I'd really like to see a turbo-DI pushrod engine.... even do the 4.3 V6 Ecotec3. Probably looking at 430 lb-ft to 470lb-ft of torque.

Then throw it in an Alpha-bodied Buick coupe and call it a GNX.

Somewhere right now Bob Lutz is getting a burning sensation in his ears.

 

"First of all, nobody is arguing that OHV packages more cubes than DOHC in the same space. I am just continueally remarking that both can be upsized. Please don'r revisit this argument. "

 

 

Not if there is no more room to upsize.  In sedans, 3.6/3.7/3.8 seems to be the upper limit for DOHC engines.

 

We're not talking about race cars here.  We're talking about the every day cars that people drive.... the Ford Fusions, the Jeep Cherokees, the Honda Civics.  All of the cars that rarely crest 4,500 rpm on any given day.  Cars that are being sold with 250hp in big numbers and @ 6500rpm in tiny print at the bottom.   It's the Honda Civics that you have to wind up to get them to go. 

 

Everyone (except race car drivers, which we aren't talking about anyway) would do better with engines that made their torque at low RPM.  If that wasn't the case, Ecoboost wouldn't have a reason to exist.

 

Good points.

Let me just add this.

Boosting does of course give you power down low, because that is where the turbo sizing/cam selection is optimized.  Of course. But in regards to NA engines, rarely does a V6 gain in package volume enough to make a difference, going from let’s say a 3.0L to a 3.5L or even a 3.5L to a 4.0L in a SRX or what not.  A few mm in bore and stroke, has a small impact. That story changes a bit with a V8, yes, because those few mm get multiplied more due to extra pistons.  But a 6.0L Coyote can be made to fit in a Mustang, of course.  It’s just sheet metal at that point.  But again, everything has to be considered, including fuel economy, etc.  And as far as power delivery subjectivity goes, I made that remark based on years of debate about what matters most to people. Hence the subjectivity.  Yes I know torque down low is awesome, and so too is a long cam pull on the top end, which I also love – which goes back to my original topic of contention….having both is best.

Edited August 10, 201510 yr by Wings4Life

On the contrary.

Because most V6 engines are 60 degrees, the heads tend to ride high anyways. Adding DOHC heads just exaberates the issue, to say nothing of upping the centre of gravity.

...you really don't think that ignoring my comments makes them go away, do you?

 

 

"First of all, nobody is arguing that OHV packages more cubes than DOHC in the same space. I am just continueally remarking that both can be upsized. Please don'r revisit this argument. "

 

 

Not if there is no more room to upsize.  In sedans, 3.6/3.7/3.8 seems to be the upper limit for DOHC engines.

 

We're not talking about race cars here.  We're talking about the every day cars that people drive.... the Ford Fusions, the Jeep Cherokees, the Honda Civics.  All of the cars that rarely crest 4,500 rpm on any given day.  Cars that are being sold with 250hp in big numbers and @ 6500rpm in tiny print at the bottom.   It's the Honda Civics that you have to wind up to get them to go. 

 

Everyone (except race car drivers, which we aren't talking about anyway) would do better with engines that made their torque at low RPM.  If that wasn't the case, Ecoboost wouldn't have a reason to exist.

 

Good points.

Let me just add this.

Boosting does of course give you power down low, because that is where the turbo sizing/cam selection is optimized.  Of course. But in regards to NA engines, rarely does a V6 gain in package volume enough to make a difference, going from let’s say a 3.0L to a 3.5L or even a 3.5L to a 4.0L in a SRX or what not.  A few mm in bore and stroke, has a small impact. That story changes a bit with a V8, yes, because those few mm get multiplied more due to extra pistons.  But a 6.0L Coyote can be made to fit in a Mustang, of course.  It’s just sheet metal at that point.  But again, everything has to be considered, including fuel economy, etc.  And as far as power delivery subjectivity goes, I made that remark based on years of debate about what matters most to people. Hence the subjectivity.  Yes I know torque down low is awesome, and so too is a long cam pull on the top end, which I also love – which goes back to my original topic of contention….having both is best.

