Pushrod or OHC

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Slicks

Im not talking about asking car owners where they're cams are, but if their engine is the "high tech" "DOHC" or "pushrod", some may not know, and most wont know what that means, but the fact that the engine is marketed at "high tech" will most certainly attract more buyers.
GM is still making pushrods other than the LS series, and are introducing VVT in a 3.9L V6(OHV) they are working on.
The next step up is computer controled valves, camshaftless engines.

As all the engines sold in Europe and Japan (bar some American imports), are fitted with either one or two OHC's no advertisements make specific mention of that issue any more. All GM products sold in Europe, except again of the products coming from the States have either one or two OHC's. It does not make a marketing difference. What is may be high tech for US consumers has become bread and butter for everybody else about twenty years ago. GM obviously is not convinced of the superiority of the OHV engine to re-introduce this in other cars produced elsewhere. Just wondering why that is.

I also read recently that GM is considering to make a 4-valve head for the LS-2. It might close down the weight gap between the LS6 and any DOHC engine considerably.
Probably you also think that Chrysler decided not to futher develop their supercar (M4/12 or something) because it was fitted with a Mercedes V12 DOHC and not with a V10 viper engine.

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by henk4

As all the engines sold in Europe and Japan (bar some American imports), are fitted with either one or two OHC's no advertisements make specific mention of that issue any more. All GM products sold in Europe, except again of the products coming from the States have either one or two OHC's. It does not make a marketing difference. What is may be high tech for US consumers has become bread and butter for everybody else about twenty years ago. GM obviously is not convinced of the superiority of the OHV engine to re-introduce this in other cars produced elsewhere. Just wondering why that is.

Thats the whole thing, its not "high tech" it is "bread and butter." If by painting the engine block green, and marketing that as better for some reason, people will think its "better." Companies will have green engines then, even though there trully is no point, and a color is not necessary on an engine.

I also read recently that GM is considering to make a 4-valve head for the LS-2. It might close down the weight gap between the LS6 and any DOHC engine considerably.

Havent heard that, although I did heard that they were considering a 3 valve design for the LS7, obveously that fell through.

Probably you also think that Chrysler decided not to futher develop their supercar (M4/12 or something) because it was fitted with a Mercedes V12 DOHC and not with a V10 viper engine.

*sigh* MARKETING
Who is going to buy a $500,000-1 million dollar car?
Its about profit, not who can make the "best" car.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Slicks

Thats the whole thing, its not "high tech" it is "bread and butter." If by painting the engine block green, and marketing that as better for some reason, people will think its "better." Companies will have green engines then, even though there trully is no point, and a color is not necessary on an engine.

Havent heard that, although I did heard that they were considering a 3 valve design for the LS7, obveously that fell through.

*sigh* MARKETING
Who is going to buy a $500,000-1 million dollar car?
Its about profit, not who can make the "best" car.

And you don't think that cost concerned producers would not try to sell OHV as high tech if it was cheaper to produce and to maintain? OHC has become the standard, like having 4 wheels. Of course as I said earlier, all these money wasting producers are wrong and should have gone back to a technology that they said goodby to ages ago.

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by henk4

And you don't think that cost concerned producers would not try to sell OHV as high tech if it was cheaper to produce and to maintain?

Its too late for that, people are already brainwashed into thinking that OHV = bad. Why do you think that companies like Opel left the US? They were not selling well, and now have a REPUTATION, one that was obveously bad.

OHC has become the standard, like having 4 wheels. Of course as I said earlier, all these money wasting producers are wrong and should have gone back to a technology that they said goodby to ages ago.

OHC is fine if your not trying to save weight and space and money. But if for that certain application pushrod works just as well, why not save weight, space, and money?
By theory, the rotary engine would be more reliable because of less moving parts, but theory is not reality, and that was proven to be wrong.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Slicks

Its too late for that, people are already brainwashed into thinking that OHV = bad. Why do you think that companies like Opel left the US? They were not selling well, and now have a REPUTATION, one that was obveously bad.

OHC is fine if your not trying to save weight and space and money. But if for that certain application pushrod works just as well, why not save weight, space, and money?
By theory, the rotary engine would be more reliable because of less moving parts, but theory is not reality, and that was proven to be wrong.

Opel is a GM company but based in Germany.At what period of time was it ever offered on the US market? Opel is also not selling well in Europe. Why is BMW selling well in the USA? Porsche? Mercedes?
And to answer your last question: because building OHV engines does not necessarily means saving weight, space and money. Inline 4,5 and 6 cylinder engines are cheaper to build with OHC and better performing. If you broaden your views and accept that not only V engines exist on this world than you may also accept that by far the most engines produced on a day to day are fitted with an OHC.

Tell Mazda your story about the reliability of the Rotary engine. The Ro80 was may be a point in case but that was introduced in the sixties. The primary problem for the rotary engine is its high fuel consumption, but that seems to be a minor issues in the US with its extremely low fuel prices

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Slicks

Did I say anything about them not having their "major" components?

You clearly dont' know ANY of the components or you wodl not have so readily dismissed the points made to you aobut items moving up/down versus rotation - first bad, second good.
AND you woudlnt' get so confused over the benefits/drawbacks of the designs.

Why do you assume that I dont know what happens inside an engine? Yes, I dont know exactly every part, but the design in general yes. (howstuffworks has some little .gifs for example)

erm, because you post inaccurate information and are unable to follow through on any question regarding HOW it matters.

