Ford reputation [Archive] - Ultimatecarpage.com forums

Matra et Alpine

10-07-2004, 05:59 PM

Guys, I thought we'd already covered this American Ford Focus is shit stuff ?

You get cheap Cars, you get cheap servicing, you get what you pay for.
Want a decent Focus ? Import a Eureopan one and get better engineering and more up to date design. You're still lumbered with the servicing problem though :(

Karmann, do we REALLY need all that BS repeated again. Thought the message had got through that EVERY car can have problems and if you REALLY want to compare then look at recall notices. See http://www.alldata.com/TSB/59/035983AN.html -- 15 bulletins for the PRIUS. One of them an inpsection on ball joints - so there must be a failure mode there that can effect the safety and steering. Not much different to Ford then - especially if we take VOLUME into account !!!!!!

Anyway, to the question ....
Ford have lost their way. The classic performance successes are beign put aside and that is losing them the image. F1 and WRC ahve only dented their reputation as they failed to understand and invest in it. I think they now have too much of an American view and dont' understand the need to compete worldwide. A few gems in markets around the world but they may get lost as the corporate control mentality takes over in cost reductions :(
Summarising -- "Lost the plot" :(

Karrmann

10-07-2004, 06:03 PM

F1_Master

10-07-2004, 06:08 PM

I'd actually pay to see someone's encounter with Ford GT. :D

Matra et Alpine

10-07-2004, 06:14 PM

that's the 03 Prius matra, all that shit was taken care of for the 04 05 Prius.

besides, can't wa just vent on the Focus and share our thoughts on that piece of crap.

but jcp03 the car following straight behind the Focus is my 98 Caravan Lemon.
Sheez, Karmann, it's just your bias is SOOOO unbelievable I'm getting fed up with it.

Now, Ford aren't perfect but lets just take your one little 'defense' of the Prisu viz "It's fixed in 04-05 models" and yet you post links complaining about cars built in 1996. Get a life, man and stop bashing one make and reveiring another !!!

it was funny at the start :(

Meltdown

10-07-2004, 06:18 PM

Never driven the Focus... all of my family's Fords have been rock solid reliable. We've owned a few Crown Victorias (years range from the 80's to late 90's), a couple of Escorts ( two 1998s), and I currently own a 3.8 Mustang (which I thrash the living shit out of everyday). All of them have had over 80,000 miles, except for the Mustang. In all of these miles, we haven't had a single (!!!) problem with any of them. The only complaint I have is that after putting in my aftermarket stereo head unit, the plastic center dash piece rattles on my stang.

I believe Ford to be the best of the big 3, but don't think we're a Ford family. We have owned several Nissans, Toyotas, Volvos, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles, a Plymouth Voyager, and a Chrysler Town and Country. From the first four companies, we've owned tons of cars, including Nissans from before they were Nissans (Datsun). The best so far in solidity and comfort have been our 2004 Highlander and 1998? Crown Victoria. For a while, the only passenger car my mom could ride in was the Crown Victoria due to her back surgery (which explains why we owned and liked so many), but she then switched back to the upright seating positions of vans and suvs in order to once again become the queen of the Suburbian road.

For an outdated frame, the Crown Victoria is an amazingly comfortable car and the Mustang is a cheap performance buy. All in all, we have never had any troubles with Fords and would not be hesitant to buy one if they carried the model we desired. Chevrolet on the other hand... the only thing I would feel extremely comfortable buying from them would be an Impala (that's right, I would be hesitant to buy a Corvette).

Toyota overall has also been awesome since the early 70s, we've owned several Corollas, a Camry, a Highlander (obviously), and a van (It was actually called the Toyota Van). Oldsmobile has been good. We haven't personally owned, but we've had extended family members who've had bad experience with almost all model years of Cadillac since the late 70s. The Voyager and Town and Country were both sold before their transmissions went, but you could definately tell they were going at 80,000. Our Town and Country had a 3.3 L with a vin number dedicated only for government use, so I don't know if Chrysler designed them to break early to get extra money out of the government. Newer generation Subarus have had rock solid reliability with my cousins. Early 90s Volvos seem to all have problems with air conditioning, but their engines are excellent. My cousin, the Volvo Mechanic, has a turbocharged 1989 Volvo (beautiful black paint job) in factory original condition with 360,000 miles and no powertrain parts failures since new. The only stuff thats been changed has been the gaskets, oil, filters, and tires. All of our Nissans, including the early Datsuns, have been relatively great and fun to drive.

Almost forgot my dad's mid 60's Buick Grand Sport... oh wait, I don't know anything about that one because he never told me much about it. Well, he did tell me it was silver with red hood scoops and that it was the fastest thing out when he got it (I think he was being a little modest here ;) ).

I might be leaving something out, but I've tried to outline my experiences as clearly and simply as possible.

Meltdown

10-07-2004, 06:30 PM

I forgot my sister's Plymouth Neon. The transmission destroyed itself after 1500 miles. It was all downhill from there, too much to list. We tried to tell her not to buy the first model year of a new car, a new car which turned out to have a horrible reputation. If I can get you all to listen to just one thing... Never Buy The First Model Year Of A Newly Designed Car. You would just be asking for trouble.

jcp123

10-07-2004, 07:05 PM

I believe Ford to be the best of the big 3, but don't think we're a Ford family.

Word. In fact, my Dad was always more of a Chevy and GM guy - his first car was a '39 Chev, and at various times he's owned a '49 Olds, a '58 Cadillac (can't tell you how jealous I am of that), a '47 Pontiac, a '71 Camaro RS-Z/28 he bought brand new. He's also other cars - '79 Mercedes 300SD, '64 Porsche 911, '65 Buick Electra 225, '85 Scirocco, a '57 Ford, a '70's Civic, and an MG way back in the 60's.

But the Mustangs won him over, and not only does he now drive a '73 Mach 1 as his daily driver, he now loves Fords as much as he always loved Chevys. It's great to see him in that car, he seems as young now as I've ever seen him. It's great. He's even been known to trash on the GM guys now and then :D For all the Ford haters, I have one question...have you driven a Ford lately? :p

Chinky_boi

10-07-2004, 07:37 PM

my dads a ford guy kind of. He use to own,

a 78 mustang, a 86 mustang, a ford tempo which was pretty good for a 186k mileage car and now is a focus and he has never got any problem yet. Its a 01 focus. Has about 50k milage on now and no problems so

karmann STFU!. stop being so bias, you are so bias on ford that you yourself owns one. The focus my dad is using has never had a problem, So I don't know what your sig is trying to say because none of those problem has happened and yet you put it because 1 of the cars had it, You go to all these sites called Anti-Ford and Ford Lemons, HOW SAD IS THAT?. I can go to Anti-Prius and Prius Lemon and bash you back but I won't. you are just continuisly bashing on ford, Can you please stop for once. Yes ford has fallen behind on alot of car manufactors but that does not mean you can bash it everytime you see a topic about ford.

Ford has improved over the year. Ford was good back then until the late 80's they started getting worse but now they are coming back with good cars. If ford didn't buy Mazda or Jaguar or aston martin, do you think any of those companies will be surviving today?

car_fiend

10-07-2004, 08:09 PM

Chinky_boi

10-07-2004, 08:12 PM

[QUOTE]I think Ford is the best of the Big 3, at least here in America.
hah, dun make me laugh. i've had a lot of friends tell me that ford's aren't reliable for anything. their car's broke down mad times, and they had to dish out mad money to get em repaired.
Thats all you got to back up The other 2? I can also say alot of my friends had GM and Daimsler and they broke down mad times and they had to dish out mad money to get em repaired. How does that sound?

jcp123

10-07-2004, 08:35 PM

Meltdown

10-07-2004, 08:48 PM

hah, dun make me laugh. i've had a lot of friends tell me that ford's aren't reliable for anything. their car's broke down mad times, and they had to dish out mad money to get em repaired.

Honestly, that's pathetic. Don't say anything about a brand unless you've owned one of their cars. It makes you look stupid...

fpv_gtho

10-07-2004, 11:04 PM

Ive got a pretty high opinion of the locally made Fords here (Falcon and Territory) as the last 2 years since the BA was released, theyve really sent a message out that they can engineer a world class car. Before then it was pretty shaky though, with the Falcon really never impressing anyone but the locals as it was only ever a fleet car. In the late 80's/early 90's when i suppose we started turning out Lasers from Homebush, Ford Oz was a bit of a high point, and its only this year that its matching its sales figures from like back in 1989. They had some pretty bad times there though, namely with the Capri comvertible that was a complete disaster and after the quality issues of the ones sent to the US as Mercury's, Dearborn was about ready to shut us down. And boy they tried. First they gave us the imported Taurus to try and sell for $40K against the base $30K Falcon, and with its doopy styling barely sold. When that backfired, as part of Nasser's "New Edge" design push, he signed off on the AU's final design before heading for the top spot, and that damned near killed the Falcon locally, before Geoph Polites came aboard and got us on the right track, putting $1billion to good use through the BA and Territory. Now theres growing talk of the Territory making it into the Chinese market.

As for the rest of the world, its up and down really. Ford in Europe can produce some real fine cars if given the chance like the send gen Focus and the latest Fiesta, but those US Ford's just fail to impress me honestly. I can loath over power and exterior styling of a Mustang Cobra, but once i see the interior, its like i dont want to know about it anymore.

more-boost1555

10-08-2004, 11:35 AM

My dad had a 69 BOSS 302, sold it and bought a Triumph Spitfire, worst mistake of his life. He now owns a 63 Thunderbird which he is hoping on restoring one day when he gets the time and money.

My family is definately a Ford family, we have an 04 Ranger, 02 Taurus, and my 02 Focus (which I love driving and have not had any problems with as of yet).

Out of the the big three, there really is no comparison with Ford. When you look at technology and racing heritage, they are light years ahead of Dodge and Chevy.

Ford has won more grand prix's than any other manufacturer with the exception of Ferrari. Meanwhile, Chevy and Dodge have never even competed in F1.

Ford has won Le Mans on multiple occasions. I think Dodge and Chevy have one once each.

Ford has won WRC championships before, once again, Chevy and Dodge have never competed.

Ford have won many championships in NASCAR, NHRA, and Trans Am as well. So no matter what the event, F1 the pinnacle of racing or NASCAR the stoneage series, Ford has a winning heritage.

That is what really seperates them from the other american manufacturers, they have more of a world view. They incorporate new technology and ideas instead of allways sticking with the tried and true method. They will be the first manufacturer to produce a hybrid suv. They produce the most technologicly advanced engines of any american manufacturer. And they bring quality to all the brands they have aquired. Volvo, Aston Martin, Mazda, and Jaguar have all gained face since Ford took over.

So...yeah, Ford is the shizznite.

Matra et Alpine

10-08-2004, 11:46 AM

Ford has won more grand prix's than any other manufacturer with the exception of Ferrari.
Ford have not one a single GP.
They don't do chassis.
And the Great DFV engine was engineered by Cosworth and badged Ford. It started out with a Ford block but soon moved to a specialised Cosworth cast.
So Ford only has a tenuous claim to having the most successful F1 engine ( in terms of total wins, in terms of percentages it might be less clear )

Yannis

10-09-2004, 03:28 PM

Thank you all so much!
I'm carrying out a report for my Msc on Corporate Reputation and I just wanted to have a view of your opinions!Thank you so much,you've been very helpful!

more-boost1555

10-11-2004, 11:54 AM

Ford have not one a single GP.
They don't do chassis.
And the Great DFV engine was engineered by Cosworth and badged Ford. It started out with a Ford block but soon moved to a specialised Cosworth cast.
So Ford only has a tenuous claim to having the most successful F1 engine ( in terms of total wins, in terms of percentages it might be less clear )

yes ok, in terms of engine manufacturers. I should have specified, however I am just trying to get across my point that Fords racing heritage is much greater than Chrysler or GM's. Not trying to say Ford are one of the great manufacturers in F1 history, although they deserve some credit.

crisis

10-11-2004, 11:40 PM

Ford like the big US three is a company that owns a variety of international automobile manufacturing subsidiaries. The have positioned themselves with a channel into several different tiers of the automotive market through the aquisition (or part) of different companies (Volvo, Mazda, Jaguar, Aston Martin Land Rovers). Their corporate decisions are made for shareholders profits and the aquisitions and fire sales will reflect this. As such any discussion as to whether Ford build good or bad cars must take into account the entire range offered by all Fords subsidiaries. It is possibly enjoyable to make idiot comments like all Fords are crap (Aston Martin Vanquish!?) or all Fords are excellent (insert sh#t example here) but the question for Ford, GM and Chrysler is no longer so simplistic.

henk4

10-11-2004, 11:45 PM

Ford and GM are actually the big US two, Chrysler is now German :)

PerfAdv

10-12-2004, 12:30 AM

Without going into specific examples, it seems to me that Ford is more with the times than GM and Chrysler. Ford seems to incorporate technologies(from subsidiaries) more readily than the other two. GM is doing this with certain models now but Ford has done this for some time. One example; Taurus, even in the mid-eighties it was a competent and modern sedan with decidedly foreign influence.

henk4

10-12-2004, 12:33 AM

jcp123

10-12-2004, 12:42 AM

I can't wait to see how GM will further incorporate Daewoo technology!!

:D Nice. They should make more use of Opel, the way Ford does with Ford of Germany. Seems to have worked OK for Ford, with the notable exception of the Contour (I still have a soft spot for that car, odd as it may have been).

PerfAdv

10-12-2004, 12:54 AM

I can't wait to see how GM will further incorporate Daewoo technology!!
A car that come to mind: Malibu>Opel-epsilon
also the Saturn L-series is Opel

henk4

10-12-2004, 01:06 AM

A car that come to mind: Malibu>Opel-epsilon
also the Saturn L-series is Opel

Vectra and Saab share the same platform

PerfAdv

10-12-2004, 01:21 AM

Vectra and Saab share the same platform
Both are GM subs though. Was it Opel-developed or Saab?

henk4

10-12-2004, 01:24 AM

Both are GM subs though. Was it Opel-developed or Saab?

That's why I mentioned it, there is some cross fertilization, it was developed by Opel. GM/Saturn might start thinking of introducing Opel/Isuzu diesel technology in the USA.

Ford might be doing the same with the engines developed jointly with PSA.

PerfAdv

10-12-2004, 01:35 AM

That's why I mentioned it, there is some cross fertilization, it was developed by Opel. GM/Saturn might start thinking of introducing Opel/Isuzu diesel technology in the USA.

Ford might be doing the same with the engines developed jointly with PSA.
This is just the kind of technology infusion American car companies need. With cleaner diesel starting soon in the states, it'll be nice to have a chsice of diesel passenger vehicles.

Distress

10-12-2004, 02:00 AM

Well, GM will have a diesel Jeep Liberty avaliable for the 2005 model year line-up! Despite the styling, that I don't like to much, it will have good enough torque to pull a 5,000 lb trailer; 295 lb.ft.@ 1800rpm! :D

That is what really seperates them from the other american manufacturers, they have more of a world view. They incorporate new technology and ideas instead of allways sticking with the tried and true method. They will be the first manufacturer to produce a hybrid suv. They produce the most technologicly advanced engines of any american manufacturer. And they bring quality to all the brands they have aquired. Volvo, Aston Martin, Mazda, and Jaguar have all gained face since Ford took over.

Fair point, but what's this "most technologicly advanced engines of any American manufacture" all about? I just think pushrods are great.

Of course Chrysler is getting Mercedes transmissions and axles :p

Fords much improving, I'm so glad they got rid of the ugly frog-styled Taurus. Hopefully the CVT transmissions (using in new models, and will be even more...GM droped them because of quality issues) are improved like they are saying.

Chinky_boi

10-12-2004, 08:47 AM

Well, GM will have a diesel Jeep Liberty avaliable for the 2005 model year line-up! Despite the styling, that I don't like to much, it will have good enough torque to pull a 5,000 lb trailer; 295 lb.ft.@ 1800rpm! :D

Fair point, but what's this "most technologicly advanced engines of any American manufacture" all about? I just think pushrods are great.

Of course Chrysler is getting Mercedes transmissions and axles :p

Fords much improving, I'm so glad they got rid of the ugly frog-styled Taurus. Hopefully the CVT transmissions (using in new models, and will be even more...GM droped them because of quality issues) are improved like they are saying.
WTF? 1800rpm ONLY!. thats like saying it will only have about 100hp or so.

henk4

10-12-2004, 08:52 AM

WTF? 1800rpm ONLY!. thats like saying it will only have about 100hp or so.

no sir, I got 290 NM at 1750 rpm and 135 horses

Lagonda

10-12-2004, 09:26 AM

WTF? 1800rpm ONLY!. thats like saying it will only have about 100hp or so.
You have much to learn ;)

more-boost1555

10-12-2004, 01:48 PM

Well, GM will have a diesel Jeep Liberty avaliable for the 2005 model year line-up! Despite the styling, that I don't like to much, it will have good enough torque to pull a 5,000 lb trailer; 295 lb.ft.@ 1800rpm! :D

Fair point, but what's this "most technologicly advanced engines of any American manufacture" all about? I just think pushrods are great.

Of course Chrysler is getting Mercedes transmissions and axles :p

Fords much improving, I'm so glad they got rid of the ugly frog-styled Taurus. Hopefully the CVT transmissions (using in new models, and will be even more...GM droped them because of quality issues) are improved like they are saying.

hehe, you can keep your pushrods, I'll take all aluminum engines with DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder thank you :)

jcp123

10-12-2004, 03:32 PM

Mmmmm...pushrods. Why make things more complicated than you have to and only end up having to spin it harder to take advantage?

crisis

10-12-2004, 04:57 PM

crisis

10-12-2004, 04:59 PM

Of course Chrysler is getting Mercedes transmissions and axles :p

Fords much improving, I'm so glad they got rid of the ugly frog-styled Taurus. Hopefully the CVT transmissions (using in new models, and will be even more...GM droped them because of quality issues) are improved like they are saying.
Transmissions for many cars are made by a third party. Not clear on Mec but Holden and Ford in Australia use the same manual currently with different ratios.

crisis

10-12-2004, 05:03 PM

hehe, you can keep your pushrods, I'll take all aluminum engines with DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder thank you :)
With the extra weight , size and expense and relativley little better performance. Still if its technology, (albeit the same used in the 1963 Hilman Imp) that matters, go for it.

