big engine and nothing else

[Tahoeman]

Originally posted by PyroManiac
Wrong. Dodge did NOT tweak a truck engine. Chrysler owned Lamborghini at the time, so they sent their V10 (which at the time wasn't in production) to the Italian company to work their high performance magic on the engine. The only thing that is common between the truck's V10 and the Viper's V10 is the block.

thats what i mean though, it started off as a truck engine, they didnt build an engine specificaly for the viper, just took a design they already had and went from there.

[PyroManiac]

Originally posted by Tahoeman
thats what i mean though, it started off as a truck engine, they didnt build an engine specificaly for the viper, just took a design they already had and went from there.

Ah, my mistake, It sounded to me as you made it out like they just put the truck V10 in the Viper, with just a few tweaks, and sold it.

[Tahoeman]

Originally posted by PyroManiac
Ah, my mistake, It sounded to me as you made it out like they just put the truck V10 in the Viper, with just a few tweaks, and sold it.

yeah my bad, i shouldnt have written it that way

[Tahoeman]

uh oh... guyt_x, whered you go??? whats the matter?? decided you couldnt argue once facts started comming out??? thats what i figured.

[BPx]

Originally posted by Tahoeman
uh oh... guyt_x, whered you go??? whats the matter?? decided you couldnt argue once facts started comming out??? thats what i figured.

Hah, the tragedy of it all.

[ozexige]

Originally posted by BPx
Hah, the tragedy of it all.

Ah yes.......
poor little 'gut' .......
what a sad story of philistinism if ever there was one.
Some other descriptions include;

"Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't watching."

"A photographic memory, but with the lens cover glued on."

"A prime candidate for natural deselection."

"A room temperature IQ."

"An individual of two minds: one is lost and the other is out looking for it."

"Bright as Alaska in December."

"Donated his brain to science before he was done using it."

"Fell out of the family tree."

"Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming."

"Got a full 6-pack, but lacks the plastic thingy to hold it all together."

"He brings a lot of joy whenever he leaves the room."

"He certainly takes a long time to make his pointless."

"He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier."

"He has a knack for making strangers immediately."

"He would argue with a signpost."

"He's been working with glue too much."

"He's so dense, light bends around him."

"I would like to go hunting with him sometime."

"If brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate."

"If he were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week."

"If you give him a penny for his thoughts, you'd get change."

"If you see two people talking and one looks bored, he's the other one"

"If you stand close enough to him, you can hear the ocean."

"Not the sharpest knife in the drawer."

"One neuron short of a synapse."

"One-celled organisms outscore him in IQ tests."

"Some drink from the fountain of knowledge; he only gargled."

"The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead."

"When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell."

"Takes him 2 hours to watch '60 Minutes.'"

In simpler terms (just for 'gut') yoa'll dumb as frog on a slow boil.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

dunno where you got those from but it sums up Guyt_x in one sentence. GOOD WORK!!!

[henk4]

Originally posted by MKielbasa
Mere simplicity. A pushrod design is much simpler than any form of OHC. On an DOHC V engine you need four cams, the work involved for timing alone is restrictive.

There is nothing wrong with OHC, but in some instances it just makes more sence to go OHV.

Thanks for that explanation, but I was more interested in the historic development op the OHC engine. Can you sum up how we came from the side valve to the OHV? Was the OHC the first solution to get rid of the side valve?

Another point I like to make reading the posting is that the superiority of OHC engines by some of you is just being played down because these a not normally fitted in US made cars.

I once more looked at the specs of the celebrated LS6 and then went to look for a european made V8, in this case the Audi 4,2 litre fitted in the A8. I could also have taken a BMW or Mercedes engine. The Audi engine is fitted with 4 OHC's, but is designed for normal day to day use and has no turbo, while as far as i know the LS6 is best highest output version that is available in the Corvette.

If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure.

[MKielbasa]

Originally posted by henk4
Thanks for that explanation, but I was more interested in the historic development op the OHC engine. Can you sum up how we came from the side valve to the OHV? Was the OHC the first solution to get rid of the side valve?

