHC engines are massively bigger, heavier and more expensive while getting worse gas mileage and costing more.Except fuel economy and power, which is truly negligible, I agree with you... But our government couldn't care less and it is that government which makes the rules.

Does anyone think its a coincidence that the LSx engines are being swapping into everything these days? Their compact pushrod design allows them to be physically smaller than many V6s, and lighter as well. I can't think of any V6 that's really larger than the LS series. Keep in mind, it's 4 cylinders long and V6's are only 3. Width and height.. well okay, but I'm sure it's close overall. Most V6's are fairly light these days. Then again, who wants to swap "up" to V6 power when a V8 is available??

The LS is a simple choice for many. Its size is a huge reason for many of those, and its aftermarket is the other huge reason.

That's been much of this discussion already. The answer is, the GOVERNMENT!
I only know of two possibilities which make over 400hp in American cars(excluding supercharged Ford models), but several in foreign cars. None I know of gets 19/27, but the new Camaro SS is only rated at 16city 24hwy, and the standard Corvette is 16/26. Cadillacs 443hp rated 4.4L DOHC is rated at 23, just 1 behind Camaro, while making more power thanks to a supercharger(which is fine be me), while the 5.0 DOHC Ford is rated at 17/26(manual) and 18/25(auto) on the hwy.

The new V6 Camaro is rated at 17/29... btw. The V6 Mustang is rated at 19/29 or 19/31. If economy is your thing, you probably aren't looking for a V8.

What's it leading? Compactness? Coolness? There are probably 50 engines available today, which happen to be DOHC and also happen to make at least the LS series power. Many are certainly close on economy as well, including GM's own. There are probably a dozen companies which offer 500hp or more in America today, most of them with OHC engines. I'm all for OHV, but there is potential in OHC, that's all.

Except fuel economy and power, which is truly negligible, I agree with you... But our government couldn't care less and it is that government which makes the rules.


I don't care how many times the EPA restructures their system, different driving and power delivery characteristics make nothing more than nominal ballpark figures of MPG numbers.
With OHV and OHC engines that are otherwise comparable, driving under the same conditions, the OHV will usually get better gas mileage.
LS1's get better gas milegae than Mod motors.
My DD 3.5 V6 OHV gets 2-3 mpg better than the average Honda Accord 3.5 DOHC with a M6 to my A4.

I don't think anyone is saying there is something wrong with OHC engines, just that they don't have the same characteristics we are used to in our OHV engines.
Most of us are just annoyed by the last 40 years that had lead up to the global misunderstanding of OHV engines. The fact that OHV is referred to as prehistoric technology while OHC is toted as a great technological advancement when in reality each is practically as old as the other.

I blame the blind ignorance of the general population concerning the fundamental basics of internal combustion engine workings should any government ban on OHV engines occur.

I will continue to buy and drive OHV engines as long as I possibly can. Even my lawnmower is OHV eventhough I'm sure I would've never noticed a difference.

i think more than anything the overall setup of a pushrod motor is just an easier setup and is a bit more point and squirt and user friendly which is appealing to people. in reality people that have some minor knowlegde in cars dont like to pop the hood in modern cars and see this massive jumble of nonsense that spans the entire engine bay because to be honest its a bit frightening. also in my mind knowing that the OHC style motor has been around basiclly as long as the OHV why has it taken the technology so long to catch up? the reliability may have been proven in smaller motors like the 4cyl set ups and v6's but it just hasnt developed far enough in the v8 catagory to be anything special to look at.

as far as cadillac goes if the ever decided to take a shot at a really performance geared car which is really unlikely with an OHC setup it would honestly be pretty alright if they could get the direction right but i dont see them doing it in a very big cube setup simply because its just so difficult to get cubic inches to work with the OHC setup because if they could manage it all these all out performance foreign makers would be jumping on it. it would be interesting to see them try it in all honesty but i just dont see it workin out super well. and i also doubt they will go that route because if they did make an all outn performance car then obviously its main competition right away would be good ole grandpa vette which is a bit ahead of the game at this point and thats a bit more catch up than i think they are willing to do.

honestly the weight is id say a decent factor in the OHC setup being flawed simply because of all the weight and bulkyness the just have some much going on its kinda holding it back.

and in the foreign big power department i hate to say it but a majority of the foreign v6, 8, 10, and 12 platforms that come to mind for me that really make good power are again boosted. boost just works for OHC engines im not super sure why but that seems to be what they need.

on another note i believe the feel of the power in an OHV motor such as the ls series is just a better feeling than the OHC style of the 4.6 mustangs simply because of the way it is delivered. i see the ls series as when you smash it, it just plants you and holds you there until you grab another gear and then its the same story for that gear where as when you rip it in a stang it feels good at first but as you start gettin rpms goin it just kinda shits out up top. i think the OHV style is a more "fun" platform to play with. of course the only exception i have to offer in mustangs favor happens to be an 04 whipple cobra that a buddy of ours grabbed when he got back in town from turban land. it was pretty nasty when he took me for a ride but hell im sure anything with 646rwhp on 23psi would be a screamer lol. its all personal opinion on where ya like your power and for me i like to know what kind of power im makin at all given rpm instead of guessin when im too far into the rpm to get any fun out of it

a constant pull is the best pull IMO
:thumb:

I don't care how many times the EPA restructures their system, different driving and power delivery characteristics make nothing more than nominal ballpark figures of MPG numbers.
With OHV and OHC engines that are otherwise comparable, driving under the same conditions, the OHV will usually get better gas mileage.
LS1's get better gas milegae than Mod motors.It has nothing to do with fuel economy... They don't give a rat's behind about economy, no matter how many times they lie to us... It's based on C.A.F.E. standards... They keep lowering the limits on emissions and the typical OHC has lower emissions. They're looking for ways to force manufacturers into lower power(but it's clearly not working). It seems they intend to kill the OHV altogether, no matter how senseless that is... and it IS senseless.

They don't care what's easier... They WANT to make things more difficult for all of us... It's part of their plan for control. If they make it difficult enough, people will stop working on it... or so they think and hope.

That's been much of this discussion already. The answer is, the GOVERNMENT!

When in doubt, blame the government right? What exactly is the government getting out of this?


I only know of two possibilities which make over 400hp in American cars(excluding supercharged Ford models), but several in foreign cars. None I know of gets 19/27,

I guess you didn't look very hard, the C5 Z06 gets 19/27mpg while making a 405hp, as well as the LS2 C6...
I don't see any OHC engines doing this, that was my point.


What's it leading? Compactness? Coolness? There are probably 50 engines available today, which happen to be DOHC and also happen to make at least the LS series power.

Power/torque to weight? Compare the performance engines in its class to its physical size, gas mileage, and cost.
The LSx is smaller, lighter, less expensive, gets better gas mileage all while making as much or more power than the competition.


Many are certainly close on economy as well, including GM's own.
And theres the irony, all the "high tech" OHC engines are only close to the economy of the "low tech" pushrod engine.

There are probably a dozen companies which offer 500hp or more in America today, most of them with OHC engines. I'm all for OHV, but there is potential in OHC, that's all.
And all of which are the size of a small barn compared to the LS7, none could fit into the engine bay of a C6 for example, their just to bulky and wide with those huge heads. So your left with the LS7 which is making as much power with less size and weight while getting better gas mileage?
So let me ask, if all you "need" is 500hp, why go with a bigger, heavier engine to get there?


I can't think of any V6 that's really larger than the LS series. Keep in mind, it's 4 cylinders long and V6's are only 3. Width and height.. well okay, but I'm sure it's close overall. Most V6's are fairly light these days. Then again, who wants to swap "up" to V6 power when a V8 is available??

I guess you didn't see the pictures posted above?
The Nissan VQ V6 is clearly much larger than the LS2.

OHC people tend to forget that nothing in life is free, and cost, weight, packaging, and relative performance are all trade offs.

I'll stick to low CG and low mass engines for my cars that turn.

like ive been saying though i dont neccessarily think OHC is bad its just not to where it needs to be on the technology front and alot of those types of motors are far to expensive to maintain and modify that they just dont work with the kind of money the average person has to spend. i think if it developed a little more and was a bit more of a proven technology it wouldnt be so bad

This was probably mentioned somewhere else, but there was a company making OHV 4V heads for the LS series engines which flowed over 400cfm on the intake side, but I'm pretty sure they ran out of money fast while making them, considering they don't sell them anymore.

EDIT: Here's the link, but I don't think they actually still sell them.
http://www.araoengineering.com/LSX.htm

When in doubt, blame the government right? What exactly is the government getting out of this?The same thing it's been getting for the past 40yrs... MONEY! Those parts aren't free and for every single one sold, the government gets a cut. So they force manufacturers to add parts, growing the governments income with each. The government doesn't have to pay for any of them. They simply reap the rewards. SMOG garbage started in the 1970's and that caused manufacturers to spend more, hire more people, design new parts, etc.

Remove all that crap from a new LS7 and look what happens to the performance... It goes up, including economy, I'm sure.

I guess you didn't look very hard, the C5 Z06 gets 19/27mpg while making a 405hp, as well as the LS2 C6...
I don't see any OHC engines doing this, that was my point.http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/coupe/features-specs/

I only looked as far as the Chevy website... But I wasn't looking for cars they USED to produce, only those they make today. If you wanna look back, we had cars making between 29 and 35mpg back in the late 80's. They were all 4 bangers, but look today... They're either even smaller or they're Hybrids. The reason... largely, emissions equipment and other government mandated additions. Thing is, we're not buying new 1988 models anymore...

Some very intresting ideas being kick around here. and Very nice to see everyone keeping it civil and no arguments starting, esp as its a touchy subject! ;)

I think if people are after an economical car then they need to be looking at a modern deisel engine. Im sorry but when you look at something like BMWs 335/535 engines you have to sit back and take note of what they are doing! these are briliant engines form the factory and will make stacks of power and torque all day long and still get you 35++ to the gallon. then there is the Audi V8 deisels and probably verious other engines to! If you want pretty good performance AND economy then you need to look towards the deisel fuel.... IMO :)

as for gas, well its still the fuel type to be had for power!

What are you guys feelings about the likes of Lamborgeni V10 and V12 engines? They are DOHC and the V10 is around 5.0ltr. the one thing that I think is great about them is the RPMs they can turn! 8500rpm is doable with the new V12 i think!!! also what about the Farrarei V8s? they are pretty small but are making MASSIVE power N/A.

Regards,

Chris.

well you are right there if economy is your thing then diesel is seeing to be the forefron type of engine that is out there for economy. actually as i remember it there is some VW polo blue motion thing that if i remember is capable of like 74mpg or some rediculous number like that.

yes the jambos can turn some crazy rpm but i think the gallardo is in the neighborhood of 550 somethin horse with is probably 48x awhp and i think the murcielago is like 640 with is 5 something to the tires and if the have a performance v10 or v12 and it isnt making that kind of power then they have someting up. also the rpm they can turn has something to do with them being a relatively small cubic inch engine with short strokes. the short stroke is the key to gnarly rpms like that.

as i remember also the ferrari v8s arent the heavy hitters from ferrari all the big power cars are there v12 engines. the v8s are around 4xx something im sure.

one thing i think you over looked is the maintenance cost of these cars. road cars turning that kind of rpm making that much power take alot of money to keep on the road. you have service stuff like that so much its not even funny you spend an absolutely outrageous amount of money getting the car and them keeping it on the road is a whole new ball park of money your getting yourself into. and forget modifications unless your just one of the absolutely priviledged. cars like that are sold as the "best they are meant to be" thats why they are so expensive. when it comes to those types of vehicles you have to look at everything from crazy modifications to standard keep it on the road type stuff because that adds up in a hurry too.

The same thing it's been getting for the past 40yrs... MONEY! Those parts aren't free and for every single one sold, the government gets a cut. So they force manufacturers to add parts, growing the governments income with each. The government doesn't have to pay for any of them. They simply reap the rewards. SMOG garbage started in the 1970's and that caused manufacturers to spend more, hire more people, design new parts, etc.

