C7 ZO6 to be unveiled at Detroit Auto Show
12-14-2013, 11:45 AM
#61
Banned
iTrader: (1)
!["MAC"'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%237f3b59' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn! Good pics for the comparisons to show how much bigger OHC motors are! Didnt think they was that much bigger. Funny how they are a lot bigger than our LSx motors but yet SOME ford people cry about how we have the bigger motor (CI that is) lol Its not our fault that GM can squeeze out more cubes in a smaller motor and ford can't in a physically BIGGER motor!
12-14-2013, 02:40 PM
#62
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because you live on the internet rather than at the track. Several locals were in the low low 12s and even 11s with bolt-ons and mild weight reduction back in 1999. Whisper lid, Grots, cutout, and PI converter with slicks would do it under 3400lbs. And they did it without tuning or internet help.
Damn! Good pics for the comparisons to show how much bigger OHC motors are! Didnt think they was that much bigger. Funny how they are a lot bigger than our LSx motors but yet SOME ford people cry about how we have the bigger motor (CI that is) lol Its not our fault that GM can squeeze out more cubes in a smaller motor and ford can't in a physically BIGGER motor!
Anyway, seriously, enough of this. Get back to something ELSE we know little or nothing about... The new Corvette.
12-14-2013, 05:08 PM
#63
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, well thanks for agreeing with me... Except: I seem to remember this little thing called LS1 Edit... About the best thing going back then.
It's not our fault, nor is it our fault the DOHC can generally support more rpm and overall hp. It is what it is, by design, not mistake.
Anyway, seriously, enough of this. Get back to something ELSE we know little or nothing about... The new Corvette.
Damn! Good pics for the comparisons to show how much bigger OHC motors are! Didnt think they was that much bigger. Funny how they are a lot bigger than our LSx motors but yet SOME ford people cry about how we have the bigger motor (CI that is) lol Its not our fault that GM can squeeze out more cubes in a smaller motor and ford can't in a physically BIGGER motor!
Anyway, seriously, enough of this. Get back to something ELSE we know little or nothing about... The new Corvette.
12-14-2013, 08:09 PM
#64
Yup, and in automobile terms, the OHC, spefically DOHC, has more pros and the OHV has more cons.
Fact is, some engines just do burn cleaner than others and in the case of OHC vs OHV, it seems the automotive world has determined the OHC is cleaner. I remember when Ford came out with the 4.6 and the big news was that it needed no smog pump(parasitic loss) to pass emissions. That was what, like 1990... The OHV needed till around 2006 for that. Apparently, the test equipment was either partial to the OHC engine, or it burned cleaner... You can judge that for yourself. 
Seems after 2006 GM shot your "fact" in the face by not needing extra smog pumps for their OHV engines, not to mention there are OHC engines out there that have smog pumps. Oops! So much for OHC being the cause of a cleaner burn.
If you like OHC, that's fine. Keep it. But please don't try to pass it off as being so superior to OHV and "cleaner" burning when that is only a small portion of the big picture on engine function and fuel burn.
12-14-2013, 09:29 PM
#65
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're arguing that DOHC causes better burns do you not? OHC vs OHV comes down to the mode of opening/closing valves. So, yes, in that way you did.
Want to provide supported facts? Not like this one here:
You are taking two totally different engines, made by two totally different companies, and saying that it was solely the OHC that made the 4.6 pass emissions without a smog pump. Seriously?
Seems after 2006 GM shot your "fact" in the face by not needing extra smog pumps for their OHV engines, not to mention there are OHC engines out there that have smog pumps. Oops! So much for OHC being the cause of a cleaner burn.
If you like OHC, that's fine. Keep it. But please don't try to pass it off as being so superior to OHV and "cleaner" burning when that is only a small portion of the big picture on engine function and fuel burn.
Want to provide supported facts? Not like this one here:
You are taking two totally different engines, made by two totally different companies, and saying that it was solely the OHC that made the 4.6 pass emissions without a smog pump. Seriously?
Seems after 2006 GM shot your "fact" in the face by not needing extra smog pumps for their OHV engines, not to mention there are OHC engines out there that have smog pumps. Oops! So much for OHC being the cause of a cleaner burn.
If you like OHC, that's fine. Keep it. But please don't try to pass it off as being so superior to OHV and "cleaner" burning when that is only a small portion of the big picture on engine function and fuel burn.
you, for being Da'man... By the way... Did the 1996 and later Sedan Deville Concourse use a smog pump?
12-15-2013, 06:54 PM
#68
It'llrun - do you agree that NHRA Pro Stock is the pinicale of OHV performance? Would you also agree that F1 is the pinicale of OHC performance?
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
12-15-2013, 07:07 PM
#69
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'llrun - do you agree that NHRA Pro Stock is the pinicale of OHV performance? Would you also agree that F1 is the pinicale of OHC performance?
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
12-16-2013, 07:31 AM
#70
TECH Enthusiast
It'llrun - do you agree that NHRA Pro Stock is the pinicale of OHV performance? Would you also agree that F1 is the pinicale of OHC performance?
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
2.5 liter formula1 v8 = 740+hp. 296hp/liter
7 liter v8 = 505hp.................. 72hp/liter
296 is greater than 72 to me.
maybe i'm in outer space.
on a angine dyno with cams, a 5 liter coyote makes 450 lb-ft.....90 lb-ft per liter.
on a engine dyno with cams, a 6.2 liter LS3 makes...495ish lb-ft..79 lb-ft per liter.
is there another leasure i don't know about?
500inch pro stock 1400hp = 170hp per liter. still less than 296 in my reading.
Last edited by assasinator; 12-16-2013 at 07:36 AM.
12-16-2013, 09:56 AM
#72
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'llrun - do you agree that NHRA Pro Stock is the pinicale of OHV performance? Would you also agree that F1 is the pinicale of OHC performance?
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
Now did you know that pushrod motor is more volumetricly efficient than the F1 OHC motor?
You've talked out your *** in this thread and tried to go backon stupid **** you e said or cover it up with even ddumber ****.. GTFO
By the way, NO, I do not agree that NHRA Pro Stock is the pinnacle of OHV performance, or even a little close to such a thing! I would certainly say TF, insofar as drag racing, is the pinnacle and otherwise, FC, but never PS.
Regardless, the reason those large engines do so well with their OHV design is because... They're LARGE! As in BIG cubic inches. It helps also, that they create big RPM. Those are great things and for me, I prefer to build the OHV engine in general because it's just easier. Still, OHC, specifically DOHC, simply smashes the competition and that's final. The only close contenders in the OHV world are HEMI headed brutes in the well over 400ci range, or the rare design changed engines, such as one with COATES Spherical Rotary Valve heads installed. Then again, those heads would make it essentially an OHC engine... A DOHC, really.
12-16-2013, 12:40 PM
#73
When ANY naturally aspirated OHC engine makes more than 1600hp, or ANY forced induction OHC engine makes more than ~8500hp, THEN you can claim that. Keep the ricer math out of this.
12-16-2013, 01:39 PM
#74
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
btw, clown... I know this is old and all, and wasn't modified by tuners at the time, but think this over in that massive brain of yours... http://www.gizmag.com/go/4286/
The NHRA has BANNED the use of DOHC engines in its top classes, so we won't likely see them at TF power levels, but it's not that they cannot reach those levels, because they can.
12-16-2013, 02:29 PM
#75
Yeah, insulting the other party in an argument is a good way to win them over 
This thread has degenerated, badly. I recommend just locking this garbage and then a new thread be made after the show with pics to then drool over or complain about
This thread has degenerated, badly. I recommend just locking this garbage and then a new thread be made after the show with pics to then drool over or complain about
12-16-2013, 02:45 PM
#76
TECH Enthusiast
Outer space? Perhaps. However your location doesn't matter, your sheer ignorance does. Volumetric efficiency and power per liter ARE NOT the same thing.
More ignorance...
When ANY naturally aspirated OHC engine makes more than 1600hp, or ANY forced induction OHC engine makes more than ~8500hp, THEN you can claim that. Keep the ricer math out of this.
More ignorance...
When ANY naturally aspirated OHC engine makes more than 1600hp, or ANY forced induction OHC engine makes more than ~8500hp, THEN you can claim that. Keep the ricer math out of this.
also a current formula one engine has massive restrictions. charge cooling, block materials, crank materials, piston shape, valve shape, etc.
For contemporary naturally-aspirated, two-valve-per-cylinder, pushrod engine technology, a VE over 95% is excellent, and 100% is achievable, but quite difficult. Only the best of the best can reach 110%, and that is by means of extremely specialized development of the complex system comprised of the intake passages, combustion chambers, exhaust passages and valve system components. The practical limit for normally-aspirated engines, typically DOHC layout with four or more valves per cylinder, is about 115%, which can only be achieved under the most highly-developed conditions, with precise intake and exhaust passage tuning. Generally, the RPM at peak VE coincides with the RPM at the torque peak. And generally, automotive engines rarely exceed 90% VE.
Predictably, the most powerful engines in the world are the ones with the biggest budgets and, equally predictably, they are in Formula 1. Developing well over 300bhp per litre and boasting a volumetric efficiency of 125 per cent at 20,000rpm they produce more power for their capacity than any other normally aspirated, four-stroke engines anywhere.
Last edited by assasinator; 12-16-2013 at 03:05 PM.
12-16-2013, 04:05 PM
#78
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-16-2013, 06:51 PM
#80
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup.Thanks to "The McGee Quad Cam" (2nd iteration) and perhaps a couple others running so strongly, companies like General Motors, along with some engine builders and even race teams lobbied against them altogether or at least to handicap them and, in 1997, NHRA outlawed DOHC engines and made a rule change requiring no more than 1 camshaft per engine and no more than 2 valves per cylinder...