Potentially Stupid Question - Overhead Cam Engines
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Right.
Economy: Comparing a bmw 435i (at 23mpg US) and a Camaro at 19mpg. Thats 20% worse economy! 20%! My customers are asking about saving 0.5% here and there! If you made a car that missed it's economy targets by 20% you would be (rightly) fired, and the project would get binned! Now i know to "people on the net" that the number 19 is close to the number 23, but look, over 100miles, the Camaro uses 1 whole gallon more fuel!
Nice selective reading you have. Did you bother to check the weights? The Camaro weighs more. And only uses a fraction more fuel. Oh and nice how you ignore the the 33% more power the Camaro makes. Economy: Comparing a bmw 435i (at 23mpg US) and a Camaro at 19mpg. Thats 20% worse economy! 20%! My customers are asking about saving 0.5% here and there! If you made a car that missed it's economy targets by 20% you would be (rightly) fired, and the project would get binned! Now i know to "people on the net" that the number 19 is close to the number 23, but look, over 100miles, the Camaro uses 1 whole gallon more fuel!
And it was very clever of you to totally ignore the fact the Z4 is worse on fuel than the Corvette, despite it using the same engine as the 435i........
Max_Torque said:
Size: Stop posting pictures of completely undressed US V8s against fully dressed euro engines! It's no surprise that a v8 without manifolds, no loom and the FEAD removed is small. If you did the same to a 4cyl engine it would also be very small!
The engines are equally dressed in most of the pics. So don't be a silly child about it. They are good fair comparisons. Just because you don't like the result doesn't make it wrong.Max_Torque said:
Power: Taking the example given, the BMW 435i is deliberately power limited by BMW to avoid treading on the toes of the M3/M4. With pretty much identical engines, they make well over 400bhp and result in a vehicle performance that is very similar to the Hicap Camaro (i suspect, with more torque at lower rpm, an M3 is actually significantly quicker btw)
What makes you think the Camaro is in a high state of tune? It's the same engine as the Vette but making less power.And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that you are comparing forced induction to naturally aspirated. GM do an FI version of the LS, it makes 580bhp. It is supercharged not turbo, so isn't quite as good on fuel. But the mpg is still awesome given the power level. Oh and the engine is still small and compact and lightweight.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Saturday 1st August 00:30
300bhp/ton said:
Here is an LS and a Lexus 1UZ-FE, quite a size difference:
Er that photo is very deceptive as the only dimension where the 1UZ-FE is bigger is in width and it's all of 3cm wider when bare. More importantly the LS family is actually far wider and longer when fully dressed although the intake is more compact vs the early 1UZ's so they are a touch taller. The newer ones run an intake more similar to the LS which is far more compact and lower (but still not quite as low).
The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
Fastdruid said:
Er that photo is very deceptive as the only dimension where the 1UZ-FE is bigger is in width and it's all of 3cm wider when bare. More importantly the LS family is actually far wider and longer when fully dressed although the intake is more compact vs the early 1UZ's so they are a touch taller. The newer ones run an intake more similar to the LS which is far more compact and lower (but still not quite as low).
The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
Errrrr....what's not fully dressed about that LS1? It has an intake, fuel rails, water pump & crank pullies, valve covers etc? All it needs is plug leads from what I can tell. That's how they look.The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
wormus said:
Fastdruid said:
Er that photo is very deceptive as the only dimension where the 1UZ-FE is bigger is in width and it's all of 3cm wider when bare. More importantly the LS family is actually far wider and longer when fully dressed although the intake is more compact vs the early 1UZ's so they are a touch taller. The newer ones run an intake more similar to the LS which is far more compact and lower (but still not quite as low).
The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
Errrrr....what's not fully dressed about that LS1? It has an intake, fuel rails, water pump & crank pullies, valve covers etc? All it needs is plug leads from what I can tell. That's how they look.The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
300bhp/ton said:
Who frankly gives a flying smeg about bhp/litre. It's total power output that matters. And 450bhp beats anything 200-250bhp.
As for fuel, well I posted this up years ago, that a Camaro has a similar EPA mpg rating as the BMW 335i did, despite weighing more and making 100bhp more than the BMW! If that's an economy penalty, then I'll take it every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
But that was a few years back, so here's an update:
Similar mpg from all. But wow that twin turbo DOHC unit from BMW is massively down on power compared to the OHV engines.
As for size, I think you'll find you are wrong about sizing.
