89ws6formula50

iTrader: (6)

anyone have a pic of the head, top and bottom side they can email me or post up?

Thanks

sb427f-car

3v? Do you mean ford?

Killer_Bluebird

iTrader: (23)

GM doesn't make a 3V head for LSx. I think Lingenfelter or Elderbrock was working on one but I can't remmenber which one for sure. I think I saw a discussion about it acouple months ago on this board.

89ws6formula50

iTrader: (6)

ok, I saw something at one time in a car mag about it, thought it was then next Gen (5) for the LSx series

thanks

pman

iTrader: (6)

We are still doing work on the prototype castings. GM stopped by the other day to get another set of heads rockers and transfer arms for more testing.So the project is far from dead.

prostock_bigblock

iTrader: (11)

what I am realy sure about that Gm did a new 3 valve design but for the small block carb.

Another_User

:yawn: Gimmick. Crappy gimmick. I hope this thread isn't like the last one about the 3 valve turds.

89ws6formula50

iTrader: (6)

only reason I asked was because this thread
http://turbobuicks.com/forums/showth...t=page=1&pp=15
You will have to read a wya into it where I said that GM was making the same or damn near same power as Ford was but GM using 2 valves per cyl and ford 4 and GM N/A vs Ford S/C. Well a guy came back adn said GM LS2 and LS7 are 3 valve, since I had sold my 01 Z last year I got out of the LSx scene for awhile and now that I have another LS1 Z I got back in and was not sure if GM went on with the LS2 LS7 3 valve design

Another_User

Reading that thread is a waste of time. GM never put those heads into production. It would be worse suicide for them than the SSR, Aveo, Cobalt, and Malibu Maxx combined. They are a recall waiting to happen.

89ws6formula50

iTrader: (6)

well, all that said, now they cant read it and waste their time, but hey, thanks for the letting me know on the heads....

pman

iTrader: (6)

we also are machining the 3 valve V10 and V6 proto work

Another_User

That sucks. Hope you don't end up like GM.

pman

iTrader: (6)

GM pays us to do the machine work...how does that suck? I never really read the other threads about the 3 valve heads, but you seem to have all the first hand info on them? Am i right on this guess or do you just have something against them? Not looking for an argurment here just want to compare your info with what we hear from the guys testing and developing them.

Another_User

I just have something against them. It is not even logical that the valvetrain design could hold up to normal wear and tear, let alone high-rpm abuse. Plus, if you want to add more valvetrain weight and valves, GM should at least give us DOHC, and some variable cam timing technology. Not just some crappy gimmick. If it were some useful magical technology, other car companies would have gone, "Oh wow, three valves on a pushrod engine, with both valves opening at the same time, what a great idea! Oh wait, we can just make the intake valve bigger and accomplish the same thing with less turbulence, or better yet, lets actually do something useful and use OHC technology that has been out for years, and now we can actually rev the **** out of the engine, vary cam timing, and do something GM didn't think of....making more horsepower!" GM wastes money like it is water. That is their problem.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

sohc is crap, its more gimmicky than the pushrod 3 valve heads. a comparable motor to the same year ls1 makes what? up to 70hp less than the good ole pushrod ls1 heads? then u come to the redline, with the right setup you could rev the ls1 jus as far if not further. if nething gm should slap a blower on the LSx cars and jus give ford the big ole finger once again. hell its evident wht the blowers would do, look at the joe gibbs trucks. they outrun there competition the blown lightings stock for stock at a 1/10th leiter(sp) less.

Another_User

I never said they should use SOHC. SOHC has the advantage of being able to rev higher than a pushrod engine though, but it loses the a lot of advantage in variable cam timing. There are so many additional capabilities of OHC over pushrod it is crazy. Just because pushrods have worked out so well for GM in the past does not mean OHC would not provide additional benefits. The only legitimate gripe I have heard is increased weight and space required for the engine, neither of which are impossible to accomplish with aluminum parts plus the fact that DOHC V8s do exist, and are already fit in cars now.

stik6shift93

My guess would be that size and weight are the two factors of why gm doesn't waste their time with ohc v-type motors. Fwiw a ford dohc v8 is about the same size as a big block motor. The other factor is the additional cost of using ohc motors. I've said it before and i will say it again it's a popular misconception that gm's pushrod technology is outdated, they know exactly what they're doing.
For instance take fords dohc v8's, though they make a very little bit more hp per liter, go and compare power per pound of motor. You will find out that gms old pushrod technology is much more efficient than the current ohc technology ford is using. Also not only does an ohc motor add more weight in the front of a car that already has a heavy front weight bias, it also adds the weight to the top of the motor which increases the center of gravity which also hurts handeling. Also if gm used ohc's in their motors you'd have less sleek cars with much more bulky front ends, take the corvette for instance. If gm decided to use an ohc type v8 in the vette they'd have to raise the hood line a few inches, car would look like garbage imo if that were to happen.

Runge_Kutta

pman,

Have you seen any indication that there are versions of these heads
which have provisions for side- or central direct-injection?? Do you have
any idea of the valve sizes (diameters)?? What bore sizes are these heads
designed for?? Has anyone given you any hints as to the flow rates of these
heads? Is the first application of these heads to truck or cars? I assume V8's
will appear before the V6's and V10's. Do intake manifolds for these heads
look anything like either the LS2 or LS7 intake manifolds? Are the heads much
heavier than 2V heads. What is the valve angle on these heads? Are there many
different versions of the heads??

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Don't get yourself fired!

PewterWSSicc

I agree with stik 100%. One of the biggest differences in the GM cars and Fords or most other OHC v-8's is that the GM pushrod cars are more aerodynamic(front engine mount, excluding mid mounted cars). The front of the mustangs look like bricks in the wind, also my opinion, but they definately arent as aerodynamic. I also like the old saying "keep it simple, stupid." And that is what GM has been doing and doing it well. Pushrod engines are a simple design that just plain works. Im not gonna say it works better than OHC, but for what GM and most of there buyers want, it is a better suited engine. I also dont see any real benefits from OHC engines. The pushrod engines and heads are capable of making the same power. Sure it takes bigger valves, but power is power, no matter how it is made. As far as ive seen the LS series heads flow just as good as the OHC heads flow, and the LS engines can rev just as high as other OHC V-8. I would imagine that they would be able to rev higher seeing as they are using less moving parts and therefore moving less mass during revving. That is just an educated guess, no facts to support that.

Foxxtron

iTrader: (1)

I could see why an engineer would flirt with the idea of an OHC engine, however in GM's case when they owned lotus cars, the LT5 (great motor indeed) was a vehicle with one heck of a price tag, not to mention that it was one heck of a heavy and large engine. Even though skeptics would like to believe that the LSx engine is pushing the pushrod design too far, I like to think that what it doesn't push too far is the price tag.

Lack of variable valve tech is for sure, but lack of power for the price? Good question. I would like to know how that 3v design will work myself, because the exhaust valve arrangement looks a bit awkward. I couldn't see why it couldn't work, just looks like a proprietary design that might need much r&d before it can work better than GM's 2v OHV design. If my memory doesn't fail me, I believe that there was a company called dominion that had a retrofit design for a 4v OHV. don't remember what ever happened with it.