 

 

We're not talking about 0.5 liters of displacement difference.  We're talking a full liter or more.  A general rule is that in the space you use with a DOHC engine, a pushrod can have 50% more displacement.  So where the max size for a DOHC engine is 3.0 liters, you can fit up to 4.5 liters of pushrod.  Where you can fit a 3.6 liter DOHC (which is just about the max in packaging for a FWD sedan) you can fit at least 5.4 liters of pushrod engine.  

 

Back in 2005, the 3900 was equivalent in max power to the 3.0 DOHC engines of the day... and had much broader torque delivery to boot. 

 

"Years of debate" on the subject and those on the DOHC V6 side of the debate have been consistently wrong.  

 

The charge has been led by the automotive enthusiast press who liked to wring the snot of their VTEC Civics.  They would then write about how DOHC was just the bees-knees.  They created this idea that DOHC was inherently superior in every application.  They convinced the general public of it enough to demand it in their cars even though the general public couldn't tell the difference between a cam-shaft and a seat cushion. 

 

Unless you are specifically buying a sports car with sporting intentions, you are nearly universally better served by a larger displacement pushrod V6 than a smaller displacement DOHC V6.

 

 

 

"First of all, nobody is arguing that OHV packages more cubes than DOHC in the same space. I am just continueally remarking that both can be upsized. Please don'r revisit this argument. "

 

 

Not if there is no more room to upsize.  In sedans, 3.6/3.7/3.8 seems to be the upper limit for DOHC engines.

 

We're not talking about race cars here.  We're talking about the every day cars that people drive.... the Ford Fusions, the Jeep Cherokees, the Honda Civics.  All of the cars that rarely crest 4,500 rpm on any given day.  Cars that are being sold with 250hp in big numbers and @ 6500rpm in tiny print at the bottom.   It's the Honda Civics that you have to wind up to get them to go. 

 

Everyone (except race car drivers, which we aren't talking about anyway) would do better with engines that made their torque at low RPM.  If that wasn't the case, Ecoboost wouldn't have a reason to exist.

 

Good points.

Let me just add this.

Boosting does of course give you power down low, because that is where the turbo sizing/cam selection is optimized.  Of course. But in regards to NA engines, rarely does a V6 gain in package volume enough to make a difference, going from let’s say a 3.0L to a 3.5L or even a 3.5L to a 4.0L in a SRX or what not.  A few mm in bore and stroke, has a small impact. That story changes a bit with a V8, yes, because those few mm get multiplied more due to extra pistons.  But a 6.0L Coyote can be made to fit in a Mustang, of course.  It’s just sheet metal at that point.  But again, everything has to be considered, including fuel economy, etc.  And as far as power delivery subjectivity goes, I made that remark based on years of debate about what matters most to people. Hence the subjectivity.  Yes I know torque down low is awesome, and so too is a long cam pull on the top end, which I also love – which goes back to my original topic of contention….having both is best.

 

 

We're not talking about 0.5 liters of displacement difference.  We're talking a full liter or more.  A general rule is that in the space you use with a DOHC engine, a pushrod can have 50% more displacement.  So where the max size for a DOHC engine is 3.0 liters, you can fit up to 4.5 liters of pushrod.  Where you can fit a 3.6 liter DOHC (which is just about the max in packaging for a FWD sedan) you can fit at least 5.4 liters of pushrod engine.  

 

Back in 2005, the 3900 was equivalent in max power to the 3.0 DOHC engines of the day... and had much broader torque delivery to boot. 

 

"Years of debate" on the subject and those on the DOHC V6 side of the debate have been consistently wrong.  

 

The charge has been led by the automotive enthusiast press who liked to wring the snot of their VTEC Civics.  They would then write about how DOHC was just the bees-knees.  They created this idea that DOHC was inherently superior in every application.  They convinced the general public of it enough to demand it in their cars even though the general public couldn't tell the difference between a cam-shaft and a seat cushion. 

