OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

In this day in age, we have similair yet very different forms of the internal combustion engine. We all know both of them and have had many arguements about which is a better way to make power. I know that both I and Cobra4B have participated in such and in the Mustang F-body rivalry, its always getting brought up. :D Some of the negative aspects of a over head valve engine is that you can't have multiple intake and exhaust valves per cylinder and typically a lower red line, on the other side of the coin however, you'll have monsterous torque and simplicity. With a OHV engine, you have a higher redline, more simple design and typically a more efficient engine however torque is sometimes sacrifices with this kind of engine design and the heads are more complicated of its rival. So, I ask the people of dragva to post their two cents on what is a better engine design.....

Discuss :cool:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

No cams or valves, end of story. :p

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

and then you say:
Which is it?

And besides, there is no way in hell there could be a VR6 with an internal cam. Engineers of that magnitude don't exist.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

:stupid: who needs um!

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

I'll personally like both. Overhead Valve has more torque, and i like a car with lots of torque. Overhead Cams are nice, higher redline, better top end typically, but, not very street-able, unless your always on the highway. the teg im gettin is DOHC, so i guess ill have to keep the revs up, cause it has no torque :-p

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

It has no torque because it's a honda not because it has over head cams.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

i know this, lol. but typically, OHC's have less torque than OHV's, which is my point. honda = torqueless wonder, no questions asked, lol

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Your car has no rear interior and is not moving any time soon. :)

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

I was just giving ya hell. haha. I read in the rwd n/a thread that you like the torquey M3 engine. I was like "wait a second, that dude just said ohc engines weren't torquey". Haha.

I think a torquey car have nearly as much torque as hp, or more. So far, every "new" car I've owned as been "torquey". My honda wasn't torquey of course :D

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

OHC is a more efficient design, but OHV is more cost effective. Its all in what you choose, neither is better than the other.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

OHC has less moving parts(for non variable valve control engines) and no worries of bending push rods. I also feel you waste less energy, another downfall of push rods. I still love the GM LS1,2+7 motors, although early LS1 motors have problems with vavle train components when you start changing camshafts and shoot for over 450hp.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

flathead :thup: ;) lol

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

you'll run into problems with any engine that you try to run that much HP/ci
especially without the help of power adders

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

yea. i dont have a car right now, and my bike is far from torquey, lol

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

on the contrary. you can have multi valve systems using a OHV system. there are several manufacturers that use a cam that runs one lobe, but will open two valves in the head. yes, running two smaller valves will sometimes allow more flow then one larger valve, but on a well designed head, you can make up for the flow difference with port shape and velocity, allowing the same amount of air or more in.


the phrase KISS comes to mind though on this....and PUSHRODS FO'EVA!!!!!

QUOTE=4SFED4]OHC has less moving parts(for non variable valve control engines) and no worries of bending push rods. I also feel you waste less energy, another downfall of push rods. I still love the GM LS1,2+7 motors, although early LS1 motors have problems with vavle train components when you start changing camshafts and shoot for over 450hp.[/QUOTE]

not really....in personal experience, i have found that a pushrod engine has less shit to fuck up timing wise then an OHC engine. most OHC engines have a timing chain or belt that is long as shit, and when it breaks, something is fucked. not to mention the bitchiness of timing them (anyone that has done cam installs in a Ford Mod engine will know what i am talking about). whereas on, say, a SBC, if you break the timing chain, you really dont do a whole lot of damage (unless you are running a high lift cam, then you're fucked)


at least one other person on this site knows of them....but have you ever worked on one? they are cool as shit to build :thup:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

really what ever floats your boat. blueprinting ohv system are a little more tidious cuz of the blanceing of pushrods and measurements. it doent really matter on what system you like.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

If you can't make 450hp with 350ci N/A, you have problems. LS1s are capable of over 500hp N/A, but the entire valvetrain(valves optional) must be upgraded. I had a 4G63 produce 480whp on a stock valvetrain, with just a change of cams(valvetrain wise). It even had the s**tty 1G lifters that get stuck and tick. Thats only 122ci ;)

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

that is like comparing apples to oranges man. you take a turbo four cyl, change the cams, and it is a safe bet that you were running a larger turbo at a higher psi (my guess is a 16g at about 21psi?) and compare it to a NA V8 :dunno:

turbo the V8 and then do a comparison.

but back on topic, how bout a camless engine? (and not a fucking rotary. i mean camless, uses a solenoid to operate the valves. low end torque and high end hp. oh yes :cool: ) none are on the market, but there are several in prototype stages and being produced. reliability is the key on them though :(

you can take a stock internal 350 (8.5:1 CR) and with 1600 bucks, make 400hp. up the CR and you make much more.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

#1 a 16G is not capable of that it, it was a T4 60 trim hybrid.