Here is an LS and a Lexus 1UZ-FE, quite a size difference:
Ok the 1UZ is a V8, so how about compared to a Mazda inline 4 engine (from an MX-5). The LS is hardly any bigger:
Ok, so I said V6. Well how about this. LS2 (6.0 litre with 420hp) and a Nissan VQ35 V6 (3.5 litre 240-275hp):
great postAs for fuel, well I posted this up years ago, that a Camaro has a similar EPA mpg rating as the BMW 335i did, despite weighing more and making 100bhp more than the BMW! If that's an economy penalty, then I'll take it every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
But that was a few years back, so here's an update:
Similar mpg from all. But wow that twin turbo DOHC unit from BMW is massively down on power compared to the OHV engines.
As for size, I think you'll find you are wrong about sizing.
Here is an LS and a Lexus 1UZ-FE, quite a size difference:
Ok the 1UZ is a V8, so how about compared to a Mazda inline 4 engine (from an MX-5). The LS is hardly any bigger:
Ok, so I said V6. Well how about this. LS2 (6.0 litre with 420hp) and a Nissan VQ35 V6 (3.5 litre 240-275hp):
Max_Torque said:
Oh yes, of course silly me, i should have realised i was wrong and i will hand in my notice on monday after 25 years of engine development experience as it's quite clear that you have all the answers........
(how many OEMs did you meet last week to talk about future powertrains btw??)
]
I'm calling custard on you, I think you're a bulls(how many OEMs did you meet last week to talk about future powertrains btw??)
]
tter.Fastdruid said:
wormus said:
Fastdruid said:
Er that photo is very deceptive as the only dimension where the 1UZ-FE is bigger is in width and it's all of 3cm wider when bare. More importantly the LS family is actually far wider and longer when fully dressed although the intake is more compact vs the early 1UZ's so they are a touch taller. The newer ones run an intake more similar to the LS which is far more compact and lower (but still not quite as low).
The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
Errrrr....what's not fully dressed about that LS1? It has an intake, fuel rails, water pump & crank pullies, valve covers etc? All it needs is plug leads from what I can tell. That's how they look.The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
So the difference between your picture and mine is :
Some cosmetic, plastic engine covers, a PAS pump and an alternator? Note, the position of the alternator is specific to the application so doesn't necessarily make the engine any bigger.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 1st August 13:09
For reference, here's a picture of my LSA with a TVS2300 supercharger. As you can see, the ancillaries can be changed but the basic architecture stays the same. This one put out nearly 830HP.
Compare that to the engine of a Nissan GTR with similar power. You can see how much DOHC adds to the overall size of it.
Compare that to the engine of a Nissan GTR with similar power. You can see how much DOHC adds to the overall size of it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 1st August 12:59
wormus said:
Fastdruid said:
wormus said:
Fastdruid said:
Er that photo is very deceptive as the only dimension where the 1UZ-FE is bigger is in width and it's all of 3cm wider when bare. More importantly the LS family is actually far wider and longer when fully dressed although the intake is more compact vs the early 1UZ's so they are a touch taller. The newer ones run an intake more similar to the LS which is far more compact and lower (but still not quite as low).
The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
Errrrr....what's not fully dressed about that LS1? It has an intake, fuel rails, water pump & crank pullies, valve covers etc? All it needs is plug leads from what I can tell. That's how they look.The 1UZ is one of the narrower V8's as it runs a single pulley per head and a scissor gear between the cams.
So the difference between your picture and mine is :
Some cosmetic, plastic engine covers, a PAS pump and an alternator? Note, the position of the alternator is specific to the application so doesn't necessarily make the engine any bigger.
The relevant dimensions are vertically up from the crank centre (38.37cm for the LS, 38cm for the 1UZ) and the total width (66cm for the 1UZ, 62cm for the LS)
doogz said:
The alternator doesn't necessarily make it any bigger?
Can you show me a picture of that? Sounds physics-defyingly impressive.
If you relocate the alternator to below the PAS pump, it takes up less room. In the example of the Corvette above the alternator is to the top right and makes the engine wider as it's a "V" 8.Can you show me a picture of that? Sounds physics-defyingly impressive.
Above:
Below:
The accessory drives are interchangeable according to how much space you have. Same with the oil pans and the LQ4 truck oil pan in the diagram above is bigger than the LS1. The Corvette is dry sumped so it can sit lower.
Fastdruid has deliberately chosen different examples of the widest (Corvette) to the tallest (LQ4) in order to prove a point in the hope that nobody else notices. Whilst we are at it we should discuss the weight of the engines. LQ9/LQ4/LSX are all iron whilst LS1,LS2,LS3,LSA,LS9 etc are all alloy.