Another point I like to make reading the posting is that the superiority of OHC engines by some of you is just being played down because these a not normally fitted in US made cars.

I once more looked at the specs of the celebrated LS6 and then went to look for a european made V8, in this case the Audi 4,2 litre fitted in the A8. I could also have taken a BMW or Mercedes engine. The Audi engine is fitted with 4 OHC's, but is designed for normal day to day use and has no turbo, while as far as i know the LS6 is best highest output version that is available in the Corvette.

If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure.

While I'm not sure about the historical development you are asking for, I do know one thing. OHC design is actually older than a cam in block design.

I will say this though, I think it is more about demographic than anything else. Pushrod engines tend to create more low end power than a DOHC engine of the same displacement.
Since American's are big into drag racing, have many long flat roads, and also have a huge truck/SUV market, it makes sence to build engines which push hard from the low end, but run out of breath (so to speak) in the higher end of the RPM range.

[henk4]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MKielbasa
While I'm not sure about the historical development you are asking for, I do know one thing. OHC design is actually older than a cam in block design.

I will say this though, I think it is more about demographic than anything else. Pushrod engines tend to create more low end power than a DOHC engine of the same displacement.
Since American's are big into drag racing, have many long flat roads, and also have a huge truck/SUV market, it makes sence to build engines which push hard from the low end, but run out of breath (so to speak) in the higher end of the RPM range. [/QUOTE

I think you have a point here, but what your describing are the charateristics of diesel engines (not for drag racing though), and this is an area that has been almost fully neglected in the USA. These things pull like hull from idle but will stop at 4000 or so revs. May the the latest Audi A8Tdi, (see this site) gives some clues. All modern diesel engines however are also fitted with OHC, some even DOHC with four valves. (my own 2 litre (SOHC) car does 290 NM at 1750 rpm and weighs about 1350 kg and is just in the middle class in the 2 litre range). So even in the type of engines that actually would fully suit the US market, engine technology has developed into the OHC area.

[fastbird94]

Originally posted by Tahoeman
uh oh... guyt_x, whered you go??? whats the matter?? decided you couldnt argue once facts started comming out??? thats what i figured.

Thats what i had in mind too.

[PyroManiac]

Originally posted by henk4

If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure.

I fail to see your point. Also, I find it saddening that people still used the hp/l argument. For the sake of argument, why don't we increase the Audi's cylinders to 16 so we can compare it to the VW W16. No? It doesn't prove anything? Yeah, same for your attempt to prove a point.

[henk4]

Originally posted by PyroManiac
[B]I fail to see your point./B]

then read again carefully and may be you will see it. I could not find a European V8 of the same size as the LS6, (the Mercedes AMG version uses a supercharger, to obtain a much higher output than the LS6), so I had to use the relatively small Audi engine. When I compared the figures I was not so much surprised about the BHP/litre but more about the difference in revs at which maximum torque is obtained, I would have assumed that the Audi would need much higher revs, but obviously the LS6 is already quite peaky. May be we should compare the torque curves, but I don't have that for the Audi.

[Guibo]

The Audi has variable valve timing and intake, doesn't it? That might explain it. Supposedly, the new C6 Corvette will incorporate a variable valve timing mechanism, derived from the Cadillac Sixteen show car.

[henk4]

Originally posted by Guibo
The Audi has variable valve timing and intake, doesn't it? That might explain it. Supposedly, the new C6 Corvette will incorporate a variable valve timing mechanism, derived from the Cadillac Sixteen show car.

Yeah, could be but I honestly do not know. this thread just triggered my interest because people are so adamantly defending the OHV V8. Comparing with the 2l itre turbo engines such as the WRC or the EVO is probably a futile exercise so I thought I had a look what other V8 engines are available outside the USA. Fact is of course that the use of V8's in Europe and Japan is limited to luxury class vehicles, while in the USA it appears to be a bread and butter sort of propulsion (what is the market share of the V8 over there?). By the way, is the NorthStar 32valve engine still available?