I was comparing hp differance and durability of valvetrains. Of course a boosted V8 could easily out do a 4cyl :rolleyes:
There is no replacement for displacement. Anyone can argue this, but then why would alot of import guys be buying stroker kits even for boosted apps, why would rotary guys be looking for 20Bs to repalce their 13s...end of story

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

understandable....but comparing a turbo engine to a NA is a moot point. you can change cams in an OHV engine and get a HP difference just as you would an OHC engine. as to which one gets the larger increase, it is all definitive on the cam selected.

durability in the drivetrains is another point, but with less shit to go wrong (half the lash to be adjusted one way or another) you have less of a chance of major fuckups if something changes. not to mention less maintainance also. (on most cams)

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

maybe i should've put "especially without the help of power adders" in bold so you wouldn't waste time posting. I put that in there so some idiot with a turbo wouldn't compare apples to oranges. I know that 1.3HP/ci isn't impossible N/A but the higher you start running the ratio the less reliable and streetable your engine will be, all other things remaining constant.
I've got 350rwhp out of my 440. I know that i could push 550rwhp out of it with just a head and cam swap but then again i might not drive it on the street often.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Fuck this multiple cam bullshit. Pushrods = :love:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Pushrod Posse......MOUNT UP!

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

I have half as much as twice as many of half your pushrods in camshafts, you pussies.

DOHC 4EVAR

http://media8.motorcities.com/03K2I425481837D.jpeg

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

everyone with a v8 knows that to run huge cams you need double coil springs (beehives), etc to be reliable

and most of the 350ci NA's are running solid lifter cams regardless, not hydraulic.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

the hell is that in? i am sitting here trying to figure out what body it is....not an older mustang (no shock towers) and it looks like a ford cause of the hood latch (and i assume the FoMoCo washer bag is stock)

torino?

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

it is an older mustang

thats the motor everytone wants in an 06-07 cobra

i think its 400hp NA

http://cma.itgo.com/news11v6/1136_w.jpg

mustangs run your motherfucking life hoe.

http://www.stangnet.com/sema2003/PV__027038__.jpg

http://cma.itgo.com/news11v6/1138.jpg

http://jwfisher.com/sec-ford/FMC-eng...stang02_HR.jpg

Here's another concept motor, find the supercharger

600hp and 500 ft.-lbs of Torque in this evolution of the 03-04 Cobra engine... with lighter weight and much better packaging.

http://jwfisher.com/sec-ford/FMC-eng...100PT03_HR.jpg

http://jwfisher.com/sec-ford/FMC-eng...100PT02_HR.jpg

Here's the 5.0 CAMMER again in the yellow ricey 05 GTR concept

http://jwfisher.com/sec-ford/FMC-eng...T-RConcept.jpg

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

that would explain the radiator support, and i assume they converted it to SLA suspension, which is why the shock towers are gone.

that car owns me. :love:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

that bitch has 2 intake inlets

The 03-04 Cobra engine is severely restricted in it's inlet breathing ability. This engine solves that problem handily by using two inlet tracts, with separate FRPP 70MM throttle bodies for each half. The separate inlet tracts meet up behind the plenum, and then turn straight down and take a 90-degree turn to the rear-inlet supercharger.

What's not clear is the location of the MAF, however, perhaps it's located on the back of the engine itself, vertically, similar to the MAF on the 5.4 3V Triton engine...? Otherwise, dual MAFs are used, and they are hidden inside the fender liners on the FR100 installation above.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

I tried to make a simple statement that for most if not all push rod motors to achieve 480whp requires a valve train upgrade, anything more is what you are reading into.
Call the guy running a turbo the idiot when you guys still building dinosaurs won't move into the 21 century and realize there is better technology then push rods and superchargers. Please no posts about top fuel dragsters and funny cars because everyone know NHRA is to anal to allow turbo experimentation or electronic fuel injection. Another thought to ponder on: Why is there a ban on turbochargers in Pro Mod if nitrous or superchargers are superior?

Have a nice day :moon:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

or ford actually went to speed density on it? doubtful...i think the MAF's are in the fenderwell :dunno:


i'd rock the fuck out of that shit.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

uh, I could show you insanely high power NA pushrod motors all day.