Fact is basic architecture of the LSx makes it one of the smallest, lightest and most powerful engines available and there are many choices according to what it's going into.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 1st August 15:33
300bhp/ton said:
Who frankly gives a flying smeg about bhp/litre.
It's total power output that matters. And 450bhp beats anything 200-250bhp.
Everyone in a race series.It's total power output that matters. And 450bhp beats anything 200-250bhp.
450bhp in a 2ton car loses to 250bhp in a 1ton car.
I like the LS engines - they are small, light and powerful and simple to retro fit into other cars however they are made to do a job in the US and they aren't suitable for Europe, if they were then they would be used. It's a shame the manual gearbox attached is crap.
They certainly aren't as advanced - whether this is good or not depends upon your point of view.
I used my LS2 RX7 as a daily as I did my LS1 Monaro - and I can tell you that getting 14mpg commuting nose to tail following a Supermini getting 50+mpg isn't fun !
Admittedly if I were wealthier it might not matter but £20 a day on the school run isn't on for the vast majority of us.
V8RX7 said:
Everyone in a race series.
450bhp in a 2ton car loses to 250bhp in a 1ton car.
I like the LS engines - they are small, light and powerful and simple to retro fit into other cars however they are made to do a job in the US and they aren't suitable for Europe, if they were then they would be used. It's a shame the manual gearbox attached is crap.
The only reason they are not used in Europe is due to artificial legislation. We would be using them too if not for displacement based taxation.450bhp in a 2ton car loses to 250bhp in a 1ton car.
I like the LS engines - they are small, light and powerful and simple to retro fit into other cars however they are made to do a job in the US and they aren't suitable for Europe, if they were then they would be used. It's a shame the manual gearbox attached is crap.
From an engineering perspective they are more compact, more powerful, more reliable and more efficient.
The one thing they are not is needlessly complex, but that of course, sells car's and keeps engineers employed at VAG.
wormus said:
If you relocate the alternator to below the PAS pump, it takes up less room. In the example of the Corvette above the alternator is to the top right and makes the engine wider as it's a "V" 8.
Above:
Below:
The accessory drives are interchangeable according to how much space you have. Same with the oil pans and the LQ4 truck oil pan in the diagram above is bigger than the LS1. The Corvette is dry sumped so it can sit lower.
Fastdruid has deliberately chosen different examples of the widest (Corvette) to the tallest (LQ4) in order to prove a point in the hope that nobody else notices. Whilst we are at it we should discuss the weight of the engines. LQ9/LQ4/LSX are all iron whilst LS1,LS2,LS3,LSA,LS9 etc are all alloy.
Fact is basic architecture of the LSx makes it one of the smallest, lightest and most powerful engines available and there are many choices according to what it's going into.
No. You're blind and can't read. I did it the other way round because the corvette didn't show the width of the cylinders (but rather the entire thing) and the LQ4 had the far larger intake and pan (and was actually marked as the dimensions of "LS1/ LS6 & LS1 Based Truck Engines")Above:
Below:
The accessory drives are interchangeable according to how much space you have. Same with the oil pans and the LQ4 truck oil pan in the diagram above is bigger than the LS1. The Corvette is dry sumped so it can sit lower.
Fastdruid has deliberately chosen different examples of the widest (Corvette) to the tallest (LQ4) in order to prove a point in the hope that nobody else notices. Whilst we are at it we should discuss the weight of the engines. LQ9/LQ4/LSX are all iron whilst LS1,LS2,LS3,LSA,LS9 etc are all alloy.
Fact is basic architecture of the LSx makes it one of the smallest, lightest and most powerful engines available and there are many choices according to what it's going into.
But if I'm wrong go on then. What *is* the width of the LS engine and the height of the smallest version. Lets see some proof. I'm fully prepared to say "I'm wrong" but not without proof.
BTW I should add I'm not denying that the LS *is* small and relatively light, my point was just that the 1UZ looked *far* larger in that picture when it is only 4cm wider.
Edited by Fastdruid on Saturday 1st August 18:56
Fastdruid said:
No. You're blind and can't read. I did it the other way round because the corvette didn't show the width of the cylinders (but rather the entire thing) and the LQ4 had the far larger intake and pan (and was actually marked as the dimensions of "LS1/ LS6 & LS1 Based Truck Engines")
But if I'm wrong go on then. What *is* the width of the LS engine and the height of the smallest version. Lets see some proof. I'm fully prepared to say "I'm wrong" but not without proof.
BTW I should add I'm not denying that the LS *is* small and relatively light, my point was just that the 1UZ looked *far* larger in that picture when it is only 4cm wider.
