Mean C6
- Thread starter trev0006
- Start date
- :
- '13 CWP MS3 & '16 Mazda6 GT
If he was my neighbor Id kick him in the pants...
vxfilmer1000
Member
sweet neon
spacemonkey
Member
- :
- Mazdaslow
Scotty878 said:
You see I like this car but I dont like what it has.
it still has a pushrod engine and leaf springs...no matter how high tech they are they are still the springs found on roman chariots.
And the reason why its cheap is because of fiber glass body (cheap) oppose to aluminum. and a mass produced pushrod engine (cheaper to design then a DOHC engine). its also a FR sports car.
I would probally prefer a DOHC V8 with independent suspention.
This is the problem with american cars
Mustang Cobra - Amazing Supercharged DOHC V8 but solid axles. although originally designed with independent suspention. This move was to save money for ford.
Corvette - amazing sounding and good looking but has a pushrod engine and leaf springs
Viper - Pushrod...to tell you the truth I never like the viper
GTO - Pushrod but has independent suspention
Saleen S7 - high tech carbon parts, pusrod activated suspention, real race technology, looks amazing...yet still has a pushrod engine. now with 2 turbos
Finally!
Ford GT - DOHC Supercharged V8, independent suspention, aluminum parts, mid mounted engine....pure sex. Worth of competing with Ferrari. Amazing car.
Problem with the Corvette is that there fan base grew up with Pushrod and leaf spring...they run a risk of alienaintg hardcore vette fans if they did it right. REmember the ZR1...only took a british company (lotus) to figure out puttin a DOHC V8 would yeild one of the fastest Corvettes 15 some years ago. Imagine what that updated technology would do in the new C6. it was also the most expensive package costing $30K. Until the new C6 ZO6...which does it right with a dry sump lubercation, aluminum and carbon component, higher rev limit.
To me a good characteristic of a sports car is good handling and high revs...like a Ferrari.
Ford has my heart...ironically they are the only manufatuer that competes in FIA racing like Forumla1, WRC and etc. And still competes in NASCAR which still races with pushrod engines in a circle (lame). Kinda of sad to see Ford develop a Cosworth 3.0L DOHC V10 with nearly 1000 hp and a 20,000 rpm rev limit to take on the most famous tracks in the world. And then develop a carborated Pushrod V8 with a 5,000 rev limit to race around in cirlces.
Last edited:
#1 - NASCAR Engines don't redline at 5000 rpm. They can turn 9000. F1 engines turn high rpms for many reasons, but mosly because they have insanely short strokes. The mean piston speed of a NASCAR engine and F1 engine are about the same.
#2 - The leaf springs on the Corvette are not anything like what you compare them to. It's not a steel leaf spring like on a truck or a horse carriage, but it's a transverse leaf spring that spans from side to side and is made of composite material. It is a fully independent double a-arm suspension. The leaf spring is lighter then coil springs, is placed low in the chassis for better CG, and costs less.
#3 - You're ragging on a car that puts out over 400 hp and gets 30 mpg because it uses pushrods? Pushrods and overhead cams have been around just as long as each other. One is not "new technology." If the engine were overhead cam it would have more inertia in the valvetrain, a higher CG, and would cost more to produce. I don't know what you consider high revs, but 7000 rpm in a 6.0L v8 sounds high enough to me. The FS 2.0L redlines at 6500 and it's DOHC.
#4 - You're talking about what cars you think are worthy by reading a spec sheet. Go out and drive one. The cars have a great powerband, flat torque curve, and handle amazingly well.
#5 - The Mustang Cobra has an independent rear suspension. The GT's have a solid rear.
#6 - A pushrod may be cheaper to manufacture, but it is no cheaper to design. A lot of work goes into every piece of that engine. OHC or OHV, the same amount of development goes in.