 

Unless you are specifically buying a sports car with sporting intentions, you are nearly universally better served by a larger displacement pushrod V6 than a smaller displacement DOHC V6.

 

That last line is quite a stretch drew and a subjective opinion as well.

Nah. Looks legit to me.

 

 

 

 

"First of all, nobody is arguing that OHV packages more cubes than DOHC in the same space. I am just continueally remarking that both can be upsized. Please don'r revisit this argument. "

 

 

Not if there is no more room to upsize.  In sedans, 3.6/3.7/3.8 seems to be the upper limit for DOHC engines.

 

We're not talking about race cars here.  We're talking about the every day cars that people drive.... the Ford Fusions, the Jeep Cherokees, the Honda Civics.  All of the cars that rarely crest 4,500 rpm on any given day.  Cars that are being sold with 250hp in big numbers and @ 6500rpm in tiny print at the bottom.   It's the Honda Civics that you have to wind up to get them to go. 

 

Everyone (except race car drivers, which we aren't talking about anyway) would do better with engines that made their torque at low RPM.  If that wasn't the case, Ecoboost wouldn't have a reason to exist.

 

Good points.

Let me just add this.

Boosting does of course give you power down low, because that is where the turbo sizing/cam selection is optimized.  Of course. But in regards to NA engines, rarely does a V6 gain in package volume enough to make a difference, going from let’s say a 3.0L to a 3.5L or even a 3.5L to a 4.0L in a SRX or what not.  A few mm in bore and stroke, has a small impact. That story changes a bit with a V8, yes, because those few mm get multiplied more due to extra pistons.  But a 6.0L Coyote can be made to fit in a Mustang, of course.  It’s just sheet metal at that point.  But again, everything has to be considered, including fuel economy, etc.  And as far as power delivery subjectivity goes, I made that remark based on years of debate about what matters most to people. Hence the subjectivity.  Yes I know torque down low is awesome, and so too is a long cam pull on the top end, which I also love – which goes back to my original topic of contention….having both is best.

 

 

We're not talking about 0.5 liters of displacement difference.  We're talking a full liter or more.  A general rule is that in the space you use with a DOHC engine, a pushrod can have 50% more displacement.  So where the max size for a DOHC engine is 3.0 liters, you can fit up to 4.5 liters of pushrod.  Where you can fit a 3.6 liter DOHC (which is just about the max in packaging for a FWD sedan) you can fit at least 5.4 liters of pushrod engine.  

 

Back in 2005, the 3900 was equivalent in max power to the 3.0 DOHC engines of the day... and had much broader torque delivery to boot. 

 

"Years of debate" on the subject and those on the DOHC V6 side of the debate have been consistently wrong.  

 

The charge has been led by the automotive enthusiast press who liked to wring the snot of their VTEC Civics.  They would then write about how DOHC was just the bees-knees.  They created this idea that DOHC was inherently superior in every application.  They convinced the general public of it enough to demand it in their cars even though the general public couldn't tell the difference between a cam-shaft and a seat cushion. 

 

Unless you are specifically buying a sports car with sporting intentions, you are nearly universally better served by a larger displacement pushrod V6 than a smaller displacement DOHC V6.

 

That last line is quite a stretch drew and a subjective opinion as well.

 

 

Well, I've posted objective numbers.  Perhaps you would like to counter?  

 

The GM 3900 produced more torque and over a lower and broader RPM range than a Toyota 3.0 of the same vintage.  It did so while generally matching the fuel economy of the same engine.

 

What held GM back in performance at that point was primarily the 4-speed automatic compared to the 5-speed auto in the Toyota.  When paired with a 6-speed manual, the engine could really rock. 

*awaits objective response with much interest*

Drew,

 

And I too have countered with objective remarks.

 

Anyway, I will have to respectfully agree to disagree on most topics here, except when comparing fuel economy of two dissimilar vehicles, with varying weights, gears, gearing, tires, loads, driving styles, weather, road conditions, etc.  A few mpg difference attributed to just one single part of an entire system, is a bit presumptuous and holds zero water.