I can read a ruler if that helps? Just been out to the garage to measure mine and it's 22 inches to the outside of the heads (the widest part). That's 56 cm. But if I'm wrong go on then. What *is* the width of the LS engine and the height of the smallest version. Lets see some proof. I'm fully prepared to say "I'm wrong" but not without proof.
BTW I should add I'm not denying that the LS *is* small and relatively light, my point was just that the 1UZ looked *far* larger in that picture when it is only 4cm wider.
Edited by Fastdruid on Saturday 1st August 18:56
Couldn't do the height as it was a bit dark.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 1st August 19:14
300bhp/ton said:
For the LT1, the engine before the LS series, there where some 4v setups. One still used pushrods. And the other was found in the C4 ZR-1 part developed by Lotus.
But adding DOHC to an LS simply makes it taller, wider, longer, heavier and with a higher centre of gravity. As a rule it's just easier to up the displacement or add boost and get just as good or better gains without the same downsides as DOHC. In the aftermarket where emissions, mpg and tractability are less of a concern, there simply isn't a worthwhile need to make it a multi-valve engine.
Thanks for the reply. Nice to see you posting againBut adding DOHC to an LS simply makes it taller, wider, longer, heavier and with a higher centre of gravity. As a rule it's just easier to up the displacement or add boost and get just as good or better gains without the same downsides as DOHC. In the aftermarket where emissions, mpg and tractability are less of a concern, there simply isn't a worthwhile need to make it a multi-valve engine.
Believe it or not, Chevrolet did actually build a DOHC V8 for while... it was called the "northstar"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_ser...
GM dropped it after some time and went with the pushrod LS series of motors instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_ser...
GM dropped it after some time and went with the pushrod LS series of motors instead.
skyrover said:
V8RX7 said:
Everyone in a race series.
450bhp in a 2ton car loses to 250bhp in a 1ton car.
I like the LS engines - they are small, light and powerful and simple to retro fit into other cars however they are made to do a job in the US and they aren't suitable for Europe, if they were then they would be used. It's a shame the manual gearbox attached is crap.
The only reason they are not used in Europe is due to artificial legislation. We would be using them too if not for displacement based taxation.450bhp in a 2ton car loses to 250bhp in a 1ton car.
I like the LS engines - they are small, light and powerful and simple to retro fit into other cars however they are made to do a job in the US and they aren't suitable for Europe, if they were then they would be used. It's a shame the manual gearbox attached is crap.
From an engineering perspective they are more compact, more powerful, more reliable and more efficient.
The one thing they are not is needlessly complex, but that of course, sells car's and keeps engineers employed at VAG.
They aren't more powerful per litre - everything has to be compared to it's size, you don't expect a lightweight boxer to fight a heavyweight.
I'm unsure whether they are more reliable - plenty seem to go wrong - they sell thousands of crate engines for a reason.
Having run a couple the main issue I had is you simply can't use 400+bhp in the UK for more than a few seconds.
227bhp said:
Max_Torque said:
Oh yes, of course silly me, i should have realised i was wrong and i will hand in my notice on monday after 25 years of engine development experience as it's quite clear that you have all the answers........
(how many OEMs did you meet last week to talk about future powertrains btw??)
]
I'm calling custard on you, I think you're a bulls(how many OEMs did you meet last week to talk about future powertrains btw??)
]
tter.But, you know, keep sitting their typing behind your keyboard, and you'll be fine..........
And as all those^^^ pics up there prove, being able to copy and post a picture from Google does not the truth make. Even when people post pictures with no dimensions, from different angles, with nothing to judge the sense of scale, and with clearly half the engine missing, you'll still get the usual trolls moaning, "oh but this engine is soooo small" etc etc.
And then you get the posters, with clearly no technical background or experience saying things like "oh but car x is hevaier than car y so it it's celarly amazing to even be using just 20% more fuel" even those same people are unfortunately not in a position to understand the (minimal) direct effect of vehicle mass on fuel consumption.....
And finally, if the american V8 is such an amazing engine, being hugely powerful, being so fuel efficient as to actually make fuel and put it back in the tank whilst you drive, and clearly being so small that the first time you open the bonnet it gets accidentally blown away by a small gust of wind, if ALL those things are true, how come no OEM outside of the US actually uses one?
You know, those car companies who spend literally millions of pounds developing a new car, employ the best engineers, spend millions of man hrs on simulation, calculation and benchmarking, when silly them, they could just fit a Yank V8 and hurrah, sit back and watch the money roll in..........
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff