Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2009
#101
#104
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only driven a few Preludes (VTEC models, not an Si), and haven't driven any EG SIs. But my Integra GS-R was quite smooth.
#105
TECH Senior Member
Dohc has a very significant design advantage. This is not a matter of car comparisons, but simply engine head comparison. dDohc valve positioning allows for better breathing because a)there are two or three individual valves doing the job of 1. This allows for higher flow velocity while flow rate remains and also more efficient flow, because of two or more smaller valves now posing less of a restriction and creating less turbulence. Also, less lift is required to create the same flow rate. That aside, you can now also position the valves much more ideally. Aside from this, one huge valve requires more force to be operated than two smaller ones. The two valves weigh quite a bit less and each require significantly less spring pressure to operate at the same levels of rpm. We also have less reciprocating mass and have only increased the rotating mass slightly. The valvetrain overall is actually lighter and requires less force to operate.
There is also more reciprocating mass (where rotating mass isn't that much of an issue) and this requires even greater spring pressure to limit valve float.
I can go on and on and on about why exactly there are limitations to pushrod engines and i have for many pages. There are apparent design advantages to pushrod units (weight/size) but they can be overcome for dohc engines, where the more efficient and effective breathing of dohc will never be matched by pushrod heads. As good as a pushrod head could be designed, the same level of engineering will yield better end results with a dohc design.
There is also more reciprocating mass (where rotating mass isn't that much of an issue) and this requires even greater spring pressure to limit valve float.
I can go on and on and on about why exactly there are limitations to pushrod engines and i have for many pages. There are apparent design advantages to pushrod units (weight/size) but they can be overcome for dohc engines, where the more efficient and effective breathing of dohc will never be matched by pushrod heads. As good as a pushrod head could be designed, the same level of engineering will yield better end results with a dohc design.
With its technology and manufacturing abilities, gm could easily produce a physically small and light fair displacement V8 to weigh no more than the current ls1/2 and be capable of producing more output than either one of them, with the same, or even lower displacement, while requiring slightly less fuel to do so.
Since I know you can't answer this, I will for you. Its BS.
If GM were to produce a DOHC engine that made 405hp again it would be either: Heavier, physically larger, or more expensive than the LSx, or most likely all of the above.
FERRARI, with its high budget builds has not built a powerful DOHC V8 engine that is under 390lbs like the LS2, or LS3. (The 4.3L in the F430 weighs 416lbs).
The usable torque that pushrod engines have comes from their lower state of tune(cant revv as easily) and larger displacement. Give a dohc head the same displacement and it will consume the same fuel and breath better at partial throttle(also, the higher intake velocity at partial throttle and lower revvs contributes to a better fuel atomization and more effective pumping in general)and produce more torque everywhere, therefore more power everywhere. This equates to greater EFFICIENCY, more power from the same displacement and consumption, or the same power from less displacement and less fuel consumption.
Power per displacement is not efficiency, that's idiocy. Power to weight is efficiency and power to physical size is efficiency because those are actual real world relevant things to performance. In what way would decreasing the displacement of an engine and extracting the same power out of it as before be beneficial in any way?
If GM is making over 400hp/400ft.lbs of torque from an engine that weighs less than 400lbs, and costs around $5,000 why the hell would you bother trying to make a DOHC engine if all you want is 400hp? TRULLY what REAL WORLD benefits would you see if you wanted to make <500hp production engine for a performance car?
If DOHC engines can supposedly get such better gas mileage, then why don't they beat out the LSx's? Why don't other companies use the "gearing advantage" that GM does and get even better gas mileage? Why don't they make a lighter, smaller, more powerful engine?
#106
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: B-town
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice copy/paste. But don't both trying to tell me the advantages of OHC vs pushrod, I know them already.
So this begs the question, why haven't they? Wait... Why hasn't ANY manufacture done this?
Since I know you can't answer this, I will for you. Its BS.
If GM were to produce a DOHC engine that made 405hp again it would be either: Heavier, physically larger, or more expensive than the LSx, or most likely all of the above.
FERRARI, with its high budget builds has not built a powerful DOHC V8 engine that is under 390lbs like the LS2, or LS3. (The 4.3L in the F430 weighs 416lbs).
But be bigger, weigh more, and cost more.
Power per displacement is not efficiency, that's idiocy. Power to weight is efficiency and power to physical size is efficiency because those are actual real world relevant things to performance. In what way would decreasing the displacement of an engine and extracting the same power out of it as before be beneficial in any way?
If GM is making over 400hp/400ft.lbs of torque from an engine that weighs less than 400lbs, and costs around $5,000 why the hell would you bother trying to make a DOHC engine if all you want is 400hp? TRULLY what REAL WORLD benefits would you see if you wanted to make <500hp production engine for a performance car?
If DOHC engines can supposedly get such better gas mileage, then why don't they beat out the LSx's? Why don't other companies use the "gearing advantage" that GM does and get even better gas mileage? Why don't they make a lighter, smaller, more powerful engine?
So this begs the question, why haven't they? Wait... Why hasn't ANY manufacture done this?
Since I know you can't answer this, I will for you. Its BS.
If GM were to produce a DOHC engine that made 405hp again it would be either: Heavier, physically larger, or more expensive than the LSx, or most likely all of the above.
FERRARI, with its high budget builds has not built a powerful DOHC V8 engine that is under 390lbs like the LS2, or LS3. (The 4.3L in the F430 weighs 416lbs).
But be bigger, weigh more, and cost more.
Power per displacement is not efficiency, that's idiocy. Power to weight is efficiency and power to physical size is efficiency because those are actual real world relevant things to performance. In what way would decreasing the displacement of an engine and extracting the same power out of it as before be beneficial in any way?
If GM is making over 400hp/400ft.lbs of torque from an engine that weighs less than 400lbs, and costs around $5,000 why the hell would you bother trying to make a DOHC engine if all you want is 400hp? TRULLY what REAL WORLD benefits would you see if you wanted to make <500hp production engine for a performance car?
If DOHC engines can supposedly get such better gas mileage, then why don't they beat out the LSx's? Why don't other companies use the "gearing advantage" that GM does and get even better gas mileage? Why don't they make a lighter, smaller, more powerful engine?
Well at least in my world
#107
Nice copy/paste. But don't bother trying to tell me the advantages of OHC vs pushrod, I know them already.
So this begs the question, why haven't they? Wait... Why hasn't ANY manufacture done this?
Since I know you can't answer this, I will for you. Its BS.
If GM were to produce a DOHC engine that made 405hp again it would be either: Heavier, physically larger, or more expensive than the LSx, or most likely all of the above.
FERRARI, with its high budget builds has not built a powerful DOHC V8 engine that is under 390lbs like the LS2, or LS3. (The 4.3L in the F430 weighs 416lbs).
But be bigger, weigh more, and cost more.
Power per displacement is not efficiency, that's idiocy. Power to weight is efficiency and power to physical size is efficiency because those are actual real world relevant things to performance. In what way would decreasing the displacement of an engine and extracting the same power out of it as before be beneficial in any way?
If GM is making over 400hp/400ft.lbs of torque from an engine that weighs less than 400lbs, and costs around $5,000 why the hell would you bother trying to make a DOHC engine if all you want is 400hp? TRULLY what REAL WORLD benefits would you see if you wanted to make <500hp production engine for a performance car?
If DOHC engines can supposedly get such better gas mileage, then why don't they beat out the LSx's? Why don't other companies use the "gearing advantage" that GM does and get even better gas mileage? Why don't they make a lighter, smaller, more powerful engine?
So this begs the question, why haven't they? Wait... Why hasn't ANY manufacture done this?
Since I know you can't answer this, I will for you. Its BS.
If GM were to produce a DOHC engine that made 405hp again it would be either: Heavier, physically larger, or more expensive than the LSx, or most likely all of the above.
FERRARI, with its high budget builds has not built a powerful DOHC V8 engine that is under 390lbs like the LS2, or LS3. (The 4.3L in the F430 weighs 416lbs).
But be bigger, weigh more, and cost more.
Power per displacement is not efficiency, that's idiocy. Power to weight is efficiency and power to physical size is efficiency because those are actual real world relevant things to performance. In what way would decreasing the displacement of an engine and extracting the same power out of it as before be beneficial in any way?
If GM is making over 400hp/400ft.lbs of torque from an engine that weighs less than 400lbs, and costs around $5,000 why the hell would you bother trying to make a DOHC engine if all you want is 400hp? TRULLY what REAL WORLD benefits would you see if you wanted to make <500hp production engine for a performance car?
If DOHC engines can supposedly get such better gas mileage, then why don't they beat out the LSx's? Why don't other companies use the "gearing advantage" that GM does and get even better gas mileage? Why don't they make a lighter, smaller, more powerful engine?
"Most of the engines used in hi-performance race cars and race boats today, are modified from the engines designed for Detroit production automobiles in the 1950s and 60s.
The engines are based on an overhead valve head design with two valves per cylinder, driven by a single camshaft in the block through varied arrangements of tappets and push rods.
Granted, when first introduced, they were a far cry better than Henry Ford’s Flathead engines, that were in Vogue at the time, but not in step with modern day engine technology.
The American Auto Industry, once known for its world leadership, got left behind with the introduction of more efficient, four valve per cylinder, dual overhead cam engines, built in Europe and Japan.The valve train in Schubeck engines, closely relate to those Mercedes and Honda race engines.
Compare the similarities between Schubeck engines and the engines winning at Lemons and Indy. Starting with the valve train, for example, newer engine designs all use overhead cams proven to be less stressful by doing away with problems related to push rods and tappets. Fewer moving parts mean less reciprocating weight. Less weight helps the valve train operate in all rpm ranges with less effort and more efficiency.
Adding to a more relaxed valve train are the smaller and lighter valves and springs, also requiring less spring pressure to operate. Four valves over two valves per cylinder, affords a greater ability for the engine to breath, thereby increasing the volumetric efficiency for more power.
Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress."
The engines are based on an overhead valve head design with two valves per cylinder, driven by a single camshaft in the block through varied arrangements of tappets and push rods.
Granted, when first introduced, they were a far cry better than Henry Ford’s Flathead engines, that were in Vogue at the time, but not in step with modern day engine technology.
The American Auto Industry, once known for its world leadership, got left behind with the introduction of more efficient, four valve per cylinder, dual overhead cam engines, built in Europe and Japan.The valve train in Schubeck engines, closely relate to those Mercedes and Honda race engines.
Compare the similarities between Schubeck engines and the engines winning at Lemons and Indy. Starting with the valve train, for example, newer engine designs all use overhead cams proven to be less stressful by doing away with problems related to push rods and tappets. Fewer moving parts mean less reciprocating weight. Less weight helps the valve train operate in all rpm ranges with less effort and more efficiency.
Adding to a more relaxed valve train are the smaller and lighter valves and springs, also requiring less spring pressure to operate. Four valves over two valves per cylinder, affords a greater ability for the engine to breath, thereby increasing the volumetric efficiency for more power.
Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress."
#108
Why do you say this and they converted to DOHC in the Caddy? LT5 proved you wrong
#109
#110
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: B-town
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LT5 was poop anyone who denies it is well in denial and no one still wants to work on it.
Yeah the Northstar is alright, but doesn't get the mileage, power or price advantage of an LSX based motor.
Yeah the Northstar is alright, but doesn't get the mileage, power or price advantage of an LSX based motor.
#112
Its not the motor that's efficient for the 10th time. Its the gearing of 1:1 in 4th, making 5th and 6th overdrives.
#114
TECH Senior Member
The difference between an iron block LS1 and an al. one is 93lbs, and from what I understand its an even greater difference with the traditional SBC's like the LT1.
So yes, DOHC = large weight gain and 25psi = fail again.
#115
TECH Senior Member
#116
TECH Senior Member
#117
The L98 (along with the LT1) are iron blocks, iron crank, heavy engines. The LT5 is an all aluminum engine.
The difference between an iron block LS1 and an al. one is 93lbs, and from what I understand its an even greater difference with the traditional SBC's like the LT1.
So yes, DOHC = large weight gain and 25psi = fail again.
The difference between an iron block LS1 and an al. one is 93lbs, and from what I understand its an even greater difference with the traditional SBC's like the LT1.
So yes, DOHC = large weight gain and 25psi = fail again.
Toodles,
#120