100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated
#482
FormerVendor
![Arrow](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon2.gif)
HAHAHAHAAHA! I am talking about reality here! Not fantasy land!
With 4 cams and 32 valves and 32 valvesprings and 6 drive or driven chain or belt wheels and at least two but usually 4 chains and all the associated bearings and seals that eat up power as well as the extra oil pump capacity and oiling to take care of all this and control all the chains, a 4V DOHC V8 has much more frictional losses than a single cam pushrod V8 does period.
All the extra DOHC valvetrain mass adds some rotating inertia as well on top of that. The DOHC's smaller individual valves can be lighter and go to higher rpms because of that but they have more not less friction with double the number of valve springs and double the number of valve stem seals and followers etc. You haven't ever seen motored engine tests of multivalved engines vs a pushrod engine. It's no small difference.
4V DOHC allows more rpm and better breathing and cam timing with little to no real overlap for better emmissions and that's where they are superior to the pushrod stuff. They are great for those reasons but the extra cost and complexity and weight and drag are their downsides. This is not new knowledge to any of the engineers that work in this field.
With 4 cams and 32 valves and 32 valvesprings and 6 drive or driven chain or belt wheels and at least two but usually 4 chains and all the associated bearings and seals that eat up power as well as the extra oil pump capacity and oiling to take care of all this and control all the chains, a 4V DOHC V8 has much more frictional losses than a single cam pushrod V8 does period.
All the extra DOHC valvetrain mass adds some rotating inertia as well on top of that. The DOHC's smaller individual valves can be lighter and go to higher rpms because of that but they have more not less friction with double the number of valve springs and double the number of valve stem seals and followers etc. You haven't ever seen motored engine tests of multivalved engines vs a pushrod engine. It's no small difference.
4V DOHC allows more rpm and better breathing and cam timing with little to no real overlap for better emmissions and that's where they are superior to the pushrod stuff. They are great for those reasons but the extra cost and complexity and weight and drag are their downsides. This is not new knowledge to any of the engineers that work in this field.
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
Erik you seem to be quite wrong in some of your assumptions.
First off, you say DOHC engines have significantly more internal losses to friction than do pushrod engines. This is in fact wrong, everything else being the same, an OHC engine will have lower internal losses to friction.
However, the internal losses that we are concerned with are not due to friction. Friction accounts for very little power spent in order to create power. The power losses we should be concerned with are due to the mass of parts that the engine must move. Like for like, a DOHC layout will have a much higher total mass that it must move. Sounds like a win for the OHV. But there is more than 1 way to move this mass. You can rotate it, or reciprocate it. Rotating it is MUCH more efficient, and takes much less force/power to do. Overall, like for like, a DOHC has more valvetrain mass, but significantly lower internal power losses. This is because roughly 98% of this mass is rotated. The only parts that are reciprocated are the valves, and the lifters. Whereas on the OHV design, the majority of the mass is still rotated, but a much higher percentage is reciprocated, and significantly more mass is reciprocated than on the DOHC platform.
When all is said and done, in the matter of internal power losses, like for like engines, the DOHC arrangement will spend less power to create power. It's simply more efficient in this manner. But, as the rest of this thread has dealt with, there is a price. Weight in most applications, and size.
First off, you say DOHC engines have significantly more internal losses to friction than do pushrod engines. This is in fact wrong, everything else being the same, an OHC engine will have lower internal losses to friction.
However, the internal losses that we are concerned with are not due to friction. Friction accounts for very little power spent in order to create power. The power losses we should be concerned with are due to the mass of parts that the engine must move. Like for like, a DOHC layout will have a much higher total mass that it must move. Sounds like a win for the OHV. But there is more than 1 way to move this mass. You can rotate it, or reciprocate it. Rotating it is MUCH more efficient, and takes much less force/power to do. Overall, like for like, a DOHC has more valvetrain mass, but significantly lower internal power losses. This is because roughly 98% of this mass is rotated. The only parts that are reciprocated are the valves, and the lifters. Whereas on the OHV design, the majority of the mass is still rotated, but a much higher percentage is reciprocated, and significantly more mass is reciprocated than on the DOHC platform.
When all is said and done, in the matter of internal power losses, like for like engines, the DOHC arrangement will spend less power to create power. It's simply more efficient in this manner. But, as the rest of this thread has dealt with, there is a price. Weight in most applications, and size.
#484
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by racer7088
...With 4 cams and 32 valves and 32 valvesprings ...
#485
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by racer7088
But all else is never really equal and you can run a taller gear on the bigger engine and get your manifold pressure back and at a lower rpm. . .