Remove all that crap from a new LS7 and look what happens to the performance... It goes up, including economy, I'm sure.
Im not going to get off topic with a huge debate over the government with neither of us having solid proof about anything they truly "get" out of it.
While fuel economy may go up a mpg or two without all the emissions crap on an engine they will however pollute more (not that I personally care, but im just saying).



http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/coupe/features-specs/

I only looked as far as the Chevy website... But I wasn't looking for cars they USED to produce, only those they make today. If you wanna look back, we had cars making between 29 and 35mpg back in the late 80's. They were all 4 bangers, but look today... They're either even smaller or they're Hybrids. The reason... largely, emissions equipment and other government mandated additions. Thing is, we're not buying new 1988 models anymore...
I'm talking from anytime, ever.
And clearly you missed the point again, please reread what I was saying:
"Stop, how many performance cars today can get at least 19/27mpg?
Now how many of those (what 3 or so?) have at least 400hp?"
I was using that as a point of how OHC engines are actually not any more "efficient" and a pushrod engine.
The pushrod LS6 gets better gas mileage than any 400hp production engine that I know of (and still better than many 250-300hp engines as well).

What are you guys feelings about the likes of Lamborgeni V10 and V12 engines? They are DOHC and the V10 is around 5.0ltr. the one thing that I think is great about them is the RPMs they can turn! 8500rpm is doable with the new V12 i think!!! also what about the Farrarei V8s? they are pretty small but are making MASSIVE power N/A.

Regards,

Chris.
Very cool engines but ridiculously expensive, and still physically massive thanks to be OHC although pretty lightweight thanks to the use of high tech ($$$) materials.

I'll add some perspective about fuel economy when comparing OHC and OHV. One of the reasons car manufacturers utilize OHC is because you can get 'more' power for a smaller displacement than OHV. What I mean is that you can typically rev higher and produce larger peak HP numbers. European manufacturers had historically done this to get power from smaller engines because of taxes imposed by their governments on displacement though I'm not sure if they still do impose those taxes. The downside of that approach is the transmission gearing. If you look at a 6 speed from a BMW M car for example you'll see ridiculously (relative to our cars) lows gears in the trans and the rear. The new M3 V8 is a good example of a V8 car 4.0 litres that gets crap for gas mileage; just 20 mpg highway. To get 420 BHP the engine needs to rev to 8300 rpm. And the gear ratios: 1st: 4.06 / 2.40 / 1.58 / 1.19 / 1.00 / 0.87 with a 3.85:1 rear. There's no cruising at <2000 rpms in a 50% overdriven gearbox for that car.

Obviously a larger engine can get the same power (and loads more torque) at a lower RPM, but it doesn't matter if that larger engine is OHC or OHV. The C4 Zr-1 had a 5.7 DOHC engine that was rated for 25mpg highway back in 1990. And believe me there was no loss of low end torque... I've driven them.

We just see more smaller displacement engines attempting to utilize OHC to make power because, well, they can. If you compared two engines of equal displacement and similar HP/TQ (nothing wild in either engine) in the same vehicle and drivetrain you'll find negligible fuel mileage differences. The problem is trying to find two engines to compare. E.g. A n/a 6.4 litre 630BHP Lamborghini engine is nowhere near comparable to a *stock* n/a 6.2 430BHP LS motor in terms of fuel mileage. Get the LS motor stretched to 6.4 and make 630BHP n/a then compare how much fuel it needs. The LS might still win, but at least then it's a true comparison. Same goes for LSx vs Mod Ford.

$0.02

well you are right there if economy is your thing then diesel is seeing to be the forefron type of engine that is out there for economy. actually as i remember it there is some VW polo blue motion thing that if i remember is capable of like 74mpg or some rediculous number like that.This is something to consider... On two fronts, if memory serves correctly. First, diesel, though not really part of this topic(which is why I've avoided bringing it up) is certainly THE way to go impo. There are serious diesels available and, while they're heavy, they are far more efficient than gasoline engines. AUDI makes a V10 diesel which I think has been used to win(overall) the 24 hr Le Mans 2 or 3 times already. That shows me they not only make great power/torque, but are also still efficient(comparatively) and durable.

Diesel fuel is also easier to create than gasoline, and is cheaper to make as well. Add that to the efficiency of diesels and you have a winner. Maybe that's why European cars are so commonly diesel powered.

As for the "Polo" or whatever it's called... I don't believe that's available in America and I believe that's the car I read about which convinced me, our government DOES NOT CARE what the economy is. They evidently said "NO" to that car BECAUSE it doesn't meet American emissions standards... At 74mpg... I don't care what the emissions is... It HAS to burn less fuel than anything on the road here(cars in class anyway) and therefore, creates less emissions overall, as opposed to PPM. For some reason, our fed won't allow it to be sold in America, yet the very same government insists that ALL manufacturers increase fuel economy in America.

Im not going to get off topic with a huge debate over the government with neither of us having solid proof about anything they truly "get" out of it.
While fuel economy may go up a mpg or two without all the emissions crap on an engine they will however pollute more (not that I personally care, but im just saying).There's really no debate to be had regarding the government gaining money by forcing manufacturers to add parts. Simply stated, they do. They tax everything.

Economy surely rises when emissions crap is removed. I don't care how "dirty" they burn, as I truly believe we cannot hurt the earth's atmosphere even if we try. Remove weight, improve economy... Usually. Remove weight AND allow for better airflow through a given engine, surely economy rises. Many emissions parts hurt flow, particularly in cylinder heads and intake systems, along with the obvious, exhaust. Smog pumps add drag to the engine and that can't help economy either. In a nutshell, emissions parts cause lower economy, no matter how clean an engine burns.

The whole emissions thing is a scam in my view, based on common sense alone, which tells me that making any engine less efficient is also going to cause it to burn more fuel and when it does that, it produces more emissions, whether or not they're "cleaner" in a ppm sense.

I'm talking from anytime, ever.
And clearly you missed the point again, please reread what I was saying:
"Stop, how many performance cars today can get at least 19/27mpg?
Now how many of those (what 3 or so?) have at least 400hp?"
I was using that as a point of how OHC engines are actually not any more "efficient" and a pushrod engine.
The pushrod LS6 gets better gas mileage than any 400hp production engine that I know of (and still better than many 250-300hp engines as well).I'm really not arguing your point on economy. I've agreed with it from the start, at least in the case of the LS series. The point I was making is that our government doesn't care how good the economy REALLY is... It only cares how much more difficult it can make life for manufacturers. That nonsense actually led to the LS series imo. The LT1 was well worn, but didn't meet emissions standards without adjustment... GM tuned it to run hotter, so it could burn off more fuel, or at least spent gases. That leads to shorter engine life. The LS is much more efficient and doesn't need to run as hot to meet standards... That's how I see it anyway. Perhaps the aluminum block and heads were the biggest contributors, and they helped in several ways over the LT1.

In the end, companies are creating more and more efficient OHC engines, at a higher cost, to meet emissions standards while attaining at least decent performance... The only reason I think they're going OHC in so many cases is because those engines generally create lower emissions. I remember hearing back in 1991-3 that the 4.6 was so clean it didn't require a smog pump at all. That is a huge help, particularly over time. I'm sure other OHC's are either the same or similar.

My 1997 C5 LS1 didn't need a "smog pump" to pass emissions. I don't recall any C5 or C6s with pumps (EGR).

I'd look for the next production Vette engine to be a DGI (Direct Gasoline Injection) LS series engine of about 5.5 L (~336-340 cubes) with better power torque, fuel economy and emissions that the current 6.0 L LS3. My guess would be about 440-450 hp.

4.065 bore (from the 6.2L) and 3.268 stroke (from the 4.8L) would work out fairly close. Why not?

It's no secret that the current year GT2 class C6.R is a production-based 5.5L DGI (or E85R ehtanol race fuel) engine.

My $.02

Jon

then trick the government if that is honestly their plan because that whole idea of emissions over economy is 1 step forward and 2 steps back. why would you make a car that uses more of a limited resource to make less emissions that is absolutely retarded and irresponsible

i think hybrid cars are a joke and the prime example is of course the prius. first of all they make decently efficient motor and put it in the bulky nonsense "green" car. honestly look at what it takes to actually make all that hybrid bs in a prius. watch top gear for god sakes lol they went through the run down of everything it took to make a prius and apparently studies have shown that 1 prius does more long term damage to the environment than a land rover discovery. are you joking me? this hybrid nonsense has to stop once and for all IMO.

i think the economy of an OHC engine is pretty good when used in smaller engine type applications such as hondas and the like but in a v8 or bigger plat form such as ford mod motors or lambos (which in reality get absolutely terrible mpg btw) or whatever gets you going, it just isnt a proven platform in the economy department its hard to make an engine that big and bulky have good performance qualities to make it power a decent sized car and still have enough performance to plant you when needed it just cant be done yet. it has the potential to get there but we havent gotten there yet.

if GM decided to go with the northstar platform as a performance engine i think it will be hard for them to get into something other than caddys simply because the LS series is chevys pride and joy, pontiac used it quite alot, and im pretty sure buick did too, Holden uses the hell out of the series too i just dont know unless the LS series was somehow faded out where they would go with it

My 1997 C5 LS1 didn't need a "smog pump" to pass emissions. I don't recall any C5 or C6s with pumps (EGR).You sure about them not having the pump? I think the C5 did, needed or not... as a requirement from the government. Even if it had no pump, it still has a plethora of emissions control parts, none of which were free and none of which really help economy... or emissions for that matter.

Most engines probably still require the pump, along with several other parts, even if OHC. How much could GM save on any vehicle by not having to put catalytic converters on? Thousands per model? More? Since they have to warranty that part for some 70,000 miles(maybe 80k), each one they have to replace under warranty simply helps drive up the cost of new cars. How much hp does it "cost" to use cats? After all, their main job seems to be restricting airflow(I know, it causes heat to help burn off excess gases)... So we may all burn more fuel just driving. There's also the added weight and cost to customers who no longer have a warranty... The government "earns" money with each sale, yet all they did is encourage the sale by making up a law. They had nothing to do with the work, etc., but they get paid. Then there's the (no doubt) thousands of vehicles which have burned to the ground, thanks to an overheated cat being parked over tall grass... But THOSE "emissions" don't seem to matter, nor do they cost the government anything... They only make that government more money. :bang:

My view is, emissions, like the great debacle known as "man made global warming" is all a big fat disastrous HOAX! A money making SCAM! :nod:

i cant lie to you mr. ford lover i actually agree with ya there lol
man made global warming is complete stupidity and its amazing people are buyin into it

i cant lie to you mr. ford lover i actually agree with ya there lol
man made global warming is complete stupidity and its amazing people are buyin into itWhatever I said that made you think I'm a Ford lover... Sorry, just calling it like I see it. I'm hardly the only one. I do like Fords just fine and I think they've done far more "right" over the past 30yrs than has GM... But so what. Honestly, I can't see "loving" a brand. I've probably owned more Fords than GM over the yrs, but much of that is because the only pickup I'll buy is a Ford. On that note, I may soon change my tune. I REALLY like the latest GM's.

The whole thing is about GM making 4V engines. I've spent more time actually talking about GM making 4V engines than anyone else in the thread, from memory. We had Ford brought up for the obvious reason... They build a "performance" OHC V8 and aside from Cadillac, they're "it" in America. However, it isn't like I brought it up, the OP did. My "argument" hasn't been about how the OHC is better either, just that it's here to stay and can be used for performance as well as any engine type.

Reading through this thread makes me glad about the existence of various LS motors.

The pictures in this thread comparing the compactness of the LS1 to various dual overhead cam motors made my day. Simplicity, compactness and bang-for-the-buck are bliss. :D

Enjoy it while you can because thing change ... For better or worse ?
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1043518_yet-more-rumors-of-mid-engine-v-6-c8-corvette



.

The smog pump being on any ls engines would be news to me.

LS engines came with electric smog pumps e.g. on 4th gen F bodies and I believe C5's as well. EGR on the LS1 manifold but not on the LS6 manifold.

My 02 has no EGR, but definitely has AIR (smog pump) otherwise there is no reason for those hoses running into the exhaust manifold. Not sure about some of the newer cars or the C6 vettes.

Reading through this thread makes me glad about the existence of various LS motors.

The pictures in this thread comparing the compactness of the LS1 to various dual overhead cam motors made my day. Simplicity, compactness and bang-for-the-buck are bliss. :D

Enjoy it while you can because thing change ... For better or worse ?
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1043518_yet-more-rumors-of-mid-engine-v-6-c8-corvette



.

There is hardly any info on the C7 yet, so this is nothing more that ignorant speculation as far as I'm concerned.
It will not happen, I can tell you that. GM knows that the number of buyers they will lose as opposed to the ones they will gain from this is severely unbalanced. They would lose (m)or(b)illions in the overall scheme.

Whatever I said that made you think I'm a Ford lover... Sorry, just calling it like I see it. I'm hardly the only one. I do like Fords just fine and I think they've done far more "right" over the past 30yrs than has GM... But so what. Honestly, I can't see "loving" a brand. I've probably owned more Fords than GM over the yrs, but much of that is because the only pickup I'll buy is a Ford. On that note, I may soon change my tune. I REALLY like the latest GM's.

The whole thing is about GM making 4V engines. I've spent more time actually talking about GM making 4V engines than anyone else in the thread, from memory. We had Ford brought up for the obvious reason... They build a "performance" OHC V8 and aside from Cadillac, they're "it" in America. However, it isn't like I brought it up, the OP did. My "argument" hasn't been about how the OHC is better either, just that it's here to stay and can be used for performance as well as any engine type.

I just want to say that I have no ill feelings and this is one of the best intelligent conversations on Tech in quite some time. I completely respect your point of view, but your point in bold hardly needed to be made. It's the exact mindset of practically all of America.

I have no real problems with OHC, but I don't see it as better than OHV. I just wish the overall ignorance of the public concerning OHV could be changed. Hell even automotive magazines view OHV as dinosaur technology. They mutter those exact words probably 12 times with each Corvette review, yet the overall tone of their article goes a little something like "wee! torque! boner! bad interior :("

I'm willing to bet most OHC nutswingers haven't ridden or driven a decent performing OHV car either ever or in a very long time. The powerband and delivery is intoxicating and is the reason we love these cars.

Much in the same way old school BBC guys look at us weird for loving our little 346 small blocks, I struggle to see what is so great about OHC. I've owned a Talon TSi AWD with a few mods and SOTP it was slower than my old L67 Bonneville despite being close to 2 seconds faster in the 1/4.

on the note of the C7 if the ever went to a v6 platform or a mid engine or AWD setup i believe there would be a rush on GM headquearters. if they did any of those things i would view it as blasphemy and gear up for war:secret2:

secondly i heard a long time ago (of course this was in our "depression") that a restyling of the corvette into the C7 would be post poned until 2014 at the soonest if it wasnt put on hold indefinately. which in my mind given the way the economy is now idk why they would keep that up but they are in charge and i think if they stuck with that plan they are asking for their performance poster child to get stale and unattractive.

honestly i believe it is a bit nonsense how reviewers look at OHV as archaic or ancient and see OHC as a godsend. the reality of it is one CAN be made better than the other its just a personal preference of how the power is delivered in my mind that draws certain people to certain cars. hell thats how the ls series was born.

they took 2 vettes debadged them and did not let the testers which happend to be GM ceo's or something, open the hoods. one had a lt4 pushrod engine and the other had a lt5 DOHC. both cars were tested by the big guns of gm and they ultimately chose the pushrod style simply on power delivery and thats why the ls series ended up as pushrod instead of DOHC despite the lt5 having more power and the like.

people need to look at the facts and what not of an engine before they try to cut it apart and in the very end its personal preference of power delivery and thats all there is to it.

p.s. yea BBC owners need to get there nose out of the air because last time i checked when you build a 500rwhp BBC and a 500rwhp ls motor or SBC and put them in comparative cars who do you think is gonna drag who 1320ft?

:drive: yea get wrecked bad kids

owned haha

There is hardly any info on the C7 yet, so this is nothing more that ignorant speculation as far as I'm concerned.
It will not happen, I can tell you that. GM knows that the number of buyers they will lose as opposed to the ones they will gain from this is severely unbalanced. They would lose (m)or(b)illions in the overall scheme.They may think, if they made such a car, sales would increase. They'd market the car as if it's nostalgic, or they'd play up the mid-engine... Maybe it will even be a lower cost, although certainly no time soon... Then again, this model would be years away, if it ever happened.

I just want to say that I have no ill feelings and this is one of the best intelligent conversations on Tech in quite some time. I completely respect your point of view, but your point in bold hardly needed to be made. It's the exact mindset of practically all of America.It's not like I can help the fact the OHC is in full swing... Even GM is in the game, and has been for over 2 decades now(longer aside from V8's). Most people don't know an engine type from a hole in the ground. It's the engineers, designers, etc. who make these things "the norm." ... AT the behest of our government, mind you. It's not like the OHV is banned, or anything... But they've placed so many restrictions on them, manufacturers are moving on.

A few yrs ago, M-B designed and built a OHV which it took to INDY and evidently smoked the competition with, and the engine(apparently along with it's design) was promptly BANNED from INDY racing... Why? I have no idea other than it rubbed "the establishment" the wrong way... Prolly because it was cheaper and still made more power and lasted the race, etc. It's been awhile since I read it, so I don't remember the details.

But hey... The newer diesels are doing the same as far as I'm concerned(not in IRL). BIG power and torque, low RPM, long life, efficiency... Not much to not like.

I have no real problems with OHC, but I don't see it as better than OHV. I just wish the overall ignorance of the public concerning OHV could be changed. Hell even automotive magazines view OHV as dinosaur technology. They mutter those exact words probably 12 times with each Corvette review, yet the overall tone of their article goes a little something like "wee! torque! boner! bad interior :("There ya go... which is a small part of why it's here to stay.

I'm willing to bet most OHC nutswingers haven't ridden or driven a decent performing OHV car either ever or in a very long time. The powerband and delivery is intoxicating and is the reason we love these cars.By the same token, millions of people feel this way about a well tuned OHC engine, particularly in a sports car. It's not like Ferrari's and so forth aren't popular, even amongst those who will never own them.

Much in the same way old school BBC guys look at us weird for loving our little 346 small blocks, I struggle to see what is so great about OHC. I've owned a Talon TSi AWD with a few mods and SOTP it was slower than my old L67 Bonneville despite being close to 2 seconds faster in the 1/4.Eh... I never cared for the Talon, and while I think the 4G63 was a fine engine, I never wanted one. On the other hand, I like BB's for ALL the wrong reasons!! ;) Those are good examples of give and take though... BB's are never likely to allow for good economy. 4 bangers aren't likely to ever perform as well as BB's. A happy medium is a smaller V8, or a larger V8 "spun from" a smaller V8... Like the LS series.

There is hardly any info on the C7 yet, so this is nothing more that ignorant speculation as far as I'm concerned.
It will not happen, I can tell you that. GM knows that the number of buyers they will lose as opposed to the ones they will gain from this is severely unbalanced. They would lose (m)or(b)illions in the overall scheme.




on the note of the C7 if the ever went to a v6 platform or a mid engine or AWD setup i believe there would be a rush on GM headquearters. if they did any of those things i would view it as blasphemy and gear up for war:secret2:

secondly i heard a long time ago (of course this was in our "depression") that a restyling of the corvette into the C7 would be post poned until 2014 at the soonest if it wasnt put on hold indefinately. which in my mind given the way the economy is now idk why they would keep that up but they are in charge and i think if they stuck with that plan they are asking for their performance poster child to get stale and unattractive.

honestly i believe it is a bit nonsense how reviewers look at OHV as archaic or ancient and see OHC as a godsend. the reality of it is one CAN be made better than the other its just a personal preference of how the power is delivered in my mind that draws certain people to certain cars. hell thats how the ls series was born.

they took 2 vettes debadged them and did not let the testers which happend to be GM ceo's or something, open the hoods. one had a lt4 pushrod engine and the other had a lt5 DOHC. both cars were tested by the big guns of gm and they ultimately chose the pushrod style simply on power delivery and thats why the ls series ended up as pushrod instead of DOHC despite the lt5 having more power and the like.

people need to look at the facts and what not of an engine before they try to cut it apart and in the very end its personal preference of power delivery and thats all there is to it.

p.s. yea BBC owners need to get there nose out of the air because last time i checked when you build a 500rwhp BBC and a 500rwhp ls motor or SBC and put them in comparative cars who do you think is gonna drag who 1320ft?

:drive: yea get wrecked bad kids

owned haha



Guys the C7 will just have a makeover, it's the C8 that is rumored to have a major redesign. Over the years I have seen a few automotive rumors regarding new cars that were to be and they never were. If any major changes do take place it will be many years down the road. This world is changing fast so no one knows for absolute sure what will take place in the future.

Right now GM is banking on the Chevy Volt to be a big seller. I hope it does well for GM. GM will also be releasing a couple of small, sporty fuel efficient models soon. The Camaros are selling pretty well for GM. My point being that GM needs bread and butter cars to be competitive, not just specialty cars.

To keep this on topic, GM knows how to build OHC multivalve engines, we all know that, they also know how to build pushrods OHV engines better than anyone, we know that too. :cool:



.

GM will eventually go 4 valve. even if they only take the (pushrod) 4V heads off the duramax and engineer them to fit the gen III+ blocks and beef up the valvetrain to take 6000+ rpm, they'll sooner or later go 4V. they have to, pretty much. think about it... back in 1997 the LS1 was making 350hp at 346 CID. now we have a 6.3L making 430hp 13 years later. with emissions getting tougher i don't see how GM can stay competitive with 2V V8s. with pushrod 4V heads you can still have have your compact LS engine. just with much more power.

ford's new 6.2L is making, what, 412hp? that's with the 2V heads. knowing ford, they have a 4V version on the drawing board, if not already built and being tested as we speak. do some simple math... the current 5L is making over 400hp... take that same hp/L and stick it to the 6.2L with the new 4V heads and you have over 500hp. from 6.2L and without direct injection! plus with the newer VVT that allows ford to manipulate the intake and exhaust cam timing independently, there's no telling what they can do with this engine. heck, stick a variable intake manifold on it too... they had that for years on the aviator. with all this tech, just tune it right to make power to 7,000rpm or beyond, and they could probably get to 550hp+ all motor and still make emissions. that's beyond the LS7 with 40+ less cubes.

someone said earlier the modulars were crap without boost. that's nonsense... even back in 2004-2005, there were some built 4V 5.4L modulars (still at 330CI) making over 600hp and still very streetable. when you can make power to 8000+ rpm reliably (OHC loves rpm) without a lot of cam, you don't have to make a lot of torque to make horrendous power. that was before the GT heads became the norm too. you can't deny the power 4V heads give. and the modulars are damn strong... quite a few turbo 4.6s with FACTORY heads, block, AND crankshaft have gone 1200hp+. one or two have gone 1500hp+ at over 10,000rpm. they're like V8 versions of those friggin supra engines... just shoot the boost and rpm to it and make unreal power. they're strong.

adios

GM will eventually go 4 valve. even if they only take the (pushrod) 4V heads off the duramax and engineer them to fit the gen III+ blocks and beef up the valvetrain to take 6000+ rpm, they'll sooner or later go 4V.

Doubt it, they've done OHC engines in the past, all of which have been over shadowed by the LSx series being smaller, lighter, just as powerful or more so, and cheaper.


they have to, pretty much. think about it... back in 1997 the LS1 was making 350hp at 346 CID. now we have a 6.3L making 430hp 13 years later. with emissions getting tougher i don't see how GM can stay competitive with 2V V8s. with pushrod 4V heads you can still have have your compact LS engine. just with much more power.

The LS1 was making 345hp back in '97 because the engineers only wanted 345hp. Do you think GM engineers suddenly just figured out with a little bigger cam and better flowing heads the engine would make 405hp (Im referring to the LS6). And once again, they only wanted to make 405hp, not more, and no where near the potential of the engine.


ford's new 6.2L is making, what, 412hp? that's with the 2V heads. knowing ford, they have a 4V version on the drawing board, if not already built and being tested as we speak. do some simple math... the current 5L is making over 400hp... take that same hp/L and stick it to the 6.2L with the new 4V heads and you have over 500hp.

Except hp/l is ricer math, and useless in comparing engines.


from 6.2L and without direct injection! plus with the newer VVT that allows ford to manipulate the intake and exhaust cam timing independently, there's no telling what they can do with this engine. heck, stick a variable intake manifold on it too... they had that for years on the aviator. with all this tech, just tune it right to make power to 7,000rpm or beyond, and they could probably get to 550hp+ all motor and still make emissions. that's beyond the LS7 with 40+ less cubes.

Yet, physically MUCH bigger than the LS7, heavier, and probably more expensive. Who cares about "less cubes" that gets you nothing.

Let me ask you (and others) something. Say you want to build a kit car and you have two engines to pick from. For simplicities sake both engine make the same torque/power curve.
A) 4L engine, 520lbs, bigger, bulkier
B) 6L engine, 400lbs, smaller, more compact
Which would you choose?
Do you see why displacement is irrelevant in the real world?

They may think, if they made such a car, sales would increase. They'd market the car as if it's nostalgic, or they'd play up the mid-engine... Maybe it will even be a lower cost, although certainly no time soon... Then again, this model would be years away, if it ever happened.
You're not going to see a mid engine 'vette (especially with a TT V6) at a lower cost than a base C6. The extra engineering they have to do to get the completely new chassis working right, let alone a new engine and everything to go along with the forced induction is more than enough to put it past the price.
There have been mid engine vette rumors since the 60s. One of the original engineers had always wanted to make the vette mid engined, but it never happened because of the complexity involved to keep it at a reasonable price.


It's not like I can help the fact the OHC is in full swing... Even GM is in the game, and has been for over 2 decades now(longer aside from V8's). Most people don't know an engine type from a hole in the ground. It's the engineers, designers, etc. who make these things "the norm." ... AT the behest of our government, mind you. It's not like the OHV is banned, or anything... But they've placed so many restrictions on them, manufacturers are moving on.
No, its the marketing teams that make things the "norm", using words like "high tech". GM even admits to it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/04q2/the_pushrod_engine_finally_gets_its_due-column
"So if the pushrod design makes such a good V-8, why does GM make a DOHC V-8 Northstar? "I'm not going to touch that one," laughs Winegarden. GM's party line is that some customers want what it calls "high-feature engines." Winegarden does admit there are some refinement benefits to the DOHC layout, but personally, I don't find the Vette's engine to be a bit unruly. "
More reasons GM went with a pushrod V8:
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/forums/c4-corvette-zr-1/14104-demise-lt5-engine.html

Allow me to throw some logic into the pot.
Why spend more more and get a physically bigger, heavier engine that isn't any more efficient?
Stop, how many performance cars today can get at least 19/27mpg?
Now how many of those (what 3 or so?) have at least 400hp?

If OHC engines are a "solution" then why is it the GM pushrod engine is leading in everything? Look at weight, physical size, power, torque curve and cost. All comparable OHC engines are massively bigger, heavier and more expensive while getting worse gas mileage and costing more.
Does anyone think its a coincidence that the LSx engines are being swapping into everything these days? Their compact pushrod design allows them to be physically smaller than many V6s, and lighter as well.
Example:
http://www.fordcortina.net/pix/4.6-DOHC-vs-302W.jpg
And the LSx series for example:
LS2 compared to a Nissan VQ 3.5L V6
http://harrismarine.co.nz/bbpress/?bb_attachments=750&bbat=551&inline
LSx compared to a RB26 I6
http://lh5.ggpht.com/__nU6LVAAgH8/SXP4yyDGVuI/AAAAAAAAABo/WAxiCCf62PQ/s720/LS1%20and%20RB26%20front.JPG
LS1 compared to 1UZ 4L V8
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/81/l_5f3400a7a0a34f7ca8deec92cf5595f7.jpg
http://harrismarine.co.nz/bbpress/?bb_attachments=750&bbat=551&inline
Or check out how massive nissans VH V8 is or Toyota's newer 5.6L V8 is.



They say a picture is worth a thousand words, couldn't be more accurate here. The interesting thing to me is that the ls engines are being accused by some as being antiquated and old. However, when I look at those pictures I see a modern, compact, efficient package next to a bulky, over-engineered hunk.

Some things just work.

I see most of this argument as just a spin off of how the imports were going to take over the hot rodding world in the 90's and all of us v8 guys had better just enjoy our last few days of relevancy.... good thing that turned out.

Except hp/l is ricer math, and useless in comparing engines.

One of my favorites:guns:


Let me ask you (and others) something. Say you want to build a kit car and you have two engines to pick from. For simplicities sake both engine make the same torque/power curve.
A) 4L engine, 520lbs, bigger, bulkier
B) 6L engine, 400lbs, smaller, more compact
Which would you choose?
Do you see why displacement is irrelevant in the real world?

Well said and exactly why I swapped my motor out for the LS. I lost 100 lbs and gained 2 liters of displacement. Not to mention an enormous amount of power, efficiency and better mpgs. Hp/L means nothing
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=10912&pictureid=49453

On the other hand, there is room for improvement. But I don't think GM will move to a 3-4 valve head with the ls series to find that extra efficiency.

sinistered........absolutely everything you posted was dumb

if its all so badass why is there 6.2l and their 5.0l making very close to the same power? yes mod motors are junk without boost the reason being yes having 4v heads allows for alot more airflow BUT the set up of ford motors is that that extra flow cant be taken car of because you cant put alot of cam in a mod motor and not over cam it so boost is needed to take advantage of that flow..

secondly a stock cube 5.4 or and ford mod motor makin 600rwhp n/a and being streetable. those motors just dont make power wihtout some type of forced inductionc or spray. the fastest n/a mustang around here is a mach1 that runs 12.7 and thats only kuz he has badass suspension and gears. short of him in all my racing out on the streets i havent raced a single ford mod motor that was n/a that was even worth a second look

Except hp/l is ricer math, and useless in comparing engines.


Not when you're talking same displacement it isn't. If one 6.2L is making 400hp and the other 500hp, both emissions compliant, hp/l is reality math. It's the reality that technology has the upper hand now-a-days. Just throwing displacement at the problem isn't going to cut it anymore.

Since Ford's 6.2L is matching GM's 6.2L with 2v heads, what do you think is going to happen when the 4V heads are thrown in? It's kinda obvious.

I've never said the LS engines are antiquated, but they are falling behind and GM better get on the ball. Direct injection on the GenV will be a plus, but it won't be a savior... Ford's 6.2L doesn't have it yet either. Having raced motorcycles my whole life, I've never seen a 2V head beat a 4V head on the same engine.

No pissing contest intended here... just excited to see that competition is getting hot again. GM will respond accordingly (or at least we hope so), and it's all of us who benefits.

I'm 100% GM FYI. I am intrigued by Ford's latest offerings though...

sinistered........absolutely everything you posted was dumb.

Dumb... really? I'll leave it to you to prove that "absolutely everything" was dumb.


if its all so badass why is there 6.2l and their 5.0l making very close to the same power?

Because the 6.2L is using 2V heads while the 5.0 is using 4V heads. That simple. If you've ever seen a 2V 6.2L head, it's painfully obvious a 4V setup is going on there sooner or later.



secondly a stock cube 5.4 or and ford mod motor makin 600rwhp n/a and being streetable. those motors just dont make power wihtout some type of forced inductionc or spray. the fastest n/a mustang around here is a mach1 that runs 12.7 and thats only kuz he has badass suspension and gears. short of him in all my racing out on the streets i havent raced a single ford mod motor that was n/a that was even worth a second look

The saying "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" applies here. You may want to inform yourself a little more about the other side. Just because you "haven't seen it" or, more likely, don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does get expensive with all that valve train, but they can make some serious power NA. It's a lot cheaper to boost them. The average joe out there is going for the cheapest option... how much does it cost for a H/C/I versus boost on a LS engine again?

BTW, unlike the old modular's 100mm bore spacing, the bore spacing on the new 6.2L is 4.53" (115mm).

Remember what a LT5 could do with 400+ cubic inches?

Not when you're talking same displacement it isn't. If one 6.2L is making 400hp and the other 500hp, both emissions compliant, hp/l is reality math. It's the reality that technology has the upper hand now-a-days. Just throwing displacement at the problem isn't going to cut it anymore.
Ricer math either way because displacement doesn't show what matters, size and weight of the engine.
What if the 400hp 6.2L is 400lbs and the 500hp 6.2L is 600lbs and so wide it wouldn't fit in most cars?
The reality is comparing displacement (or peak hp to displacement) is irrelevant to anything real world.
What you are failing to see is GM has generally larger displaced engines for a better powerband, not more peak power. And if adding displacement to a current engine doesn't effect size or weight, but yields more power at every RPM then what is the disadvantage?


Since Ford's 6.2L is matching GM's 6.2L with 2v heads, what do you think is going to happen when the 4V heads are thrown in? It's kinda obvious.

The engine will gain considerable weight and size (already over the hefty weight its currently at) cost, and complexity. These aren't bike engines...
Ill post this picture again, the engine on the left has less displacement...
http://i32.tinypic.com/bgprgp.jpg
Or this (Fords 5.4L OHC vs 5.0L OHV) The 5L is very close in dimensions to the LS1.
http://www.codyace.com/albums/album122/50vs54.sized.jpg


I've never said the LS engines are antiquated, but they are falling behind and GM better get on the ball. Direct injection on the GenV will be a plus, but it won't be a savior... Ford's 6.2L doesn't have it yet either. Having raced motorcycles my whole life, I've never seen a 2V head beat a 4V head on the same engine.
Again I think what you are failing to see here is these are street production cars, they are NOT trying to get the most power from their engines, not by any means. If that were the case things would be much different, buts it not the case. They only WANT ~420hp from their engine, they start with a power goal FIRST, not with an engine first and get the most out of it. So why not use the smaller, lighter design to reach that goal?

God sintered. Not another pissing match. 3 posts in a row really? Just to defend your point? These are technical forums attracting people interested in finding technical (theoretical) conclusions.

I think JD hit the nail on the head. If GM was interested in extracting EVERY little bit of hp they would've built something like SSC did with the Ultimate Aero with 1287 hp and 1112 lb ft of torque...based on the LS....out of a production vehicle. Peak HP means nothing, the ricers managed 2000 hp out of a 2.0 @cura 10 yrs ago. Does this mean it's a better motor. No. 2000 hp peak out of a given displacement is a moot point. It's cool, but nobody but high school kids give a shit. Top fuel has managed to extract 7000 hp from 2 valves...with push rods.
Even with nearly 3000 CFM, the fuel mixture is compressed into nearly-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock. Again with 2 valves and the basic push rod design.

first of all these guys are exactly right because peak horsepower doesn tmean a damn thing if it runs like ass until 7k when it starts to make power because who the hell is gonna wanna drive that.

secondly a a n/a 5.4 would be astronomiclly expensive to build to make 600rwhp and if it ever did it would be rediculously undrivable. when you start makin power 2 things should come to mind. money and streetability and a ford mod motor just plainly isnt the platform for either one of those things to work. you would be so upsidedown in that motor tryn to squeeze 600rwhp out of it n/a it would be insane. and again if it ever made that kind of power it would probably grenade the first couple months of normal driving around.

those motors just are way way to picky to do anything with n/a they just need boost

if its all so badass why is there 6.2l and their 5.0l making very close to the same power? yes mod motors are junk without boost the reason being yes having 4v heads allows for alot more airflow BUT the set up of ford motors is that that extra flow cant be taken car of because you cant put alot of cam in a mod motor and not over cam it so boost is needed to take advantage of that flow..The 6.2 is a truck engine(currently) and it's a 2V... Of course the power will only be close to a 5.0L DOHC made for a performance car. Considering the performance advantage seen over a 3V SOHC 4.6, there's little doubt a 4V 6.2L will make serious power, probably well over 500 with the other parts being essentially the same as they are today. It already makes more torque, in 2v form than the 6.2L in the new SS... It won't get less with 4v heads.

When you have 4V per cylinder, you don't also need large cams to move the same amount of air as a 2V with only 1 cam. That's the major advantage of multi-valved heads. They move more air with less lift and duration than 2v OHV heads. That's the main reason for their design/use. It's also why GM is using 4V instead of only 2, in their Northstar.

Top fuel has managed to extract 7000 hp from 2 valves...with push rods.
Even with nearly 3000 CFM, the fuel mixture is compressed into nearly-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock. Again with 2 valves and the basic push rod design.There's a reason for all that, beyond trying to do their best... They're not allowed to use 4V DOHC heads. They're not allowed to use turbos either.

When we're talking about all out racing, there's hardly anything that will beat a DOHC engine, given the same engine displacement. Engine overall size matters, but weight it's as big a factor as some believe. Even so, DOHC engines fit into most engine bays and most manufacturers design that bay around the intended engine and not the intended engine around an engine bay.

For drag racing, all that matters is getting to the other end 1st, while following the rules. DOHC's have proved to be capable, end of story.

secondly a a n/a 5.4 would be astronomiclly expensive to build to make 600rwhp and if it ever did it would be rediculously undrivable.They don't HAVE to be N/A ya know... Anyway, there are already such engines built and they seem to be doing okay.

when you start makin power 2 things should come to mind. money and streetability and a ford mod motor just plainly isnt the platform for either one of those things to work.Then why are people using DOHC Fords so successfully in racing? It's NOT all about N/A power for a racer, unless he/she is class specific. There have been 600+rwhp Fords on the streets for years already. If all we're talking about is making power, forced induction is the best way(in a car) and it doesn't matter what kind of engine.

Anyway, this isn't about the Ford mod motor, it's about GM going the same basic route, which they're doing, just not in Chevrolet's performance vehicles. Ford's engine simply happens to be a good starting point to see what can be done, since they've been doing it so long with their performance cars.

you would be so upsidedown in that motor tryn to squeeze 600rwhp out of it n/a it would be insane. and again if it ever made that kind of power it would probably grenade the first couple months of normal driving around.There are already race built 550hp 5.0L DOHC's and they're winning races... road races... I don't think the odds are high they'll just grenade. One thing about the DOHC modular is, it is extremely durable. Those engines have been known to hold together with basically stock internal parts well over 700hp in street drivers and over 1,000hp in race applications. There was a 5.4L version in a ...gasp... Mustang... running low 7's in 2001... How much power does that require? The factory block held together, along with it's factory crank and factory heads. I think they even used the factory cams.

those motors just are way way to picky to do anything with n/a they just need boostMatching 6.2L power with a 5.0L doesn't match up to this comment in the least. We've already seen 10's in N/A form. I don't know how much power it has, or how much the car weighed, but I don't care either. The point is, they're doing it and they've only been in street cars for a couple months.

It is what it is... Hating it won't help your plight. I'm not telling you to embrace it, just that talking badly about it won't change the facts.

Has anyone here ever built a mod motor? I say screw the DOHC. It costs a billion times more to work on.

for example cams for an 03/04 cobra ~2000 dollars

Way back when the 4.6 mod motors first came out I was browsing through the trusty Motorsports catalog and happened to look at the dimensions of the engines. The DOHC 4.6 is nearly exactly the same length as the giant 460...and the 460 without carb turns out to be shorter and narrower.

It amazed me how large the 4.6 DOHC really is. Harder to stuff that big of an engine lower and farther back in the chassis.

Has anyone here ever built a mod motor? I say screw the DOHC. It costs a billion times more to work on.

for example cams for an 03/04 cobra ~2000 dollarsI worked on some back in the late 90's and early 00's... They get expensive in a hurry and tear down and rebuild was a real pain and time killer, but people who want to build them do it anyway. The cams for an 03/4 Cobra argument isn't worthy... With factory cams, that engine can be monstrous in the power and torque department. There are guys spending less than $1,000 and making 500hp. Well, I don't even remember anymore, but I know some are up in the 600+rwhp and I'm told the cams are stock. Replacing cams and more, some are well over 700rwhp and fully capable of being daily drivers. If I need to spend 4K or even 6K beyond original cost to get that kind of power, and that's what I wanna do... Not a big deal. It's the same basic bill to build a 700+rwhp LS1.

To match that output even with a 6.2L, you'll need a power adder and/or a complete engine overhaul with all new internals. Do you think you may go over $2,000? Over 4? You bet you will. It all costs money. I just looked at a random website offering Crower and Comp Cams sticks for the 03/04 Cobra... $1,080.50 for all 4 cams in any stage, 1, 2, or 3. That's expensive, but not nearly 2K. The cylinder heads are far and away more expensive, at about $1,500 each.

your name explains it all. Keep hoping ford will make something that'll run with an ls1( a motor not even in production anymore). Amazing how ford seems to be about 10 years behind on everything. You probably dont know this but 5.4 heads used to blow plugs out alittle fyi


Your name explains your post wonderfully.

1st, it doesn't have a 5spd. 2nd, it's making closer to 380rwhp than 350ish. 3rd, who cares what a car that's been around more than 10yrs is making with bolt ons, when comparing an entirely stock car against it...

A good attempt? Well don't look now, but that full stock GT is more than making an attempt. It's clearly head and shoulders above the tired 4th gen and everyone knows it even if they can't stand to admit it. Most people would probably say it's the right car with the wrong engine, considering how many seem to despise OHC's around here. Besides, the car has already been proven, before it got this engine. The 2010 SS may be "fat" by anyone's account... It still runs the numbers better than the 4th gen and the engine has more potential without opening things up. The hype hasn't died down just yet... look at the sales. Compare those to the 4th gen. It's not very close.

Well, right now would be a great time, considering the absolutely limited bolt on parts available for the brand new 5.0L. In a year, you may not want the same comparison to be made. After all, though it is nearly 1liter smaller, the new 5.0 makes more power than any stock LS1 ever did. And, no I don't care who you ask.

Cadillac already has a performance version of the 4.4 DOHC, the XLR-V. Well, I believe it's a 4.4L. Anyway, it's a Northstar engine making nearly 450hp. Caddy claims 0-60 times of 4.6 seconds.

More of the cylinder heads, along with the parts used to complete them... like any other engine with valve covers I suspect.

Who cares if you see the cams or not? Does it bother you to see a camshaft? If so, just leave those valve covers in place... :D

There's a reason for all that, beyond trying to do their best... They're not allowed to use 4V DOHC heads. They're not allowed to use turbos either.

You're absolutely right, no turbos. Just the biggest most badass blowers ever put on an automotive application. From now on you are required to wikipedia all of your comments before pushing the "submit reply" button.

Complexity does not mean a more efficient motor, the bottom line is efficiency. Not the amount of valves. K.I.S.S. is a well earned abbreviation. Many manufacturers (including GM) abide by this religiously to retain big power and big reliability.

You do have a good point using smaller dur cams (with DOHC 4v) and optimizing the head to use the dur and lifts, but this can also be done with a 2 valve design the same way, just like GM did, which is what this discussion is about.


When we're talking about all out racing, there's hardly anything that will beat a DOHC engine, given the same engine displacement. Engine overall size matters, but weight it's as big a factor as some believe. Even so, DOHC engines fit into most engine bays and most manufacturers design that bay around the intended engine and not the intended engine around an engine bay.

For drag racing, all that matters is getting to the other end 1st, while following the rules. DOHC's have proved to be capable, end of story.

End of story? Who are you? end of story that's funny. Again we're here to discuss. you sound 16 and a HALF



It's also why GM is using 4V instead of only 2, in their Northstar.

Yeah and the Northstar has been superseded by the LS motors...Ya know the non DOHC ones. Fact. end of story;)


It is what it is... Hating it won't help your plight. I'm not telling you to embrace it, just that talking badly about it won't change the facts.

Facts? Did your mom confirm these "facts" or was this another Ford thing?

your name explains it all. Keep hoping ford will make something that'll run with an ls1( a motor not even in production anymore). Amazing how ford seems to be about 10 years behind on everything. You probably dont know this but 5.4 heads used to blow plugs out alittle fyiIf you even resembled someone WITH a clue, I'd probably still not be concerned with your comment. You don't though, so it's certain that I don't care. Go look into what's what in the world of racing and answer for yourself how the LS1(not later, larger and much better versions) stacks up against what Ford makes regarding DOHC V8's. The end result is, LS1 isn't even close. Sad, but true... It's not close. When you're done, you'll surely know why GM no longer uses it.

You're absolutely right, no turbos. Just the biggest most badass blowers ever put on an automotive application. From now on you are required to wikipedia all of your comments before pushing the "submit reply" button.I'd find it problematic, at very least, to think Wikipedia is a good source for serious information. Not only will I not take your advice, but I'll offer you some advice to NOT defer to that nonsense as a final result. Even though much of it is copied from elsewhere, it may be changed and added incorrectly...

Complexity does not mean a more efficient motor, the bottom line is efficiency. Not the amount of valves. K.I.S.S. is a well earned abbreviation. Many manufacturers (including GM) abide by this religiously to retain big power and big reliability.It's not about efficiency... But I don't get it, when one argument doesn't work, we seem to switch to another, in hopes of winning points or something. It's about cleaner engines, and that(to me) is stupid, but oh well.

Besides, if GM is so "religious" about it, why does GM offer a 443hp DOHC? It's only 4.4L and makes more power than anything else GM offers, short of the ZO6 and ZR1 engines. Imagine the same engine at 6.2 or 7.0 liters... 700hp would be rather easy.

You do have a good point using smaller dur cams (with DOHC 4v) and optimizing the head to use the dur and lifts, but this can also be done with a 2 valve design the same way, just like GM did, which is what this discussion is about.GM also does it with 4v's like most other manufacturers these days. And no matter what you think, 4v's offer better flow with less duration and lift. It's a proven fact, not a conception of this thread. And btw, NO, it cannot be done the same way with a 2v.

End of story? Who are you? end of story that's funny. Again we're here to discuss. you sound 16 and a HALFI'd almost wager that you were 16 more recently than I was 35, but surely you know I'm not 16 anyway. The "end of story" comment was about a particular point, believe it or not. It's still there to see, btw.

Yeah and the Northstar has been superseded by the LS motors...Ya know the non DOHC ones. Fact. end of story;)Don't look now but... GM still makes the Northstar engine. That makes it unquestionable that the LS "motors" didn't supersede the Northstar... When one supersedes another, that which was superseded is no longer offered... the replacement is.

Facts? Did your mom confirm these "facts" or was this another Ford thing?Yes, the facts... No, I didn't check with mom... She's not exactly into engines... in her 70's and all...

More importantly, while you nuthuggers can't see past the brand name which makes you cream your droopy, sagging pants, it's NOT about Ford... It's about DOHC engines and, NEWSFLASH... Ford is hardly the only company making them. In this case, there was a silly comment that Ford DOHC engines must have forced induction... Comparing 2 Ford engines one of which is only an SOHC, we can easily see F/I isn't required to make power.

I have NO problems with the LS series... None. That doesn't mean I can't also have no problems with a DOHC engine. We're done here... right?

omg lots of piss contests here. guess what i have yet to see a streetable 600whp mod motor n/a if there so damn badass then present the proof.
yeah maybe ls motors would be a whole hell of alot more powerful IF we had some type of 4v system. but there were a lot of reasons the lt5 didnt stick man. maybe it was just cost or maybe they found a way to make 2v small block heads outflow bigblock heads... for a whole lot less money...

I have no clue, really? Thats weird cause your the guy arguing with everyone else on a chevy board about ls1s touting how much better ford dohc v-8s are. Just as dohc engines have evolved so has the ls engine family. Its called upgrading and as technology progesses so do cars thats why their are ls3s. I guess since your so in loop your going to tell me how ls1 heads were based off a ford design too. I wish i had clue and an engineering degree like you apparently possess.

If you even resembled someone WITH a clue, I'd probably still not be concerned with your comment. You don't though, so it's certain that I don't care. Go look into what's what in the world of racing and answer for yourself how the LS1(not later, larger and much better versions) stacks up against what Ford makes regarding DOHC V8's. The end result is, LS1 isn't even close. Sad, but true... It's not close. When you're done, you'll surely know why GM no longer uses it.