The only things you have countered with have been demonstrably false, vastly out of context, or irrelevant to the discussion. 

 

NHV - modern pushrod engines are no less smooth than DOHC.  The 3900 was butter smooth.

MPG - They meet or beat DOHC engines of similar output 

VVT - They have it.

Emissions - They meet regulations

Power delivery - Pushrods deliver the power lower in the RPM range

Packaging - Always smaller than a DOHC engine, always weigh less when the same block material is used.

“demonstrably false, vastly out of context, or irrelevant to the discussion.”

Drew, are you talking to me?  My God man, all I have done is explain why and spot-on to the topic at hand.  I would not expect that kind of remark from you.

Anyway,

 

I have mentioned and discussed the engineered tradeoffs pretty thoroughly on the topic of OHV vs DOHC, of which there are plenty to discuss.  There is no clear winner, which I mentioned.  I am not debating a winner here, because there are merits as I mentioned.

 

But, a few more caveats….

VVT will ALWAYS be better for DOHC with dual cam control, rather than single, because you can maximize your volumetric efficiency best when controlling both intake and exhaust fully and exclusively.  Fact that can’t be disputed. Yeah, OHV gets you 75-85% there when fully optimized.  GM has said so themselves.

 

NVH has to do with the whole system, not just an engine. How you tune the system. So again, the engine itself is not the arbitrator of smoothness, only a contributor in that system. But a DOHC is capable of more rpm’s and more Vol Eff,  and by far, by FAR…..DOHC engines will win out in an NVH competition in an OVERALL world-wide competition.   Either that or the whole engineering community that has moved away from OHV, is just plain wrong.  So yeah, there are individual cases otherwise, we know.

 

And fuel economy benefits is a wash with far too many variable inputs to claim just a valvetrain arrangement as arbitrator.  But when you upsize in displacement (mostly bore) you are making concessions in BSFC efficiencies, as I have mentioned.  That is why some larger bore engines have dual spark plugs, to compensate  with that engineered tradeoff.  It’s all about the combustion and space in which it happens.  So yeah, you can upsize to 7 or 10 liters for power, but your efficiency plummets at an exponential rate. 

 

And finally packaging, I have repeatedly stated the same thing you keep debating against.  Scratching my head there.

 

Anyway, I have been clear on my points. I hope you see them as informative and another viewpoint, not just a stubborn contention. 

The only things you have countered with have been demonstrably false, vastly out of context, or irrelevant to the discussion. 

 

NHV - modern pushrod engines are no less smooth than DOHC.  The 3900 was butter smooth.

MPG - They meet or beat DOHC engines of similar output 

VVT - They have it.

Emissions - They meet regulations

Power delivery - Pushrods deliver the power lower in the RPM range

Packaging - Always smaller than a DOHC engine, always weigh less when the same block material is used.

Yup. He's not very good at this, is he?

Because it bears repeating in regards to certain folks, both in this thread and elsewhere:

The only things you have countered with have been demonstrably false, vastly out of context, or irrelevant to the discussion.

...anyhow, onward:

I was going to propose the question "are modern pushrod engines of less than eight cylinders a viable idea, much less a good one?"

Then I remembered these guys. Some good fodder for discussion, perhaps:

http://thekneeslider.com/is-the-motus-v4-baby-block-crate-engine-the-future-of-old-school-hot-rodding/

The pushrod V6 not only lost to the DOHC V6, it lost out to the DOHC inline-4 as well.  Most mid-size sedans have a 4-cylinder, the Camry is 93% 4-cylinder, while Malibu, Sonata, Optima are 100% 4-cylinder.   The full size sedans and mid-full size crossovers are now V6, and DOHC is what the people want, because they want power with refinement when paying $35-40k for their Avalon or Acadia or Pilot. 

 

The pushrod works on Chevy trucks because Chevy truck guys that are brand loyal will buy it regardless of what is under the hood.   With the Corvette it is sort of a heritage thing, they use the small block V8 they have used for 50 years because that is what the Corvette faithful want.

