Who says stock Yank motors don't make power...
Discussion
85bhp/litre from pushrods without any forced induction, and GM sandbagging on true output by 70bhp... take that, those of you who insist all great engines are DOHC!
http://www.lsxtv.com/news/danzio-performance-basel...
http://www.lsxtv.com/news/danzio-performance-basel...
Honda had to push their engines to upwards of 8000rpm and they made virtually no torque. You can get 100bhp/litre out of pushrod V8s too, but only really by boring them out, destroking them and making them rev to kingdom come. This is a great big thumper of a V8 - and don't forget, a C63 AMG with Performance Pack, from a marginally bigger engine (6208cc vs 6162cc), made only 487bhp - this thing is nearly 50bhp up on that.
RoverP6B said:
Once again - small, short-stroke engines with very little torque. Compare it to the comparable - big, torquey motors of over 5 litres' displacement.
Look at the large capacity engines Ferrari put out for BHP/litre 
Oh and long stroke engines produce less torque than short stroke engines for the same swept capacity.
More important than bhp/litre is bhp/kg;
BMW 4.0 V8 (E90 M3) approx 2.3bhp/kg
Honda K20A2 approx 1.6bhp/kg
Chevrolet LT1 approx 2.52bhp/kg
Approx as accurate engine weights are difficult to find but shouldn't be far off.
Also, OHV V8s generally have a lower centre of gravity than DOHC V8s. I love high revving NA engines as much as anyone else but OHV V8s have there advantages too.
BMW 4.0 V8 (E90 M3) approx 2.3bhp/kg
Honda K20A2 approx 1.6bhp/kg
Chevrolet LT1 approx 2.52bhp/kg
Approx as accurate engine weights are difficult to find but shouldn't be far off.
Also, OHV V8s generally have a lower centre of gravity than DOHC V8s. I love high revving NA engines as much as anyone else but OHV V8s have there advantages too.
headline figure don't mean s
t, you can have a nice peak in TQ at a higher RPM that corresponds to a nice high BHP figure, you can even do that with a tiny engine and make an amazing BHP/L figure. Or you can say sod that, make an engine with 90% of its Torque made over most of the rev range which may not give high peak numbers or impressive per L arguments on forums but will st all over the high peak chasers in the real world
t, you can have a nice peak in TQ at a higher RPM that corresponds to a nice high BHP figure, you can even do that with a tiny engine and make an amazing BHP/L figure. Or you can say sod that, make an engine with 90% of its Torque made over most of the rev range which may not give high peak numbers or impressive per L arguments on forums but will st all over the high peak chasers in the real world Read the article. 525 lb-ft peak torque. That also translates to 85ftlb/litre. By contrast, a C63 AMG Performance Pack makes only 71ftlb/litre. BMW E92 M3 made 75ftlb/litre but at much higher revs (being a much smaller engine). AMG's M120 7.3 V12 in the Zonda makes 71ftlb/litre. BMW E65 760i makes 73ftlb/litre. Rolls-Royce Phantom variant of that engine makes 78ftlb/litre, as does the Lamborghini Aventador. The only remotely comparable engine is the 6,262cc Ferrari V12 in the F12, which makes 81ftlb/litre. The FF is barely detuned, so that also counts.
Then, there's the simple fact that a GM small-block OHV engine is physically tiny for its displacement - probably the only comparable engines in terms of physical bulk would be some of the very small V6s of the 1990s.
Then, there's the simple fact that a GM small-block OHV engine is physically tiny for its displacement - probably the only comparable engines in terms of physical bulk would be some of the very small V6s of the 1990s.
Horse Pop said:
What they're doing with a supposedly outmoded technology like a NA pushrod V8 is pretty amazing really.
Am I not correct in saying DOHC has actually been around for longer than OHV? Pretty sure DOHC was around before the First World War, whereas I think OHV only really appeared in the 1920s...Horse Pop said:
What they're doing with a supposedly outmoded technology like a NA pushrod V8 is pretty amazing really.
It is such an outmoded technology that one of the world's biggest car makers VAG - are using pushrods for their most prestigious brands. Bentley.Corvette have managed to win quite a few Le Mans' and ALMS etc - with this Dickensian technology.
The fuel economy is also a factor.
My 7 litre C6 Z06 was just as economical on fuel as a rather revving highly stressed 2 litre Honda unit.
Edit. The NA CM engines for years were making more power than German V8 with superchargers/ turbos etc.
Edited by Troubleatmill on Saturday 25th April 20:36
RoverP6B said:
Honda had to push their engines to upwards of 8000rpm and they made virtually no torque.
This crap again? The Honda engines made the same amount of torque as any other engines their size, but they extended the power band upwards by about 3000 rpm as well. They did make less torque than larger engines producing the same power at lower rpm, as you'd expect.There are certainly benefits to pushrods, packaging, weight, and parasitic drag being the ones I'm aware of.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff