Ford = OHV

[MRMOPARMAN]

whoops.. just wiki'd it.. turns out i was wrong. they certainly look like a 60 degree block though (maybe coz they're such a low deck design) ohwell.

[jmac]

would the current ford inline 6 pass them? It's an unreasonable tangent to use specific examples to deny one position, but ignore them on another (i.e. that the ford combo in a ford is better than the 2v gm v8).

One should also imho consider the extra costs of manufacturing (and resources and pollution and so forth) an engine with a shitload more complexity - up to 3 extra cams, double the valves and valve springs, double the machining time and tool wear and tear. The gm v8s are also fairly economical towing, so even _if_ their tailpipe %ages are higher, their total emissions might be lower in gross terms.

Hell I'd go even further and suggest that _everything_ we do here is non-essential, so it's contributing to pollution anyway, I'd also suggest that the world should be re-evaluating things, and instead of pushing for lowest emissions (of the currently 'important' compounds) should be looking for the lowest bfsc - being that there's at least a possibility that fossil fuels are a finite resource. but anyhoo...

Some of the hybrid engines run particularly high comp ratios - static at least, for a better expansion ratio, and deliberately run (either throttled, or more commonly later intake valve closure) lower volumetric efficiency. Meaning that _could_ be just as easily satisfied with a 2v configuration. it'd hypothetically allow and even higher static comp, if only because it'd be easier to get a smaller chamber without having to accomodate twice as many valves, and allow lots of quench and squish without highly intricate piston crown shapes. Again it's then also a smaller package, and less raw materials, manufacturing costs lower and so on.

All of this is getting away from the key issue, at least as far as my post on this thread initially, and specific context of the original statements - as applied to the ford v8 - it's just poorly done on many fronts and is more complex, less reliable, uses more fuel, and overall has less useable power. Since it's a road car, and not subject to displacement or parity attempts, what ultimately counts is the end result, and judging by sales it does well.

Given it's lack of superior output, the ford also pays some price in terms of a slightly higher centre of gravity.


2v race engines get decent volumetric efficiency - so they produce decent torque. I've already conceded that they'll never do it over the same rpm spread (not nearly) as a multivalve engine potentially will. But given the _specific_ non race example of the gm vs ford v8 - the gm v8 is a fair bit bigger, and with a better bore/stroke ratio - and as such it makes some serious torque, and it can do so without excessive rpms - on which note, of some irony the gm v8 is anecdotally more content at relatively higher rpm than the ford (in it's local variant at any rate, which is a fairly long stroke unit).

Another example might be to compare an Ultima and a McLaren - on a technical level (and in some ways on a real world performance example) the McLaren has an edge in many respects. But given the overall costs, and design goals, it was a fairly decent option to use a sb chev as a powerplant. Sure the bmw v12 is more efficient and more advanced, but it'd likely come close to adding an extra figure to the price tag of the ultima, on the wildly speculative hypothesis that they could even arrange such a deal. The thing still goes like stink, and would put a smile on many enthusiasts faces. It wouldn't have the same 'cred' with purists, most likely, but not to be sneezed at from a fun factor point of view. I know you aren't a fan of the ultima, or at least it's handling (in particular citing understeer, if I recall correctly) - but it's still a fairly decent bit of kit for a relatively reasonable price tag.

Manufacturers have far more to consider than outright peformance or techincal prowess. I don't think many would suggest mac struts are a better bet than double wishbone, yet shitloads of cars are producd with the former, and the result is still worthwhile, or satisfies the myriad of design criteria.

If anyone cares - the reason the sbchev looks narrow isn't immediately clear. It has (typically, though not all variants of the latter) a higher deck height than some other US v8s - the ford in particular, but the big 'deal' - which makes holden look wider for example (I mean the plastic - i.e. the gmh 5 litre) is that the exhaust ports are relatively short and meet the manifold face rather abruptly. They still manage to work well, so it's not to their detriment. The intake ports (both in length and location) tend to be a little longer, or reach further toward the centre, so the inlet manifold on a plastic looks a lot wider in the valley area it covers.

