Modern Camaro Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We all know the LS3 is a great engine, LS based engines have come a long way for sure.

But, the idiosyncrasies of a pushrod based engine make for somewhat poor marketing IMO. Why did chevy not produce an OHC engine?

People tend to think Pushrod engines are 'the devil' and are 'old'...

I personally don't mind this form of engine design, but from a pure trending perspective, OHC engines are becoming the norm while pushrods are being left behind (which is bound to happen).

Is the LS3 direct injected? If not, why not?

This thread is intended to dig deep into the GM LS3 engine not from a mechanical perspective, but from the heirarchy of the GM corporation as to why they didnt develop the LS series into an OHC motor.

Saying that its cheaper to develop pushrod engines is no excuse, ford has the cheapest sportscar on the market and it is indeed OHC (not a bad motor either).

Let's hear it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,873 Posts
I'm very happy that it's the LS3 in my Camaro.

It's not direct injected...that'll be the next gen V8, but who knows when that's gonna be in light of GM's current $$ problems. I'm sure it'll show up in the 'vettes first. I'm glad GM didn't rush a new design in there...go with what is proven to work. Also, the aftermarket is already there with LS3 parts.

When you bring up ford OHC...do you mean the 4.6? Have you ever driven a stock 4.6? It's very un-exciting, did you notice that they're still only making 315hp?...I'd MUCH rather have an LS3 and it's pushrods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'm very happy that it's the LS3 in my Camaro.

It's not direct injected...that'll be the next gen V8, but who knows when that's gonna be in light of GM's current $$ problems. I'm sure it'll show up in the 'vettes first. I'm glad GM didn't rush a new design in there...go with what is proven to work. Also, the aftermarket is already there with LS3 parts.
True, it has its advantages.

Already tried and true, we know it works. But the same could be said about the locomotive. Sometimes if we want to innovate we have to move on.

GM could have said the same thing about the LS1 when the LT1 was the big dog back then. They could have just stuck with the LT1, but look at how amazing the LS series engines turned out after a good 10 years of evolution.

Who knows where chevy could be, imagine an LS4 Dual Overhead Cam engine.

LS bottom end with 5 valve heads and variable cam timing. Redlines at 7800 and makes 500 hp and 500 ft lbs NA with just 6.2 liters.

I would shed a tear for this... :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Which idiosyncrasies would those be? You DO know that the cam-in-block OHV is a much later improvement over the older OHC design, right???
I understand, but from a pure technology and the masses standpoint, the OHC gets more recognition. Sad but true.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,873 Posts
True, it has its advantages.

Already tried and true, we know it works. But the same could be said about the locomotive. Sometimes if we want to innovate we have to move on.
well, I think we are moving on...look at the HP #'s these engines are putting out. 10 years ago, we would have killed for a STOCK Camaro with 430hp. Just because it's still a "push rod" motor, doesn't mean it doesn't kick ass. It's not like GM's still using the same 327's and 350's from the late 60's.

Also, I know this thread is about the LS3, but GM made some strides with the V6 and that was smart. It's fast and get's great MPG, which is what's gonna sell a lot of these cars...so it's not like GM is behind the times. Ford might have an OHC, but no IRS and still using that old 5 speed.:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
I understand, but from a pure technology and the masses standpoint, the OHC gets more recognition. Sad but true.
Yes, but your first post above is basically from the standpoint of "why is GM in the dark ages and not moving to the newer better stuff?" OHC design, especially in a multi-bank engine (like a V-anything) is less attractive from a technological & engineering standpoint on every single issue. The question, instead, is why in the world would you want GM's performance cars to move to inferior technology just because it gets more "popular recognition"???
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,873 Posts
^^^ BTW, this is a totally incorrect statement.
maybe if we actually cared what motor trend though, it would be true.;)

most average people couldn't even tell you what OHC stands for and actually means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Yes, but your first post above is basically from the standpoint of "why is GM in the dark ages and not moving to the newer better stuff?" OHC design, especially in a multi-bank engine (like a V-anything) is less attractive from a technological & engineering standpoint on every single issue. The question, instead, is why in the world would you want GM's performance cars to move to inferior technology just because it gets more "popular recognition"???
No, you are putting words in my mouth.

