Well, since we've got one cam, and they have two (one for low end, one for 4k RPM+ or so), I don't really see how we could. We will always have a lumpy low end with a biggy cam, but thats part of what most of us enjoy and know as an old fashion serving of HP American style(just like the Harley).

Crappy low end, lots of top end, its give and take with old-tech, one or the other, or a compromise.

 

the OHV single cam v8's are still capable of much better performance......if that technology was applied to the v8 then there would be something to think about.

its been talked about before, but camless diesel engines are going to be released for ford by navistar in the next 1-2 years. it wont be long before that system finds its way onto a gas engine, and then watch out

 

Actually Internaional has already released a camless engine with the valves actuated by solenoids in their medium duty truck line. And from what I hear the new c-6 will get a camless engine within a few years of its release.

 

the new style of camless engine doesnt have solenoids anymore, because they were to unreliable and lack control.

there is a specialized dedicated electronic actuator that they are using now....supposed to be much better.

i believe that navistar actually manufactures internationals engines as well

 

Isn't the new Cobras DOHC 4.6's??? or am I wrong???

I think the more technology that goes into our motors the more its gonna cost us to drive them... so why not just keep the same setup and improve on the past... I mean.. sure it would be nice to have some CRAZY motor with all these facny things... but thats when you go out any buy a Ferrari or a Lamb or somethin exotic... with Technology comes price... and I'd rather make the 400HP on a LS1 then a 400HP on a ferrari motor...

Imagin doin your own work on those motors...

lol...

Check THIS car Out

Koenigsegg... another exotic "that was once someones dream"
LOL.. and expensive dream..

That car is NUTS... Supercharged V8 runnin 655HP... EVERYTHING on the car can be controlled... down to suspension, breaks and even aerodynamics...
they offer with the car a ONCALL Tech that will FLY to your location and fix your car...

yea.. thanks guys... lol

 

Yes, its been DOHC for awhile, I had a 97 and it was DOHC while the GT is SOHC.

Expensive to mod, but they can make nice power, too bad they dont have more cubes. There is a 5 liter version in crate form now though, for Ferd fanatics.

Some of the Koenig stuff uses Ford DOHC engines, you can find one or two on Supercars.net

 

you're thinkin about the wrong Koenig...
the car mensioned above was named after a guys last name... "a guy with a dream" and LOTS of money! lol

but Koneig does make some CRAZY cars...

the Koenigsegg CC is not by Koenig... its by Koenigsegg... one car.. not a company

just a clearafication

 

>2600 pounds and lots of power, wow.

Specs aren't listed, but this car will do quite well I imagine

http://www.fastassdatsun.com/entry.htm

Its supposedly going to be around 650 HP as well, but I believe NA, and 2000 pounds.

 

First, the LT5 did not have any variable valve timing. It did have runners tuned for different rpm’s going to the separate intake valves which is what made for the flat torque curve.

WRT to the original question, it’s not as simple as saying, ‘yea, that one would be faster.’ For the most part, there is pretty much a finite amount of HP that could be used in a car that a manufacturer would be willing to warranty and sell. Past that you have a death trap that spends more time in the garage then on the road. Because of that, if you get more cubes you don’t need to rev as high to make the same power and there is no advantage to OHC or variable timing. Transmissions like the T56 have a similar effect, they allow you so many gear choices that you can always keep an engine in it’s power band, so technology that extends the power band does not help since it will not be used, it just adds cost.

The real answer is that it’s based on the combination, not on the individual technologies used in the parts. Personally, if I’ve got to take care of it I like to keep things brutal, stupid and big, and then apply technology to make that work optimally so that I’m wasting my time in making it work better, rather then wasting my time in keeping the technology that it’s designed around working.

 

No advantage? Thats like saying there is no advantage to a solid roller, there are advantages thats why they make more power, Porsche wouldn't use VVT if it had no reason to.

More cubes is nice, but smaller engines save companies money, and potentially space. More cubes also means more frictional surface area, so there is a breaking point where a 1,000 cube engine just wont want to fit with your 1,200 pound race car.

 

Read everything that I wrote.

Porsche uses a smaller, higher revving engine and is also a car maker that occasionally builds cars way outside of the normal HP/weight range that others will make for limited production cars. If you managed to shoehorn a viper 488 into one you wouldn’t really have a use for it.

If pushrod engines suck so bad how do you explain the C5’s dominance in some road race circuits? It’s simple, effective and works. In some ways SOHC engines fit the same category, except that they tend to be taller and wider, making other things harder to work on.

When it comes down to it, most of what is out there has a problem engineering and technology. All the engineering goes into the technology and not the application, then the technology gets thrown at the application without proper engineering and you end up with a complicated technology showcase that could have made the same power, drivability and be much more reliable and or cheaper to service if they just stuck to a simpler setup and spent more time optimizing the engineering side. This is the reason that the LT1/4, and more so (but over hyped) the LS1/6 are such successes. Reengineered versions of simple, effective designs.

 

I never said pushrod engines suck, maybe you didn't read what I wrote. However, OHC engines still have more potential for RPM and power, while being easier on the valvetrain.

C5R clearly dominated this year, some of that was Ferrari bad luck, but yes they rock the house for now. With the Vipers constantly driving into the tire walls, that doesn't hurt either.

 

If you want to know what type of engines are capable of the most power, there is one method that always leads to the answer.....

look at the top end, most powerful race cars on the planet. what they use is what has the most potential given current technology.....thats why they use it. If there was something better, the rules would be changed and allow for the different setup.

top fuel dragsters are OHV pushrod engines and make 6000 HP find a DOHC engine that does that

 

In that case we should be running a glow-plug and nitromethane as fuel in our street cars. Hey many top RC engines are making between 2.7-2.8 hp with a .21 cc engine. That's gotta be the best technology right? Maybe not eh.

Besides, why would you want to look at a car that only has to survive a 1/4 mile at a time for inspiration. I'd rather look at the endurance side of motorsports... that being F1, Indy, Nascar etc.. Still poor comparisons but much more "real world" than Top Fuel as we all drive "endurance" type engines back and forth to work everyday.

-Mindgame

 

.21 cc or .21 cubic inches? Most of those engnes are called by their CI displacement.

The 6-port Picco G-1 Pro B features a cubic capacity of 3.49cc, (.213 cubic inches) a 16.8mm stroke and a bore of 16.26mm, and it boasts 2.40hp at 30,000rpm. That's 687 hp/L, almost as good as the top fuel engine @730+ hp/L.

Look at TORQUE per liter at power peak for NA endurance engines for a fairly good approximation of efficiency. F1 about 85 lb-ft/l (850 hp @17500), Winston Cup 78-81 lb-ft/l (780 hp @8600-9000). That Picco G-1 boasts 120 lb-ft/l @30,000, but on a heavy nitro load. That's still only 150% of a 2-valve, pushrod, gasoline burning Cup engine which regularly runs well over a million revs in a race.