[jmac]

would the current ford inline 6 pass them? It's an unreasonable tangent to use specific examples to deny one position, but ignore them on another (i.e. that the ford combo in a ford is better than the 2v gm v8).

One should also imho consider the extra costs of manufacturing (and resources and pollution and so forth) an engine with a shitload more complexity - up to 3 extra cams, double the valves and valve springs, double the machining time and tool wear and tear. The gm v8s are also fairly economical towing, so even _if_ their tailpipe %ages are higher, their total emissions might be lower in gross terms.

Hell I'd go even further and suggest that _everything_ we do here is non-essential, so it's contributing to pollution anyway, I'd also suggest that the world should be re-evaluating things, and instead of pushing for lowest emissions (of the currently 'important' compounds) should be looking for the lowest bfsc - being that there's at least a possibility that fossil fuels are a finite resource. but anyhoo...

Some of the hybrid engines run particularly high comp ratios - static at least, for a better expansion ratio, and deliberately run (either throttled, or more commonly later intake valve closure) lower volumetric efficiency. Meaning that _could_ be just as easily satisfied with a 2v configuration. it'd hypothetically allow and even higher static comp, if only because it'd be easier to get a smaller chamber without having to accomodate twice as many valves, and allow lots of quench and squish without highly intricate piston crown shapes. Again it's then also a smaller package, and less raw materials, manufacturing costs lower and so on.

All of this is getting away from the key issue, at least as far as my post on this thread initially, and specific context of the original statements - as applied to the ford v8 - it's just poorly done on many fronts and is more complex, less reliable, uses more fuel, and overall has less useable power. Since it's a road car, and not subject to displacement or parity attempts, what ultimately counts is the end result, and judging by sales it does well.

Given it's lack of superior output, the ford also pays some price in terms of a slightly higher centre of gravity.


2v race engines get decent volumetric efficiency - so they produce decent torque. I've already conceded that they'll never do it over the same rpm spread (not nearly) as a multivalve engine potentially will. But given the _specific_ non race example of the gm vs ford v8 - the gm v8 is a fair bit bigger, and with a better bore/stroke ratio - and as such it makes some serious torque, and it can do so without excessive rpms - on which note, of some irony the gm v8 is anecdotally more content at relatively higher rpm than the ford (in it's local variant at any rate, which is a fairly long stroke unit).

Another example might be to compare an Ultima and a McLaren - on a technical level (and in some ways on a real world performance example) the McLaren has an edge in many respects. But given the overall costs, and design goals, it was a fairly decent option to use a sb chev as a powerplant. Sure the bmw v12 is more efficient and more advanced, but it'd likely come close to adding an extra figure to the price tag of the ultima, on the wildly speculative hypothesis that they could even arrange such a deal. The thing still goes like stink, and would put a smile on many enthusiasts faces. It wouldn't have the same 'cred' with purists, most likely, but not to be sneezed at from a fun factor point of view. I know you aren't a fan of the ultima, or at least it's handling (in particular citing understeer, if I recall correctly) - but it's still a fairly decent bit of kit for a relatively reasonable price tag.

Manufacturers have far more to consider than outright peformance or techincal prowess. I don't think many would suggest mac struts are a better bet than double wishbone, yet shitloads of cars are producd with the former, and the result is still worthwhile, or satisfies the myriad of design criteria.

If anyone cares - the reason the sbchev looks narrow isn't immediately clear. It has (typically, though not all variants of the latter) a higher deck height than some other US v8s - the ford in particular, but the big 'deal' - which makes holden look wider for example (I mean the plastic - i.e. the gmh 5 litre) is that the exhaust ports are relatively short and meet the manifold face rather abruptly. They still manage to work well, so it's not to their detriment. The intake ports (both in length and location) tend to be a little longer, or reach further toward the centre, so the inlet manifold on a plastic looks a lot wider in the valley area it covers.