Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- low end torque
- simple design
- more compact and lighter
- cost.
Lower cost, yes - but isn't the OHC valvetrain the simpler and lighter valvetrain? It has fewer parts without the lifters and pushrods. I believe they perform better at higher RPMs, in part for these reasons (lower inertial mass)?
I want you to explain to me what "class" that is...if you're trying to compare a 6.4 HEMI or a 6.6 GM V8, explain to me how a 7.3 could have better fuel efficiency...
He said it's the LEAST fuel efficient in it's class.
He said it's the LEAST fuel efficient in it's class.
Correct... the Ford 7.3L V8 is the LEAST fuel-efficient HD pickup truck engine in its class, due to its largest displacement size.
I have over 30 years of experience with automobile information and predicting vehicle reliabilities since I was small kid, but user, Vic Romano, seems to always stalk me around for every posts that I typed here, despite I've made good contributions here. I already reported him to the moderator several times now. Moderator told me to just ignore him. Totally uncool....
This is a great and useful information (post #13) that no one has the knowledge and talent to type like this.
Lower cost, yes - but isn't the OHC valvetrain the simpler and lighter valvetrain? It has fewer parts without the lifters and pushrods. I believe they perform better at higher RPMs, in part for these reasons (lower inertial mass)?
Overall there are fewer working parts and smaller overall dimensions leading to less money spent on components and materials.
Just hazarding a guess, but given the more compact packaging of an OHV, it’s possible to utilize more displacement which makes for more torque. It seems like when manufacturers switch from OHV to OHC, they tend to drop down in displacement.
That is correct, as the sayings go:
There's no substitute for cubic inches
There's no replacement for displacement
An OHC engine would have to be much smaller in displacement to fit in the engine compartment of a Corvette, compared to the OHV engine they use.
Yes. Those are for sale at the same store where they sell black and white tube TV's.
And shows that stupid is as stupid does. Some of those last era pushrod engines could last an amazing long time. The Ford OHV 4.0L from 1990s could last close to half million miles before rebuild. Amazing in itself cause its based on old German Ford econo-car design 2.6/2.8/2.9 that was in itself a half assed compromise from a 60s era V4 never imported to USA. They literally made a silk purse out of a sows ear. Alas they paired them with an incredibly poor expensive to rebuild automatic. You would however see some Rangers and Explorers with manual transmission and 4.0L that would go the distance. Alas even the manual transmission was too light duty for that engine so you would replace it at least once in that 400k miles.
Modern complex engines and transmissions are so complex that its just not realistic rebuilding them after vehicle is over ten years old, cost more than vehicle is worth.
But just like its always been, automotive engineering is driven first and foremost by marketing/profit potential, not practicality. They now want to sell all the electronics and exotic engine technology nobody needs for a daily driver. gotta justify the stratospheric prices they are asking I guess. Its all about selling "new and improved" whether its an actual improvement or not. Its a profit improvement is what they really mean.
To my thinking a cheap simple engine that can last half million miles before needing a rebuild is a true achievement. Making ever more complex and expensive engines too expensive to repair for marketing reasons is not. Exotic technologies should be for sports cars and luxury cars like it traditionally has been. Cars for the more money than brains kind of consumer trying to impress their fellow rich neighbors. Dont saddle rest of us with this stuff.
That is correct, as the sayings go:
There's no substitute for cubic inches
There's no replacement for displacement
An OHC engine would have to be much smaller in displacement to fit in the engine compartment of a Corvette, compared to the OHV engine they use.
What’s impressive is that fuel economy doesn’t really seem to be affected despite the larger displacement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