Not to mention the LS1 run a few tenths faster than stock NA Cobras.

Why would you even compare Turbos to Nitrous? I could instantly spray 300+ shots of nitrous. No EGT buildup, nothing. Instant 300hp.

And wtf? Pro Mod doesnt allow turbos?

Blown Cars:

Chassis: Must meet SFI Spec 25.1E

Maximum Overdrive: 29%

Minimum Weight: Anything 1973 or newer will be required to weigh 2,700 pounds. Anything 1972 or older will be required to weigh 2,600 pounds with the exception of 1963 – 1967 Corvettes which will be required to weigh 2,650 pounds.



Nitrous Cars:

Chassis: Must meet SFI Spec 25.1E

Maximum Cubic Inches: None

Minimum Weight: Anything 1973 or newer will be required to weigh 2,300 pounds. Anything 1972 or older will be required to weigh 2,200 pounds with the exception of 1963 – 1967 Corvettes which will be required to weigh 2,250 pounds.



Turbo Cars:

Chassis: Must meet SFI Spec 25.1E

Maximum Cubic Inches: 650

Minimum Weight: Anything 1973 or newer will be required to weigh 2,700 pounds. Anything 1972 or older will be required to weigh 2,600 pounds with the exception of 1963 – 1967 Corvettes which will be required to weigh 2,650 pounds.

Maximum Turbo Size: Twin Turbos up to 101mm each. No staged Turbos will be permitted.

Clutch: Three disc clutch permitted.

Intercooler : If running an intercooler the use of alcohol is prohibited. Gasoline/Alcohol permitted if not running an intercooler.

You're a fucking idiot. The reason MOST domestics DO NOT use turbos, is simply HOW BIG THE ENGINES ARE AND HOW MUCH PIPING HAS TO BE BENT TO GO ON A V8.

My engine bay BARELY fits my goddamn supercharger. I'd love to work on the car with two bigass turbo manifolds, plus turbos, then intercooler piping in the way.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Pushrod engines are still around for many reasons. I don't see anymore dsm turbo 4 bangers worth mentioning. the new HEMI and all the lt/ls anything engines are still around making more horsepower than the 4 bangers. If i honestly thought some engine with less displacement than my jug of milk in the fridge was a good idea i would be driving one. I'm happy you made 480hp with the little boy engine. How streetable was it? race fuel? blow a hose during a run? you want to talk about building engines figure out a way to keep your hoses connected to the engine. As displacement on demand becomes more common we'll be seeing more and more horsepower out of the V8 while acheiving the gas mileage of a wee little engine. If i remember right i called you an idiot for making a stupid post, not for driving a turd.

Sorry if i offend any of the actually cool import guys out there with my dinosaur talk.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

.. what about single sohc cars? <3

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Well fucka you too ******.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Pro Mod just allowed turbos this season....soon enough they will be banned again :thdown:

As for 4cyl turds, Take a Honda K series motor N/A, give it 4 extra hole and 4.0 liters of displacement and it would bury a HEMI in horsepower, economy and power production through the rpm range.

So flame away :fu:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Alright dude. On a serious note (I'm saying this the nicest way I possibly can)..

You look like a fucking moron.

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

Anyone can build a sick motor out of any combination, especially huge auto manufacturers. Big fucking deal.

The reason they DONT is for insurance and sales reasons. Why make a 500hp RSX, when noone who wants one (16-22yos) can afford the insurance, and noone who can afford the insurance would pay the 40k+ that it costs?

Research to make powerful engines costs money. They don't just walk into a room with a crankshaft, drill, and sandpaper and start boring out thousands of motors. They have to make the tools, to make the tools, to make the tools, that are used to wrench, and machine together every motor.

Do you honestly think that GM couldn't make a motor to shit on Hondas motor? They've been building V8's for decades. Sure, they can't build a decent 4cyl, but who the fuck cares, no red white and blue blooded American wants a 4cyl. V8's are American heritage.

I'd like to see Honda build a DECENT DRIVELINE.

You're just arguing to hear yourself argue. Come back with unbiased and knowledgeable information.

Or go break your tranny/rear end/car by spinning tires at the track like I did. :rolleyes:

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

off tpoic but....

in that last pic with the "cammer" motor in it that flow posted, your a goddamn idiot to spend that kinda money on that motor..

MY price, working for ford, is $14995 and it only is making like 480hp..

Re: OHC vs. OHV.... which is better?
 

*******