General Car Chat Talk about cars in general. All makes and models - strictly car discussion.

Ls7 Nsx

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 08:59 AM
  #161 (permalink)  
BAMF's Avatar
Thread TERRORIST
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 32,293
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq!
There was nothing wrong with pushrods when they first came into use as man attempted to outrun dinosaurs. But like I said, build an engine with pushrods, and build the same engine with DOHC, and tell me which makes more power. It'll be the DOHC every time. I don't dislike the corvette because I think its slow, I dislike it because it could have been faster. I understand GM cuts costs like every major car company must do to make money, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Either way I know you're just jealous that my engine has DOHC and 5 valves per cylinder and outputs more than 12 BHP/L
DOHC also adds a lot of crap to the motor and makes it a pain in the ass to modify/repair compared to pushrods. Yes, having seperate cams for intake and exhaust is going to be more effecient. But if you compared that to a solid roller motor with a properly sized cam in it, I think you'd be surprised at how small the difference is. Most of the power loss in pushrod motors is from the hydraulic lifters.
__________________

"They were crying when their sons left, God is wearing black. Hes gone so far to find no hope, hes never coming back. They were crying when their sons left, all young men must go. Hes come so far to find the truth hes never going home."


Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 08:59 AM
  #162 (permalink)  
power2weight's Avatar
-eats the last cookie.
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,862
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq!
Build me the exact same engine with pushrods and DOHC, see which one makes more power and is more efficient. The pushrod engine wins ease of manufacturing and cost, and that's about all its good for.

The only good corvette engine was the LT5 in the C4 ZR1, all aluminum high comp DOHC V8 engineered partially by lotus. They showed GM the way, and GM went right back to ancient shit because they're cheap. Except for the northstar, which as we all know is the true powerhouse of GM engines.


side note: fuck the H button on this shitty keyboard.
Go ahead and describe this "exact same motor".

Better yet, make it lighter than the LS7 (good luck with 3 more cams and twice the valves), keep the CG low, keep it compact to fit between the Vette's suspension, make more power and get the same gas mileage (sorry BMW M3 and GT3). And you already addressed the cost issue.

Sorry, but the LSx series of motors will shit all over your theoretical DOHC all day in those categories.
__________________
"They must really feed each other to the lions down there........"
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:20 AM
  #163 (permalink)  
Graves's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,971
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq!
Only took them 80 years to figure it out too.
1964 Ford SOHC 427
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:22 AM
  #164 (permalink)  
omgwtfbbq!'s Avatar
I race sailboats
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,216
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by power2weight
Go ahead and describe this "exact same motor".

Better yet, make it lighter than the LS7 (good luck with 3 more cams and twice the valves), keep the CG low, keep it compact to fit between the Vette's suspension, make more power and get the same gas mileage (sorry BMW M3 and GT3). And you already addressed the cost issue.

Sorry, but the LSx series of motors will shit all over your theoretical DOHC all day in those categories.
The weight difference would be maybe a couple of pounds, completely negligible. You add 3 cams but you lose all the pushrods and rocker arms. The CG would likewise not be shifted more than a few ten thousandths of an inch, which is again negligible and could be accounted for by changing the oil tank design or something equally as trivial. The engine wouldn't need to be physically larger at all. If the cams called for more valve cover clearance you could easily shorten other components to account for that, if you shortened the stroke you could rev even higher. Audi's V8 engines fit between the radiator and front axle, just as my V6 sits entirely in front of the front axle. They sit the 4.2 in the R8, and even get the 5.2 V10 from the gallardo and the V12 TDI engines to fit without any issue. I don't know why you think DOHC engines are all huge. It would make more power because it could flow more air and that flow is more efficient. Bam.
__________________
Bitches don't know about the twin turbo

BLACK FENDER PART OUT
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:24 AM
  #165 (permalink)  
Graves's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,971
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq!
The weight difference would be maybe a couple of pounds, completely negligible. You add 3 cams but you lose all the pushrods and rocker arms. The CG would likewise not be shifted more than a few ten thousandths of an inch, which is again negligible and could be accounted for by changing the oil tank design or something equally as trivial. The engine wouldn't need to be physically larger at all. If the cams called for more valve cover clearance you could easily shorten other components to account for that, if you shortened the stroke you could rev even higher. Audi's V8 engines fit between the radiator and front axle, just as my V6 sits entirely in front of the front axle. They sit the 4.2 in the R8, and even get the 5.2 V10 from the gallardo and the V12 TDI engines to fit without any issue. I don't know why you think DOHC engines are all huge. It would make more power because it could flow more air and that flow is more efficient. Bam.

Ever see a side by side comparison of an old 302 and a new dohc 281?
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:29 AM
  #166 (permalink)  
omgwtfbbq!'s Avatar
I race sailboats
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,216
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Graves
Ever see a side by side comparison of an old 302 and a new dohc 281?
Nope.
__________________
Bitches don't know about the twin turbo

BLACK FENDER PART OUT
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:32 AM
  #167 (permalink)  
Graves's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,971
Likes: 0
Default

302 vs 281 dohc


LS2 compared to a Nissan VQ 3.5L V6


LSx compared to a RB26 I6


LS1 compared to 1UZ 4L V8
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:35 AM
  #168 (permalink)  
SuburbanNoize's Avatar
Cold Ass Honky
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,067
Likes: 0
Default

So pushrods are all about saving space?
__________________


TR DC CREW MEMBER #4


StricklyMT.com
Performance Specialist
727-510-6301
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:37 AM
  #169 (permalink)  
scott hutch's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Default

LOL its benefit. They are light for what they are as well
Reply
Old Sep 9, 2010 | 09:43 AM
  #170 (permalink)  
omgwtfbbq!'s Avatar
I race sailboats
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,216
Likes: 0
Default

Kinda odd how none of the LS series engines in those pics have any accessories, and pretty much all the other engines do.
__________________
Bitches don't know about the twin turbo

BLACK FENDER PART OUT
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25 AM.