Heh, another 101 thread, great, for your reputions sake ill not mention that 20% formula you made up, heh, that still make me chuckle.

it's called the 80/20 rule and it is THE rule of human nature
It kind of first surfaced in the computer industry when people were analysing all the factors in design and implementation and tryign to turn an art into a science. Since then it has turned up as being valid in SO many comparative populatiosn that it has become widely accepted as a 'guide'. Hence why I used it in the little comment
Amazed you'd not come across it already, it pops up almost everywhere now.
So as much as I would WISH to be able to own the 80/20 rule ( I'd patent it and make a fortune ) I'm only a humble user

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by henk4

If you want to tease Matra you might want to tell him that all Alpine A110 engines were Renault based pushrod in-line fours.

AND my Matra engines.
AND the MGB we competed in last year, the Mini we're rebuilding for this year, the Ford X-flow race engine we've rebuilt for the 3rd time ... the list of OHV engines I've worked on, still do and OWN is large
The Corsa, Quantum and Alpine are all OHC and the latter twin OHC.

Sadly I KNOW the benefits and drawbacks of them. Id' so much love to take the best out of ALL those engiens and produce one engine to fit each

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Slicks

The next step up is computer controled valves, camshaftless engines.

chortle. Yo know where that puts all the weight don't you ?

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Slicks

By theory, the rotary engine would be more reliable because of less moving parts, but theory is not reality, and that was proven to be wrong.

Confusing parts and their roles.
The tip seals on Wankel engines were ALWAYS known to be a risk.
That ANYONE can make a performance version of a rotary was amazing.
That Mazda managed to produce THE MOST RELIABLE Le Mans car EVER using a rotary is a testament to their skills.

Your argument could have been said about phosphor-bronze oil-fed bearings 100 years ago.

THAT is an irrelevant comparison as OHV and OHC try to do the same job.
The OHV has more wearing surfaces to protect and more linear-movement parts for the designer to control.

[targa]

Originally Posted by jcp123

The Ford Model T/A 4-cylinders (and the V8's for that matter) were flathead, not ohv, as were most other engines of the day.

damn, i looked at the diagram wrong, and i wasnt really thinking at the time, i think

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by henk4

Opel is a GM company but based in Germany.At what period of time was it ever offered on the US market?

I know what Opel is... I could swear that Opel (along with other companies like Lancia, and Renault) at some time were sold in America.

Opel is also not selling well in Europe. Why is BMW selling well in the USA? Porsche? Mercedes?

Ill say it again, REPUTATION.
You make some nice cars for a period of time, bam, you get a repuation for it. All three of those companies could start selling terds if they wanted, and the rich snobs would buy them, because they have a porsche, MB, or BMW badge on it. It makes people thing "prestigious", whether they are or not.

And to answer your last question: because building OHV engines does not necessarily means saving weight, space and money. Inline 4,5 and 6 cylinder engines are cheaper to build with OHC and better performing. If you broaden your views and accept that not only V engines exist on this world than you may also accept that by far the most engines produced on a day to day are fitted with an OHC.

Im talking about V engines because V engines are the only pushrod engines made now. I already said, I rather have an OHC I engine.

Tell Mazda your story about the reliability of the Rotary engine. The Ro80 was may be a point in case but that was introduced in the sixties. The primary problem for the rotary engine is its high fuel consumption, but that seems to be a minor issues in the US with its extremely low fuel prices

Just from what Ive heard the "theory" of the rotary engine was less moving parts = greater reliability.
Yea, the rotory's do suck alot of gas, especially in auto form. Heh, BTW our fule prices are considered high right now, around me its $1.88 per gallon for regular.

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

You clearly dont' know ANY of the components or you wodl not have so readily dismissed the points made to you aobut items moving up/down versus rotation - first bad, second good.
AND you woudlnt' get so confused over the benefits/drawbacks of the designs.

Im dissmissing points because while were talking about weight, your try to talk about why pushrod engines are "bad" which is not the conversation. Yes, I know the pushrods cause lag and can bend, but were not talking about that so save it.

it's called the 80/20 rule and it is THE rule of human nature
It kind of first surfaced in the computer industry when people were analysing all the factors in design and implementation and tryign to turn an art into a science. Since then it has turned up as being valid in SO many comparative populatiosn that it has become widely accepted as a 'guide'. Hence why I used it in the little comment
Amazed you'd not come across it already, it pops up almost everywhere now.
So as much as I would WISH to be able to own the 80/20 rule ( I'd patent it and make a fortune ) I'm only a humble user

So, the "20% of peak torque should be at redline" is a rule of human nature? Come back when your sobered up.

[targa]

Originally Posted by Slicks

BTW our fule prices are considered high right now, around me its $1.88 per gallon for regular.

1.98 for super here

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Slicks

Im dissmissing points because while were talking about weight, your try to talk about why pushrod engines are "bad" which is not the conversation. Yes, I know the pushrods cause lag and can bend, but were not talking about that so save it.

oh sorry, I didn't realise the rule that only YOU can move it slightly off to the side
MASS in an engine is VERY bad, weight is secondary. MOVING MASS is terrible. MOVING MASS that has TO CHANGE DIRECTION is an accident waitign to happen.
IF you knew more about engines these woudlnt' turn into 101 classes , please learn more before trying to explain the little you do comprehend as it save you repeating the 20% of waht you read in a mag some time, saome day.

So to return to components, there are LESS in a well designe SOHC engine than in an OHV. If you reALLY want them ALL described then open a "SLicsk cams 101"

So, the "20% of peak torque should be at redline" is a rule of human nature? Come back when your sobered up.

nope, you dont' grasp the concept of ratios do you.
You can't take a line .. it's a RATIO.
ANd you're being FAR TO ANAL to apply it to every single activity.
PLEASE either just accept it as given and SHUT UP, or get of your sorry arse and find out about it and then SHUT THE **** UP.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by targa

1.98 for super here

Please, don't post anymore, you'll only make every Brit on here cry