 

Audi and Mercedes are both introducing 4.0 liter DOHC V8s with 600 hp next year, that is quite a hp/liter argument and allows them to meet emission regs, , displacement taxes, etc.  You need 6.2 liters of supercharged pushrod to make that power and you have to put a dome in the hood because the engine is so tall, so much for packaging.

>2015

>People still arguing over OHV vs DOHC in 2010 thread

 

All of you: 

 

It's not much of an argument, certainly.

The Z06 can polish off nearly all OHC competition.

Have the found a root cause yet for the LT4 failures yet?

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/another-corvette-z06-engine-fails-this-time-in-journalists-hands/

I heard they found a middle-aged man pouring metal shavings into the oil reservoirs and mumbling about countering negative PR against his employer.

Yeesh

How is this still a thing?

GM keeps on building them, I guess.

And it pisses people off that GM keeps on building them...for some reason...

I think its because GM spanks some ass with them...oh well...long live the SBC!!! In all its OHV glory!!!

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by oldshurst442

I give props to GM for building a compact V8 OHV engine.

I give Ford more props, for building a slightly larger V8 DOHC engine that packs a lot of hp/liter.

 

But one sounds much better than the other.

And it pisses people off that GM keeps on building them...for some reason...

I think its because GM spanks some ass with them...oh well...long live the SBC!!! In all its OHV glory!!!

It is an engine that has had only one significant architectural overhaul since it debuted back in 1955.

Incredible.

I give props to GM for building a compact V8 OHV engine.

I give Ford more props, for building a slightly larger V8 DOHC engine that packs a lot of hp/liter.

 

But one sounds much better than the other.

Yeah...Corvettes do sound great...

 

Oh...you mean the Coyote.....they sound good too...

THAT is the difference....YOU are one biased MOFO!!!

 

Why would I want a LARGER in size V8 engine?

The Corvette has a more compact V8 that sits very low and very far back in the engine bay making the Corvette technically a front mid-engined vehicle...Technically speaking...one could say the Vette is already a mid-engiend car...in theory..

 

Does it have its limitations?

Sure...

But...like El K has said...the SBC has been writing down names and kicking ass since 1955...

Love me some OHV V8.  

Love me some GT350 sounding DOHC better.

 

 

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by Wings4Life

The Chevy Smallblock is perhaps the best thought-out engine layout in history.

Seriously. Even the Germans couldn't do something like this. Imagine, for instance, if someone told you that Benz was going to bring back a boosted version of the '57 Gullwing inline-six for an AMG version of the E-Class. You'd throw them in a room that had rubber wallpaper.

The LT4, on the other hand? Makes perfect sense.

Nobody else on the planet could match that. Ever.

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by El Kabong

Love me some OHV V8.  

Love me some GT350 sounding DOHC better.

 

 

How 'bout LOVING both them EQUALLY...

 

You are an American, right?

Even if you had to raise your right hand and pledge allegiance to the flag...you are still an American...

 

Im born a Canadian....and still love me some Americana....Ford, GM, Mopar...

 

You see, Wings...your attitude right there....it STINKS!!!

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by oldshurst442

The Chevy Smallblock is perhaps the best thought-out engine layout in history.

Seriously. Even the Germans couldn't do something like this. Imagine, for instance, if someone told you that Benz was going to bring back a boosted version of the '57 Gullwing inline-six for an AMG version of the E-Class. You'd throw them in a room that had rubber wallpaper.

The LT4, on the other hand? Makes perfect sense.

Nobody else on the planet could match that. Ever.

Like Ever...

 

And these engines...they fit them ANYWHERE....

I could post pics of LS engine swaps....but that might upset some pure die hard Porsche, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mazda,  Nissan and just about every oher car maker..fans...

 

Shyte...LS engine swaps are even made in AIRPLANES!!!