#2 - The leaf springs on the Corvette are not anything like what you compare them to. It's not a steel leaf spring like on a truck or a horse carriage, but it's a transverse leaf spring that spans from side to side and is made of composite material. It is a fully independent double a-arm suspension. The leaf spring is lighter then coil springs, is placed low in the chassis for better CG, and costs less.
#3 - You're ragging on a car that puts out over 400 hp and gets 30 mpg because it uses pushrods? Pushrods and overhead cams have been around just as long as each other. One is not "new technology." If the engine were overhead cam it would have more inertia in the valvetrain, a higher CG, and would cost more to produce. I don't know what you consider high revs, but 7000 rpm in a 6.0L v8 sounds high enough to me. The FS 2.0L redlines at 6500 and it's DOHC.
#4 - You're talking about what cars you think are worthy by reading a spec sheet. Go out and drive one. The cars have a great powerband, flat torque curve, and handle amazingly well.
#5 - The Mustang Cobra has an independent rear suspension. The GT's have a solid rear.
#6 - A pushrod may be cheaper to manufacture, but it is no cheaper to design. A lot of work goes into every piece of that engine. OHC or OHV, the same amount of development goes in.
Thank you Mallard. It's also important to note that DOHC V8 engines are ******* huge. The Corvette takes advantage of it's pushrod motor by being extremely light for it's massive size.
That being said NASCAR is still boring as hell. Corvette, Viper, CTS, etc GT-level racing? Awesome.
That being said NASCAR is still boring as hell. Corvette, Viper, CTS, etc GT-level racing? Awesome.
- :
- '13 CWP MS3 & '16 Mazda6 GT
(werd)
pluto316 said:
Another thing about the Cobra, my old manager had a 2003 (I think, the last year they were in production) and that car was amazing. It was as neutral as a 3rd gen RX-7 and Miata (I am quoting SCC there as I haven't driven a 3rd gen RX-7). The power just poured on, and hell, even the back seat was kinda roomy. I am not really a Ford guy myself, but it's still a great car.
siberiankiss
Member
- :
- blazing yellow MSP #1622
B E A Utiful!!!! god i love that sound.... *drools*
04 is the last year they were made. 03/04's wear all S/C'd.pluto316 said:
Not all DOHC V8's are huge. Only the Fords. If anyone els has seen a Ford modular engine outside of the car they know what I'm talking about. The heads on those things are HUGE! Northstar v8's aren't huge though.
spacemonkey
Member
- :
- Mazdaslow
Mallard said:
They make all that power with the revs (f1) because of the super short strokes. But dont most race cars have short strokes (not drag cars). But theres no disagreeing that F1 pushes engine building to the exteme limit and engineering is far more supirior then NASCAR. Should F1 be switching to pushrod V8s? For a pushrod is good but can you tell me why Lambo had a DOHC V12 in the 60s (350GTV) while American manuftuers are still tinkering around with pushrods? And perhaps why american manufatuer are the only one working with pushrod designs? Maybe the new MErcedes should feature a Hemi instead a SC AMG SOHC V8. Basic design of a over head cam ssytem is alot older then a pushrod. But I dont see Mercedes flocking to change all there cars in to puhrods. Nor do I see Audi, VW, Ferrari, Porsche, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ranult switching over to pushrods anytime in the near future.
HP = (torque X RPM)/5252.
Mallard said:
I know they are transverse CF leaf springs. But that doesnt mean anything then it has the same basic design as a truck. I believe some of the advatages of a leaf spring system is the unsprung weight and how durable it is. Can you tell me why every other sports cars dont have leaf springs? Maybe its becaus they are thinking outside the box? They want to be differnt? PRove to everybody that we should all equipe our cars with leaf springs and pushrod engines?
Mallard said:
I never said the FS was a sports car engine. it is a turbo econobox weather I like it or not. It gets me from point A to point B and isnt a Lemans racer. Your comparing a FS engine which goes in trucks and in econo cars to a LS6 or LS7? No one is ragin on anything...I realize this is what GM has done since the 60s to change its design to compete with other cars would give it a disadvatage. I mean what if for a moment Corvette engineers chage to a OHC design they are already at a disavatage compared to what Ferrari and honda has done with OHC technology. Im just thinkgin what this car could be if it had a IRS and DOHC V8.