PerfAdv

10-12-2004, 06:20 PM

The Taurus was an abomination aesthetically. If thats mating European styling with good old US know how its better to stick with what you know.
Granted it didn't have the cultured lines of a merc or BMW or Audi or even....
What the Taurus did is get the American sedan out of the 70s and 80s rut. Its look was what Americans considered modern. Kinda had a budget Audi 5000-look(more Merkur Scorpio), with the semi-flush glass and straight lines. If you're thinking the frog-Taurus then I agree, as Taurus sales slumped with that shape.

Chinky_boi

10-12-2004, 07:12 PM

You have much to learn ;)
i noticed lol. :D. I am 14 and there is alot of stuff for me too learn still.

jcp123

10-12-2004, 07:30 PM

Transmissions for many cars are made by a third party. Not clear on Mec but Holden and Ford in Australia use the same manual currently with different ratios.

As I recall, Tremec makes most of the manuals for Chevy and Ford here in America. Currently, Mustang Cobras and the V8 Camaros use the Tremec T-56 unit, the GT Mustangs use the Tremec T-45. Mustangs and Camaros both also used to use versions of the T-5 transmission too. And in the Viper, I forget. It's either a Tremec T-56 or a Borg-Warner unit of some kind.

Distress

10-12-2004, 09:52 PM

Transmissions for many cars are made by a third party. Not clear on Mec but Holden and Ford in Australia use the same manual currently with different ratios.

I was just refering to the quite noticable difference from Chrysler's 4-speed in the base and touring 300's for example, to Mercede's 5-speed in the 300C :)

henk4

10-12-2004, 10:53 PM

With the extra weight , size and expense and relativley little better performance. Still if its technology, (albeit the same used in the 1963 Hilman Imp) that matters, go for it.

as far as i remember the alloy engine of the Imp was SOHC and 2 valves.

crisis

10-12-2004, 11:24 PM

as far as i remember the alloy engine of the Imp was SOHC and 2 valves.
Ok. Single or double my point is that people get unneccessarily hung up on ohc as though it represents the cutting edge where good ol GM still make nasty, economical (relatively) , compact, hi performance V8s without it.

crisis

10-12-2004, 11:25 PM

Granted it didn't have the cultured lines of a merc or BMW or Audi or even....
What the Taurus did is get the American sedan out of the 70s and 80s rut. Its look was what Americans considered modern. Kinda had a budget Audi 5000-look(more Merkur Scorpio), with the semi-flush glass and straight lines. If you're thinking the frog-Taurus then I agree, as Taurus sales slumped with that shape.
Yeah , thats the one we saw here in Oz. Nasty piece of work that.

fpv_gtho

10-13-2004, 04:13 AM

Ok. Single or double my point is that people get unneccessarily hung up on ohc as though it represents the cutting edge where good ol GM still make nasty, economical (relatively) , compact, hi performance V8s without it.

The LS1 always seems to be the only V8 or OHV engine brought into comparisons though......anyone comparing old vs new valvetrains, or comparing engine weights ALWAYS seem to mention it first.

more-boost1555

10-13-2004, 10:35 AM

With the extra weight , size and expense and relativley little better performance. Still if its technology, (albeit the same used in the 1963 Hilman Imp) that matters, go for it.

It is pretty high tech stuff. Pushrod engines rely on displacement to make their power. Do you see any OHV four bangers knocking around anywhere? How bout six cylinders? The OHV design has some advantages I admit, and Chevy engines are proof of that.

But if there is relatively little performance advantage, why do more and more manufacturers continue to implement this design? How is it that Fords modular based 6.4 V-10 will produce around six hundred horse power, and Chevy's LS2 6.0 V8 only puts out 400? Or that even in race spec, a bored out (to almost 7.0) LS6 makes 570 horse?

You can't tell me there is no advantage to the OHC design. I haven't even mentioned variable valve timing yet. Is it even possible to implement that technology on an OHV engine? I'm not sure my self, but I have never heard of such a thing.

I have respect for the LS1, LS2, and LS6 engines. They are strong and reliable (well I imagine the LS2 to be, it still has to prove it's self), but I would much rather have an engine with DOHC, and 4 valves per cylinder.

Matra et Alpine

10-13-2004, 01:32 PM

jcp123

10-13-2004, 02:27 PM

It's revs guys.

Pushrods risk bending and harmonic oscillation in the rods at higher revs.

So while you build a big displacement, over-square engine with plenty of torque you don't seek out the revs so avoid the 'weakness'

As revs increase the valaves need to open more to let all the air in - larger displacement can afford larger valves. As you try to make a valve open more it puts more strain on rods. As long as you get enough power at low revs you don't care about that weakness.

True enough, but I see club racers and such pushing their 5.0's to 7000 or more rpm and put down well over 400hp without boost; so with the proper componentry, 2v Pushrod actuated engines can rev pretty hard too. Even the late 60's Boss 302 and Chevy's similar Z/28 302 were redlined at 7500rpm or so (not sure if that was the street or track version though). But like the DOHC 4v engines, it comes at the cost of low-end torque.
But pushrod engines as we know them are more low-revving torque engines, which I happen to like better, and suit most street driving better, with the added benefit of compact packaging, simplicity of design, and cheaper construction.

Out on the race track (circle or road course), naturally, DOHC reigns supreme. A high revving engine just feels more "right" on the track.

As daily drivers go, though, I'd rather have OHV or perhaps SOHC than DOHC/4v technology, because a lower revving engine feels more 'right' on the street.

crisis

10-13-2004, 05:09 PM

It is pretty high tech stuff. Pushrod engines rely on displacement to make their power. Do you see any OHV four bangers knocking around anywhere? How bout six cylinders? The OHV design has some advantages I admit, and Chevy engines are proof of that.

But if there is relatively little performance advantage, why do more and more manufacturers continue to implement this design? How is it that Fords modular based 6.4 V-10 will produce around six hundred horse power, and Chevy's LS2 6.0 V8 only puts out 400? Or that even in race spec, a bored out (to almost 7.0) LS6 makes 570 horse?

You can't tell me there is no advantage to the OHC design. I haven't even mentioned variable valve timing yet. Is it even possible to implement that technology on an OHV engine? I'm not sure my self, but I have never heard of such a thing.

I have respect for the LS1, LS2, and LS6 engines. They are strong and reliable (well I imagine the LS2 to be, it still has to prove it's self), but I would much rather have an engine with DOHC, and 4 valves per cylinder.
Ultimately , as Matra mentioned, it enables the engine to rev harder so in the end ohc offers this advantage. That is of course important if your motor has to rev hard to produce power. By itself however it is not the only solution. The Ford motor you mention is half a litre bigger and has two more cylinders. What other differences does it have? It is not ohc alone. Variable valve timing has been explored with the twin cam pushrod Chev V8. I only posted my view as the comment you posted was unfairly dismissive.

Matra et Alpine

10-13-2004, 05:42 PM

True enough, but I see club racers and such pushing their 5.0's to 7000 or more rpm
7000 rpm is nothing.
My standard family car runs to that !!!
It's what you're used to.
Fast revs for you guys is slow for us.
So pushrods are fine in your engines and not in ours.
9-10000 is the norm for a tuned car and 12-13000 for a full race spec.
Of course bikes are playing way above that and Honda used to run at 24,000 :)

Out on the race track (circle or road course), naturally, DOHC reigns supreme. A high revving engine just feels more "right" on the track.

As daily drivers go, though, I'd rather have OHV or perhaps SOHC than DOHC/4v technology, because a lower revving engine feels more 'right' on the street.
Personal (cultural) preference.
Most folks over here like their engines to rev and scream and blast the exhaust note - Fiat Twin Cams used to be a classic :)
It's what we're used to in our upbringing - kind of like Japanese music .. to western ears it sounds dischordant !!

jcp123

10-13-2004, 05:54 PM

I did say "or more..." I believe the highest I've seen was around 8500 or so. So it's not like Pushrod engines are completely incapable as most people would have you believe. I know that's nothing compared to twin cams, but most people wouldnt figure a pushrod engine to do as much as that.

That said, I do prefer my low-revving engines. My Mustang, for instance, could well live under 2000rpm for its whole life. In town it never exceeds 1700 and rarely pulls more that 1500. And I like that.

I have to say, though, that I come from an area where the overwhelming favorite is the high-revving Hondas and such, so I guess I am an anomaly not particularly liking a lot of what I grew up with.

Slicks

10-13-2004, 06:23 PM

It is pretty high tech stuff. Pushrod engines rely on displacement to make their power. Do you see any OHV four bangers knocking around anywhere? How bout six cylinders? The OHV design has some advantages I admit, and Chevy engines are proof of that.
You call it high tech, i call it a sorry excuse for marketing. BTW i see many many V6 pushrods... hell i drive one...

But if there is relatively little performance advantage, why do more and more manufacturers continue to implement this design? How is it that Fords modular based 6.4 V-10 will produce around six hundred horse power, and Chevy's LS2 6.0 V8 only puts out 400? Or that even in race spec, a bored out (to almost 7.0) LS6 makes 570 horse?
Why more manufacturers use the design is becuase of marketing, your a prime example of this. People think that for some reason DOHC is better, or more advanced than OHV.
Fords (really shelbys) concept 6.4L V10 produces more power than Chevys 6L LS2 V8 is because the 6.4 is at a much higher tuning level than the LS2.

Slicks

10-13-2004, 06:28 PM

It's revs guys.

Pushrods risk bending and harmonic oscillation in the rods at higher revs.

You act like friggen revs solve everything! Its not revs guys! Its not peak power, or peak torque, its usable power/torque thats the answer.

So while you build a big displacement, over-square engine with plenty of torque you don't seek out the revs so avoid the 'weakness'
Sorry by revs are not a "weakness". I would call a weakness an engine having to rev high to make power. We arent "afraid" to rev, we dont have to rev high to make power, thats the point. Are power is actually usable throught the whole RPM range, and isnt peaky.

Slicks

10-13-2004, 06:32 PM

7000 rpm is nothing.
My standard family car runs to that !!!
And 200ft-lbs of torque is nothing, my family car has more than that!!!!

It's what you're used to.
Fast revs for you guys is slow for us.
So pushrods are fine in your engines and not in ours.

And high revs to make power is what your used to, thats fine, but for the love of god open your eyes. Revs are not the only way to make power. We like pushrods because they offer USABLE power, you dont have to redline your engine to get going fast.

Guibo

10-13-2004, 08:56 PM

How is it that Fords modular based 6.4 V-10 will produce around six hundred horse power, and Chevy's LS2 6.0 V8 only puts out 400? Or that even in race spec, a bored out (to almost 7.0) LS6 makes 570 horse?
I'm going to guess that intake restrictors have something to do with that...Wouldn't be too much fun watching race cars lap each other I reckon.
As mentioned, you're looking at the Ford's (theoretical, not yet finalized for street production) output and pointing to some other engine that you assume to be in a similar state of tune. On what grounds should we assume they're in similar states of tune? Are we to assume that 400 hp is the most Chevy could get from the LS2? Someone should tell GM to cancel the Z06...they haven't got a powerful enough engine yet.

It I haven't even mentioned variable valve timing yet. Is it even possible to implement that technology on an OHV engine?
Sure. Why not?
http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/2003/4/cadillac_sixteen/index2.phtml

...but I would much rather have an engine with DOHC, and 4 valves per cylinder.
What about an engine that will make your car fast, without lots of complexity and cost? ;)

Regarding revs...it's sorta pointless to be talking about large-capacity engines vs small-capacity engines. Getting 9K rpm out of, say, an S2000 is amazing, yes. Getting it out of a 6.0-liter engine, regardless of intake/exhaust mechanisms is an entirely different story. (Even the Ferrari Enzo is 800 rpm short, and that's a $200K V12...)
In any case, NASCAR is trying methods to actually limit revs to about 9500 rpm. That's 9500 rpm breathing through pushrods and carburetors. Obviously, for street applications, nothing so extreme is necessary. For most roadgoing uses, neither DOHC nor pushrods are better; it depends entirely on the application.

henk4

10-13-2004, 10:52 PM

Have there ever been any complaints about a lack of torque of the Northstar V8, employed in the Cadillac? I thought it torque was more about cubic inches than about cam drive.

Matra et Alpine

10-14-2004, 01:20 AM

And high revs to make power is what your used to, thats fine, but for the love of god open your eyes.
OK, Slicks, this is why I'm blocking your rants AGAIN. I can't be bothered that you do NOT see the comments for whaat they are and INSIST in going all defensive.
I repeat AGAIN - please read it this time - big engiens are good, small engines are good, big engines have issues, small engines have issues.
If I see a post where some additional knowledge will help educate I'll add it.
I can't change the laws of physics to stop pushrods bending at high speed and lift - so big capacity engines are OK with 'rods. The 'rods ARE weakness if revs are desired. Just like OHV weight is a weakness.
MAN, stop taking everything as personal insults and remove the rose colored glasses that don't accept the limits of an engine you dearly love.
No engine format is perfect.
No engine is ideal across all conditions.
Learn to embrace the difference not blindly defend against all criticism or limitation.
bye - again :)

fpv_gtho

10-14-2004, 02:25 AM

True enough, but I see club racers and such pushing their 5.0's to 7000 or more rpm and put down well over 400hp without boost; so with the proper componentry, 2v Pushrod actuated engines can rev pretty hard too.

My only experience with this would be the specs for the V8 Supercar engines, and the Ford and GM based 5L's run to 7500rpm with the OHV valvegear. With that theyre making about 620hp and i think around 680nm. Surprisingly theyre not a peaky engine either, i remember when i watched Sandown earlier this year, they were pulling out onto the back straight doing about 3000-3500rpm

Slicks

10-14-2004, 07:12 AM

OK, Slicks, this is why I'm blocking your rants AGAIN. I can't be bothered that you do NOT see the comments for whaat they are and INSIST in going all defensive.
I repeat AGAIN - please read it this time - big engiens are good, small engines are good, big engines have issues, small engines have issues.
If I see a post where some additional knowledge will help educate I'll add it.
I can't change the laws of physics to stop pushrods bending at high speed and lift - so big capacity engines are OK with 'rods. The 'rods ARE weakness if revs are desired. Just like OHV weight is a weakness.
MAN, stop taking everything as personal insults and remove the rose colored glasses that don't accept the limits of an engine you dearly love.
No engine format is perfect.
No engine is ideal across all conditions.
Learn to embrace the difference not blindly defend against all criticism or limitation.
bye - again :)

Figures, cant stand being proven wrong... I should be blocking you, all the crap you make up (like the 911 engine weighs 240 lbs :rolleyes: ) Atleast i come up with facts...
Im not taking anything as a personal insault, im trying to educate you poor europeans on engine design.

henk4

10-14-2004, 07:18 AM

Like Ford needed a 7 litre pushrod engine to finally be able to beat the 4 litre Ferrari's.

Matra et Alpine

10-14-2004, 09:32 AM

Figures, cant stand being proven wrong... I should be blocking you, all the crap you make up (like the 911 engine weighs 240 lbs :rolleyes: ) Atleast i come up with facts...
as I do too, just got them wrong then.
I'd got kg anbdpounds screwed over.
ALSO, the 911 weight is all up, the LS1 weight is 'dry' so no cooling. only fair to comapre like with like as the 911 has lots of metal fins to cool it, so the LS1 should add water and radiators, pumps, etc :)
I've been trying to find those figures with no success !!

Im not taking anything as a personal insault, im trying to educate you poor europeans on engine design.
Still so myopic it's funny :)

Napier Railton had pushrod engines down pat for LOTS of power 70 years ago.
Glad to see you're designers are trail-blazing (cough!) :)
They're all good engines, just not all good for all jobs and you need to open your mind to that.

EDIT: PS: The N-R was 12 cylinder, 24 litres, peak power at 3000 revs and did 165 mph when aerodynamics was what looked good to the eye :)

more-boost1555

10-14-2004, 10:01 AM

Ultimately , as Matra mentioned, it enables the engine to rev harder so in the end ohc offers this advantage. That is of course important if your motor has to rev hard to produce power. By itself however it is not the only solution. The Ford motor you mention is half a litre bigger and has two more cylinders. What other differences does it have? It is not ohc alone. Variable valve timing has been explored with the twin cam pushrod Chev V8. I only posted my view as the comment you posted was unfairly dismissive.

this really set off a good argument, sweet. Ok, I'll admit it, my post was unfairly dismissive, and I apologize OHV lovers. OHC is not the cutting edge of technology. Still I think it is a more sophisticated design that offers more power than OHV, albeit at higher revs. What's so wrong about having to rev up your engine? Nobody races trying to keep rpms below a certain limit. So I think in a sports/race car OHC's advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

more-boost1555

10-14-2004, 10:25 AM

You call it high tech, i call it a sorry excuse for marketing. BTW i see many many V6 pushrods... hell i drive one...

Why more manufacturers use the design is becuase of marketing, your a prime example of this. People think that for some reason DOHC is better, or more advanced than OHV.
Fords (really shelbys) concept 6.4L V10 produces more power than Chevys 6L LS2 V8 is because the 6.4 is at a much higher tuning level than the LS2.

Many V6 pushrods? What the 3.8 Chevy? C'mon that engine isn't exactly a gem. It makes less power with more displacement then just about any competing six. Unless it's supercharged but that's another thing entirely.

People think OHC is better because they see engines like the Honda 2.0 cranking out 200 horse. Or in the S2000, 240 hp. They see Nissans 3.5 making close to 300 horse naturally aspirated. They hear about Ferraris 4.2 V8 making anywhere from 390-420 horse NA. I can't blame them for that.

Also that 6.4 really is Fords, Shelby had nothing at all to do with the development of that engine. It's based off the modular V8's dimensions, just two more cylinders. I'll admit it is tuned much more aggressively than an LS2, but even the race spec 7.0 LS6 doesen't match it's numbers.

henk4

10-14-2004, 11:25 AM

You call it high tech, i call it a sorry excuse for marketing. BTW i see many many V6 pushrods... hell i drive one...