Re-read my first post.

I said people tend to think Pushrod engines are 'old', I dont personally think. So dont accuse me of saying something I didnt. Reading 101.

Also, I dont want to turn this into an OHC vs. pushrod debate, thats not the point of this thread. If you are going to fanboi this thread with pushrod propoganda then please leave.

The topic of this thread is GM and their direction on keeping the pushrod as opposed to developing OHC. Not which is better. Okay?

EDIT: Calling OHC cam engines inferior technology requires you to use very large testicles, I hope you have them because you'll be in for a suprise when I tell you that a Renault engine thats V8 OHC cam rev to 22,000 RPM and make 700 HP out of something like 3 liters NA. Don't bash technology in any form, engineers gave their sweat and blood for both technology. Me being an engineer understands this and I respect them, you should too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
People seem to have forgotten that the cam-in-block OHV design is a major step FORWARD in engine technology only made possible by significant advances in engineering and machining capabilities. It is HARDER to make a c-in-b OHV engine because the block itself is more complicated but it results in lower total mass, lower rotating mass, lower center of mass, smaller engine size, less frictional losses and greater reliability.

Tell me again why we want to move to OHC???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
It's incorrect in your opinion.

Do some research on production car engines, most of them today are OHC engines.
That's not an opinion. I'd suggest that YOU do some research on the technologies themselves rather than view it as a popularity contest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
No, you are putting words in my mouth.

Re-read my first post.

I said people tend to think Pushrod engines are 'old', I dont personally think. So dont accuse me of saying something I didnt. Reading 101.

Also, I dont want to turn this into an OHC vs. pushrod debate, thats not the point of this thread. If you are going to fanboi this thread with pushrod propoganda then please leave.

The topic of this thread is GM and their direction on keeping the pushrod as opposed to developing OHC. Not which is better. Okay?

EDIT: Calling OHC cam engines inferior technology requires you to use very large testicles, I hope you have them because you'll be in for a suprise when I tell you that a Renault engine thats OHC cam rev to 22,000 RPM and make 700 HP out of something like 3 liters NA. Don't bash technology in any form, engineers gave their sweat and blood for both technology. Me being an engineer understands this and I respect them, you should too.
OK -- How about this angle? Please explain why GM should develop OHC other than because other companies you can name have done so.

You, being an engineer, should know that engineering is best served by using analytics rather than public opinion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
OK -- How about this angle? Please explain why GM should develop OHC other than because other companies you can name have done so.

You, being an engineer, should know that engineering is best served by using analytics rather than public opinion...
My friend, you really should take a class on economics.

Engineers design what sells because thats what feeds them and their family, in the end, the big dogs with the money pay us (and me).

You could probably make any technology reliable and fast given the amount of time and money invested. But if it wont sell then its moot.

I am not saying the camaro wont sell, again, I am saying it could possibly be a wise strategy on GMs part to show-off a new OHC engine which IMO would be pretty slick. :thumbsup:

EDIT: Let's stay on topic please, I don't want to argue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
OK -- How about this angle? Please explain why GM should develop OHC other than because other companies you can name have done so.

You, being an engineer, should know that engineering is best served by using analytics rather than public opinion...
My friend, you really should take a class on economics.

Engineers design what sells because thats what feeds them and their family, in the end, the big dogs with the money pay us (and me).

You could probably make any technology reliable and fast given the amount of time and money invested. But if it wont sell then its moot.

I am not saying the camaro wont sell, again, I am saying it could possibly be a wise strategy on GMs part to show-off a new OHC engine which IMO would be pretty slick. :thumbsup:

EDIT: Let's stay on topic please, I don't want to argue.
Okay - by the bike rack after school! :BangHead::nutkick::thread::violin::meh::slap:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
:popcorn: Very entertaining gentlemen...I will check back later for the Sequel... ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Okay - by the bike rack after school! :BangHead::nutkick::thread::violin::meh::slap:
Good idea, I will bring my 2SS back there so we can listen to some tunes while we watch... :lol:

Hey, are YOU still on for meeting when I get my SS? In another thread I posted that my order went into the Production System on Thursday, Feb. 26th (but no high-5s from anyone yet :eek:)...
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top