For me it mostly boils down to execution. And as I mentioned already, the smallblock has only had one major revision in sixty years. While I have no particular beef with Ford's recent OHC V8 engines, their early attempts were largely boat anchors, and their lack of confidence in their current offerings is troubling.

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by El Kabong

Pushrod for the win.

Edited August 18, 201510 yr by surreal1272

Have the found a root cause yet for the LT4 failures yet?

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/another-corvette-z06-engine-fails-this-time-in-journalists-hands/

Unrelated to the OHC vs. Pushrod topic and there have only been three confirmed failures out of the thousands of Z06s out there, per that article.

 

Next.

Drew, I appreciate anyone’s opinion on this matter, but to claim one approach is stupid, is a stupid thing to say.

 

Like we discussed, there are engineered trade-offs for both approaches, and no clear objective winner.  This has been a topic of debate for decades, and nobody can claim clear victory and nobody should state that the other approach is stupid. 

 

The Pro/Con list is what it is for both engines.

Pick your poison.  It’s clear though, brand bias is the biggest factor for most, by far.

SMK, why does this rather simple concept baffle you? Horsepower per litre displacement is stupid. Give me horsepower for overall package dimensions and get back to me.

Edited August 18, 201510 yr by Wings4Life

I give props to GM for building a compact V8 OHV engine.

I give Ford more props, for building a slightly larger V8 DOHC engine that packs a lot of hp/liter.

 

But one sounds much better than the other.

Sadly, FORD needs to get with building a V8 DOHC with some Torque, HP alone does not cut it.

^

We'll get right on that

Bit late to get on it now. GM's already got it in the bag.

Nah.  Torque is plenty and early.  High speed demands high HP, and at about 530hp, I would say Ford has a great balance.

 

 

And even with the stickiest tires and a modern suspension, I can’t see much benefit in having more torque will help this situation…..

 

 

Nah.  Torque is plenty and early.  High speed demands high HP, and at about 530hp, I would say Ford has a great balance.

 

 

And even with the stickiest tires and a modern suspension, I can’t see much benefit in having more torque will help this situation…..

 

 

Would love to see this car up against the corvette or camero to compare the various stages of HP / Torque at certain speeds such as:

 

0 to 30

0 to 60

0 to 90

0 to 120

then

30 to 60

30 to 90

30 to 120

then

60 to 90

60 to 120

 

I think this will show how Torque and HP work to move the auto even faster. Auto mags and web sites need to do comparisons like this to show just how well OHV versus DOHC engines would perform and deliver.

 

I question the added weight issues of DOHC over OHV engines and where it all ends up at. Then take this to the next level with Turbo versions of the OHV versus DOHC to really see what is best.

 

Right now more Marketing Fluff than real facts from the OEM's.

 

Nah.  Torque is plenty and early.  High speed demands high HP, and at about 530hp, I would say Ford has a great balance.

 

 

And even with the stickiest tires and a modern suspension, I can’t see much benefit in having more torque will help this situation…..

 

 

Would love to see this car up against the corvette or camero to compare the various stages of HP / Torque at certain speeds such as:

 

0 to 30

0 to 60

0 to 90

0 to 120

then

30 to 60

30 to 90

30 to 120

then

60 to 90

60 to 120

 

I think this will show how Torque and HP work to move the auto even faster. Auto mags and web sites need to do comparisons like this to show just how well OHV versus DOHC engines would perform and deliver.

 

I question the added weight issues of DOHC over OHV engines and where it all ends up at. Then take this to the next level with Turbo versions of the OHV versus DOHC to really see what is best.

 

Right now more Marketing Fluff than real facts from the OEM's.

 

 

 

Well the Coyote is lighter than the LT1, and the Voodoo lighter than both -  So where does that added weight of the more physically smaller LT end up?

 

Drew, I appreciate anyone’s opinion on this matter, but to claim one approach is stupid, is a stupid thing to say.

 

Like we discussed, there are engineered trade-offs for both approaches, and no clear objective winner.  This has been a topic of debate for decades, and nobody can claim clear victory and nobody should state that the other approach is stupid. 