I had one this summer as a rental. (Grand Am Ram Air) which pumped out a sensational 175 BHP. It really felt slow, compared to my own 2 litre, much lower revving. diesel, which however has a single OHC. I actually cannot think of any production engine that comes with pushrods except those from the USA and from USA controlled factories like Holden. Oh yes, there is one, it is the Volga 3110 engine, which also has the dubious reputation of being the only car currently in production with RWD through a leaf sprung life axle.

PerfAdv

10-14-2004, 12:10 PM

...leaf sprung life axle.
And what's wrong with leaf springs, they are great!!:D (j/k)

I chose to enjoy this thread mostly from the sidelines. Now that it's pretty much beaten to death with a stick...ah, crankshaft. A couple of generalizations that should make sense to all. IMO, high(er) technology for speed and turbo-diesels for lowend effortless pull. Not even the mighty chevy 350 can out-do diesels for lowend torque preferred by many for everyday driving. As for overall competence in racing, if OHV was so competent it could be massaged into F1 duty. Not even with the technology available today could this be accomplished. Granted the C5R delivered up LeMans with an OHV design, it did so with a huge displacement advantage.

The adage 'no replacement for displacement' still holds true but is increasingly becoming a semi-truth.

henk4

10-14-2004, 12:17 PM

And what's wrong with leaf springs, they are great!!:D (j/k)

Yes the C6 is still using it in the front suspension.

Slicks

10-14-2004, 01:23 PM

Many V6 pushrods? What the 3.8 Chevy? C'mon that engine isn't exactly a gem. It makes less power with more displacement then just about any competing six. Unless it's supercharged but that's another thing entirely.
Its not made to be a "gem" of an engine, it gets your from A to B thats all.

People think OHC is better because they see engines like the Honda 2.0 cranking out 200 horse. Or in the S2000, 240 hp. They see Nissans 3.5 making close to 300 horse naturally aspirated. They hear about Ferraris 4.2 V8 making anywhere from 390-420 horse NA. I can't blame them for that.

Exactly my point, HP/L, youd have a better argument over the color of the car determining technology.

Also that 6.4 really is Fords, Shelby had nothing at all to do with the development of that engine. It's based off the modular V8's dimensions, just two more cylinders. I'll admit it is tuned much more aggressively than an LS2, but even the race spec 7.0 LS6 doesen't match it's numbers.
Again, terreble comparison. The race spec LS6 7.0 is made for LeMans, no? LeMans has power limits you know, also think about reliability.

Slicks

10-14-2004, 01:25 PM

I had one this summer as a rental. (Grand Am Ram Air) which pumped out a sensational 175 BHP. It really felt slow, compared to my own 2 litre, much lower revving. diesel, which however has a single OHC. I actually cannot think of any production engine that comes with pushrods except those from the USA and from USA controlled factories like Holden. Oh yes, there is one, it is the Volga 3110 engine, which also has the dubious reputation of being the only car currently in production with RWD through a leaf sprung life axle.
Figured you bring up the rental car you got. Alright lets look at this for a sec its a rental car its not some perfomance car, its a friggen grand am for god sakes!

Slicks

10-14-2004, 01:27 PM

Yes the C6 is still using it in the front suspension.
Wow... you couldnt be more wrong...
The C6 uses a single leaf spring in the back, and has IRS, leaf springs are not used in the front.
And it kinda sucks that a car with this "old technology" can beat so many cars on the track that cost twice as much :rolleyes:

Guibo

10-14-2004, 03:36 PM

I actually cannot think of any production engine that comes with pushrods except those from the USA and from USA controlled factories like Holden.
Well, there's Bentley's Arnage. They've been using them for quite some time. There are also quite a few European companies that have used American OHV engines for power, and rarely has it been the other way around. This despite the fact that DOHC technology has been around since the early 1910's...

Many V6 pushrods? What the 3.8 Chevy? C'mon that engine isn't exactly a gem.
But then, it was never meant to be a gem now was it? As it is, it gets the job done. And allows GM to be competitive in pricing, offering more amenities and options than otherwise would be possible. The amount of $$$ saved by GM on those pushrod V6's is pretty substantial.
Remember, Chevy can get much greater specific output from it's significantly larger OHV engines (like the LS6/LS7), and since we know that it's easier to maintain higher levels of specific output in smaller engines, all else being equal, it's pretty obvious Chevy has chosen to offer the 3.8 with that low output for reasons of cost and complexity, not because that's the limit of the valvetrain.

I'll admit it is tuned much more aggressively than an LS2, but even the race spec 7.0 LS6 doesen't match it's numbers.
Regarding Ford's concept V10 vs Chevy's production LS2...AGAIN, in determining racing trim, any sanctioning body will devise a plan to try to level the playing field. That's why when you look at Audi RS6's, Viper Competition Coupes, Z06 Corvettes, Cadillac CTS-V's, they are all very evenly matched race cars. Sometimes, you'll get all 4 cars lapping within 0.5 second of each other. How's this done? Through ballasting and intake restrictions, per sanctioning body requirements. Result is that you get 4 vastly different cars (sports coupes vs sedans, AWD vs RWD, turbo-charged V8's vs N/A V8's vs V10's) that provide close racing on the track; hardly anybody wants to pay to see stock-engined Vipers and Z06's running away from stock-engined Audis and Cadillacs. That gets very boring.
So, the LS1/LS2 in race trim means squat. It doesn't point to maximum power ouptut at all. It's the same in any racing series. McLaren F1's in road trim made 627, but in some years were choked back down to 600 for duty in FIA GT / Le Mans. Ditto the OHV Vipers. In '96, they were running in GT1 class with the mid-engined exotics, and they were making upwards of 700 hp with the sprint motors. (Hell, there are tuners that will get you 750 hp out of a street Viper, N/A, but nevermind.) When they saw that they had bitten off more than they could chew (Porsche's dedicated racecars, the 911 GT1's saw to that), they decided to go into GT2 class with the lesser Porsches, where they were consequently raced with intake restrictors that knocked off at least 100 hp. To look at those later GTS-R's and say "An OHV V10 in race trim can make only at most 600 hp" is rather ridiculous. It tells you nothing about what the cam setup is capable of.

crisis

10-14-2004, 05:18 PM

Wow... you couldnt be more wrong...
The C6 uses a single leaf spring in the back, and has IRS, leaf springs are not used in the front.
And it kinda sucks that a car with this "old technology" can beat so many cars on the track that cost twice as much :rolleyes:
Kind of a good example of if its not broken dont fix it. Would it be better done differently, who knows. Would the LS1 be "better" with ohc? Who knows. It may rev harder but its not designed to. It will be larger and heavier so its extra revs may only account for that. Again, my comment was made to moreboosts swipe at pushrods as
1. I own one which works well
2. It is a too often throw away line that is not based on fact but more often advertising or hype.

jcp123

10-14-2004, 05:46 PM

Slicks

10-14-2004, 06:34 PM

It's all about horses for courses. Observe.

I prefer OHV for street because of its easygoing manner, simplicity, and ease of maitenance/modification. Think of it this way: how often do you push your car and spin the engine hard on the street? That's what I thought. Might as well have the power where your engine spends most of its time anyway.

DOHC is king on the track, bar none. You spend most of your time in the upper revs, might as well have an engine that does its best work there and enjoys revving. Horses for courses.

DOHC in a street car is mostly just a marketing thing. Most people couldnt give a crap what powertrain they have.
To an extent that can be true, but look at nascar and nascar truck series, they use pushrods, and they are constantly on the redline (which is about 8000-9000RPMs.)
Personally i rather have the lighter, more simple design of the pushrod engine i my race car. Especially if the DOHC engine is going to be very peaky and have a lack of torque(cough honda cough).

PerfAdv

10-14-2004, 06:38 PM

It's all about horses for courses...

DOHC in a street car is mostly just a marketing thing. Most people couldnt give a crap what powertrain they have.

Well put, especially the last part applies to the uninformed public. OHV even with the same displacement has more torque than OHC. However, other than a couple of manufacturers everyone has abandoned OHV. You can't buy a single Japanese or German or Italian or any others... Only some American, Aussie, and British maintain the OHV. It's technology that is slowly being made extinct.

Wheels roll and the first ones probably rolled under some rudimentary cart. Maybe they were wood, maybe stone. From then to now the wheel evolved many times to get to where it is. It is better than it was but there still maybe a condition where the original has a advantage over the new run-flat radial. (for one it couldn't be chromed:D:D) So, really if you look at as an evolutionary process you can see where this is going.

Automotive engineers realize this and they advance as much as they can within the allowed parameters. Flywheel technology for example has great potential but its not viewed as a viable alternative. Maybe because the oil conglomerates will be reduced to providing lubricants. In this spectrum, the differences between OHV and OHC are small yet present. With the 'natural selection' that takes place even in technology, one is doomed for the grave earlier than the other.

jcp123

10-14-2004, 06:45 PM

Now that I think about it, I'd say DOHC and OHV are about even on the race scene. For someone on a modest budget, it's easier to get the race-bred characteristics you want from a DOHC, but the inherant advantage in the simplicity of an OHV engine counts for a lot there too. So I guess I'm on the fence.

I guess what I really wanna say is that the track is where a DOHC truly shines, you can't really appreciate the peakier powerband of a DOHC nearly as much on the street.

henk4

10-14-2004, 11:23 PM

Wow... you couldnt be more wrong...
The C6 uses a single leaf spring in the back, and has IRS, leaf springs are not used in the front.
And it kinda sucks that a car with this "old technology" can beat so many cars on the track that cost twice as much :rolleyes:

The C6 has a tranverse leaf spring in the front and in the rear suspension :) I did not say it had a life axle.

henk4

10-14-2004, 11:24 PM

Well, there's Bentley's Arnage.

sorry to have overlooked this prime example of a mass produced car! :)

henk4

10-14-2004, 11:39 PM

Think of it this way: how often do you push your car and spin the engine hard on the street? That's what I thought. Might as well have the power where your engine spends most of its time anyway.

DOHC is king on the track, bar none. You spend most of your time in the upper revs, might as well have an engine that does its best work there and enjoys revving. Horses for courses.

DOHC in a street car is mostly just a marketing thing. Most people couldnt give a crap what powertrain they have.

May be some of you can explain why all modern diesel engines (not available in the US) are fitted with S or even DOHC. These engines barely run over 4500 revs, and actually the usuable torque is in the range 1500-4000 revs, with a very flat curve.
There used to be a time when also in Europe DOHC was considered exotic (the Alfa TC engine was about the only one you could get in the sixties), but ever since the development of the OHC has continued. And indeed people generally don't even know what their engine would have, but the fact that all engine builders (outside the USA) have switched to OHC's can't be considered a marketing hype. Cost considerations play a very important role, and the fact that engines simply run much smoother (there is no up and down movement from pushrods to control) may have been decisive.
I had been thinking whether any racing car is currently fitted with a a pushrod engine and somebody before just posted the answer. It' s the NASCAR elephants that still run these engines. I don't think anything needs to said additionally to that :)

Guibo

10-15-2004, 12:27 AM

sorry to have overlooked this prime example of a mass produced car! :)
Sorry to have overlooked the fact that you didn't say mass produced! ;)

May be some of you can explain why all modern diesel engines (not available in the US) are fitted with S or even DOHC. These engines barely run over 4500 revs, and actually the usuable torque is in the range 1500-4000 revs, with a very flat curve.
Most of these engines are small anyway, aren't they? If your engine makes so much torque already, and much of your expertise is based around existing S/DOHC technology, why bother to re-tool for OHV? That makes very little sense, fiscally.
What makes a lot of sense, for companies like GM that use pushrods, is that they can save over $2B USD per year. Now, you personally might make a hundred billion every year, so you can afford to throw away a couple billion. For GM, they'd rather save it where they can.

I had been thinking whether any racing car is currently fitted with a a pushrod engine and somebody before just posted the answer. It' s the NASCAR elephants that still run these engines. I don't think anything needs to said additionally to that

What, these aren't race cars?:
http://www.kwsuspensions.com/racegallery/images/1_ZAKSPEED_VIPER_IMG_0207.jpg
Winner of 24 Hours of Nurburgring 3 times in the past 5 years.

http://www.pistonheads.com/uploads/motorsport/9.jpg
I believe the S7-R took the British GT championship back in '02. And was very competitive in FIA GT as well. They're currently running in ALMS as well.

http://www.rollcentre.co.uk/assets/images/db_images/db_P40600011.jpg
Or maybe it was the Mosler that took British GT. Nevermind, they're doing quite well this year (in points lead, I believe?). Also did well at the 24 Hours of Bathurst, where it has lost to this race car (also pushrod-powered):

http://www.car.co.nz/images/sport/v8/holden_bathurst02b.jpg

More pushrod-powered cars currently in competition:
http://www.motorsport.com/photos/alms/2004/plm/alms-2004-plm-th-0546.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/scca-wc/2004/rat/scca-wc-2004-rat-th-0402.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/scca-wc/2004/rat/scca-wc-2004-rat-th-0401.jpg

Pontiac (with Chevrolet LS6 engine) is currently in the lead against Lexus in Grand Am Cup road racing (they won the title last year):
http://www.motorsport.com/photos/grandam/2004/bir/grandam-2004-bir-lr-1209.jpg

I'm pretty sure none of these are street cars...

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 12:30 AM

Just to further 'tarnish' my image .... :)

most of it's been said already and lets recap ...

On low/medium tuned high capacity engines rods are fine because they meet the need to open the valve a reasonable amount against a mild spring and at low inertia ( coz the rods move slower )

On medium tuned small(ish) capacity engines rods bring issues. They add additinional wear surfaces. They bend under high lift, high valve spring rates and high reves where the natural resonance of the rod CAN become an issue.

On high tuned engines the rod bend and additional wear surfaces become an unacceptable loss of power. ( By bend I don't mean bent to buggary, I mean the slight bowing that occurs under hig lift rates and high springs. That small bend CHANGES the valve timing and lift. UNACCEPTABLE in a highly tuned engine. So as henk said, they only exist where the rules bodies say it has to.

Mutliple cams bring the advantage of being able to adjust the timing independantly for the inlet and exhuast valves with simple vernier guages. Pushrod engines tend to run single cam, so any desire to adjust the timing affects BOTH valve sets so the alternative is reprofiling the cams. NOT what you want to try to do in the paddock on the morning of a race because the weather's changed.

What makes a lot of sense, for companies like GM that use pushrods, is that they can save over $2B USD per year. Now, you personally might make a hundred billion every year, so you can afford to throw away a couple billion. For GM, they'd rather save it where they can.
That's fine as long as you take the GM viewpoint, but what of the customer, the environment ? There is a cost in continuing to use technology which cannot be as fine tuned to maximise the efficiency and minimise the pollution :)

Good point on the RACE ENGINES.
But those use exotic materials in the rods, springs, valves etc which would easily swallow up a $2B saving if applied wider. Hmm, interesing Q, what size is the aftermarket business in the US for rods, pistons, cams for these enginss ? Could be that this way the manufacturer rips off the customer TWICE :) Once in saving the money and then again in getting the CUSTOMER to pay to fix the first choice :)
But for those we come back to in racing "you can't beat displacement" :) and also the rules governing restrictors placed on different engines in an attempt to balance the racing on track. Anyone have a quick link on the engine and the class details it competes in - what restrictors etc ??

EDIT: Another perspective ... The LS1 engine may save billions in manufacturing, but if you ned to or want to replace the cam it's a MAJOR task. Draining, major stripdown ! See http://www.houston-f-body.org/tech/LS1Cam/cam4.html and accoriding to that guy they've improved it - hate to think what it USED to be like. On a OHC setup, it's DEAD SIMPLE. Faster, easier, reducing repair costs and significantly reducing paddock time ( this means NOTHING to the big guys who can afford a team of 30 support crew, but for club raceres that is a BIG issue )

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:53 AM

[QUOTE=Guibo]

Most of these engines are small anyway, aren't they? If your engine makes so much torque already, and much of your expertise is based around existing S/DOHC technology, why bother to re-tool for OHV? That makes very little sense, fiscally.

[QUOTE]

This is a clear misconception, these engines were bascially designed independently, if the designers had wanted they could have used pushrods. There are already a number of V8 diesel engines around (BMW,Mercedes,Audi and the yet to appear V8 Multijet for the Maserati QP), and there is of course the V10 VAG engine, and now Benz is considering a V12. Pushrods? Forget it. Most of our engine are still fourpots, but the number of V6 engines together with BMW's inline six is steadily increasing.

And yes what you pictured are racing cars, but fitted with standard US made pushrod engines. Imagine these cars had modern DOHC engines with much greater output, how much more competitive would these cars be, (given the same displacement)

I respect the US V8 for what it is and in recent years one of the most spectectular sounds you can witness is the start of a historic Can-Am race, with the MacM8's and Lola T222's releasing all that (inefficiently produced)power.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:05 AM

That's fine as long as you take the GM viewpoint, but what of the customer, the environment ?

The environment? Here's a smog printout of a pushrod V8 Chevrolet Corvette Z06, compared to an inline-4, DOHC BMW E30 M3:
http://img99.exs.cx/img99/9897/SmogE30M3_Z06.th.jpg (http://img99.exs.cx/img99/9897/SmogE30M3_Z06.jpg)

The 344-hp Chevy LS1 puts out 314 g of C02 per km. That's barely anymore than the 290-hp V6 in the DOHC, VTEC-powered NSX. It's also much less than the 440 g/km of the 360 Modena. Care to bet on which of these cars gets the better fuel economy as well?

Tell me exactly how this affects the environment. Of course, by law, GM is forbidden from spending some of that $2B per year towards alternative fuels technology, I reckon. ;)

Regarding those race cars, the Viper's engine is practically bone stock. Only a different chip and mild revisions to the intake and exhaust are enough to raise output to 520 hp.

"The rules don't permit the Competition to be modified, so 3R-Racing's 8.3-liter aluminum V-10 pumps out the 520 horsepower and 540 pound-feet of torque it gets from the factory."
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=8430&page_number=2

I suppose there's no aftermarket support for DOHC engines, eh?

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:15 AM

This is a clear misconception, these engines were bascially designed independently, if the designers had wanted they could have used pushrods.
Well, obviously the designers didn't want pushrods, regardless of whether they're diesel or otherwise, huh? This actually says absolutely nothing about the relative worth of pushrods.

And yes what you pictured are racing cars, but fitted with standard US made pushrod engines. Imagine these cars had modern DOHC engines with much greater output, how much more competitive would these cars be, (given the same displacement)

More competitive? Tommy Archer, on a shoestring privateer budget, is giving the factory-backed Audies a run for their money (he's currently 2nd, only a few points behind the series leader). What do you suppose would happen if Dodge threw in full support for their Comp Coupes? Hmmm!
Nevermind how much more competitive these cars would be. That's open to pure speculation. Niether you nor I know. What we do know is that your statement (that only NASCAR racers use pushrods) is flat-out false.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:22 AM

EDIT: Another perspective ... The LS1 engine may save billions in manufacturing, but if you ned to or want to replace the cam it's a MAJOR task. Draining, major stripdown ! See http://www.houston-f-body.org/tech/LS1Cam/cam4.html and accoriding to that guy they've improved it - hate to think what it USED to be like. On a OHC setup, it's DEAD SIMPLE. Faster, easier, reducing repair costs and significantly reducing paddock time ( this means NOTHING to the big guys who can afford a team of 30 support crew, but for club raceres that is a BIG issue )
Yes, draining fluids is so hard! ;)
The guy on that site says:
"Installing an aftermarket camshaft in your LS1-equipped Camaro or Firebird is a very straight-forward project which can be accomplished by any competent shade-tree mechanic. General Motors Powertrain engineers have definitely improved on old-school designs with the LS1, and cam swaps are one area where this is very evident."

Now, do you happen to have the shadetree mechanic cam removal process of a DOHC V8? I'd love to see that.

henk4

10-15-2004, 01:24 AM

Well, obviously the designers didn't want pushrods, regardless of whether they're diesel or otherwise, huh? This actually says absolutely nothing about the relative worth of pushrods.

More competitive? Tommy Archer, on a shoestring privateer budget, is giving the factory-backed Audies a run for their money (he's currently 2nd, only a few points behind the series leader). What do you suppose would happen if Dodge threw in full support for their Comp Coupes? Hmmm!
Nevermind how much more competitive these cars would be. That's open to pure speculation. Niether you nor I know. What we do know is that your statement (that only NASCAR racers use pushrods) is flat-out false.

I added, given the same displacement. the Audi's are four litre cars isn't it?

The fact that European designers do not include pushrods must have a reason, one of them could be that they are less suitable.
I was thinking about a pushrod-only class, and I think only Nascar (or may be the aussie supercars ) qualify for that.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:30 AM

I added, given the same displacement. the Audi's are four litre cars isn't it?

The fact that European designers do not include pushrods must have a reason, one of them could be that they are less suitable.
I was thinking about a pushrod-only class, and I think only Nascar (or may be the aussie supercars ) qualify for that.
They're 4.2 liter cars with twin turbos.

The fact that European designers do not include pushrods must have a reason, one of them could be that they are less suitable for European tastes. That says nothing about the suitability of pushrods for all cases.

What you were thinking is not the same as what you said. But I went ahead and showed you where some pushrod-powered race cars have beaten their DOHC counterparts anyway. :D

henk4

10-15-2004, 02:00 AM

The fact that European designers do not include pushrods must have a reason, one of them could be that they are less suitable for European tastes. That says nothing about the suitability of pushrods for all cases.

Let's put it this way, when Europeans (and Japanese) have to design a new engine of any size (petrol or diesel), they never go for pushrods any more. Of course they have it all wrong, but still :D

Guibo

10-15-2004, 02:08 AM

Let's put it this way, when Europeans (and Japanese) have to design a new engine of any size (petrol or diesel), they never go for pushrods any more. Of course they have it all wrong, but still :D
Of course not. They just prefer to buy outright American engines. :D

What's all of this wrong/right crap? Are you saying GM is "wrong" to be sticking with pushrods? That would be like me saying it's "wrong" for the Europeans and Japanese to NOT adopt pushrods.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:13 AM

The environment? Here's a smog printout of a pushrod V8 Chevrolet Corvette Z06, compared to an inline-4, DOHC BMW E30 M3:
Duh, big V8, small I4 !!
You're not comapring pushrod and OHC anymore.
Pointless comparison.
Now get the figures for the SAME capcity and the SAME power output and you can compare - anything else is apples and oranges.
Europes new emission controls coming are the hardest that ALL cars must meet.
So far I don't see ANY manufacturer putting in pushrods !!
Do wuote an oft-used phrse in this thread - "ther emust be a reason" :)

Care to bet on which of these cars gets the better fuel economy as well?
Ferrari don't give a toss abotu these figures. Specialised manufactirers never have :)
But good point, it DOES remind that capacity makes all the rest easier.

Tell me exactly how this affects the environment.
Engines with more controlled vavle opening, larger valve opening DEMONSTRABLY prove higher efficiency and lower emissions than the same engine without. So chosing to NOT do it DOES harm the environment. Saves $2B a year, what would 1mpg better consumption save the US economy in a year ? Reduce co2 by 1%, how much woudl that amount to across the whole USA ( or Europe :) )

Regarding those race cars, the Viper's engine is practically bone stock. Only a different chip and mild revisions to the intake and exhaust are enough to raise output to 520 hp.
Don't disagree, but we won't answer what advantages a OHC configuration to that engine would bring. Won't until we see it tried on the streets. We dont' until the cheapness of production myopia is removed from manufacturers.

"The rules don't permit the Competition to be modified, so 3R-Racing's 8.3-liter aluminum V-10 pumps out the 520 horsepower and 540 pound-feet of torque it gets from the factory."
You ain't gonna beat liters :)
Now if the produced a street car with OHCs would it provide more power, more adjustabel power ? We'll never know coz the series restricts to PRODUCTION iirc.

I suppose there's no aftermarket support for DOHC engines, eh?
Sorry, don't see the point of that ?
Of course there are performance improvements that owners can buy into. Lobe profiles for example - soemthing that can only be changed in a 'shop :)
But the point I was making on that was adjusting inlet/exhaust overlap to tweak the engine and to adjust it for optmimum emissions/mileage ( especially as things wear ) IS easier with twin cams.

henk4

10-15-2004, 02:21 AM

Of course not. They just prefer to buy outright American engines. :D

What's all of this wrong/right crap? Are you saying GM is "wrong" to be sticking with pushrods? That would be like me saying it's "wrong" for the Europeans and Japanese to NOT adopt pushrods.

Which european or japanese manufacturer is buying US engines?

I put wrong with a :D behind it. I am just curious why it is that nobody is using pushrods any more for new designs except GM , although even the LS2 is still based on the original small block if I am not mistaken.

fpv_gtho

10-15-2004, 02:29 AM

If theres one thing ive noticed so far, most of the US members posting seem to be taking offense at the comments towards pushrod engines, whilst most others, i suppose led by Henk4 and Matra, are trying to provide an aspect from both sides....

Your right though Henk, we still do use pushrods in the V8 Supercars here. Mainly because most of our engine technology relies on NASCAR, but also its a reasonably easy way to limit costs so that the sport remains highly competitive. This year, new rules limiting the minimum weights of the engine's bottom end have probably taken almost 10km/h off the top speeds of the cars going down Conrod Straight at Bathurst. The way i see it, DOHC has more potential, but OHV is simpler. People say DOHC is heavier, but with VVT etc, those weight penalties can be outweighed with more power/better economy etc.

If your just worried about the weight just being there and throwing the car out of balance, then that can be overcome as FPV/Ford Australia sure as hell know. Anyone who's driven an FPV GT with the huge 5.4L cast iron block sitting in between the front wheels, will know that it handles beautifully for such a large, heavy car (considering its $AUD60K price).

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:30 AM

Well, obviously the designers didn't want pushrods, regardless of whether they're diesel or otherwise, huh? This actually says absolutely nothing about the relative worth of pushrods.
eh ?
Designers chose the right solution within the contraints of their business.
Pushrods are cheaper to make, if a designer is briefed that it's to be cheap then that's what he/she designs.
So the wider adoption of OHC and DOHC around the world DOES say semething about the relative worth of pushrods. But without actually getting the engineering program for a number of manufacturers we won't knwo ALL the details. Some are obvious as we encounter them as we fettle our own cars and seek performance on and off track. Others won't be so.

More competitive? Tommy Archer, on a shoestring privateer budget, is giving the factory-backed Audies
I don't think Audi have given factory backing for quite a few years now.
There are 2 teams providing country-backing. Not quite the same.
But if the teams are different this year, then I'm happy to be coirrected.

What do you suppose would happen if Dodge threw in full support for their Comp Coupes? Hmmm!
Exactly what happened at Le Mans with the Cadillac factory team - pissed ALL OVER the privateers :)
erm, the Northstar engine uses DOHC :) So the designers must have had a reason :)

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:36 AM

Yes, draining fluids is so hard! ;)
man, you guys try real hard to argue the indefensible.
If it's a task that an alternative options DOES NOT NEED then it is a disadvantage and a cost.

The guy on that site says:
he then goes on to describe a VERY involved process.
PLEASE take the time to do some research - see how easy it is to adjust/replace a cam on a DOHC.
Step one, remove covers.
Step two, clamb can drive and belts.
Step three - unbolt and remove cam.
Step four, refit reverse of above.

On some cars you dont' need to remove any ancillaries to do the job.
Please comprehend alternatives before commenting.
I've stripped and rebuild almost all types.
IN GENERAL OHC is easier - there are some eexceptions as those who know the SAGA on my A610 will remember :(

Now, do you happen to have the shadetree mechanic cam removal process of a DOHC V8? I'd love to see that.
See above :)
Done it got the T-shirt. Done it under service time limit conditions !!
THIS is not a topic to defend the LS-1 engine on :)
I4 engines have been built with 'rods which are a lot less involved than that guys site. But Vs require you to put the cam in the centre and that just puts it way out of easy reach :(
here's a pic of the Audi Quattor 10v engine - can't find pic of the 20v :(. Notice that all that's been removed is the manifold ( only coz Audi run it OVER the head - now THAT's crazy :) ) and the cover :)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jh.666/head/cam.jpg

Guibo

10-15-2004, 02:54 AM

Duh, big V8, small I4 !!
You're not comapring pushrod and OHC anymore.
Pointless comparison.

Care to tell me why the smaller, more advanced engine with better valve control puts out more emissions?

Europes new emission controls coming are the hardest that ALL cars must meet.
So far I don't see ANY manufacturer putting in pushrods !!

Hardest, that is, until US emissions regs coming up in 2007-2008.
Erm...I thought Bentley's Arnage is going to be good for Euro emissions through at least 2008?

Don't disagree, but we won't answer what advantages a OHC configuration to that engine would bring. Won't until we see it tried on the streets. We dont' until the cheapness of production myopia is removed from manufacturers.
You mean from manufacturers like GM? Tell me, Matra et Alpine. Do you know the cost of a 405-hp LS6? The cost of a 415-hp 996TT engine? The cost of a 400-hp BMW S62? The cost of a 500-hp Viper V10?

Ferrari don't give a toss abotu these figures. Specialised manufactirers never have :)

Ah, maybe that's why they get 4-6 mpg like their race cars. Oh waitaminute...they get quite a bit better than that, don't they? Purely by accident, I suppose?

Now if the produced a street car with OHCs would it provide more power, more adjustabel power ? We'll never know coz the series restricts to PRODUCTION iirc.

Well, I'm sure then they'd race the versions with OHC wouldn't they?

Sorry, don't see the point of that ?
Of course there are performance improvements that owners can buy into. Lobe profiles for example - soemthing that can only be changed in a 'shop :)

The point was that you're saying the huge aftermarket for OHV parts is the result of some kind of devious plot by the manufacturers to give the customer inferior parts in the first place, then making more money off them to "fix" them later. I was merely applying that argument to the plethora of aftermarket suppliers for DOHC engines. Sorry you didn't get it.

But the point I was making on that was adjusting inlet/exhaust overlap to tweak the engine and to adjust it for optmimum emissions/mileage ( especially as things wear ) IS easier with twin cams.

Wait, I thought it was just right from the beginning. Is this not the case? :D

henk4

10-15-2004, 02:56 AM

Guibo

10-15-2004, 02:58 AM

Which european or japanese manufacturer is buying US engines?
Well, in modern times, there are a few:
Ultima
Stealth
Marcos
Bristol
Fornarsari

If you want to go back beyond, say 1990, the list is considerably longer.

henk4

10-15-2004, 03:05 AM

Well, in modern times, there are a few:
Ultima
Stealth
Marcos
Bristol
Fornarsari

If you want to go back beyond, say 1990, the list is considerably longer.

Really mainstream producers, you might have come up with the MG 260 in stead :D

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:06 AM

I don't think Audi have given factory backing for quite a few years now.
There are 2 teams providing country-backing. Not quite the same.
But if the teams are different this year, then I'm happy to be coirrected.

The Audi RS6 in the Speed GT series is run by Champion Racing Audi, which gets their backing from Audi:
http://www.audiusa.com/motorraceupdate/0,,status-P_subUsageName-0_countrycode-1_racingseries-2_,00.html
They have previously campaigned the Audi R8. You really don't run such a car without considerable technical expertise and parts support from Audi. The Viper Comp Coupe guys, on the other hand are doing it mostly on their own, with much smaller budgets. Dodge, it seems, is more focused on winning drifting competitions. (LOL!)

Exactly what happened at Le Mans with the Cadillac factory team - pissed ALL OVER the privateers :)
erm, the Northstar engine uses DOHC :) So the designers must have had a reason :)
Ermm...what's the displacement limit in that class of racing again?
Yes, Cadillac was fresh onto the scene for all of, what, 2-3 years? I agree, they gave up too soon.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 03:09 AM

Wait, I thought it was just right from the beginning. Is this not the case? :D
Nobody ever said that.

you're letting your myopia affect your ability to read informatino and abrosb it.

There's only one person claiming truth and blind to other inputs, Guibo.
Advise you go back and read over waht's been written WITHOUT the rose-tinted glasses and review the post you just made. So far it makes you look stupid :)

henk4

10-15-2004, 03:10 AM

The Audi RS6 in the Speed GT series is run by Champion

I think that both me and Matra thought that you were talking about the Audi R8, :D

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 03:18 AM

The Audi RS6 in the Speed GT series is run by Champion Racing Audi, which gets their backing from Audi:
it gets its backing from Audi USA, which has no core design andmanufacturign facility.
IT's a LONG LONG way from factory support.
EDIT: I chekced on the RS6 - I like henk had been thinking le mans - and the AUDI official web page points out that it's AUDI USA and Champion who are running the car. So it's NOT a factory team. THEY use the term "Audi Certified Champion RS 6 Team” ( Just correcting things )
They have previously campaigned the Audi R8. You really don't run such a car without considerable technical expertise and parts support from Audi.
The R8 was last full factory supported a few years ago.
Since then it has been local team/develoepr support.
This I know from first-hand experience. My brother took over the OFFICIAL Audi rally team and ran it as GBM Rallysport. The difference between the team whilst factory BACKED and then private custoemr support was night-and-day. he had to undertake the 90 chassis developmetn himself. Factory support was negligable.
Factory and teams ( even with manufacturers titles ) are NOT the same :)

The Viper Comp Coupe guys, on the other hand are doing it mostly on their own, with much smaller budgets.
Woudl be interesting to see the budgets. The Audi GB team budget for last year was a fraction of the 2 previous years. Money's getting tight for everyone these days :(

Ermm...what's the displacement limit in that class of racing again?

Which reminds me (again:) to suggest reviewing what has been posted so far.
Nobody has said that OHCs will produce better engines with all other things equal. The Le Mans engines are out to 7l and a STARTING PRICE of $26K from katech :) !! You can't beat displacement. Add OHC to displacement though and where do you get to be ?? Until anyone bothers to natch displacement they don't have to "get smarter" on the engine. They're already doing the 'smart' thing by making it bigger :)

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:24 AM

In a recent issue Auto Motor und Sport tested the Chrysler 300 Hemi, and they were very positive about the simple engine in combination with a simple 4 speed autobxo, which has no alternative drive programmes. They even asked the question why things have to be so complicated when this works pretty well. They also provided the answer: It is fuel consumption. Overall average consumption during testing was 15.6 litres per 100 km, and it was next to impossible to get below 13 litres per 100 km, while on the other side, keeping up a little bit up speed showed figures in the region of 18 litres per 100 km. Comparable european V8's, like a Mercedes E500 or a BMW 7 series would use 2-3 litres per 100 km less and apart from the fact that that is also a siginificant reduction in emissions, with a fuel price now approaching 1.5$ per litre you may get the point.
Why would they test the 300C Hemi? I thought only GM was sticking to pushrods. Oh, wait. Nevermind!

That 300C had a 4-speed auto? No, it should have a 5-speed, much like the Benz upon which it is based. The 7 Series has an extra gear (and admittedly more weight). Don't suppose the extra gear might affect economy, do you? How about aerodynamics? I find it hard to believe the 300C is anywhere near as slippery as the E500 (but I could be wrong).

But wait...that's only one test you can point to. Here are the results from R&T:
300C: 18.3 mpg
E500: 17.0 mpg
745i: 17.7 mpg

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:25 AM

Nobody ever said that.

you're letting your myopia affect your ability to read informatino and abrosb it.

There's only one person claiming truth and blind to other inputs, Guibo.
Advise you go back and read over waht's been written WITHOUT the rose-tinted glasses and review the post you just made. So far it makes you look stupid :)
Matra, I'll have to advise you to take a look at that smiley. It's there for a reason. Sorry you're apparently too dense to understand?? :confused:

henk4

10-15-2004, 03:32 AM

Why would they test the 300C Hemi? I thought only GM was sticking to pushrods. Oh, wait. Nevermind!

That 300C had a 4-speed auto? No, it should have a 5-speed, much like the Benz upon which it is based. The 7 Series has an extra gear (and admittedly more weight). Don't suppose the extra gear might affect economy, do you? How about aerodynamics? I find it hard to believe the 300C is anywhere near as slippery as the E500 (but I could be wrong).

But wait...that's only one test you can point to. Here are the results from R&T:
300C: 18.3 mpg
E500: 17.0 mpg
745i: 17.7 mpg

you are right about the auto box, it was 5 speed. The engine does however have a central camshaft. I have noted in the past that consumption figures measured in the USA do differ from those coming out of Germany, which involves a certain amount of (legal) high speed driving, at levels not allowed in the USA.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 03:37 AM

Matra, I'll have to advise you to take a look at that smiley. It's there for a reason. Sorry you're apparently too dense to understand?? :confused:
I understood the smileys.
I just wasn't sure you were understanding the English written in the thread.