I'd find it problematic, at very least, to think Wikipedia is a good source for serious information. Not only will I not take your advice, but I'll offer you some advice to NOT defer to that nonsense as a final result. Even though much of it is copied from elsewhere, it may be changed and added incorrectly...

It's not about efficiency... But I don't get it, when one argument doesn't work, we seem to switch to another, in hopes of winning points or something. It's about cleaner engines, and that(to me) is stupid, but oh well.

Besides, if GM is so "religious" about it, why does GM offer a 443hp DOHC? It's only 4.4L and makes more power than anything else GM offers, short of the ZO6 and ZR1 engines. Imagine the same engine at 6.2 or 7.0 liters... 700hp would be rather easy.

GM also does it with 4v's like most other manufacturers these days. And no matter what you think, 4v's offer better flow with less duration and lift. It's a proven fact, not a conception of this thread. And btw, NO, it cannot be done the same way with a 2v.

I'd almost wager that you were 16 more recently than I was 35, but surely you know I'm not 16 anyway. The "end of story" comment was about a particular point, believe it or not. It's still there to see, btw.

Don't look now but... GM still makes the Northstar engine. That makes it unquestionable that the LS "motors" didn't supersede the Northstar... When one supersedes another, that which was superseded is no longer offered... the replacement is.

Yes, the facts... No, I didn't check with mom... She's not exactly into engines... in her 70's and all...

More importantly, while you nuthuggers can't see past the brand name which makes you cream your droopy, sagging pants, it's NOT about Ford... It's about DOHC engines and, NEWSFLASH... Ford is hardly the only company making them. In this case, there was a silly comment that Ford DOHC engines must have forced induction... Comparing 2 Ford engines one of which is only an SOHC, we can easily see F/I isn't required to make power.

I have NO problems with the LS series... None. That doesn't mean I can't also have no problems with a DOHC engine. We're done here... right?

IF you dont care then stop quoting me and just assume i know nothing leave it be

If you even resembled someone WITH a clue, I'd probably still not be concerned with your comment. You don't though, so it's certain that I don't care. Go look into what's what in the world of racing and answer for yourself how the LS1(not later, larger and much better versions) stacks up against what Ford makes regarding DOHC V8's. The end result is, LS1 isn't even close. Sad, but true... It's not close. When you're done, you'll surely know why GM no longer uses it.
Irony at its best...
Gm is still using the same LSx series engines while Ford has changed up the mod motor quite a bit from the 4th generation pusstang to the 5th gen, and now the 2011 model. None of which have made the power (or better yet power/torque to weight of the engine) that the LSx series have.
And Ill give you the benefit of doubt since you have clearly shown your ricer/ford bias, but have you noticed that the LSx engines have been the most commonly swapped engines in the past decade? And including into many many DOHC cars, like even the mustang...
And all these commonly swapped cars (like the Miata, RX7, 240SX, Mustang, Porsche 944, BMWs, uncountable 60s muscle cars, just to name a few) have LOST weight while gaining a significant amount of power, torque and increased gas mileage. There are even people swapping LSx's into Sti's, EVOs, and S2000s...
And what about all the various supercar companies that are using the LSx instead of a "high tech" OHC engine? Hennessy's new creation based on the Lotus Elise (the GT), the Mosler, SCC Aero, and the Ultima GTR just off the top of my head, and many many others. These are record breaking cars, so why would they be "settling" for less of an engine?


Besides, if GM is so "religious" about it, why does GM offer a 443hp DOHC? It's only 4.4L and makes more power than anything else GM offers, short of the ZO6 and ZR1 engines. Imagine the same engine at 6.2 or 7.0 liters... 700hp would be rather easy.

And here we go again with the ricer math...
Lets try something, next time you have the urge to say something like "well if x engine had x displacement then blah blah blah" walk away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and realize that x engine has that much power because the manufacturer ONLY WANTS THAT MUCH. Do you really think the engine is maxed out, or they couldn't figure out how to get more power out of it? Whats to stop them from running a more aggressive tune, and a pulley to make more power?
GM has said it themselves(look at my previous post), they have OHC V8s around still because of MARKETING, for people like you who circle jerk to the OHC engine.
The FACT of the matter is the LSx series are still lighter, smaller, and less expensive while making more power (and N/A at that...)

All these arguments have been done over and over and over again. If DOHC wasn't competitive, and the government didn't require cleaner engines than the LS series has been to date(and those emissions are already law), nobody would be advancing DOHC engines for American cars, INCLUDING General Motors... But alas, they are.

We can expect smaller engines in our future. Less cubes, that is.

JD... Please take a moment to consider your "ricer math" argument... You've tried to use it more than once and yet, you also make the argument that DOHC engines don't have the power/torque to weight of the LS series. It that isn't "ricer" math, neither is anything else.

Irony at its best...
Gm is still using the same LSx series engines while Ford has changed up the mod motor quite a bit from the 4th generation pusstang to the 5th gen, and now the 2011 model. None of which have made the power (or better yet power/torque to weight of the engine) that the LSx series have.
And Ill give you the benefit of doubt since you have clearly shown your ricer/ford bias, but have you noticed that the LSx engines have been the most commonly swapped engines in the past decade? And including into many many DOHC cars, like even the mustang...
And all these commonly swapped cars (like the Miata, RX7, 240SX, Mustang, Porsche 944, BMWs, uncountable 60s muscle cars, just to name a few) have LOST weight while gaining a significant amount of power, torque and increased gas mileage. There are even people swapping LSx's into Sti's, EVOs, and S2000s...
And what about all the various supercar companies that are using the LSx instead of a "high tech" OHC engine? Hennessy's new creation based on the Lotus Elise (the GT), the Mosler, SCC Aero, and the Ultima GTR just off the top of my head, and many many others. These are record breaking cars, so why would they be "settling" for less of an engine?


And here we go again with the ricer math...
Lets try something, next time you have the urge to say something like "well if x engine had x displacement then blah blah blah" walk away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and realize that x engine has that much power because the manufacturer ONLY WANTS THAT MUCH. Do you really think the engine is maxed out, or they couldn't figure out how to get more power out of it? Whats to stop them from running a more aggressive tune, and a pulley to make more power?
GM has said it themselves(look at my previous post), they have OHC V8s around still because of MARKETING, for people like you who circle jerk to the OHC engine.
The FACT of the matter is the LSx series are still lighter, smaller, and less expensive while making more power (and N/A at that...) And to the last part... I take it you're referring to the 500+ CI LSX block, correct? How cheap is that, anyway?

By the way, MARKETING never built a single engine... Not to mention the LS series is "marketed" far more than any DOHC I've heard of in the past. Just ask a general auto fan what powers the Camaro SS or the Corvette, or maybe even the full size GM trucks... Then ask them what powers the Cadillac XLR-V and see which offers the blank stare most often.

It just sucks that a thread like this started out strong then ended up like this. It's just the personal attacks guys, this is LS1tech, not JERRY!!! JERRY!!! JERRY!!! Seriously, nobody cares about a 60 yr old interested in proving a point to "would-be 16 yr olds" late on week end nights...seriously get a different hobby.

It just sucks that a thread like this started out strong then ended up like this. It's just the personal attacks guys, this is LS1tech, not JERRY!!! JERRY!!! JERRY!!! Seriously, nobody cares about a 60 yr old interested in proving a point to "would-be 16 yr olds" late on week end nights...seriously get a different hobby.

Thank you.

GM WILL NOT make a 4 valve V8 to replace the LS series. They know what their customers want, and as already brought up, it the reason the LS was created for the Corvette instead of a version of the LT5.

Two corvettes, one LT5, one LS based. Bring the big wigs down and let them drive both. With nothing more than driving impressions they choose the LS for the power delivery and driveability. This is the same reason they will continue to use and develop the archaic technology so despised by some.

To offer the kind of torque and power delivery of a larger engine in a smaller DOHC engine would require one, or two, turbos, small turbos running small amounts of boost. At this point you've added HUNDREDS of pounds to the old pushrod equipped car as well as around 10k to the price.

Yes, DOHC is a very efficient (efficient means makes power, not just MPGs) design for an engine, BUT it is highly illogical for the topic at hand.

Plus we just don't like no rustangs. So any geriatrics in here who still wanna swing from the proverbial automotive nuts they love to coddle should just leave the topic alone.

All these arguments have been done over and over and over again. If DOHC wasn't competitive, and the government didn't require cleaner engines than the LS series has been to date(and those emissions are already law), nobody would be advancing DOHC engines for American cars, INCLUDING General Motors... But alas, they are.

If the LSx series are not "clean enough" as you say, then why are they still around?


We can expect smaller engines in our future. Less cubes, that is.

Have any proof of this? Yeah, didn't think so...
If anything there will be less high strained small cubed engines (like the F20C for example) which suck more gas than a "big ole" 7L pushrod V8.


JD... Please take a moment to consider your "ricer math" argument... You've tried to use it more than once and yet, you also make the argument that DOHC engines don't have the power/torque to weight of the LS series. It that isn't "ricer" math, neither is anything else.

How is power to weight ricer math? Using two REAL WORLD figures that DIRECTLY EFFECT performance opposed to using displacement (which is completely irrelevant when comparing performance) to peak power is ricer?
Let me ask you, does power/weight get you down a track faster, or power/displacement?
Is a lighter weight, physically smaller engine not beneficial to performance?
Because smaller displacement certainly is not beneficial in any way what so ever, especially when the small displaced engine is heavier and bigger.


And to the last part... I take it you're referring to the 500+ CI LSX block, correct? How cheap is that, anyway?

No, Im referring to the LSx series engines, you know, the very website were on right now for GM's LS1,2,3,4,6,7?


By the way, MARKETING never built a single engine... Not to mention the LS series is "marketed" far more than any DOHC I've heard of in the past. Just ask a general auto fan what powers the Camaro SS or the Corvette, or maybe even the full size GM trucks... Then ask them what powers the Cadillac XLR-V and see which offers the blank stare most often.
The "General auto" fan is not your ty[pical eurotrash poser that thinks pushrod engines are outdated. The type of person who buys the XLR-V (or similar high luxury cars) are the type that wants an engine that is "high tech."
Ill post the article for you again in case you missed it the first time:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/04q2/the_pushrod_engine_finally_gets_its_due-column
"So if the pushrod design makes such a good V-8, why does GM make a DOHC V-8 Northstar? "I'm not going to touch that one," laughs Winegarden. GM's party line is that some customers want what it calls "high-feature engines." Winegarden does admit there are some refinement benefits to the DOHC layout, but personally, I don't find the Vette's engine to be a bit unruly. "

We've gotten carried away with the idea that you must either like OHV or OHC designs... That's foolish to me. I'm tired of arguing the same points. The law has been written and signed by our dimwit President... When they go into effect, Standby.

We've gotten carried away with the idea that you must either like OHV or OHC designs... That's foolish to me. I'm tired of arguing the same points. The law has been written and signed by our dimwit President... When they go into effect, Standby.

Oh my god, now it's turning political. Please no one reply to this.

We've gotten carried away with the idea that you must either like OHV or OHC designs... That's foolish to me. I'm tired of arguing the same points. The law has been written and signed by our dimwit President... When they go into effect, Standby.

When it comes to one particular line of engines...yes that is what matters. The personal preferences of your customers.

Oh my god, now it's turning political. Please no one reply to this.

Not to be a nitpicking nancy, but you just did...shit, so did I.

When it comes to one particular line of engines...yes that is what matters. The personal preferences of your customers.Did you know that GM makes several types of engines? I suspect you did... Did you know that most of their engines today, aside from full size pickups, are not part of the LS series? Well... If they know what their customers want, evidently most don't care if it's an LS or not.

As for turning political... it's been political since 1972...

Did you know that GM makes several types of engines? I suspect you did... Did you know that most of their engines today, aside from full size pickups, are not part of the LS series? Well... If they know what their customers want, evidently most don't care if it's an LS or not.

As for turning political... it's been political since 1972...

