..the first multi-valve engine sold to the masses was a three valve engine with an overhead cam and electronic fuel injection...

It was a 1980 Honda and it sold for about $6,500 ...so much for the high tech stuff cost a bunch to manufacture and therefore, you have to pay $100K for it; BULL!

If you really think about it it does not cost significntly more to produce a V=8 than a V-6 or four.... people will pay more for a bigger engine so car companies price their products accordingly...

 

You're still saying that more parts means high tech. Thats complete crap.

Your argument is old, and tired. GM proved you wrong in 1997. Get over it.

Do you ever have anything positive to say?

Eric

 

All I know is that it takes Ford two cames and four valves per cylinder to even come close to the power and torque that a pushrod two-valve LS1 has. I know which one I think is more "Hi-Tech".

-Geoff

 

The 2000 Cobra was pretty high tech, wasn't it?

Ooops -- sorry Ford lovers.

 

More power to GM for keeping the pushrod motors. 500 hp from 6.3 litres is sweet. The compact size, cylinder heads, and engine management are just a few of the things that make the LS1's so great. My stepson has a 5.4 Ford OHC motor in his shop that he's working on a sheetmetal intake for. That thing is friggin huge. Heads damn near look as big as a BB Chevy. Talk about a packaging nightmare, and maintenance nightmare. I'll stick with pushrods, thank you very much.

Bruce

 

The LT5 was "high tech" but wasn't near as good as the LS6. Heavier, more expensive, less durable, etc.

 

Yeh; i read an article about a Ford OHC swap; it looked very involved... seemed way too complicated for a shade tree project...

...it yielded a whoppping 14HP increase - big deal; right?

So this is my point; GM engines are great because I can bolt on a few after-market parts and make big power.... just don't refer to our engines as high tech motors....?

 

Ok.. The LS1/6 is a High Tech motor in my book The most advanced pushrod motor on the planet. How many people said it would be impossible to produce a push rod motor that would meet year 2000 emission standards? Looks like GM did.. and are continuing to do it.

Techinically any "production" motor isn't high tech at all. In order to produce an engine that will live in the daily "grind" it takes years of testing. So, by the time you see the "technology" it's already old news.

True "High Tech".. look at the cam less motors with electronically operated valves.

 

I heard the F-1 race cars use pheumatic valves since the rev to 16,000.

How does that work?

So how did GM produce the clean engine - clean fast burn head chambers and CPU's that micro mange fuel/air ratios; right?

 

Pnuematic valves use a chamber that is filled with air to the desired spring seat pressure. 150 psi or whatever is your fancy. No metal to fatigue, just compressing air. Pretty ingenious solution I think. Takes the place of the metal spring, but if you think about it yamaha has 4 stroke motorcyles that will ev to 13,000 rpm with metal springs.

 

The short pushrod thing has been done before, I think moto guzzi had it on their ohc setup.
Oh yeah, and the LS1 Is a pretty damn high tech in my book. Very efficient combustion chambers with 2 valves and great power through a small(relatively) bore. The people who designed this engine knew a cheap way to make killer power and a highly efficient engine. (pushrods)

 

First of all having more parts does not make it high tech, it just means when something breaks there is more to fix.

Second have more than two valves per cylinder is almost pointless, take the 4.6l modular for example there intake ports flow a little over 130 @.500 lift when they are ported so with the two valves combined thats a total airflow of a hint over 260 our cylinder heads when ported have seen over 330 cfms with one valve so why do u need two.

3rd the ohv sbc has been working great since 1955 if you have an almost perfect design down why change it.

4th tell wade for ARE that he needs four valves if u think two isnt working for him.

5th our engines are high tech if u want to be a smart *** mabye I can break it down for you, they a lite, they get excelent fuel mileage, tunability is great, they run 15 degree aluminum heads, composite intake (no heat soak), they have the ability to be sleeved to a 4.155 in bore and with mild clean up they will handle a 4.125 in stroke, they have a windage tray and main girdle stock, they have 6 bolt main caps, an oil pump that beats the hell out of the original sbc design, they give u the ability to change cams without removing the lifters, stock gaskets are reusable, the stock block has been used to hold over 1000 rwhp, the ignition system is great with only a cam and crank sensor, no distributor to **** up and long nasty, twisted up plug wires, and when they are modified they have very good street manners, how many cars can u spend 4000 on and run high tens all day.