Oh, look, no smiley !!!

fpv_gtho

10-15-2004, 03:37 AM

are you refering to such things as a trip down the Autobahn Henk?

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:38 AM

you are right about the auto box, it was 5 speed. The engine does however have a central camshaft. I have noted in the past that consumption figures measured in the USA do differ from those coming out of Germany, which involves a certain amount of (legal) high speed driving, at levels not allowed in the USA.
And that would thus involve aerodynamics to an even greater extent, wouldn't it?
I can't be certain that R&T obeys the speed limit at all times. ;) Nevermind, for most daily (and sometimes enthusiastic) driving, there's not much difference between these cars. Not anything of significance that points to the valvetrain being the culprit.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:38 AM

I understood the smileys.
I just wasn't sure you were understanding the English written in the thread.

Oh, look, no smiley !!!
Oh, no. I got it.

henk4

10-15-2004, 03:40 AM

are you refering to such things as a trip down the Autobahn Henk?

That's right, and were it is limited it is still mostly 130 kph, well above the US 70 miles.

fpv_gtho

10-15-2004, 03:45 AM

i think thats something that slips the mind of alot of people here. You say Autobahn or Autostrada and they think of endless highways with unlimited speed limits, whilst its a bit different it seems

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:46 AM

Woudl be interesting to see the budgets. The Audi GB team budget for last year was a fraction of the 2 previous years. Money's getting tight for everyone these days :(
My bad. It looks like Champion has an R8 going this year as well:
http://www.championracing.net/
Even if it's not precisely factory-backed, I'm pretty sure they're getting a shedload more money put into their racing than the Tommy Archer. Just remember, the VCC is $140K, while the RS6 is $210K. And the VCC has many more stock components in it, including the transmission, differential, and much of the braking system. The RS6, on the other hand, is completely worked over: new transmission, engine built by Cosworth, etc. I think it's safe to say the Champion Racing budget is considerably larger than the VCC guys, wouldn't you?

Guibo

10-15-2004, 03:59 AM

henk4

10-15-2004, 04:11 AM

BTW, the most recent E500 tests by AMS have them testing the 7-speed automatic. So, two more gears than in the 300C. Their average of 14.3 L/100 km isn't all that much more impressive than the 15.6 of the 300C. The E500 is also about 290 lbs lighter than the 300C. Shave 290 lbs off the Chrysler, give it 2 more gears and a more streamlined body/shape, and then we can talk about valvetrains.

We could also do it the other way around, improve the valvetrain, and then talk about Cw and weight. On a side note, the payload of the 300C (difference between maximum and kerbweight) is a mighty 382 kg. That's considerably less than 4 average americans :D

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 04:37 AM

I think it's safe to say the Champion Racing budget is considerably larger than the VCC guys, wouldn't you?
I never said otherwise, Guibo.

I was only clarifying that factory support is a whole lot differnet than pravateer - even well financed priavateers.

it's about the engineering , not the parts :)

Some companies have shown they can beat the factory boys at the engineering, so it's not al doom-and-gloom for them

Turbo Puma

10-15-2004, 07:13 AM

Ford are great, my whole family have grown up with Ford and have never gone with any other car. And I have a Ford Puma on my waiting list, drooooool.

Ford get the thumbs up for me!

QuattroMan

10-15-2004, 07:26 AM

image as what?

their corporate image?
their styling image?

anyway, i think ford can and are doing some really good things in australia and europe, i wouldnt know or really care what ford US are doing, especialy because all of the good cars are over here in australia and europe. all that ford US do is produce muscle, and us aussies do that better.

please send us some of dose good cars here please .... :D

Turbo Puma

10-15-2004, 07:32 AM

Ford Australia have fantastic cars, the Ford Falcon Saloon is great.

QuattroMan

10-15-2004, 07:56 AM

This is so sad most Americans buy there cars every 3-4 years, we change cars like we change underwear, and yet we get all the cheesy cars. :mad:

Guibo

10-15-2004, 10:21 AM

We could also do it the other way around, improve the valvetrain, and then talk about Cw and weight. On a side note, the payload of the 300C (difference between maximum and kerbweight) is a mighty 382 kg. That's considerably less than 4 average americans :D
Or, if you want to see the effect of valvetrain layout by limiting all of the other variables and thus isolate the ineffeciencies of pushrods in comparison to those other cars, you could do it the first way.
The average American man weighs 81.6 kg. 4 x 81.6 = 326 kg. So well within the limit you described. Anyway, according to this site, the payload capacity of the 300C is 426 kg.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100908

Guibo

10-15-2004, 10:24 AM

Care to tell me why the smaller, more advanced engine with better valve control puts out more emissions?

You mean from manufacturers like GM? Tell me, Matra et Alpine. Do you know the cost of a 405-hp LS6? The cost of a 415-hp 996TT engine? The cost of a 400-hp BMW S62? The cost of a 500-hp Viper V10?

Still no answer to these questions?

henk4

10-15-2004, 10:31 AM

Or, if you want to see the effect of valvetrain layout by limiting all of the other variables and thus isolate the ineffeciencies of pushrods in comparison to those other cars, you could do it the first way.
The average American man weighs 81.6 kg. 4 x 81.6 = 326 kg. So well within the limit you described. Anyway, according to this site, the payload capacity of the 300C is 426 kg.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100908

It might be rather difficult to reduce the Cw, without significantly changing the appearence of the car, which seems to be a selling point. Cw is given 0.34, which is actually not so bad for such a car.
The European version might have a few standard options that reduce the payload. Kerb weight was given as 1898 kg, while maximum permissable weight is 2280 kg. You also have to carry 55 kg of petrol (71 litres). plus the 326 kg of the 4 man, leaves you with one kg left, so you have keep your laptop at home! :D

henk4

10-15-2004, 10:35 AM

Still no answer to these questions?

I think engine production costs have to take into account numbers produced i.e. the average production costs of the USA V8's will be much lower than that of a Porsche. The price of the C6 in Holland has just been announced: 88000 Euro or over 109000 US$.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 10:46 AM

It might be rather difficult to reduce the Cw, without significantly changing the appearence of the car, which seems to be a selling point. Cw is given 0.34, which is actually not so bad for such a car.
There's no doubting that the Hemi is also a selling point. But nevermind, I was just illustrating that there are way too many variables to consider; ie., not a good comparo.
0.34 is much worse than the 745i's 0.29 and the E500's 0.26.

more-boost1555

10-15-2004, 10:57 AM

And what's wrong with leaf springs, they are great!!:D (j/k)

I chose to enjoy this thread mostly from the sidelines. Now that it's pretty much beaten to death with a stick...ah, crankshaft. A couple of generalizations that should make sense to all. IMO, high(er) technology for speed and turbo-diesels for lowend effortless pull. Not even the mighty chevy 350 can out-do diesels for lowend torque preferred by many for everyday driving. As for overall competence in racing, if OHV was so competent it could be massaged into F1 duty. Not even with the technology available today could this be accomplished. Granted the C5R delivered up LeMans with an OHV design, it did so with a huge displacement advantage.

The adage 'no replacement for displacement' still holds true but is increasingly becoming a semi-truth.

Thank you advantage, good point. If pushrods are so viable, why does the pinnacle of motorsport not use them? Why is it that DOHC engines are the premiere? I wonder...

Guibo

10-15-2004, 10:58 AM

I think engine production costs have to take into account numbers produced i.e. the average production costs of the USA V8's will be much lower than that of a Porsche. The price of the C6 in Holland has just been announced: 88000 Euro or over 109000 US$.
But I thought the price disparity between OHV and DOHC engines was just a myth.
And I'm sure Porsche builds more turbocharged flat-6's than Dodge makes V10's. BMW also makes more S62 V8's.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 11:01 AM

Thank you advantage, good point. If pushrods are so viable, why does the pinnacle of motorsport not use them? Why is it that DOHC engines are the premiere? I wonder...
Because with the displacement limits, you won't find any advantages in using pushrods. Just because something is the best solution in one extreme form of motorsport does not mean it's the best solution for all applications which are not nearly as extreme (like in your daily driven street car, for instance).

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 11:14 AM

Still no answer to these questions?
Some of us have more important things to do in our lives, don't imagine this is a priority do you ?

PLEASE, please, will you read things.
I've NEVER debated price.
IN FACT I've agreed that pushrods are cheaper to make.
What IS your problem at reading what's written.
Stop IMAGINING things that don't exist !!!!

and then making yourself look stoopid by demanding answers to the wrong questions :)

more-boost1555

10-15-2004, 11:19 AM

Its not made to be a "gem" of an engine, it gets your from A to B thats all.

Exactly my point, HP/L, youd have a better argument over the color of the car determining technology.

Again, terreble comparison. The race spec LS6 7.0 is made for LeMans, no? LeMans has power limits you know, also think about reliability.

Ok, the 3.8 is reliable because of it's simplicity. You don't hear many people complain about Hondas' engines do you? Sophistication does not neccessitate unreliability. The Honda engine will get you from point a to point b too, and faster :) .

What in god's name are you talking about with your second point here? Hp per litre has everything to do with this argument! An OHV engine is dependent on displacement to make power. Because as Matra metioned, they are not able to rev as high, and revs are what make power in small engines. How much power do you think you could squeeze out of 2 liters with OHV naturally aspirated? While still meeting emissions and being mass produced that is. We'll surely never know, because no one is going to try and make an OHV 2 liter, because it's obviously not the best idea.

Also just forget about the 6.4 vs. LS2/LS6, you are right about that, not a great comparison.

henk4

10-15-2004, 11:20 AM

But I thought the price disparity between OHV and DOHC engines was just a myth.
And I'm sure Porsche builds more turbocharged flat-6's than Dodge makes V10's. BMW also makes more S62 V8's.

Including all the truck engines?

Guibo

10-15-2004, 11:23 AM

Including all the truck engines?
Yes, including all the truck engines. I'd be very surprised if Dodge Ram SRT-10 sales amount to anything meaningful.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 11:26 AM

How much power do you think you could squeeze out of 2 liters with OHV naturally aspirated? While still meeting emissions and being mass produced that is. We'll surely never know, because no one is going to try and make an OHV 2 liter, because it's obviously not the best idea.
A good example.
You can chart the development of the 2 litre in street and competition cars in Eureop and Japan where power, emissions, tractability, drivability have all improved.
With no perceptable loss in reliability IIRC :) erm, oh, look cars are MORE reliable.
So FORD Europe (only one example) have been doing a good job with their approach :)
Ford have moved from side valve, OHV, OHC ( single and double ).
Pretty much lays out the improvements - one variable which is apparent is that European mechanics may (not MAY) be better trained and we're more willing to pay decent wages which ensure quality service and repair when needed. So not scred by "complexity".

Guibo

10-15-2004, 11:33 AM

Some of us have more important things to do in our lives, don't imagine this is a priority do you ?

PLEASE, please, will you read things.
I've NEVER debated price.
IN FACT I've agreed that pushrods are cheaper to make.
What IS your problem at reading what's written.
Stop IMAGINING things that don't exist !!!!

and then making yourself look stoopid by demanding answers to the wrong questions :)

Ah, but just responding to your comment:
"we won't answer what advantages a OHC configuration to that engine would bring. Won't until we see it tried on the streets. We dont' until the cheapness of production myopia is removed from manufacturers."

As if
1) the Viper even really needs OHC, and
2) Dodge is being stupid for sticking with OHV in the Viper

Meaning you may realize that there's a cost benefit in using pushrods, but you don't know to what degree.

So tell me. Why would that small 4-banger with much more advanced valvetrain produce more emissions than that pushrod LS6? To listen to you, we'd have to think that pushrods are poisoning the earth, burning forests, dumping soot particulates into the ocean. Do you think that pushrods are anymore harmful to the environment than turbodiesels?

Slicks

10-15-2004, 11:56 AM

Ok, the 3.8 is reliable because of it's simplicity. You don't hear many people complain about Hondas' engines do you? Sophistication does not neccessitate unreliability. The Honda engine will get you from point a to point b too, and faster :) .
Actually ive heard many complaints about honda engines. And a Honda engine isnt going to get you any where fast... Thats a fact...

What in god's name are you talking about with your second point here? Hp per litre has everything to do with this argument! An OHV engine is dependent on displacement to make power. Because as Matra metioned, they are not able to rev as high, and revs are what make power in small engines. How much power do you think you could squeeze out of 2 liters with OHV naturally aspirated? While still meeting emissions and being mass produced that is. We'll surely never know, because no one is going to try and make an OHV 2 liter, because it's obviously not the best idea.
You dont seem to understand, in perfomance Liters means nothing, weight and physical size do mean something. Also peak HP doesnt show how "efficient" the engine is. Its all about the usable power, and the more usable power through the RPM range the better.

Let me give you a little demonstration, in this picture below the engine on the left is a 4.6L DOHC ford engine, the one on the right is a 5.0 OHV Chevy engine. Notice that the "bigger" engine is actually smaller and more compact although larger in displacement. Like is said Liters means nothing...

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:08 PM

We'll surely never know, because no one is going to try and make an OHV 2 liter, because it's obviously not the best idea.

just wondering how many designers will tackle a brand new OHV engine of any size. It is just that GM does not want to spend money on new engines when the current ones meet the requirements of the average american buyer. Development costs of a brandnew engine will be certainly above 1 bln US$ and during times when GM's financial position is not as rosy as it could be, money for a new engine is not required.
Is there anybody who knows what caused the demise of the ZR06? Too complicated for the average corvette dealer?

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 12:10 PM

As if
1) the Viper even really needs OHC, and
2) Dodge is being stupid for sticking with OHV in the Viper
Please go back and read things.
1) Viper doesn't NEED OHC coz it's got litres ! ALREADY been said !!
( That doesn't mean it couldn't be better with OHC, but US fule price and consumption are wat behind the rest of us so no rush for you (yet!) )
2) Dodge are making a business decision to save themsleves money and to meet government standards rather than bettering them for the benefit of the environment !! Can't blame them for the choice, but that makes 'rods a price decision :)

Meaning you may realize that there's a cost benefit in using pushrods, but you don't know to what degree.
Oh I can subjectively quantify it and HAVE.
The time to adjust valve overlap on a race/rally engine with DOHC is a FRACTION of the time to try to do the same in a 'rod engine. Please go back and read where I'd already said that !!
The cost to manufacture a 'rod is cheaper coz there's less complexity. No debate there either.
But cost of production should be only one part of what a manufacturer and market makes it's decisions on.

So tell me. Why would that small 4-banger with much more advanced valvetrain produce more emissions than that pushrod LS6? To listen to you, we'd have to think that pushrods are poisoning the earth, burning forests, dumping soot particulates into the ocean.
You're sounding like a drama queen !!!
I never said ANY of that rubbish.
I said the environment. You missed burning gasoline :)
Just calm down and be rationale or it's pointelss carryign on.
We've gone over this on other threads, you need to stop, breathe read the thread again adn get your mind-map around the points raised and stop over-dramatising things :)

Do you think that pushrods are anymore harmful to the environment than turbodiesels?
You clearly don't know ANYTHING about turbo diesels. The produce a LOT less harmful emissions and modern ones significantly less soot with new ideas coming on stream to reduce it even further. Don't compare with the REAL cheap diesel trash you get to see on your roads !! ( Could it be another example of manufacturers putting profit before environment. I don't know enough about diesels to comment further )
And as with all large capacity engines, the LS6 gets emissions down by losing more power through restricted exhaust into the catalytic convertor. One of the reasons why fast power increase fro track can come be de-cat'ing it :)

Can we recap which engines we're talking about and in what circumstances ?
No point comparing a sedate version of one with a tuned version of other, is there ?
I'm not sure which ones your comparing and want to be sure we can find the facts, year of design, construction etc. ( After all there's no point in comparing an engine designed in the last 2 years with one that's 10-15 years old, is there. If trying to rationalise 'best' it's necessary to level the field for comaprison )
Up for it ?????

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:12 PM

Ha heres one that will boggle your brains, here are two engines, the one on the left is the LS1, as you know 5.7L, the one on the right is a miata engine, yes 1.6L 4 cylinder engine. Do you still not realize why chevy is sticking to pushrods?

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/BothFront.jpg
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/BothRight.jpg

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:14 PM

just wondering how many designers will tackle a brand new OHV engine of any size. It is just that GM does not want to spend money on new engines when the current ones meet the requirements of the average american buyer. Development costs of a brandnew engine will be certainly above 1 bln US$ and during times when GM's financial position is not as rosy as it could be, money for a new engine is not required.
Is there anybody who knows what caused the demise of the ZR06? Too complicated for the average corvette dealer?
GM makes OHC engines also, take a look at the picture i posted. They know the advantages to OHV engines is greater than the advantage of OHC...

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 12:16 PM

Actually ive heard many complaints about honda engines. And a Honda engine isnt going to get you any where fast... Thats a fact...
Formula one (cough) :)
So we've got THAT bias out of the way.
Type-R Honda's are fast cars and handle well.
Honda don't do mega power cars because - as pointed in another thread - the Japanese manufacturers have for YEARS had an agreement not to produce cars with 'excessive power' in an attempt to protect the environment and people.
You guys don't get to see many of the neat Jap cars coz they only do them RHD - so we're well served !!

Like is said Liters means nothing...
LitREs means power. More power needed, more litREs gets you it easier.

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:17 PM

Ha heres one that will boggle your brains, here are two engines, the one on the left is the LS1, as you know 5.7L, the one on the right is a miata engine, yes 1.6L 4 cylinder engine. Do you still not realize why chevy is sticking to pushrods?

Is the Miata engine fitted with a turbo in this picture?

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 12:19 PM

GM makes OHC engines also, take a look at the picture i posted. They know the advantages to OHV engines is greater than the advantage of OHC...
SLicks, if it was that simple they would NOT make OHC :)

get real, they know the advantages AND they know the disadvantages and make both to meet differing needs !!!!

and GM is not the only engine maker in the world :)

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:22 PM

GM makes OHC engines also, take a look at the picture i posted. They know the advantages to OHV engines is greater than the advantage of OHC...