You are the dumbest smart person I've yet to meet. To use your own self righteous tone...Do you realize what website you're on?

Just in case, LS1TECH.

And just in case you still don't understand the topic at hand (i.e. the one particular engine line we are debating about) here is the very first post of this thread...with the relevant stuff highlighted for retards, of course.

Just seeing if anyone has any info on if GM will ever move to LS 4 valve V8? Ford has already made the move with the GT 500 platform and the new 5.0

All of the LS motors are very efficient and can make plenty of power, but the pushrod design has been around for decades and is basically imo old technology.

I just feel that it would be step in the right direction if they were to introduce a LS 4 valve motor.

Just looking for some of yalls opinions on this.

In conclusion, stop posting.

:corn: Its turned into a little dick contest now, congrats guys for contributing nothing but stupid bullshit that ruins threads and discourages people from forums all together

Man... get over it already with all the silly insults. When all else fails, tell everyone it's LS1tech... We all know which site we're on. You've been here about 7mo... I don't think I need your help on this subject. :newbie: You don't get to determine whether or not others can continue posting. If you don't like the way things are going, you may leave.

Just because it's LS1tech doesn't mean everyone and everything needs to revolve around the LS1... Millions of people would really like to see an LS based engine with 4vpc, btw. However, GM currently offers the Northstar in such a V8 configuration. Maybe they can change that name to "LS Northstar"... would that make you happy?

:corn: Its turned into a little dick contest now, congrats guys for contributing nothing but stupid bullshit that ruins threads and discourages people from forums all togetherAnd thanks for adding the exact thing you're whining about...

Man... get over it already with all the silly insults. When all else fails, tell everyone it's LS1tech... We all know which site we're on. You've been here about 7mo... I don't think I need your help on this subject. :newbie: You don't get to determine whether or not others can continue posting. If you don't like the way things are going, you may leave.

Just because it's LS1tech doesn't mean everyone and everything needs to revolve around the LS1... Millions of people would really like to see an LS based engine with 4vpc, btw. However, GM currently offers the Northstar in such a V8 configuration. Maybe they can change that name to "LS Northstar"... would that make you happy?

Wow, I'm a newb. Thanks for such a relevant post. Fortunately I like to bring myself down to other people's levels, Mr. 0.19 posts per day. You barely contribute to this site, and it seems most of it is trolling.

I really don't know how to explain this any further. This thread is "Will GM make the LS series into 4V setup." The answer is "No, for reasons already pointed out"

Nowhere in this thread does anyone ask about your OHC wetdreams. So, get off that high horse, don't take the internet too seriously, and stop posting.

See what I did there? I said stop posting...that's not nice, I'm not allowed to do that....

Just because it's LS1tech doesn't mean everyone and everything needs to revolve around the LS1... Millions of people would really like to see an LS based engine with 4vpc, btw. However, GM currently offers the Northstar in such a V8 configuration. Maybe they can change that name to "LS Northstar"... would that make you happy?

Did you know that GM makes several types of engines? I suspect you did... Did you know that most of their engines today, aside from full size pickups, are not part of the LS series? Well... If they know what their customers want, evidently most don't care if it's an LS or not.

As for turning political... it's been political since 1972...

I missed this at first...but millions of people want to see a 4V LS engine, but don't care passed that, correct?

I'm gonna need a reference to cite the millions of people that want this.

The caddy 4.4 you keep trolling with is supercharged.

1. LSx engines are tiny compared to comparable power (let alone displacement) dohc engines. As such, the engineering (you know, the thing most people THINK they understand) criteria probably looked at what would fit within a given engine bay, what output characteristics, lifetime performance, service, production factors, operating costs, etc.

2. OHV engines are inherently simple, this is great news for durability. The more complex, the more room for error; you can't escape that.

3. The higher one revs an engine, the higher the stresses placed, so OHV works just fine because few people like to whiz around at 9K.

4. I have had MANY dohc powered cars, in terms of driving, they are a very different feel (they got to in order to compensate for lack of displacement).

5. Engines are merely air pumps, and for 99.98% of the population, they don't care how they get from point A to point B so long as that engine keeps working.

6. A SMART company listens to their audience... and people vote with wallets. If GM created a high displacement DOHC V8 ala 6.3 Merc, 95% of GM enthusiasts would scratch their head and balk at buying. That means wasted cash by GM.

7. And GM does offer 4 Valve V8s of 6+L displacement... it's called a Duramax, and no it doesn't use DOHC.

I beat the piss out of my vette, and it's never had a engine issue even when I execute a 3-2 accidental downshift multiple times. You can NOT do accidental downshifts in a DOHC and expect that engine to take it.

This thread has strayed entirely too far off topic, let's keep it focused on LSx architecture or similar featuring 4 valves.

I'll start.
It'd be great to offer 4 valves, you simply get more air. But for the packaging problems, why not just use forced induction? It's all the same to combustion, more air in regardless of how you do it. By going FI, you can eshew the relative losses compared to using 4Valves by just tailoring the FI to a lower rev band... and since your already higher displacement you can keep running pump gas to prolong avoiding detonation.

.

This thread has strayed entirely too far off topic, let's keep it focused on LSx architecture or similar featuring 4 valves.

I'll start.
It'd be great to offer 4 valves, you simply get more air. But for the packaging problems, why not just use forced induction? It's all the same to combustion, more air in regardless of how you do it. By going FI, you can eshew the relative losses compared to using 4Valves by just tailoring the FI to a lower rev band... and since your already higher displacement you can keep running pump gas to prolong avoiding detonation.

I think it'd be great to offer 4 valves as well, (great post by the way, no insults or "nuthugger" comments, thanks) but I think this is more an issue of available head space (just look at the DOHC heads, They're GINORMOUS!). Speaking of the statement I put in bold in your quote, yes, if you have 2 valves (1 @ 2.02 and 1 @ 1.60) compared to 4 valves of the same size, you will move more air. But have you seen DOHC valves? Ford uses something like 1.7 on the INTAKE and 1.3 on the exhaust (don't know and don't care about the specifics, just illustrating). The LS heads are known for flowing REALLY well. Back to ford, the mod heads have a hard time flowing over 200 cfm on the intake side, aftermarket mod heads don't even touch the stock LS heads (243's, 317's, L92's). You also need to take into account that the intake velocity is lessened the more obstacles the air needs to move around ie: 2 valve guides vs 4 valve guides with similar flowing characteristics. I still believe 2 valves are equipped to the most powerful auto engines on the planet for a reason, not class regulations.

The one and only point I'm looking to understand is how is this NOT about efficiency? If a head flows better, has the supporting engine attributes to take advantage of these great heads, efficiency is paramount. It gains you everything including better combustion (emissions), throttle response...everything. I'm genuinely interested in hearing other sides...without the political bullshit.

Russ

not to ass kiss the mod or anything but every single point he made was spot on there.

in my personal opinion i think if they stuck with the 2 valve setup in the ls series heads just to use something they already use which will save money it would be a better setup for furthering the possibilities of building a cheaper mor epowerful motor.

lets look at the ls1 for example. whats factory compression like 10.1:1 or something? lets say the brought it down to lets say 9.5:1 or so and put an ok sized turbo in it with like 8psi. how much rwhp do you think that would produce on a completely stock ls1? it would be rediculous with the amount of power you could achieve not to mention not a whole lot needs to be changed motor wise. if the went to a 4 valve head i believe it would still be pushrod and use something like the duramax's setup but i think retooling of the machinery and recalibrating of the compuiters and what not just makes it too much of a hassle for GM to bother with.

dont fix it if it ain't broke ya know. i think GM will move to a power adder setup such as a turbo or a blower setup before they moved to using a 4valve setup simply because of the money it would take to mess with it because the parts and everything offered for a differently setup motor would make the cost of building the motor and parts used go up as opposed to making use of whats already there with say a blower or turbo

638 bhp (or just over 500 rwhp) with a factory warranty is pretty damn cool in the Zr1...The motor and blower are extremely capable (meaning beyond anything you could ever use on the street, or i guess i meant to say was 'should').

With forced inductions on the LS motors...game over. There's plenty of "LEGENDARY" import motors (2jz,4g63, RB26, blah blah blah) all DOHC realizing the reliability and extreme power capabilities of the LS motors. More and more I'm hearing that chunky LS sound coming out of a Jap or european import. I pulled my motor out for a LS...

Back on subject. I believe it's a matter of output, reliability, efficiency, compactness, and the budget falls inline with a good design like the LS.

Russ

We've gotten carried away with the idea that you must either like OHV or OHC designs...

I like both designs for different applications.
For V8s though, I prefer the lightweight, compact design of the pushrod engine.


That's foolish to me. I'm tired of arguing the same points. The law has been written and signed by our dimwit President... When they go into effect, Standby.
We get it, you hate the government, you don't have to keep repeating yourself. What I would like to hear is you show us (like I've been asking) why you think the OHV LSx engines will be replaced by a DOHC setup when this "law is passed". You have yet to site apples for apples an engine that will get better gas mileage than an LSx.

Stay on target. Got it gold leader!

All it takes is someone with a green name to reiterate the points already made by myself and countless others to save this thread. Amazing how that works.

On topic, I don't see the need for FI in at least in the next gen of the LS motors. I think the addition of VVT, direct injection, and possibly OH-4V in some applications being more than enough to stay on top of the competition, let alone right next to them.

I would trade better paper MPG's and peak power for an old dinosaur that doesn't break a sweat getting out of it's own way, all while being more efficient than advertised, any day of the week.

GM should check out the Ford Diesel valvetrain. They can get a pushrod to push on two valves at once, no problem. OHV with 4V. Lightness of an OHV, with the flow of a 4V. And GM knows flow, so you know that would be a sick 4V.

http://disturbeddieselperformance.com/images/valve_train_24v.JPG

They should really look into that come to think of it! Imagine a 4V LS. I bet it would instantly have like 50% more CFM.

/\/\/\ i think its more like 20% increased flow. Obviously you need to ensure that rest of the head is up to the taks of flowing enough air.

I personally think this should be taken up by the aftermarket guys. If GM are going to put the money into a 4valve per cylinder LS head then i dont think they would continue the 2 valve option. just my opinion.

Lets start a potition to Nelson Racing, or one of the BIG haftermarket head manufactures and get them to start testing something. I say take one of FORDS Duratec heads as a starting points. they are something pretty special.

Chris.

The forced induction comment is interesting. You could save the engineering costs and retooling costs of moving to 4 valve heads and just forge the 4.8L motor and throw a supercharger/turbocharger on it. 500hp, 500tq and great fuel economy when your right foot is relaxed. And the smaller displacement will probably get better emissions also.

The forced induction comment is interesting. You could save the engineering costs and retooling costs of moving to 4 valve heads and just forge the 4.8L motor and throw a supercharger/turbocharger on it. 500hp, 500tq and great fuel economy when your right foot is relaxed. And the smaller displacement will probably get better emissions also.

True, but adding direct injection and VVT to the LS3 should push about 450hp with the capability of 30mpgs all the while having virtually no effect on base price.

The addition of forged motor with boost is gonna add at least 5k to the base price of a vehicle.

Taking that into account with the fact that the 5.5 will most likely be seeing road duty, I don't see 4Vs or FI on an LS engine anytime soon other than further development of LS9-A.

So why can't we have a smaller displacement DI, VVT, N/A or boosted 4.8L, 5.5, and 6.2?
GM already has superchargers available. GM had no problem designing turbo motors for the Sky and Soltice so they know how to do it. A boosted forged 4.8L could make your 450hp and when not in boost get much better city mpg and just as good if not better hwy mpg and be cleaner. With mass production, spread it out over several platforms, normally aspitated and supercharged/turbocharged and the price per vehicle drops quickly.

v8 with 4v would be awesome to see but i think the ls power plants really dont need it by the fact that they already make good numbers from 2v v8's... and they wouldnt just turbo and sc anymotor by the fact that i takes alot more money for the sc or turbo kits to put on the motors and rite now gm is just wants to pay the rest of there bill out whatever they have left to pay but after that im sure they will do something bad ass

GM could make better use of their 4.6L Northstar powerplant, but for some reason, they don't... I think it's that the LS series has been so successful and the OHV can come in a smaller package. Besides, for "serious" OHC power, multi-valve engines are almost required unless an absolute monster engine is built. That means more money in design and in building an engine. That's the case regardless of size when compared to OHV designs in general.