6th most cars with varible valve timing are slow hondas, bmws, and just how fast is a stock ferrari not that fast.

Just for the record C5R heads use only two valves and when ported they have seen over 440 cfm, not to many 18 bbc heads flow that well so im just say all these new foreign designs are not that great most of them are built to break cause the companies know the vehicle will be retire in a couple years and the person will want a new one.

 

coolbeens
so I guess the majority of us have decided that we'd prefer to stay with a 2valve, OHV design?
I would, and the only thing i see as an improvement is the "cam-less" design, if it was based on the GenIII, and was kinda interchangable with it.

and as for the high-tech convo, I think engines that are claimed to be hightech are for pansies
Wow, your honda has more cams than my camaro, who gives a flying hoo-hoo.

 

I agree with you! Both OHV and OHC cam motors have been around almost as long as the automobile itself.There is nothing "space age" or "new and exciting" about these configurations.
What makes certain engines "High Tech" in my opinion is the details that go towards improving efficiency and power.
The design of the intake and exhaust ports as well as combustion chambers (and many other things) on the GEN III motor are fantastic (some of the best EVER) and certainly qualify as high tech in my book.
GM really could not have made these engines without decades of experience and technology such as finite element analysis.As far as the pushrod OHV motor goes the GEN III is in my opinion the finest made thus far.
Revolution? No.It's an evolution and that works just fine for me.I do not demand that everything I buy have the latest and greatest new thing that may or may not work. I think it is better to pick a package and slowly work to make it perfect. GM is doing just that. They have chosen the OHV architecture and are doing everything (kinda) they can to make it as good as they can. I say good call.

 

Whoa,whoa,whoa! Don't let any of the Ferrari ***** that hang in the lounge see that.After all those years looking at the poster of a Testarossa they refuse to believe that Ferraris are anything but mythical beasts of great speed and power :p

I agree a stock Ferrari is not that impressive when it comes to straight line acceleration. I have seen Vegas and Pintos go quicker than Enzos for about 700k less....

 

Ok, first off.I really like the LS1/6 motors. As pushrod engines go, they are as good as any in current production. I do feel that we are seeing the "last gasps" of 50's hotrodding technology in these motors. That is not to berate them, the fact that the smallblock Chevy (in some form or another) has made it this far (when most others have abandoned it for more effecient technology) is a testimony to GM's powertrain engineers.

I seem to remember GM building a "flag ship" powertrain in the 90's (late 80's, etc). They had Mercury Marine build them a 4 valve, overhead cam motor. They called it the ZR1, and it only cost $30,000 more than the 2 valve it replaced. Actually, Lotus engineered it, and Mercury Marine built it. I guess it wasn't much of a GM product at all when you come right down to it. Anyway, GM has redeemed themselves now by equalling the power output of that motor with only 2 valves (the LS6) and the only category where the ZR1 is still king is top speed (by only a couple MPH, due to gearing issues). It has been proven time and time again, that if you throw enough money at a problem, you will find a solution. GM has found that solution. It involved a new bore and stroke, a new block configuration, a new firing order, different alloys, a completely different head design, thermoplastic intake, and several other things. Not the least of which is the use of more computer technology onboard a modern F or Y body than was used on the Apollo missions to the moon! I guess that means that our cars could fly to the moon and be more advanced than the vehicles that have gone there before them.

Another interesting point. In Europe, vehicles pay taxes based on displacement. The larger the motor, the more it costs to own your vehicle. Most of europe (and asia) have adopted multivalve technology (and for Honda, stratospheric redlines) in an effort to make more than 100hp per liter. Then, you can have a 300 hp motor that is 3 liters (instead of our 5.7). Honda has done just that with the S2000 (I don't like them, I prefer torque myself....but it is a fascinating engineering study).You will also notice that these multi-valve, small displacement motors don't make "gobs" of torque. The difference is, an LS1/6 is still short in breathing capacity. It makes great power down low, but in the higher RPM ranges it simply runs out of air (that's why we buy ported heads, in an effort to correct this situation). I like the torque, and if it made the 600hp that it would make with proper breathing heads, that would be fine with me as well.