I was talking about a brand new OHV engine, not about further developments of the small block.

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:25 PM

Formula one (cough) :)
So we've got THAT bias out of the way.
Type-R Honda's are fast cars and handle well.
Honda don't do mega power cars because - as pointed in another thread - the Japanese manufacturers have for YEARS had an agreement not to produce cars with 'excessive power' in an attempt to protect the environment and people.
You guys don't get to see many of the neat Jap cars coz they only do them RHD - so we're well served !!

Does formula 1 have anything to do with the cars they produce to the public? Sure some technology is carried over, but hell, dont get too carried away there.
How do we not get to see any neat jap cars? The only one that i can think of that isnt available in the US is the Skyline (which is available now as the G35).

LitREs means power. More power needed, more litREs gets you it easier.
True, but does that mean that an engine with more litres is going to produce more power than an engine with less litres?

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:26 PM

Is the Miata engine fitted with a turbo in this picture?
nope... Its a stock 1.6L miata engine to my knowledge.

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:28 PM

True, but does that mean that an engine with more litres is going to produce more power than an engine with less litres?

Yes and if you have two engines with the same amount of litres, the one with (D)OHC will produce more power than the one with OHV.

more-boost1555

10-15-2004, 12:28 PM

they are only .4 liters apart to begin with. Quite another to compare say....that 8.3 Viper engine you seem to be fond of with say.....the 5.4 GT engine.

Which one of those do you think takes up more physical space? Or is lighter? Power output from both is near equal.

Anyway this is all nonsense. Like I said, OHV has it's advantages too, I don't deny that. All I said was that Ford makes more advanced engines. That is undeniable, OHC is a more sophisticated design requring more advanced technoogy. Whether this design is better or worse than OHV I'll leave to you.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 12:29 PM

Does formula 1 have anything to do with the cars they produce to the public?
THERE WAS A FRIGGIN SMILEY !!!!

FFS :(

You just said Honda, I pointed out one that well exceeds the description :)

Man you guys are retards :)

How do we not get to see any neat jap cars? The only one that i can think of that isnt available in the US is the Skyline (which is available now as the G35).
READ MY WORDS - because they are made in RHD and don't get imported except by REAL enthusiasts.
Import MX-5s come into the UK with major enhancements to the engine and suspension that the UK sourced ones don't. So if you want a 'faster' MX-5 in the UK, you buy a grey-import :) Mates g/f has just picked up a cracker !!

True, but does that mean that an engine with more litres is going to produce more power than an engine with less litres?
All other things being equal application of engineering ? HELL YES !!

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:31 PM

SLicks, if it was that simple they would NOT make OHC :)
But it is that simple, its called marketing, and your a prime example of it. Why do you think that Cadillac uses the heavier, physically bigger, and less efficient Northstar V8 in its cars instead of the LS1? Marketing, dumb people think that DOHC is better, or more refined, its all about image. And then why do you think that for the CTS-V they used the LS6 rather than the Northstar? Again, the OHV engine has more advantages than the DOHC.

get real, they know the advantages AND they know the disadvantages and make both to meet differing needs !!!!

and GM is not the only engine maker in the world :)
Ofcourse they know both the advantages and disadvantages, thats why they're using the OHV design still.
Just using GM as an example of using both engine designs. ;)

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:33 PM

nope... Its a stock 1.6L miata engine to my knowledge.

so what's this red tube that makes it look far bulkier than it is reality.

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:36 PM

Yes and if you have two engines with the same amount of litres, the one with (D)OHC will produce more power than the one with OHV.
You cant just base it on that. Think about what the engine was made to do. Compression ratio, cylinders, ect.

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:37 PM

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:39 PM

THERE WAS A FRIGGIN SMILEY !!!!

FFS :(

You just said Honda, I pointed out one that well exceeds the description :)

Man you guys are retards :)

So if theres a smiley i cant give my opinion or correct you? wtf chill out, stop taking people so serious. Im not mad or yelling, im just having a civil conversation.

READ MY WORDS - because they are made in RHD and don't get imported except by REAL enthusiasts.
Import MX-5s come into the UK with major enhancements to the engine and suspension that the UK sourced ones don't. So if you want a 'faster' MX-5 in the UK, you buy a grey-import :) Mates g/f has just picked up a cracker !!

I understand what your saying but on most cars not a lot is changed.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 12:39 PM

Oh I can subjectively quantify it and HAVE.

How about objectively?

I said the environment. You missed burning gasoline :)
Just calm down and be rationale or it's pointelss carryign on.

Ermm...what makes you think I'm not calm? I think your imagination is in overdrive.

You clearly don't know ANYTHING about turbo diesels. The produce a LOT less harmful emissions and modern ones significantly less soot with new ideas coming on stream to reduce it even further. Don't compare with the REAL cheap diesel trash you get to see on your roads !!
What makes you think I'm talking about the diesel trash I see over here? Again, you're being presumptuous. !! only makes sound even more idiotic.
I'm talking about the current crop of Euro turbodiesels, which are facing some hurdles in the years to come:

"Company engineers say the new clean-air rules, which will be phased in during the 2004-09 model years, 'pose significant if not insurmountable challenges' for diesels, said GM spokesman Chris Preuss.

Another knowledgeable industry source, who asked not to be named, said the automakers' biggest fear is that relaxing federal rules would cause mores states to take advantage of their option to switch to California's even tougher clean-air rules."

Yup. Some Euro turbodiesels are legal in only 45 states here. And that's with the federal laws that have been massaged to allow diesels to operate under less strict requirements.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=6171

You're sounding like a drama queen !!!
I never said ANY of that rubbish.

LOL. You're the one yelling and I'm the one that's the drama queen? Nice.

Can we recap which engines we're talking about and in what circumstances ?
No point comparing a sedate version of one with a tuned version of other, is there ?
I'm not sure which ones your comparing and want to be sure we can find the facts, year of design, construction etc. ( After all there's no point in comparing an engine designed in the last 2 years with one that's 10-15 years old, is there. If trying to rationalise 'best' it's necessary to level the field for comaprison )
Up for it ?????
The LS6 hasn't been designed in the past 2 years. It's a modified small-block Chevy which has been around since the Paleolithic era. ;)
So why don't you find some evidence to show that the LS6 is bad for the environment?
In the meantime, consider some results from R&T's top speed shootout from '98:
550 Maranello (at idle)
C0, %: 0.0 (pretty good, same as the LS6 @ 15 and 25 mph)
HC, ppm: 9 (9 times more than the LS6 @ 15)

I don't have g/km figures for the LS6. But it's not likely to be far from from the standard Corvette. I'm fairly certain it's nowhere near as high as the 550's 499 g/km.

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:39 PM

You cant just base it on that. Think about what the engine was made to do. Compression ratio, cylinders, ect.

nonsense, you could have everything the same, the litres, the compression ratio the number of cylinders the fuel supply system, drysump or wet sump, it remains a certainty that the engine with OHC will produce more power than the OHV engine.

Slicks

10-15-2004, 12:44 PM

so what's this red tube that makes it look far bulkier than it is reality.
I was actually wondering that myself, but it really doesnt make it look all that bulky, look at the side view.
The site i got it from is doing a LS1 swap in a miata, and mentions nothing of the 1.6 being turbocharged.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 12:44 PM

Is there anybody who knows what caused the demise of the ZR06? Too complicated for the average corvette dealer?
Are you talking about the ZR-1 perhaps?

"But it wasn't much quicker than the 300 hp LT1 C-4 of 1992, which essentially caused the demise of the ZR-1. The ZR-1 could only produce 0-60 times of 4.7 seconds and the regular 1992 C4.5 would do it in five flat. Yes, it was marginally quicker, but the ZR-1 option cost about $26,000. That's a lot of money for bragging rights and three tenths of a second."
http://www.mtdemocrat.com/articles/2004/10/01/road_beat/2001/f1227_a.prt

"But just as it was introduced, a recession gripped the country and a luxury tax was added to the already $30,000-plus price. The ZR-1 made it to 1995 before Chevy yanked the plug.
Another factor contributing to the ZR-1's demise was the potential found in the basic pushrod 350 engine, which was approaching LT-5 power levels but at considerably lower cost. "
http://www.advanceautoparts.com/english/youcan/html/res/res20031101c4.html

I seriously doubt it had anything with the average Chevy dealer not being able to work on it.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 12:49 PM

they are only .4 liters apart to begin with. Quite another to compare say....that 8.3 Viper engine you seem to be fond of with say.....the 5.4 GT engine.
Which one of those do you think takes up more physical space? Or is lighter? Power output from both is near equal.

Have you got weight specs for the 5.4 GT engine? Last I read, it's a fairly large engine. Much larger than the Lightning or Navigator engines. And its heads are very massive. The Viper's heads are miniscule in comparison. The supercharger sitting on top of the GT doesn't help matters, although dry sump oiling does.

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:50 PM

[QUOTE=Guibo]Yup. Some Euro turbodiesels are legal in only 45 states here. And that's with the federal laws that have been massaged to allow diesels to operate under less strict requirements.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=6171

Surprising article which goes to show how retarded the diesel development is in the USA. They are still discussing the sulpher content. The whole article doens not once mention the use of the particle filter that will solve 99% of the soot problems.

more-boost1555

10-15-2004, 12:53 PM

it was a desperate attempt by Cadillac to say "Hey don't forget about us! We can still compete with foreign luxury manufacturers! See we don't just have ancient pushrod engines anymore!"

And again, they put the LS6 in the CTS-V because they are too frickin cheap to even develop their own engine! Jesus man read between the lines! They had a cheap realtively powerfull motor just sitting there so why not use it? Rather than develop the Northstar, they again decided to cut corners with badge engineering.

This is why I hate Chevy lovers man, they just refuse to face facts.

Yes I know the GT engine is supercharged, but that's my point. Why have a gigantic frickin brick in the front of your car when you can have an engine that is far more efficient?

Yes slicks, lol, there are more advantages to OHV than OHC. And only GM knows this, while the rest of the world just uses OHC as one big marketing ploy to get people to buy their cars. Lmao, gimme a fuc&ing break man!

PS: Seriously, did you ever notice how Chevy's answer to everything seems to be "go bigger'? It's because they are so cheap, rather than develop the engine they just bore the sh^t out of it. Only now that Cadillac is finally gaining back credibility are they looking into developing the Northstar. A supercharged version is rumored to be forthcoming in the STS.

henk4

10-15-2004, 12:54 PM

Are you talking about the ZR-1 perhaps?

"But it wasn't much quicker than the 300 hp LT1 C-4 of 1992, which essentially caused the demise of the ZR-1. The ZR-1 could only produce 0-60 times of 4.7 seconds and the regular 1992 C4.5 would do it in five flat. Yes, it was marginally quicker, but the ZR-1 option cost about $26,000. That's a lot of money for bragging rights and three tenths of a second."
http://www.mtdemocrat.com/articles/2004/10/01/road_beat/2001/f1227_a.prt

"But just as it was introduced, a recession gripped the country and a luxury tax was added to the already $30,000-plus price. The ZR-1 made it to 1995 before Chevy yanked the plug.
Another factor contributing to the ZR-1's demise was the potential found in the basic pushrod 350 engine, which was approaching LT-5 power levels but at considerably lower cost. "
http://www.advanceautoparts.com/english/youcan/html/res/res20031101c4.html

I seriously doubt it had anything with the average Chevy dealer not being able to work on it.

Yes I was thinking about the ZR1, thanks for the info. Sounds reasonable, except for the fact that it sounds highly unlikely that the ZR1 engine was 30000 US$ more expensive to produce. This figure must contain an element of premium pricing for the top model.

Coventrysucks

10-15-2004, 12:55 PM

I don't see how OHC can be considered inferior to OHV considering that the only country making them, IIRC, is the USA.

Surely if OHV did have that many clear-cut advantages over OHC then all car manufacturers would build OHVs instead of wasting money on OHCs.

Building OHC engines is a more complex, time consuming, and therefore more expensive than OHV.

That expense is paid by the manufacturer, whose sole purpose is to make money by building cars.

Why would manufacturers go to all the trouble of OHC if it weren't better?

The argument about "Marketing, dumb people think that DOHC is better, or more refined, its all about image."

Surely this "image" of OHC is created by the car industry.
Could they not just as easlily say "OHC is rubbish, OHV is the way forward!"?

That way they could foist OHV onto the general public, and be able to build cheaper cars, and increase profit margins.

But they don't.

Why?

As far as I can see, because OHV isn't all it is made out to be!

Guibo

10-15-2004, 12:58 PM

henk4

10-15-2004, 01:04 PM

The EPA uses low-sulpher European diesel for its tests.

which is not available in the USA :)

Coventrysucks

10-15-2004, 01:04 PM

Surprising article which goes to show how retarded the diesel development is in the USA. They are still discussing the sulpher content. The whole article doens not once mention the use of the particle filter that will solve 99% of the soot problems.

Why is the USA not getting ULS diesel untill 2006?

(Cynical answer: Oil companies)

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:04 PM

Yes I was thinking about the ZR1, thanks for the info. Sounds reasonable, except for the fact that it sounds highly unlikely that the ZR1 engine was 30000 US$ more expensive to produce. This figure must contain an element of premium pricing for the top model.

You are right. And they didn't say the engine was $30K more to produce.
The rest of the ZR-1 wasn't all that much different from the C4, so the bulk of the price difference is due to the engine. Last I heard, ZR-1 LT5 replacement engines were about $20K a pop. Obviously, some of that is down to profit. But in light of the current LS6 which costs closer to $7K in today's dollars, that should put things in perspective.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:06 PM

which is not available in the USA :)
But it is available to the EPA which is doing the tests and has said they're not sure Euro diesels will be compliant by the time the new regs are finished in 2009.

Slicks

10-15-2004, 01:09 PM

it was a desperate attempt by Cadillac to say "Hey don't forget about us! We can still compete with foreign luxury manufacturers! See we don't just have ancient pushrod engines anymore!"

Not quite, the Northstar has been around for some time now.

And again, they put the LS6 in the CTS-V because they are too frickin cheap to even develop their own engine! Jesus man read between the lines! They had a cheap realtively powerfull motor just sitting there so why not use it? Rather than develop the Northstar, they again decided to cut corners with badge engineering.
Not to cheap, to smart. Why spend the time and money when you have the effective solution that works? Its time for you to read between the lines, dont work harder, work smarter.

This is why I hate Chevy lovers man, they just refuse to face facts.

Im no chevy lover the only cars i like that chevy makes is the Corvette. Other cars are camaro, chevelle but are no longer in production.

Yes slicks, lol, there are more advantages to OHV than OHC. And only GM knows this, while the rest of the world just uses OHC as one big marketing ploy to get people to buy their cars. Lmao, gimme a fuc&ing break man!
Well lets review
OHV advantages
simplicity
weight
space
cost
disdvantages
less revs than ohc (if thats even a disadvantage)

OHC advantages
more power
disadvantages
weight
space
complexity
price

GM isnt the only company awair of the advantages of OHV. But what would the customers think if a company always using OHC all of a sudden switches to the "low tech" OHV? Again its all about marketing.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:11 PM

get real, they know the advantages AND they know the disadvantages and make both to meet differing needs !!!!

Well said. Now, if only everyone else could understand that...

Guibo

10-15-2004, 01:16 PM

And again, they put the LS6 in the CTS-V because they are too frickin cheap to even develop their own engine! Jesus man read between the lines!

I have read that they initially tried the Northstar, but it wouldn't fit.

Yes I know the GT engine is supercharged, but that's my point. Why have a gigantic frickin brick in the front of your car when you can have an engine that is far more efficient?

Perhaps researching the history of the Viper, its whole reason for being, might enlighten you.

more-boost1555

10-15-2004, 01:16 PM

If nothing else I'm sure we can all agree on this folks, we haven't changed each others minds at all. That's for damn sure.

Anyway, till we meet again.....a few days from now. :)

henk4

10-15-2004, 01:19 PM

But it is available to the EPA which is doing the tests and has said they're not sure Euro diesels will be compliant by the time the new regs are finished in 2009.

Did they do tests on cars fitted with the particle filters?

Guibo

10-15-2004, 02:01 PM

Did they do tests on cars fitted with the particle filters?
Do you think Mercedes would try to pass their cars to the EPA without it? Let me guess...Mercedes doesn't want to open up their diesels to one of the most lucrative car markets in the world?

I'm pretty sure they did. The US Dept of Energy conducted a test which verfied the efficacy of particle filters in 2001. Two years before the EPA tested and passed the Mercedes.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:04 PM

So if theres a smiley i cant give my opinion or correct you? wtf chill out, stop taking people so serious. Im not mad or yelling, im just having a civil conversation.
No, you're having a one-sided argument - and so far you've provided both sides.
By virtue of not recognising that people ARE agreeing with you as well as pointing out obviosu differences.
You keep quiet on the agreement you put further pointless comparisons to try to dismiss the differences.
You're a plonker ( any Brit will explain that ) :)

I understand what your saying but on most cars not a lot is changed.
Anotrher superfluous comment .
Think about this ... most cars don't have LS-1 engines ... does that mean anything / No, neither does "not a lost is changed" :)

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:09 PM

But it is that simple, its called marketing, and your a prime example of it.
What a load of cobblers.
I'll repeat - and why I need to tell YOU again surprises me.
I'm talking abotu having competed in rallying and racing for the last 30 yeas.
During that time, I've driven, serviced, upgraded most types of engine and know FIRST-HAND the drawbacks/benefits.
I don't trust marketing - never have, never will - and agin that's on record here on UCP.
So YOU may think I'm an example of marketing hype, but the reality is you're the only one exhibiting it :)

Why do you think that Cadillac uses the heavier, physically bigger, and less efficient Northstar V8 in its cars instead of the LS1? Marketing, dumb people think that DOHC is better, or more refined, its all about image.
Doesn't hold in America - or NASCAR would NOT limit engines to pushrod to maintina the image of performance.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it (again) and it's tunring into egg on your face :)
[QUTOE] And then why do you think that for the CTS-V they used the LS6 rather than the Northstar? Again, the OHV engine has more advantages than the DOHC.[/QUOTE]
Don't know, have you the informattion ?
Based on previous comments on European service issues, I have my suspicions that your service 'shops aren't preapred to invest in the training to have reasonably priced skilled technicians.