Cadillac did what? I think Cadillac had positively nothing to do with pioneering OHC, and as far as I can tell, other companies were using it some 20yrs earlier.

They did in irl

Way back when the 4.6 mod motors first came out I was browsing through the trusty Motorsports catalog and happened to look at the dimensions of the engines. The DOHC 4.6 is nearly exactly the same length as the giant 460...and the 460 without carb turns out to be shorter and narrower.

It amazed me how large the 4.6 DOHC really is. Harder to stuff that big of an engine lower and farther back in the chassis.

Why do you think any one with a brain takes the 4.6 out and puts a bbc in its place.

The forced induction comment is interesting. You could save the engineering costs and retooling costs of moving to 4 valve heads and just forge the 4.8L motor and throw a supercharger/turbocharger on it. 500hp, 500tq and great fuel economy when your right foot is relaxed. And the smaller displacement will probably get better emissions also.

a 4.8 LS with a adequate sized water cooled twin scroll turbocharger DI. and AFM would definitely be a world class performer.
GM could even equip this type engine with dual tunes. one for service and performance or flex fuel.
(imagine if vehicle came with such a setup and was equipped to run off e85 with factory calibrations)
all the technology is currently available at GM.

the block could be the ls4 alloy block.
existing 4.8 3.268 stroke crank.
existing 4.8 floating wrist pin con rods with upgraded rod bolts.
Mahle forged version of the existing 4.8 piston and correct rings
existing 243 heads with turbo upgrades (stiffer springs, seals, ls6 valves)
LS9 head gaskets
cast turbo manifold with stainless crossover. stainless dp
improved water pump and cooling system
integrated oil cooler (6.0s came with feature. ran lines from pan to radiator for oil cooler effect. tech alredy available)
make sense to me :thinker:

And scrap the Northstar program to finance it. I'd get pistons from Mahle or Wiseco if they could.

the northstar program might be just to far along to scrap and honestly im willing to bet if they were so inclined to, it could be takin to a competitive level. but honestly i think cost wise between a new OHC motor being introduced or a 4v setup (both of which im sure GM would find annoying to deal with and make work) i really think they would look at a boosted platform simply because it would easily make more power and it would be relatively cheap AND the aftermarket more than likely would have more support for that type of platform.

i could be wrong but wasnt there some special edition chevy truck that came with a 4.8 and a maggie and could be gotten in either auto or 5spd? im almost positive they made it but everytime i try to think of the name it escapes me. it was named after some guy i know that lol

anyways if theyve techniclly already done it i doubt it would be very hard for them to pick up where they left off and offer that platform in more cars

How many vehicles are currently available with the Northstar?? 2? 3? Seems pointless to have an entire engine family for only a few cars.

true i suppose.

the bottom line there would be that if they were to put money and development into furthering a new engine they would need to make it available in more vehicles but in the case of the northstar how would they market it against the LS series? i just dont see even if it were offered more widely, being picked up and ran with because why would they pic a less developed motor when the aftermarket and everything is already behind the LS series

the LS series alredy rivals or is close to the SBC in the aftermarket dept. if GM keeps the LS around for as long as the SBC. the LS will no doubt dominate the aftermarket eventually.
IIRC i read in GMHTP Mag. that GM was working on 3 valve LS series pushrod cylinder heads.
the heads valve train kinda looked like the above posted Ford diesel pic posted above. it was a CAD drawing though.

true i suppose.

the bottom line there would be that if they were to put money and development into furthering a new engine they would need to make it available in more vehicles but in the case of the northstar how would they market it against the LS series? i just dont see even if it were offered more widely, being picked up and ran with because why would they pic a less developed motor when the aftermarket and everything is already behind the LS series
My argument is they don't need to develop a new motor or multi-valve heads. The LS motors are more than capable of covering all of the bases from 300hp luxury barge to 400 ft-lb truck to 650hp psycho-'vette. There is no need to spend research and development money or tooling money. Supply the LS motors with higher quality forged pistons and direct injection. Offer some with VVT even. If the Northstar line was scrapped I bet that money would almost cover these improvments to the LS line.

My argument is they don't need to develop a new motor or multi-valve heads. The LS motors are more than capable of covering all of the bases from 300hp luxury barge to 400 ft-lb truck to 650hp psycho-'vette. There is no need to spend research and development money or tooling money. Supply the LS motors with higher quality forged pistons and direct injection. Offer some with VVT even. If the Northstar line was scrapped I bet that money would almost cover these improvments to the LS line.

i agree.
GM should also note that the rest of the world is more and more noticing the LS series engines potential.
its a no brainer to upgrade as they have been doing. dont fix if its not broke.
3 or 4v, if it comes to that. so be it. as long as the heads can at least be used on 4.00 bores existing LS engines.

:thumb:
:cheers:

all of those ideas sound good. if only the future of the line was left up to us lol

in my mind it doesnt make any sense to alter the already great flowing head design for more valves when like mentioned they could spend that money on forged internals and a little boost i mean hell that would be an efficient and cost effective way to make more power without having to retool machines and production lines, etc. for a different set of heads

Many good minds in this thread recently :D.

is there even any plans for another boosted platform in the ls series or is it pretty much left up to the ls9-a? im kinda curious because i think forged internals and an ok set of twins to keep it driveable and nice to live with on an ls7 would be outrageously nasty just my opinion......:secret2:

i think its doubtful gm is currently testing a brand new v8 for the next gen corvette direct injected 5.5 litre 440 horse overhead valve i believe pushrods are still in the game

pushrods will stay for awhile
if it dont broke dont fix it

:stupid: amen dude

Here ya go LS DOHC

http://px5.sfstatic.com/thumbs/0002/94/63/2034936.jpg (http://www.streetfire.net/video/2500-hp-4-cam-revolution-from-nre_2034936.htm?ref=eed6f079-eb21-451b-b39d-9d5c00394fda)2500 HP 4 Cam Revolution from NRE. (http://www.streetfire.net/video/2500-hp-4-cam-revolution-from-nre_2034936.htm?ref=eed6f079-eb21-451b-b39d-9d5c00394fda)

Uh, that is not an LS motor. It is an in-house design.

Replying to an old post blah blah blah. Yeah, I know.

I see a lot of misinformation in this thread and many posts driven mainly by the "what I do must be right" mentality. Perhaps I should expect a lot of OHV "nutswinging" given that this is ls1tech, but fanaticism is never a good thing. I especially have to laugh at the posters who claim that OHC is not a mature or reliable technology and that OHC engines are expensive to maintain. 99% of the passenger cars sold today (and for quite a while now) use OHC and are extremely reliable and require no special maintenance. Do you enjoy having a simple engine for its simplicity alone if there is no durability benefit? I'm sure that those of you who get beaten by 2011 GTs will be saying "Oh yeah? Well, my engine is simpler.". Talk about ricers.

I love pushrod engines and have driven and worked on them for decades, but I know that there are areas in which OHV is clearly inferior to OHC. Whether those are areas that matter to you is subjective, but the facts are not.

Advantages of OHC:

Lower valvetrain weight. With a mechanical bucket setup, the valvetrain is composed of only a bucket, valve, spring, and retainer; No pushrods, no lifters, and no rocker arms. The overall weight can be half as much as OHV or less and this is reflected in the lower spring rates used on OHC engines. The smaller valves used on a multivalve OHC setup also contribute to this. Multivalve OHV setups have very high valvetrain weight due to the rocker assemblies and that is the reason that they are only used on low-revving diesels.

More valve area. Two 1.5" valves have more area than a single 2" valve. A stock multivalve head (designed for a non-performance application) can easily flow 175 at .200 and 235 at .300 on the intake side and that is with a bore which is 3.75" or less. The LS series compares fairly well here due to its large bore.

Higher RPM capability. This is a result of the lower valvetrain weight. A larger RPM range means more gearing can be used and, of course, gearing multiplies torque.

Direct valve control. No rocker arms means less deflection of the valve and this allows longer valve stem life.

Advantages of OHV:

Smaller package and lower weight. Smaller cylinder heads and only a single cam mean less weight, but the gap is not as large as some may think. For example, the Coyote 5.0 crate engine is listed at 444 lbs while the LS3 is listed at 415. For comparison, Nissan and Toyota DOHC V6s are in the 350-375 lbs range.

More efficient combustion. Wedge heads have superior burn characteristics to pent-roof heads and this can result in more low RPM torque, lower emissions numbers, and lower octane requirements.

More durable timing chain due to its shorter length.

Cheaper. Fewer parts and less machining are required.

OHC does have the potential to make big numbers, but at the cost of low end torque as you noted. Which in a street car is not a good thing. Look at how poorly the 4.6 engines performed in comparison to the pushrod LS engines. It took Ford going the forced induction route to become competitive against the N/A LS engines.

Both have potential, but as the LS9 has shown by spanking many an exotic OHC engine that pushrod technology is far from dead and far from inferior like the Ford fanbois like to claim (and also note that the OHV Gm engines are once again outperforming the OHC Ford engines, ha).

GM doesn't care how tough these engines are once they leave the dealership and their warranty has expired... The Northstar engine is reliable enough for them, so figure that out.. The LS series isn't likely to be removed by GM "for" any DOHC... But may be BECAUSE of government intervention. They're already on it, and have been for about 4 decades. They're convinced that OHV engines produce too many emissions and unless they're stopped(by voting in people with working brains), WILL end such performance oriented engines. When that happens, OHC will be the way to go, because they "burn cleaner"... never mind the fuel economy isn't often better, and in many cases is worse... They "burn cleaner"... That is, even burning MORE isn't a problem, so long as it's cleaner as you burn... Forget the fact burning more means more emissions... anyway... At the rate we're going, the GOVERNMENT will be the end of OHV performance regardless what GM chooses...

Reliability isn't a big concern. As good as the LS series is, there are several OHC engines with better track records. Not to "bust out with" Ford, but the 4.6L modular is known to cross 300K and never be opened... Well, I've heard that many times, anyway. My dad had a 99 F-250 and not only did it not have problems(at all) in the engine, he sold it with a bit over 171K and not even a hint of trouble. The guy who bought it still drives it all the time and when last I asked, he'd crossed 200K and had no trouble. Police cruisers get abused and I still hear of them going over 200K... That's reliability in my mind... That's also something helped by lower power... Look at all the 200k+ foreign jobbers with OHC engines... They run and run and run... Like an old Dodge slant 6 or Ford 300... Ya can't hardly kill 'em! The manufacturer doesn't have to care though, what happens beyond warranty... Plus, they KILLED several, indeed all of those old push rod engines even though they were very reliable. The old SBC was quite reliable, even with it's leaks and so forth... But it's gone too. That one was because of the LS series, but others weren't. Ford had no logical reason to kill the 5.8L, but BLAM! GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!

PS... The 97+LS1 was indeed a great engine from the start, but as for sheer durability, there are several other LS series engines I'd choose over it. Indeed, I'd prefer most other LS series as for durability with aftermarket modification. The quickest GM's aren't likely to have that block under the hood... And there are reasons which have been discussed many times by now. The best engine block durability doesn't often come in aluminum..

I will disagree about the Ford 4.6 being reliable, I work for a fleet company that has 1500 ford vans, and the 4.6 is the biggest POS I have ever seen. Between cracking intakes,blowing sparks plugs out of heads, throttle bodies that crap out all the time, coil packs that go out left and right, and they use oil like crazy when they get over 175k. Also for people that like Ford, ask them about how there dipsticks are incorrect in the E series. The 4.6 holds 6 qts of oil but if you go by the dipstick, it takes 7.5qts. And if you fill then up so the dipstick shows full they use oil. Between the crummy powerstrokes and mod motors issues, its suprising they are still in business.

^^ Thats because your not filling it right, modular dipstick read halfway in between when full.

this is not good

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/next-corvette-will-be-powered-by-small--high-revving-turbo-v-8.html

what a bunch of crap that article is...