Im not saying that Pushrods are POS...im just saying im not a big fan. corvette proves otherwise. Not to mention years of winnign in the lemans series.
Mallard said:
Apple and oranges...I did drive one. GM had a AutoX course set up at the convention center. I also drive a Pontiac GTO along with Eoctec powered cobalt. You still can change my opinion on what I like and dislike. I like Revs....so sue me if I like cars where you have to rev the crap out of instead of spining a hole into the ground. Yes theres nothing like the instant torque but there also a good feelign when you have 8500 rpms to play with. There is that amzing throaty growlign sound of a pushrod V8 but theres also the screaming buzzing (f1 like) sound of cars reving to 9K. Tell me if you are goign to put down all that torque in a corner? Or what happens if your not careful ont he throttle with all that torque.
Have you seen BMI's battle at 10,000 rpms?
Mallard said:
My bad...thats good news taht they took the LS platform which had IRS but put in a live axle. I miss looked that the cobra would have a upgraded suspention. But why? Why would anyone want to upgrade a solid axle to IRS? we all know its not a true Solid rear axle but there has to be a advantage as to why they would want to do such a thing. Thanks for telling me that I did not know.
Mallard said:
I apoligize for this. I know that a pushrod engine is cheap. But I assume its cheaper to design due to its simplicity. I still think a DOHC V8 are much mroe complicated to deisgn due to the camshaft intake and exhaust timming are seperate. More compenents mean more time to design. I would imagine timing is more complicated on a DOHC engine thus it requires alot more work designing. Not to mention alot of DOHC engines either have a Variavble timming system or a Variable timming system with lift. The amoutn of valves on a DOHC engine is alot more then a pushrod. Thats why I assumed its alot more to design and prodcuce. Another thing is that a pushrod cam are alot closer to the crankshaft thus a shorter chains or gears to turn the cam. on a DOHC engine the overhead camshaft engines typically use long roller chains for each bank or a single toothed timing belt. These long drive systems may require hydraulic tensioners, guide plates, idler pulleys and complex covers to complete the drive system...all of which requires moer time to deisgn and manufatuer.
So should everyone take Corvettes advice and equipe there cars with a LS7 and transverse moutned carbon leaf springs?
Last edited:
I'm not saying everyone should switch to pushrod engines because they are better. I am saying there are advantages and disadvantages to each configuration. You talk like pushrod engines are complete s*** no matter what kind of power output, mpg, rpm's, etc. they put out. In reality it's just another means to an end.
As far as design going into the engines: Think about the path the air has to take in a pushrod vs. an overhead cam engine. The pushrod comes through the block from the cam to the head. Depending on the design the pushrod can be in the way of the air having a direct path into the cylinder. You now have 16 extra passages through the block that that have to be taken into consideration for durability and NVH. You would not believe the about of CFD work that goes into airflow into an intake port. Number of valves in the engine isn't a big factor in my book. Yes, it's more moving parts, but there are 4 valve heads out there for small blocks. There just aren't any in production. The type of engine isn't a limiting factor of the design.
As far as design going into the engines: Think about the path the air has to take in a pushrod vs. an overhead cam engine. The pushrod comes through the block from the cam to the head. Depending on the design the pushrod can be in the way of the air having a direct path into the cylinder. You now have 16 extra passages through the block that that have to be taken into consideration for durability and NVH. You would not believe the about of CFD work that goes into airflow into an intake port. Number of valves in the engine isn't a big factor in my book. Yes, it's more moving parts, but there are 4 valve heads out there for small blocks. There just aren't any in production. The type of engine isn't a limiting factor of the design.
It does have an IRS.
redwagon02
Member
- :
- '08 F150 FX2 screw - '06 G35 coupe - '06 GSXR600
spacemonkey said:
YES!
spacemonkey
Member
- :
- Mazdaslow
Mallard do you think the weight of the vette and the gearing would have something to do with the MPG?
I mean look at the difference between GTO, SSR, and the Vette...both are LS2 powered right? I think they are slightly different. but There is a difference of 8-9 miles on the highway. plus of course the low RPM gets good gas milage at highway speed (constant RPM) but what about city driving?
The pushrod engine has certian advatage...that maybe. But are the advatage worth enough to get everybody switching? a corvette gets 30 mpg or whatever...perhaps Honda should follow suit in there next NSX since they seem to be worried about a daily driven exotic.
Im interested...tell me the advantages of a pushrod engine. Valvetrain inertia is the big problem...the cost is a not that high of a RPM due to valve float.
Pushrod engine are natrually big in displacement. In other nations cars are taxed by how big of a engine you have. Thus it never took off real well in Japan or Europe. but OHC designs and turbochargers did. Its safe to say that if you give a european car manufatuer 7.0L to play with they would give you a V12 with nearly 800 hp NA. hp/liter is more efficent.
pushrods are torquier down low and icombines with lower gearing it saves gas. Although if it gets such good gas milage all V8s and V6s should be pushrod given todays concern for oil prices.
Just dicussing pros and cons.
I mean look at the difference between GTO, SSR, and the Vette...both are LS2 powered right? I think they are slightly different. but There is a difference of 8-9 miles on the highway. plus of course the low RPM gets good gas milage at highway speed (constant RPM) but what about city driving?
The pushrod engine has certian advatage...that maybe. But are the advatage worth enough to get everybody switching? a corvette gets 30 mpg or whatever...perhaps Honda should follow suit in there next NSX since they seem to be worried about a daily driven exotic.
Im interested...tell me the advantages of a pushrod engine. Valvetrain inertia is the big problem...the cost is a not that high of a RPM due to valve float.
Pushrod engine are natrually big in displacement. In other nations cars are taxed by how big of a engine you have. Thus it never took off real well in Japan or Europe. but OHC designs and turbochargers did. Its safe to say that if you give a european car manufatuer 7.0L to play with they would give you a V12 with nearly 800 hp NA. hp/liter is more efficent.
pushrods are torquier down low and icombines with lower gearing it saves gas. Although if it gets such good gas milage all V8s and V6s should be pushrod given todays concern for oil prices.
Just dicussing pros and cons.
Weight and gearing has a role, coefficient of drag has a big role. The Vette weighs 3245 lbs and has a really low Coeff of drag. That's actually not that light compared to a lot of imports. The GTO and CTS-V weigh between 3800 and 4000 lbs and get about 25 mpg on the freeway. They are heavy and have higher drag. My buddies Trans Am that weighed 3500lbs got 30 mpg. My point is that the LS series of V8's can be pretty fuel efficient. Not that they're any more fuel efficient then OHC's, but they're on par with the entire market.
Advantages of Pushrods design: Cost, low end power, valvetrain inertia, packaging, reliability, easy to work on in your own garage.
They are limited in their max rpm's because of valve float, but not tremendously. The stock C6 redlines at 6500rpm and the Z06 at 7000. Seriously, on the street how often are you going to want to take an engine over 7000 rpm? The race cars are modified accordingly to handle high rpms, and people open tracking/autocrossing have plenty of power to play with.
You keep saying:
But I'm not asking others to switch. I'm saying that those engines are great engines. The question you should be asking is, with everything presented above, what would the advantages of the Corvette switching to an OHC engine be? Just to get the same performance at higher production costs and run higher rpm's?
Advantages of Pushrods design: Cost, low end power, valvetrain inertia, packaging, reliability, easy to work on in your own garage.
They are limited in their max rpm's because of valve float, but not tremendously. The stock C6 redlines at 6500rpm and the Z06 at 7000. Seriously, on the street how often are you going to want to take an engine over 7000 rpm? The race cars are modified accordingly to handle high rpms, and people open tracking/autocrossing have plenty of power to play with.
You keep saying:
But I'm not asking others to switch. I'm saying that those engines are great engines. The question you should be asking is, with everything presented above, what would the advantages of the Corvette switching to an OHC engine be? Just to get the same performance at higher production costs and run higher rpm's?
It's safe to say that the average working joe wouldn't be able to afford that engine.
Guys, this is a great discussion. Here is my humble take.
This car is the first I have owned with an lowish redline.
As stated by space, I am a fan of RPMs. I would rather have a motor that spun like hell making good power, than a torque monster.
I think it has to do with your early exp. My first "fast" car I had a chance to ride and drive was a FWD 1st gen Talon TSi w/a ported 14b and most bolt ons avail. at the time (96-98). It was so ******* fast in the top of 3rd at 7ishK rpms that I fell in love. That is the whole reason I bought the MSP, the turbo 2L in it (little did I know the stock setup is a hunk).
That said, my friend bought a '01 Camaro SS and it was a ******* beast! It was the first v8 that I was exposed to in a "non ol-ass car/package". It out handled my old neon (with koni's and sways, look at the SCCA records if you doubt the neons prowess) and I was very impressed. I was under the "stupid pushrods and solid-axle s***, must be gay...I was wrong. My first v8 I fell in love with
I have learned that it doesn't matter what style of motor or suspension it has, it matters how the engineers put it all together and that they are drivers themsleves...
enough rambling...I am a CAR person. Not a OHC person or an import person. I like fast s***...
This car is the first I have owned with an lowish redline.
As stated by space, I am a fan of RPMs. I would rather have a motor that spun like hell making good power, than a torque monster.
I think it has to do with your early exp. My first "fast" car I had a chance to ride and drive was a FWD 1st gen Talon TSi w/a ported 14b and most bolt ons avail. at the time (96-98). It was so ******* fast in the top of 3rd at 7ishK rpms that I fell in love. That is the whole reason I bought the MSP, the turbo 2L in it (little did I know the stock setup is a hunk).
That said, my friend bought a '01 Camaro SS and it was a ******* beast! It was the first v8 that I was exposed to in a "non ol-ass car/package". It out handled my old neon (with koni's and sways, look at the SCCA records if you doubt the neons prowess) and I was very impressed. I was under the "stupid pushrods and solid-axle s***, must be gay...I was wrong. My first v8 I fell in love with
I have learned that it doesn't matter what style of motor or suspension it has, it matters how the engineers put it all together and that they are drivers themsleves...
enough rambling...I am a CAR person. Not a OHC person or an import person. I like fast s***...
spacemonkey
Member
- :
- Mazdaslow
Mallard said:
Which is the question posed when the ZR1 package was introduced. Switching a OHC design is expensive but you have to keep in mind what Ford has done and how they can offer a DOHC V8 for roughtly the same price (more expensive but I assume not that far off). The New Shelby cobra is SC but it is a DOHC configuration. I know its hard to compare NA vs a FI engine but its just a though of what could be done. The price should be that radical if you compared a Ford SVT lighting to lets say a LS2 powered truck or SUV
Sometimes mass producing engines and putting them in different cars help drive the cost down. Like the FS engine used in Ford and Mazda cars. The LS2 used in a bunch of GM cars. 4g63 used in Mitsu/dodge cars. If the GT500 engine was used in more cars perhaps the price might have been lower. "uniform" platform are the concept that helps make these powerful cars affordable.
Mallard said:
I wasnt talkign about affording it or not. Im just saying with that kind of displacement given to a european designer they can double the output.
You are right...completely right. But old habbits die hard and pushrod does have alot of economical us. I mean the mustang was once a pushrod car and now its top model is a DOHC V8 thats SC.
Last edited:
Similar Threads and Articles