Ofcourse they know both the advantages and disadvantages, thats why they're using the OHV design still.
Just using GM as an example of using both engine designs. ;)
Yep, and have you accepted that THAT means that each has a benefit and purpose ?
Still avoiding accepting that aren't you !!

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:13 PM

But it is available to the EPA which is doing the tests and has said they're not sure Euro diesels will be compliant by the time the new regs are finished in 2009.
Why woudl you expect a 2004 diesel engine to be compliant to 2009 regs ?
Surely that willbe the job of the 2008 engine :)
Sounds like a piece of marketing smoke and mirrors to keep Americans away from diesels !!!!! Could that be because a president likes oil companies who make more money out of refining the petrol ??

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 02:19 PM

Well lets review
OHV advantages
simplicity
weight
space
cost
disdvantages
less revs than ohc (if thats even a disadvantage)

OHC advantages
more power
disadvantages
weight
space
complexity
price
Only on a V does it significantly save space.
If you want multi-valves and variable valve timing, it's easier with OHC than OHV. If you want those it's THOSE that take the weight NOT the choice to go OHC. It's still a CAM and a lever onto a valve in both cases !!!!
OHC's have less linear inertia and more rotational which reduces stress and wear.
Your decision to view (dis)advantages assumes big capacity V8 so isn't really a comparison woirth merit. We've all agreed that in big capacity Vs that pushrods are cheaper and more cost-effective for the manufacturer.

GM isnt the only company awair of the advantages of OHV. But what would the customers think if a company always using OHC all of a sudden switches to the "low tech" OHV? Again its all about marketing.
Not over here :)
That's why we've got 3 cylinder engines, and diesel and bio-fuel and LPG and bike engines and CVT and .. and. ....
You think all of those are 'marketing ' ? Naive. Nope, they're all abotu the right solutino at the right price point. You dont' see the difference because you don't see the diversity of solutions we have the freedom to choose from.

Guibo

10-15-2004, 02:25 PM

Why woudl you expect a 2004 diesel engine to be compliant to 2009 regs ?
Surely that willbe the job of the 2008 engine :)
Sounds like a piece of marketing smoke and mirrors to keep Americans away from diesels !!!!! Could that be because a president likes oil companies who make more money out of refining the petrol ??
Because there will still be 2004 diesel engines operating in 2009, and they have to meet federal emissions standards at 50K miles / 5 years (which will still be in place in 2008/9) and then again at 120K miles / 10 years. And California regs are even tougher.

Some limits for diesel particulate emissions:
EURO 4 25 milligram per kilometer
EURO 5 8.5 milligram per kilometer (to take effect in 2010)
California LEV II 10 milligram per mile or 6.25 milligram per kilometer (to take effect in 2007)

DodgeNitroBIRM

10-15-2004, 02:34 PM

Yeah, California sucks when it comes to emissions, which is why I like living here in Virginia! No emissions tests!

Yannis

10-15-2004, 03:10 PM

It's quite funny how far this discussion has been carried away from its initial objective.
Never mind guyes,really appreciate it!
Thanks a lot for your comments.Lots of them will be used for my report actually! :)

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 03:28 PM

Yeah, California sucks when it comes to emissions, which is why I like living here in Virginia! No emissions tests!
What are national emission levels and what are differnet states doing ?
We've always known that California was extreme on it's clean-air and having seen some smog in LA I understand the reasoning.
Can't really compare one state with all of Europe :) I'm sure I coudl find some landowner somewhere who will prevent any diesels on his/her land because of pollution. Would seem odd to suggest that represented Europe !!
So what's the overal US limits and distribution of states ????

EDIT: Actually, taking THIS topic to a new thread floow up on THIS at http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8587

Slicks

10-15-2004, 04:26 PM

What a load of cobblers.
I'll repeat - and why I need to tell YOU again surprises me.
I'm talking abotu having competed in rallying and racing for the last 30 yeas.
During that time, I've driven, serviced, upgraded most types of engine and know FIRST-HAND the drawbacks/benefits.
I don't trust marketing - never have, never will - and agin that's on record here on UCP.
So YOU may think I'm an example of marketing hype, but the reality is you're the only one exhibiting it :)
If you were not an example of marketing then you wouldnt be bitching about OHV engines being able to rev, because they dont have to.

Doesn't hold in America - or NASCAR would NOT limit engines to pushrod to maintina the image of performance.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it (again) and it's tunring into egg on your face :)
Nascar isnt limiting engines to pushrods for image, its for fairness. They want every car to beable to compete with eachother.

And then why do you think that for the CTS-V they used the LS6 rather than the Northstar? Again, the OHV engine has more advantages than the DOHC.
Don't know, have you the informattion ?
Based on previous comments on European service issues, I have my suspicions that your service 'shops aren't preapred to invest in the training to have reasonably priced skilled technicians.

Like guibo said the Northstar wouldnt fit.
And whats "I have my suspicions that your service 'shops aren't preapred to invest in the training to have reasonably priced skilled technicians." that supposed to mean?

Yep, and have you accepted that THAT means that each has a benefit and purpose ?
Still avoiding accepting that aren't you !!
I accept DOHC, im just tring to convince you as others that OHV is not inferior to the design.

Slicks

10-15-2004, 04:33 PM

Only on a V does it significantly save space.
If you want multi-valves and variable valve timing, it's easier with OHC than OHV. If you want those it's THOSE that take the weight NOT the choice to go OHC. It's still a CAM and a lever onto a valve in both cases !!!!
OHC's have less linear inertia and more rotational which reduces stress and wear.
Then why do OHC engines without VVT still heavier than OHV?

Your decision to view (dis)advantages assumes big capacity V8 so isn't really a comparison woirth merit. We've all agreed that in big capacity Vs that pushrods are cheaper and more cost-effective for the manufacturer.

It really has to do with all V configuration engines.

Not over here :)
That's why we've got 3 cylinder engines, and diesel and bio-fuel and LPG and bike engines and CVT and .. and. ....
You think all of those are 'marketing ' ? Naive. Nope, they're all abotu the right solutino at the right price point. You dont' see the difference because you don't see the diversity of solutions we have the freedom to choose from.
Do you not think that 3 cylinder engined cars are not available here (of course not new cars)? We have a selection over here to...

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 05:19 PM

If you were not an example of marketing then you wouldnt be bitching about OHV engines being able to rev, because they dont have to.
and I've not said that.
PLEASE, PLEASE read what I actually write.
I "comment" that 'rods limit revs., true. BUT you can't take that out of the context that I also say that rev RANGE is what matters most for torque and power curves. So please get with the real program before commenting on parts of it :)

Nascar isnt limiting engines to pushrods for image, its for fairness. They want every car to beable to compete with eachother.
So WHY does that mean OHV ? Other than to support the OHV industry. Unless there is some obvious reason why OHC woudl produce higher performance it doesn't really matter on price. Especially on PERFORMANCE engines, the costs of balancing and materials for pushrods FAR exceeds that for OHC. The 'rods are the weak link in performance engines - all other parts are equivalent.

Like guibo said the Northstar wouldnt fit.
And whats "I have my suspicions that your service 'shops aren't preapred to invest in the training to have reasonably priced skilled technicians." that supposed to mean?
You guys have issues servicing cars.
Just look at some of the recall issues. One of the Japanese manufacturers is being asked to redesign the oil filter and exhaust because some fires have happened due to lack of proper fitting or cleaning when servicing. We'd rteat that with educations, America is asking for a redesign - why ? Can only be they don't trust the service shops !! Dumbing down the industry.

I accept DOHC, im just tring to convince you as others that OHV is not inferior to the design.
It has inferior aspects and you'll have a better understanding by seeing and accepting that. do a search on UCP for "archibald technique" and you'll understand why.
An OHV with single cam has limitations
- cannot retime overlap without replacing cam
- engineering for 4/5 valve heads is harder, more expensive.
- rockers are variable length for multi-valve heads which leads to variation in operation
- camshaft replacement ( regular in performance ) is harder with an embedded cam as in OHVs
- more linear inertia components, weight bad
- pushrods suffer bow and compression, long thin is bad
- additional wear surfaces with the 'rod, so goes out of adjustment faster

See there are lots of disadvantages :)
Difference is most engineers can see plus AND negative and know that a balance exists and different soltuions are acceptable.
So far you dont' see the risks/dangers/limitations of pushrods becuase I suspect you've not tried to tune and maintain the different types enough to appreciate it. Hoepfully you;ll get a chance to and understand it better.
Clearly trying to explain it won't work.

Matra et Alpine

10-15-2004, 05:22 PM

Then why do OHC engines without VVT still heavier than OHV?
Cos your comparing big V engines, 4 cams instead of one, 4 valves instead of 2 and you're comparing old engine designs with new ( and optimal - the short block is an acknowledged superb piece of engineering )

Do you not think that 3 cylinder engined cars are not available here (of course not new cars)? We have a selection over here to...
What 3 cylinder cars are for sale in the US today ?
Why do you say "not new" when I'm talking NEW !!!!!!

Guibo

10-15-2004, 05:58 PM

You guys have issues servicing cars.
Just look at some of the recall issues. One of the Japanese manufacturers is being asked to redesign the oil filter and exhaust because some fires have happened due to lack of proper fitting or cleaning when servicing. We'd rteat that with educations, America is asking for a redesign - why ? Can only be they don't trust the service shops !! Dumbing down the industry.

While I agree the responsibility ultimately rests with the technician, one has to wonder: In all of the CR-V's R&D and testing, didn't they notice that bits of the filter were left on the engine? I've changed my own filters countless times, having used WIX, Fram, K&N, and OEM filters. Not once have I ever had to remove anything from the engine's gasket mating surface.

jcp123

10-15-2004, 07:52 PM

I just can't understand why everybody hates pushrods so much. They work just fine, I'm not sure why people have such a negative view of them *scratches head*

PerfAdv

10-15-2004, 11:29 PM

I just can't understand why everybody hates pushrods so much. They work just fine, I'm not sure why people have such a negative view of them *scratches head*
It's not a matter of hating OHV technology, it's establishing that OHC is superior. Just answer for yourself some questions: W H Y are manufacturers increasingly moving towards OHC? Is it marketing hype? Or is it because that throngs of automotive engineers working in R&D around the world have determined the superiority of OHC and are developing it instead of OHV? I'll answer one for you, do each have some advantages? Yes.... But try answering the others by yourself.

henk4

10-16-2004, 01:14 AM

I just can't understand why everybody hates pushrods so much. They work just fine, I'm not sure why people have such a negative view of them *scratches head*

It's like with all automotive developments, when radial tyres were introduced, there have been many manufacturers who adamantly maintained the cross plies, (which are cheaper), when the electrics changed from 6 to 12 volt you had similar things, likewise with fuel systems switching from carburettors to injection and probably there are many more examples.

It has never been said that pushrods are hated, it has only been argued that OHC's are better.

Matra et Alpine

10-16-2004, 02:05 AM

While I agree the responsibility ultimately rests with the technician, one has to wonder: In all of the CR-V's R&D and testing, didn't they notice that bits of the filter were left on the engine? I've changed my own filters countless times, having used WIX, Fram, K&N, and OEM filters. Not once have I ever had to remove anything from the engine's gasket mating surface.
Odd, coz I was taught to clean the surface as a principle of good engine construction.
There is always a little bit of old oil from when the seal is smeared to ensure a perfect seal when first fitted.
Any good mechanic knows to clean mating surfaces :) tut-tut :)

it sounded to me as if they just wern't inspecting the mating surface.
If they had they'd see it.
If they didnt' inspect the surface then WHAT if there were some damage on it from manufacturing or the last guy who replaced a filter ?
It just sounded like untrained mechanics doing the work coz it's cheaper :(

Slicks

10-16-2004, 07:05 AM

[quote]
So WHY does that mean OHV ? Other than to support the OHV industry. Unless there is some obvious reason why OHC woudl produce higher performance it doesn't really matter on price. Especially on PERFORMANCE engines, the costs of balancing and materials for pushrods FAR exceeds that for OHC. The 'rods are the weak link in performance engines - all other parts are equivalent.
Have you ever heard of tradition? Nascar has been around forever, when it first began it was the time of the muscle cars, big displacement OHV engines.

It has inferior aspects and you'll have a better understanding by seeing and accepting that. do a search on UCP for "archibald technique" and you'll understand why.
An OHV with single cam has limitations
- cannot retime overlap without replacing cam
- engineering for 4/5 valve heads is harder, more expensive.
- rockers are variable length for multi-valve heads which leads to variation in operation
- camshaft replacement ( regular in performance ) is harder with an embedded cam as in OHVs
- more linear inertia components, weight bad
- pushrods suffer bow and compression, long thin is bad
- additional wear surfaces with the 'rod, so goes out of adjustment faster
See there are lots of disadvantages :)
Difference is most engineers can see plus AND negative and know that a balance exists and different soltuions are acceptable.
So far you dont' see the risks/dangers/limitations of pushrods becuase I suspect you've not tried to tune and maintain the different types enough to appreciate it. Hoepfully you;ll get a chance to and understand it better.
Clearly trying to explain it won't work.
I know most of these " risks/dangers/limitations" but have never had any problems with any pushrod engines ive ever owned. Dont you think that if these were really bad problems that they would show up? Again ill bring up the example of my friends '91 blazer, it has 4xx,xxx miles on it. Only the transmission has been replaced once and there have been no major engine repairs done. And its not like he babies this truck, its his work truck, hes constatly towing. And hes going off road any chance he gets too.

Matra et Alpine

10-16-2004, 08:06 AM

Have you ever heard of tradition? Nascar has been around forever, when it first began it was the time of the muscle cars, big displacement OHV engines.
hey, so is solid wheels and dog boxes and a million eother things.
Come on, EVERYONE knows it's about trying to convince the audience that American pushrod V8s are great :)
Accept it and move on !!

I know most of these " risks/dangers/limitations" but have never had any problems with any pushrod engines ive ever owned.
and that is based on how many years experience and ownership and competition of how many cars ?
Statistically insignificant is what THAT is called :)

Dont you think that if these were really bad problems that they would show up? Again ill bring up the example of my friends '91 blazer, it has 4xx,xxx miles on it. Only the transmission has been replaced once and there have been no major engine repairs done. And its not like he babies this truck, its his work truck, hes constatly towing. And hes going off road any chance he gets too.
Brrrpppppppp, you lose !!
So, go back and read how many timnes I've ASKED you to read what was written ? I'm fankly fed up repeating it and you're proving your limited capability to have ANY discourse on a topic except with those who agree fully with your viewpoint.
Did I EVER say they were "bad problems" ?
A '91 Blazer isn't pushign the performance curve - it's using capacity to get torque/power. So it is running in the classic "lazy V8" mode. of course it will be good for 100s of Ks. Nobody debated this - so why is it so important to point it out ? I've rallied a full season in an Escort Twin Cam and it didnt' need an engine rebuild. 10s of hours on full revs, thrashing it's brains out. I'd never claim all woudl do that based ona a smple of one. Never have siad it would, never will said it woudl. So your bias is showing again :)

Guibo

10-16-2004, 04:33 PM

Odd, coz I was taught to clean the surface as a principle of good engine construction.
There is always a little bit of old oil from when the seal is smeared to ensure a perfect seal when first fitted.
Any good mechanic knows to clean mating surfaces :) tut-tut :)

it sounded to me as if they just wern't inspecting the mating surface.
If they had they'd see it.
If they didnt' inspect the surface then WHAT if there were some damage on it from manufacturing or the last guy who replaced a filter ?
It just sounded like untrained mechanics doing the work coz it's cheaper :(
Yes, I have a clean rag on hand to remove any old oil. The point is that I've never had to remove any stuck gasket, either in part or in whole.

Also, there aren't too many cars off the top of my head that I can think of in which the oil filter is in such close proximity to the exhaust that an oil leak (even one under pressure) would cause a fire that burns the car to the ground. Sounds like a very questionable engineering practice to me. It's also amazing that Honda, with its millions (or billions?) of dollars didn't do a simple oil change during development of the CR-V which might have revealed any problem with the gasket sticking to the engine. Also peculiar is that this happens in only '03 and '04 CR-V's, not any prior CR-V's. And it doesn't happen to any other Honda models; if it's solely the fault of the technicians, I'd expect other Honda models to burn to the ground as well. But then, Honda has been known to be hush-hush about certain Technical Service Bulletins...

Matra et Alpine

10-16-2004, 05:00 PM

Yes, I have a clean rag on hand to remove any old oil. The point is that I've never had to remove any stuck gasket, either in part or in whole.
Old oil from when a filter is fitted will turn to 'gum' and stick to the metal surface.
It's a fact, it happens, it's no longer 'oil' it does form a hard material. Not a problem when you change filters every 3000 miles, becomes more noticable when it's 10-15,000 interval.

Also, there aren't too many cars off the top of my head that I can think of in which the oil filter is in such close proximity to the exhaust that an oil leak (even one under pressure) would cause a fire that burns the car to the ground.
Because you're used to big V8's with plenty of space under the bonnet in a couple of tons of steel perhaps ?
You can't get away from the fact that with high oil pressures that a poor seal will produce an oil MIST. MIST makes the oil highly combustible.
Also, it was reported that oil could sit in the exhaust from when the filter is removed.
Again just bad practice. The oil should be drained BEFORE the filter is removed. So very little oil will come out as the filter is removed. AND any decent mechanic will ensure all oil is cleaned up before completing a job.

Sounds like a very questionable engineering practice to me. It's also amazing that Honda, with its millions (or billions?) of dollars didn't do a simple oil change during development of the CR-V which might have revealed any problem with the gasket sticking to the engine. Also peculiar is that this happens in only '03 and '04 CR-V's, not any prior CR-V's. And it doesn't happen to any other Honda models; if it's solely the fault of the technicians,
Invalid logic !
IF the technician is properly trained to EVALUTE the situation on rebuid then there is NO need to worry about consequences of a leak as deeply as you imply.
So YES it lies with the training and expectations.
BUT a litiginous society creates an environmetn where the blame passes to those with the deepest pockets. We're now getting all our equipment covered in stickers and warnings on how and how not to use them. 99% of it is common sense and frankly if (for example) you DO lean an aluminium ladder against power lines then Darwin Awards rightly await !!!