Originally Posted by racer7088
With only 4 puny cylinders the S2000 still has 5 main bearings like an LS1 and still has as many valves as an LS1 and it now has double the cams of an LS1 but only 2/5 - 2/7ths the displacement of the LSx family so the frictional loads on any of these multi valve wonders are always higher for one as a percent of their power output. Of course this isn't big or short stroke argument but rather multivalve DOHC VS Pushrod situation. The pushrod engines are just more efficient at space usage per CID and friction per CID than any of these current multivalve engines are.
Originally Posted by racer7088
Why don't container ships or 18 wheelers or locomotives use multiple smaller super high rpm engines then? Wouldn't this help them instead of running a huge million cubic inch diesel at 100 rpm? Fuel cost over their haul is one the bottom lines. Do those engineers just not understand any of this?
2) Maintenance considerations. An engine turning 100 rpm doesn't require maintenance very often. At work, I have 7 recip engines that turn 300 rpm at full throttle. They've been in service since 1942 and will run for years without going through them.
Originally Posted by racer7088
...You are talking about displacement limited race engines and not real street cars...
Originally Posted by racer7088
. . .Of course you can put that same turbo on a much larger american motor and go even faster.
Mike
Last edited by engineermike; 07-01-2007 at 03:36 PM.
#486
FormerVendor
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
That's a good point, but keep in mind that DOHC with direct-acting bucket lifters require less than 40 lb seat spring pressure, so you get alot back there.
For lower rpm it's not always the best choice though or at least not any big advantage over the pushrod stuff as far as power is concerned. This is why you see the bigger LSX stuff running the mileage numbers that these small high rpm mini-mee engines do while making more power and going much faster even in bigger heavier cars.
Now if we ever saw a japanese or German or American or ANY similarly sized DOHC 4V engine making spectacular and superior mileage to the pushrod stuff it might have some merit but we don't really see that right now.
All that extra DOHC valvetrain is just more drag when your cruising around at low rpm. It does allow nicer valvetrain timing but it won't make a lot more power or anything down there in rpm where the pushrod stuff can still keep up and do it with a lot less friction as well.
What we do see instead is smaller-engined lower-hp high rpm DOHC stuff making WORSE mileage even in smaller lighter cars yet still going slower most of the time. But they do have better Hp/L at least.
#487
FormerVendor
![Thumbs up](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif)
I agree with you engineermike in that for ultimate power the 4V head has the potential for better breathing per square inch of bore area so it will allow more potential piston speed and more potential rpm on any engine. It also does this with smaller and thus lighter valves so it also alllows more rpm that way as well. The advantage of the lighter valves really takes off as rpm starts to increase.
Now you keep RPM way down with extremely large strokes and the advantage is much less, hence the LSx family beating the DOHC stuff in economy and power quite regularly in the rpm range that real cars that have to last for 200K miles run in since it has still great breathing and less frictional overhead due to it's much more simple pushrod design.
Now you keep RPM way down with extremely large strokes and the advantage is much less, hence the LSx family beating the DOHC stuff in economy and power quite regularly in the rpm range that real cars that have to last for 200K miles run in since it has still great breathing and less frictional overhead due to it's much more simple pushrod design.
#488
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
I sincerely believe that, even if displacement were not limited, every form of racing that is allowed to use a 4v head will use it, assuming they are not penalized in other areas.
#489
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
Have you driven a Q4 HO? If not, do so, then you will have your answer. It shook the entire car at idle, still manged to get bad gas mileage, had absolutely no low end power, and sounded awful. The valvetrain made more noise than an LS1 with open headers.
#490
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If you can package 427 cubic inches into a weight and size envelope smaller than most competitors 260-281 cubic inch DOHC engines and still have more low end power, more mid range and a 7,000 rpm redline. All backed by a 5 year/100k warranty why would you want technology for technologies sake?
#492
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
Racing engines are inherently limited in size and weight.
Open wheel (F1, IRL, etc) is completely different.
#493
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by mzoomora
Not true really. Most stock cars, professional drag racing, boat racing, sprint cars, etc are limited by displacement. Limited weight would just be a bonus.
Open wheel (F1, IRL, etc) is completely different.
Open wheel (F1, IRL, etc) is completely different.
#494
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
"Inherently limited" means that it's not "expressly limited", as in by a rule, but limited by other aspects of design.
The SB2.2 is really just an evolution of the SBC, most drag racing classes run a HEMI design that has evolved over the years or various other designs that are not chassis limited but actually made larger and stronger, sprint cars run small blocks, etc.