 

The Pro/Con list is what it is for both engines.

Pick your poison.  It’s clear though, brand bias is the biggest factor for most, by far.

 

SMK, why does this rather simple concept baffle you? Horsepower per litre displacement is stupid. Give me horsepower for overall package dimensions and get back to me.

 

 

Drew,

ignore this previous reply which was from page one, rather than last page.

Even my reply into the quote was botched.

It was a fail-fail.

 

Excecpt for my points of course, which are spot on.

 

 

Nah.  Torque is plenty and early.  High speed demands high HP, and at about 530hp, I would say Ford has a great balance.

 

 

And even with the stickiest tires and a modern suspension, I can’t see much benefit in having more torque will help this situation…..

 

 

Would love to see this car up against the corvette or camero to compare the various stages of HP / Torque at certain speeds such as:

 

0 to 30

0 to 60

0 to 90

0 to 120

then

30 to 60

30 to 90

30 to 120

then

60 to 90

60 to 120

 

I think this will show how Torque and HP work to move the auto even faster. Auto mags and web sites need to do comparisons like this to show just how well OHV versus DOHC engines would perform and deliver.

 

I question the added weight issues of DOHC over OHV engines and where it all ends up at. Then take this to the next level with Turbo versions of the OHV versus DOHC to really see what is best.

 

Right now more Marketing Fluff than real facts from the OEM's.

 

 

 

Well the Coyote is lighter than the LT1, and the Voodoo lighter than both -  So where does that added weight of the more physically smaller LT end up?

 

 

I believe the LT1 is longer and about the same height. That's probably where the added weight comes from.

A little late to the 18 page party but I don't think GM should purposely avoid making a DOHC V8 just in spite of either Ford or their past. I would want them to do it if they feel like it is the best design for the given application. Because like Wings has said, they both have their pros and cons. Each application is different and could/would require a different engine setup.

 

I just want Ford/GM/Dodge to utilize their best technology and use the best setup for the application they are designing. For instance, I think the OHV is best suited for trucks.. more lower end tq. But I think the DOHC is great in the mustang having a stringer top end.. Just my two cents.

The really relevant discussion is the GM 3.6 v the GM 4.3 Ecotec in the Colorado. The 3.6 lets them claim best in class horsepower V6, but the 4.3 would actually be a better fit due to the superior torque curve.

Nah.  Torque is plenty and early.  High speed demands high HP, and at about 530hp, I would say Ford has a great balance.

 

 

And even with the stickiest tires and a modern suspension, I can’t see much benefit in having more torque will help this situation…..

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp9d-HhblD0

Would love to see this car up against the corvette or camero to compare the various stages of HP / Torque at certain speeds such as:

 

0 to 30

0 to 60

0 to 90

0 to 120

then

30 to 60

30 to 90

30 to 120

then

60 to 90

60 to 120

 

I think this will show how Torque and HP work to move the auto even faster. Auto mags and web sites need to do comparisons like this to show just how well OHV versus DOHC engines would perform and deliver.

 

I question the added weight issues of DOHC over OHV engines and where it all ends up at. Then take this to the next level with Turbo versions of the OHV versus DOHC to really see what is best.

 

Right now more Marketing Fluff than real facts from the OEM's.

Packaging advantages and location of your centre of gravity are the bigger advantages for

modern OHV engines as opposed to sheer mass. In either case it is critical to keep the development going steady. For instance, who cares if your engine is OHC when it doesn't offer DI?

I wonder what the DOHC 5.2L would gain in power above the already stellar 530hp in R form, if given DI?

I don't know. Ford didn't step and get it right out of the box.

I happen to know.

Not enough to justify the cost and the NVH that comes with DI.

 

Ford stepped just fine.

I may have accepted that as legit, but:

-we're talking about NVH issues on a flat-crank V8, where the supposed V and H issues will inevitably be drowned out by the N,

-it's not on their mainstream truck V8 either,

Mmmmmm...

Fluff.