|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=34100 |
|
| Comments: 37 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 07-20-2004
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
My dad's newest acquisition, '91 Corvette convertible. |
Showing page: 2 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
 |
| #21 |
7-30-2004 @ 08:10:34 PM |
| Posted By : Obsidian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, "GM is just being archaic for still using the decidedly inferior pushrods."
Yeah. It's not like GM saves over $800 per unit with OHV's when compared to an engine with equal displacement that has OHC's.
Logeviety
Build cost
Repair cost
Packaging
Block size
Less valve train mass
Less weight
Fuck - the only thing GM has to do is shake off that silly "OHV = low tech" bullshit and they'll have it all.
[Edited by Obsidian on 7-30-2004 @ 08:13:31 PM]
|
|
| #22 |
7-30-2004 @ 08:12:16 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, Having an engine capable of producing higher RPMs....have a lot more flexiblity, and as you said, smoothness in shifting.
Most pushrods that I can think of offhand have very broad and flat torque and powerbands, possibly due to the displacement. Which brings us back to the question of what the advantage of high hp/liter is.
You're also losing power....burn as fully as in 4 valves per cylinder engines.
At higher rpms...you're gaining low-rpm power and torque. Especially in a vehicle like a truck or a musclecar, low rpms is where it's at.
As far as engineers saving weight ....not the technology itself.
OHC engines are still heavier though...my point was engineers have to go to extreme measures to lighten them, due to the massive weight difference.
(cont.)
|
|
| #23 |
7-30-2004 @ 08:15:48 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
(cont.)
It doesn't matter which you have more of, it's all about the gearing.
Gearing can be used as a crutch in a performance car, but it still doesn't change the advantages/disadvantages of a particular engine design. For example, a low torque car designed to be quick would have very close gear ratios...but the same gear ratios in a high-torque car would make for a quicker car, assuming it had similar weight and the traction to back it up.
I say it's fine for some applications, but for a vehicle designed for low-end grunt, there is no real excuse for needless complexity.
|
|
| #24 |
7-30-2004 @ 08:33:51 PM |
| Posted By : Paganknights |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#21, I'm already aware of the fact that GM is cheap. And late-model corvettes are notorious for spending a lot of time in the shop, so don't try to act like you're saving cash on the repair cost. And for that matter, we're talking about a vehicle that goes for over 60K, adding an extra 6,400 to that isn't exactly a huge jump for the target demographic.
|
|
| #25 |
7-30-2004 @ 08:37:31 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24, And late-model corvettes are notorious for spending a lot of time in the shop
Since when?
|
|
| #26 |
7-30-2004 @ 08:58:57 PM |
| Posted By : Paganknights |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#25, Based on what i've heard from 'vette owners, chevy's generally lousy performance in reliability testing in consumer reports, and as relative to say the evil Hondas, who all have OHC and excellent reliability.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040421.htm
While this guy does praise the pushrod 'vette, he also seems to disagree with your guys on the issue of OHC having more valve train weight.
|
|
| #27 |
7-30-2004 @ 09:29:31 PM |
| Posted By : thirtyseven |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I've got no problem with OHV in American V8s, great sounding, beautiful power curves, reliable, cheap. But on anything else, I'll take OHC. Nothing sounds better than a high revving, complex, inefficient, expensive, over-rated exotic motor. BMW M3 six, anything Italian, and lots of (no kidding) four cylinders. I'll admit, OHC can be as prosaic as OHV when it comes to economy cars and the like, but when made for performance, I'll take it over OHV anyday... unless it's a muscle car or a 'Vette.
|
|
| #28 |
7-30-2004 @ 09:46:02 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#26, You might want to recheck that. The Corvette is always ranked at the top of its class. Chevrolet on the whole ranked #11 on JD Power's 2004 list (which is ahead of the industry average), and GM stablemates Buick and Cadillac ranked #2 and #5, respectively. Honda was #6.
BTW, I never said pushrods had less valve train mass...they don't. But valvetrain mass is not overall weight. 2-4 camshafts + the gears/chains that drive them are heavier than 8 pushrods, 8 lifters, and 8 rockers all put together.
|
|
| #30 |
8-31-2004 @ 08:42:12 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I guess the Ohio-made Accords are low-tech too. And the Jetta must be absolutely archaic, being made in Mexico.
|
|
| #31 |
8-31-2004 @ 08:44:15 PM |
| Posted By : Altima35se2003 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
ohio, so thats where they are made. they're haven't been any high tech civics in canada since 1989.
|
|
| #33 |
8-31-2004 @ 08:46:36 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
And I guess the Canadian-made Monte Carlo (post G-body) is the highest of high tech. Its furrin.
|
|
| #34 |
8-31-2004 @ 08:47:45 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Side-note: the S2000 is 97% Japanese. Made there. Says so on the window sticker at the dealer.
|
|
| #35 |
8-31-2004 @ 08:53:31 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#32, Yeah, so your car is faster than an Altima, Accord, or Monte Carlo. But an S2000 would beat you, because they have 120 hp per liter, and that's like, important and stuff.
|
Showing page: 2 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