I found this information interesting, it is flow bench information in the S2000 heads which use 1.428" intake valves. The numbers are not that "phenominal" as compared to a 300 cfm custom ported head for our engines. But consider, at 185 CFM, they flow almost 80% as much as our LS1 heads do, and it is feeding less than 1/2 the displacement. If we kept the same flow rates, we would need 260.7 CFM from our intakes (we have 2 times as many cylinders, or for a 5.7 liter 4 cylinder, that would be 521.55 CFM to stay with the equivalent flow/liter ratio...impressive, isn't it).

http://e30m3performance.com/tech_art...-1/chart-4.htm

Anyway, this has gotten too long already. I'll close by saying that I like our cars and, yes, GM is using modern technology to it's best advantage in these engines. I didn't post this to start any fights, or call anyone names, or describe who has "flawed thinking". This is mostly a statement of facts and opinions based on those facts. You may chose to ignore them, or you can simply disagree. After all, this is still America.

I could mention the current 1.8 liter, 5 valve VW (Audi) turbo motors (I used to have one of those in our stable) that are basically a "chip away from 400+ HP"....but that is another discussion altogether....

Anyway, just though I'd share some information that I've found interesting in regards to all of this....

Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.....

 

Aren't the Ford motors almost an entire liter smaller? Hmmm...interesting....

But, if Ford built a 5.7 liter Cobra motor....That may level the playing field a little bit. Actually, if they kept the same HP/Liter ratio, it would make 396.5 HP. Which gives some interesting insight into the LS6 engines output. But the LS6 is still only 71 hp/liter (not bad, but the S2000 has it beat at something near 120 hp/liter). But anyway....

Again, just applying a little math, not taking sides (maybe playing "devils advocate", but other than that).

If we break out the calculators and apply science to some of these discussions, I find that we may all fight less (not that I, or a caluculator has all the answers, Just doing a little independent thinking out loud). The calculator doesn't lie (in most cases anyway).

All for now....

 

Worlds Collide. I think that is one of the most referred to sites in BMW circles. He has great technical articles on there, albeit most e30 BMW specific. There is a good writeup on effects of rod length that you can download and put in your own figures from your specific application.

 

ok im gonna end this HP per liter CRAP right now...

more displacement means more friction from moving parts...thats it..the end.. go put 2k in mods on a s2k motor and be happy with the 10hp you gain

(and i know alot about hondas so dont try to test me on this...)

 

I think you misunderstood. (Again, I really don't like Hondas much) I suspect that an S2000 motor is running "near capacity", it apparently has optimal port flow, cam timing and compression to obtain very high volumetric effeciency numbers. It would be very difficult to get much more air and fuel into that motor without an increase in displacement. I suspect $10,000 would be required to see any "real gains" (forced induction and alcohol injection come to mind) from that engine. But, if we were as "effecient" as that "engineering example", we would be making about 684HP (5.7 liters @ 120 HP/liter). When we get 2 valve pushrod motors to do that (with 100,000+ mile durability), I'll reconsider "high tech". That is all I was saying, nothing more, nothing less. The reverse applies as well. The reason $2000 in mods will make a huge improvement in an LS1/6 is that there are improvements to make. You just answered your own question.

As I said, I really like the LS1/6 engines. And as far as pushrod technology goes, they are on the cutting edge of what is available today. I'm simply saying that we are still "wasting displacement". It would still take a healthy increase in volumetric effeciency for our motors to keep up with some of what is available in terms of specific output. But, that is what makes the aftermarket so strong for our cars, there are gains to be made.

The beauty of this discussion is that there is no right or wrong, only opinions, based on facts that are interpreted differently by everyone involved. Basically meaning that many people will get stressed out and upset and nobody will change their opinion and there can be no winner or loser. So, as usual, these are "just my thoughts".



(going back to the suspension forum now.....)