The only thing limiting their size is the production engines they are based off of and not by any design aspect of the vehicle or class they run in- you could easily fit a big block Chevy in a Cup car. The engine has to be approved by NASCAR though.
#495
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
When all is said and done, in the matter of internal power losses, like for like engines, the DOHC arrangement will spend less power to create power. It's simply more efficient in this manner. But, as the rest of this thread has dealt with, there is a price. Weight in most applications, and size.
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
#496
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ok i know i am going to get some crap since i dont have very many posts and all of that but the question was what can be done to make an lsx make 100hp/l not would it make it better not would it pull a car through the traps at higher speed not the fact that it is something that needs to be done but just what could be done to allow for this measurement just imagine that this is the only reason to build the engine not even to put it in a car just to make it create 100hp/ltr even if only for a nano second that was the question and that is what should have been discussed there is like 50 discussions within this thread mostly for the sake of arguing which is rediculous i know that this is a forum i which things are to be discussed but out of the 506posts for this thread there is about 1 % that pertained to the whole concept well there is my thoughts on this thread hahahaha
#497
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by burtonbordr09
the question was what can be done to make an lsx make 100hp/l not would it make it better not would it pull a car through the traps at higher speed not the fact that it is something that needs to be done but just what could be done to allow for this measurement just imagine that this is the only reason to build the engine not even to put it in a car just to make it create 100hp/ltr even if only for a nano second that was the question and that is what should have been discussed
#498
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by nine-eight
if you get 500 hp from a 2.4 liter turbocharged motor, and 500 hp from a naturally aspirated 5.7 liter motor, the only possible advantage for a street car would be IF that 2.4L motor weighed less and had a smaller dimension than the 5.7 Liter motor. the 2.4L motor will be more stressed, get worse gas milage, have worse manners at low rpms, and in general will be more costly in the end.
hmm, Hi there maybe a bit out of topic but i thought that the turbo engines use low compression that ads LESS stress to the engine? How long time under it's lifetime is the turbo really active and add high cylinder pressure?
I thought that the naturally aspirated V8's need to increase the rev range and drop some of it's good low end manner to gain serious power?
I also thought that the turbo engine can increase it's power output without increasing the engine speed and still sound like an original setup?
Don't turbo engines using mild cams that giving you very GOOD mileage? Lot's of lobe separation and that create Lot's of low end torq, vacuum for it's engine size and also manners?
How much stress and friction will the high CR and heavy V8 add from that time you twist the starter key? hmm let me see here... 8 pistons, 24 piston rings, 8 rods, 16 valves, 16 valve guides, huge oil pump, 16 lifters, 16 push rods, 16 valve springs, friction friction friction.. Something fishy is going on here
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
I also thought that the turbo creating Lot's of turbulence on the inlet side that helping the air fuel to mix and burn faster more effective?
I LOVE V8's but i also believe that the V8 had Lot's of friction and inner mass that robbing power and limit the rev range comparing to a smaller engine?
I had no clue that a huge V8 engine could give me better gas mileage than a smaller engine? I thought that the A/F Ratio was normally around 14.7:1 and also the common goal for most engine manufacturer?
Is it possible to run that huge high CR. 500hp V8 engine successfully with a very lean fuel mixture? I thought that 5.7L needs more fuel and air than a smaller 2.4L?
low engine speeds saves fuel and engines, but i thought that you need to feed 5.7L of air with the correct amount of fuel to avoid running lean?
Do the 5.7L engine really need LESS air than the 2,4L engine in a normal sized car? under normal way of use?
It must be like carry food for a year when you going to be away for a day? Carry an 80kees bag all the time when you don't need it? A turbo works WHEN you need it not all the time. Is a turbo really that stressful?
How long time and how much do you have use of low end torq and crazy power when you drive on the highway? Do you really need super torq at really low speeds? Why do we have a gearbox? And how slow do you need 2 go?
In this case i would prefere to have a small 2.4L liter engine with a turbo. Normal power for the street, Turbo power when i need it..
less friction, Less weight, , less average stress, better mileage less moving parts! And manners like a priest !!
Plz correct me if i'm totally wrong here..
But of other reasons I love V8 engines and it's the engine of my choice anyway.. Here in Europe we have always scratched out heads over the American engineering.. huge engines more suitable for a truck than a car hahah AND WE LOVE IT!!!
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
High power Rotarys are very interesting too.. call it ricer engines and crap, but i won't agree, they are fkn insane!
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
Last edited by ZoDDy; 07-02-2007 at 02:49 PM.