But then, Honda has been known to be hush-hush about certain Technical Service Bulletins...
Not over here !!
Do I detect a differnet approach by Honda dealers and distributors in the US ?
What TSBs have been covered up ? I'm intrigued !!!!

charged

10-16-2004, 05:22 PM

Have you ever heard of tradition? Nascar has been around forever, when it first began it was the time of the muscle cars, big displacement OHV engines.

I know most of these " risks/dangers/limitations" but have never had any problems with any pushrod engines ive ever owned. Dont you think that if these were really bad problems that they would show up? Again ill bring up the example of my friends '91 blazer, it has 4xx,xxx miles on it. Only the transmission has been replaced once and there have been no major engine repairs done. And its not like he babies this truck, its his work truck, hes constatly towing. And hes going off road any chance he gets too.

We have hiluxes cruisers in australia with 700,000 on them with no major engine overhauls,My mate has a 80 series cruiser with 500,000 on it bought it at 270,000 from a auction,been on the canning stock route,all hard core 4WD never had a problem.Sorry had abrocken wheel stud.This engine is ohc diesel beat that slicks if you can. :D

fpv_gtho

10-16-2004, 08:06 PM

theres also the tonnes of ex taxi Falcon's around the country with 500,000k's on the odometer with the SOHC engines that are still driving smoothly (enough)

henk4

10-16-2004, 11:03 PM

theres also the tonnes of ex taxi Falcon's around the country with 500,000k's on the odometer with the SOHC engines that are still driving smoothly (enough)

Just think about all the e-claas taxi's world wide that normally will do 500000 k before anything needs to be looked.

Slicks

10-17-2004, 07:25 PM

hey, so is solid wheels and dog boxes and a million eother things.
Come on, EVERYONE knows it's about trying to convince the audience that American pushrod V8s are great :)
Accept it and move on !!
Sorry not really, out of the 3 in Nascar, only 2 (chevy and dodge) are using pushrods as perfomance engines, and thats only in like 2 cars(vette and viper, also hemi models but that doesnt really count). And why would nascar "try and convince everyone that pushrods are great" what are they getting out of it?
I know a few Nascar fans, and maybe this is just a bad example but they dont even know the difference between an OHV and OHC engine, so whats Nascar convincing them?

and that is based on how many years experience and ownership and competition of how many cars ?
Statistically insignificant is what THAT is called :)

Only 2, but hell im just a kid. If these "problems" were as bad as you make them out to be then i should have had some problems.

Did I EVER say they were "bad problems" ?
A '91 Blazer isn't pushign the performance curve - it's using capacity to get torque/power. So it is running in the classic "lazy V8" mode. of course it will be good for 100s of Ks. Nobody debated this - so why is it so important to point it out ? I've rallied a full season in an Escort Twin Cam and it didnt' need an engine rebuild. 10s of hours on full revs, thrashing it's brains out. I'd never claim all woudl do that based ona a smple of one. Never have siad it would, never will said it woudl. So your bias is showing again :)
Truthfully you made them sound like bad problems. And BTW the Blazer isnt using capacity to get power, its a 3.6L V6, not a "lazy V8."

jcp123

10-17-2004, 10:29 PM

It's not that i think OHC is bad, I just don't understand the overwhelmingly negative vibes I get from most people on pushrods. It's like it's a dirty word or something. Sorta like being a Republican in college. I don't dislike OHC and DOHC, but OHV's characteristics suit my style of driving better, hence why I prefer that.

Guibo

10-18-2004, 12:18 PM

Old oil from when a filter is fitted will turn to 'gum' and stick to the metal surface.
It's a fact, it happens, it's no longer 'oil' it does form a hard material. Not a problem when you change filters every 3000 miles, becomes more noticable when it's 10-15,000 interval.

My intervals are closer to 3-4K miles. And believe me, the residue that's left isn't anything resembling 'gum'.

Because you're used to big V8's with plenty of space under the bonnet in a couple of tons of steel perhaps ?

Again, an erroneous assumption. I'm not talking about big V8's.
Could you list me some cars, then, with oil filters close to the exhaust manifold?

Also, it was reported that oil could sit in the exhaust from when the filter is removed.

I hope you meant 'on' the exhaust, rather than 'in' the exhaust.
From personal experience, I've seen that oil on an exhaust manifold invariably leads to smoking, not burning of the car to the ground.

In any case, let the record be clear: you don't think it's bad engineering practice to have
1) an oil filter in which the gasket separates from the filter but not the engine block (Honda has miraculously found a way to do this; shame on BMW, Nissan, Fram, K&N, and Wix for not being so clever!)
2) an engine with a filter so close to a hot exhaust manifold.

If these technicians were so poorly trained and undeducated, why aren't there other problems? (Timing belts and improperly torqued wheels coming off, replacement engines and transmission failures, etc.) Honda sent out notices to their technicians months ago, yet the problems continue (only with '03 and '04 CR-V's not with any other Hondas and not with any other CR-V's), with NHTSA re-opening the investigation. Surely, it goes beyond simple technician incompetence?

Not over here !!
Do I detect a differnet approach by Honda dealers and distributors in the US ?
What TSBs have been covered up ? I'm intrigued !!!!
A couple of years ago, American Honda ordered Alldata to remove all consumer-accessible technical service bulletin information from its website. Only dealers were to have access to the information. Any consumers wanting TSB information had to access it via NHTSA's site (which is incomplete), or contact Honda directly.

Matra et Alpine

10-18-2004, 01:45 PM

My intervals are closer to 3-4K miles. And believe me, the residue that's left isn't anything resembling 'gum'.
So you've no experience of a filter where oil changes are 10-12000 miles then.
Well it's older ( and overheated ) oil that gums as the hydrocarbons degrade.
Could it be the case that most mechanics have similar limited exposure to longer service times ?

Again, an erroneous assumption. I'm not talking about big V8's.
Could you list me some cars, then, with oil filters close to the exhaust manifold?
Traditionally large V8s were sitting in large engine bays.
I also mentioned the size of the body = engine bay !
So learning experience ofr meachnics in the trade longer than 10-15 years is LOTS of space.
LOTS of Euroepan cars have VERY compact engine bays.
Sadly this often requires quite extensive strip down to do simple jobs, but it also means filters close to exhausts. My Renault Espace for one :) Do you want a pic ??

I hope you meant 'on' the exhaust, rather than 'in' the exhaust.
From personal experience, I've seen that oil on an exhaust manifold invariably leads to smoking, not burning of the car to the ground.
Yeah, typo. small amounts of oil smoke off. Larger amounts of oil will heat up enough BEFORE they can burn off. The hotter oil generates more hydrocarbon fumes which are THEN flammable.
I can assure you rally mechanics are WELL trained to ensure it doesn't happen ( as it's common to spill oils when servicing in 10 minutes )

In any case, let the record be clear: you don't think it's bad engineering practice to have
1) an oil filter in which the gasket separates from the filter but not the engine block (Honda has miraculously found a way to do this; shame on BMW, Nissan, Fram, K&N, and Wix for not being so clever!)
You only cite one possibility. I've already explained to you that filters on other cars leave residue when they're on their official long service schedules.
We've not even touched on the quality of the oils and how THAT affects gum and longevity. If an oil recommends changing every 5000 miles it's crap oil. Good oil is good for 10-20000 miles normal usage. Crap oil gives problems good oils don't. So one possibility is Honda may not have been rigourours enough to enforce correct oil replacement !! ust one other possibility. It amazes me the number of folks I know who baulk at paying $40 for decent oil twice a year to ensure the car runs best !!
So I'd not kjump to the conclusion of bad engineering practice when I can think of many other reasons. Of course this doens't preclude bad engineering practise either. until I saw it or read an independant report I couldn't say.
Keeping my mind open is important :)

2) an engine with a filter so close to a hot exhaust manifold.
That isn't a problem is serviced properly.

If these technicians were so poorly trained and undeducated, why aren't there other problems? (Timing belts and improperly torqued wheels coming off, replacement engines and transmission failures, etc.)
Because they're in the "what we're used to" set of skills they've learned.
Or that thre is always a senior mechanic who overseas those kind of jobs.
( Usually oil/plug changes get left to the appretice !! )

Honda sent out notices to their technicians months ago, yet the problems continue (only with '03 and '04 CR-V's not with any other Hondas and not with any other CR-V's), with NHTSA re-opening the investigation. Surely, it goes beyond simple technician incompetence?
Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean it's contributory.
ALSO, American society is the most litiginous on the planet, so many actiosn are about doing the things to prevent the law suits rather than doing the right thing !! Redesigning for stupidity is a TAX on everyone else who doesn't need to be molly-coddled.

A couple of years ago, American Honda ordered Alldata to remove all consumer-accessible technical service bulletin information from its website. Only dealers were to have access to the information. Any consumers wanting TSB information had to access it via NHTSA's site (which is incomplete), or contact Honda directly.
Coudl that have been because of abuse of recalls ?
I've seen similar in the UK, where a warning goes out to inspect/check at next service. Owners find out about it and demand their car is immediately looked at. UNECESSARY as if it was urgent it woudl have been an immediate recall and custoemr contact. Is it possible Honda had to protect workshops from selfish owners ?
I don't know.
But you do seem to indicate that TSBs ARE available - just not public. Not wuite the picture you'd painted the first time :)

Guibo

10-18-2004, 05:15 PM

Could it be the case that most mechanics have similar limited exposure to longer service times ?
Not likely. I believe the recommended oil service interval for the CR-V is 7,500 miles so roughly double my own. This is also about what numerous other manufacturers recommend nowadays. I'll bet other Hondas have the same; yet other Hondas aren't burning.

You only cite one possibility. I've already explained to you that filters on other cars leave residue when they're on their official long service schedules.
We've not even touched on the quality of the oils and how THAT affects gum and longevity. If an oil recommends changing every 5000 miles it's crap oil. Good oil is good for 10-20000 miles normal usage. Crap oil gives problems good oils don't.
Yet how do you explain that this only happens to CR-V's right after their first oil change? Ie, the last time anyone ever touched the filter was back during assembly at the plant? The problem doesn't exist in other Hondas, nor does it apply to CR-V's after the first oil change.

Coudl that have been because of abuse of recalls ?
What, no other company may experience abuse of recalls? This is about TSB's, which may or may not involve recalls. If a consumer wants to know what might be wrong on his car as a result of manufacturing defects, does he not have the right to know?

But you do seem to indicate that TSBs ARE available - just not public. Not wuite the picture you'd painted the first time :)
What are you talking about? I said "Honda has been known to be hush-hush about certain Technical Service Bulletins..." If they're available ONLY to Honda technicians (who must buy the service through Alldata; customers didn't even have that option), how does that really make it available? Ford, GM, Mercedes, Porsche, Nissan, Toyota, etc didn't seem to give a damn about regular consumers accessing the TSB's. Why should Honda?
For example, if my Accord or whatever has a TSB on a retaining clip that might cause the sun visor to pop off at any moment, am I not entitled to having that part checked out and replaced with a re-engineered part if available? Or should I wait until it pops off at random? In the middle of downtown rush hour traffic perhaps?
If it's a TSB about, say, dead pixels in my Sat-Nav or the chance that a plastic hand brake might crack in extremely hot weather, and my Sat-Nav is working perfectly or my hand brake shows no sign of needing repair, well obviously I'm not going to book an appointment for service. Not only is that not worth the mechanic's time, it wouldn't be worth my own.

Matra et Alpine

10-18-2004, 05:29 PM

Guibo you're chosing not to or having difficulty iunderstanding it.

Worse still you're selectively editing quotes for you to reply to - NAUGHTY :)

I pointed out it coudl still be engineering - you ignored that.

Anyway, you said it was after the first oil change. So unlikely to be a FACTORY problem and MORE LIKEKLY to be the process followed at the first service then. So WHO DOES that service ? The mechanic. FIRST concern must be what they are doing :)

Do all the othher manufacturers have complete entries on the sources that you say Honda are keeping stuff from ? I repeat I SUSPECT that they are holding it back. NO comapny can provide service if every owner brought a car in to have a clip replaced because they read a bulletin that said it MIGHT be needed. THAT s why I made the comment about a recal which said to check at service time. Peugeot in the UK *HAD* to limit recalls on electornic problems because they couldnt' get the upgrade software downloaded to the service centeres quickly enough. So it was staggered whenever possible. If you think a company can do ALL at one time then you need to remember they are running a BUSINESS :) It's the selfish owners who can cause major problems with replacement parts !!! Your clip is a perfect example, that could EASILY wait till next service. And as it might not even have broken it can certainly wait. I think I've got a worse picture from your earlier description thatn it now appears. So Honda delaers had all the facts, yes ? Any owner coudl CHOSE to go to Honda delaership and view those, yes ? So what's the problem ?? Might it be that they weren't responding to journos who were pushing for an ASNWER whilst Honda were still researchign the issue. For example, no point scaring everyone if it turned out to be a service problem limited to a handful of sites/mechanics/training centres. just being devils advocate - especially as I get this kind of sh!t from our custoemrs and it does get tiring pointing out that trust is as important as 'rights' :)

Guibo

10-19-2004, 10:18 AM

Worse still you're selectively editing quotes for you to reply to - NAUGHTY :)
I've been editing your quotes? How so? If I'm not replying to every single one of your points, it's likely a matter of expediency.

I pointed out it coudl still be engineering - you ignored that.
Right, but only after I posted all of that other information. Well done!

Anyway, you said it was after the first oil change. So unlikely to be a FACTORY problem and MORE LIKEKLY to be the process followed at the first service then. So WHO DOES that service ? The mechanic. FIRST concern must be what they are doing :)
The mechanic also does the 2nd and 3rd and 15th oil change. Yet there are no problems with these oil changes. The fires occur only right after the first one. Speaking of the first one, don't you think that Honda's quality checks should have found problems of filters coming apart during the CR-V's development, long before it made it to production? Or do you think Honda should ignore QA testing altogether?

So, Matra et Alpine is for an uninformed public? You don't think the consumer has the right to know about any potentially dangerous defects resulting from poor manufacturing or design?
If it's Honda's intention that they keep owners from asking for frivolous services, wouldn't it make sense to instruct the dealers to withhold the TSB information as well?? Hmmm! Your reasoning might make sense if other manufacturers did likewise and instructed Alldata to withhold information.

more-boost1555

10-19-2004, 11:33 AM

Have you ever heard of tradition? Nascar has been around forever, when it first began it was the time of the muscle cars, big displacement OHV engines.

I know most of these " risks/dangers/limitations" but have never had any problems with any pushrod engines ive ever owned. Dont you think that if these were really bad problems that they would show up? Again ill bring up the example of my friends '91 blazer, it has 4xx,xxx miles on it. Only the transmission has been replaced once and there have been no major engine repairs done. And its not like he babies this truck, its his work truck, hes constatly towing. And hes going off road any chance he gets too.

This is kind of off topic but I just wanted to say something. NASCAR has been moving farther and farther away from tradition since they started. It used to be called "stock" car racing for a reason. Teams used to have to use cars that were no where near as modified as they are now. None of the cars that the big three run are even RWD anymore, not to mention the engines they run can be found in none of those vehicles and are only available as crate motors. The cars look almost nothing like the sedans they are supposed to be anymore and are basicly just frames covered in sheetmetal. I would actually like to see a return to tradition, and have them run engines that could actually be fitted and made to run in these family cars. That would be awesome.

Matra et Alpine

10-19-2004, 01:55 PM

Guibo you're shoing the last throws of all pedants on the internet.......

Not bothering to read and then arguing what is imagined.

Well just let it go here as you don't even see where you edited text to keep the debate black and white.

You also don't understand how the subsequent oil changes are altered by the serious reports on the earlier ones. So mechanics get their asses kicked to do the job right. See the world isn't a static system.

Finally you put the words into my mouth on "uninformed" you need to go back and read what i *DID* say and think abotu apologising or reflecting that and not your bias.

All I'll leave it as is I'll come back on here and stand up when the final report on the problem is announced and accept the points. Will you be able to do the same ??

Deutscher Adler

10-19-2004, 02:29 PM

To give you an idea, in Germany there is a saying about for it is:

Ford kaufen, Ford fahren, Fort schmeissen.

Which means buy a ford drive a ford and throw it away.

Guibo

10-19-2004, 03:46 PM

You also don't understand how the subsequent oil changes are altered by the serious reports on the earlier ones.

Yet even after the initial investigation, and Honda telling their techs to be "more careful", the fires continued. And only on cars right after their first oil change. Why else do you think NHTSA would re-open the investigation, if it was just a simple matter of technician error? If you were paying attention, you would've noticed that I said technician error is the major cause of these fires. But is it the only one? Previously, you seemed to think so.
Think about it:
1) The fires only happen on '03 and '04 CR-V's.
2) They don't happen on any other Hondas.
3) They only happen on those CR-V's after the first oil change.
If the technicians were so bad, wouldn't we expect similar fires on other Hondas and on CR-V's of other model years? Or are they being careful, only making sure to botch '03 and '04 CR-V's on their first oil change? LOL.

Finally you put the words into my mouth on "uninformed" you need to go back and read what i *DID* say and think abotu apologising or reflecting that and not your bias.

I asked you a simple question (Does the consumer NOT have the right to know about possible manufacturer defects in the vehicles they purchase?) A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Instead, you went on yet another diatribe dancing around the subject. Just like you've failed to answer yet another simple question: Is it good engineering practice to have the gasket come off the filter and remain on the engine block, on an engine in which access to the filter is already so tight? If you have any sound reasons why this should be so, I'd like to hear them.

Sorry, you're not making a convincing enough argument that US service techs are too dimwitted to handle DOHC issues; they handle such issues everyday (there aren't just pushrod engines over here, you know). And if it's like you say (lower-rung employees are in charge of simple things like oil changes), then that has no bearing whatsoever on the ability of the tech force overall to work effectively on DOHC engines. Curiously, these lower-level shop techs would be in charge of things so simple as re-torquing lug nuts, yet we don't see an epidemic of Honda CR-V's losing their wheels out on the highway...

All I'll leave it as is I'll come back on here and stand up when the final report on the problem is announced and accept the points. Will you be able to do the same ??
Sure.