Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
HAVOC
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Chevy Camaro vs...

Chevy Camaro vs... Comparison of Chevy Camaro versus its competition. *NO STREET RACING STORIES*

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-12-2013, 08:01 PM   #26
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
They are wider because they are using 4 valves per cylinder and two cams per head, which is a much better design than 2 values per cylinder and one cam way down in the block and connected to the values with lifters, pushrods, and rocker arms (lots of valve train wasted energy). I don't think the overhead cam engine is limited on cubic inches. Ford just did not design the coyote to be a large displacement engine. Ford used to have a 427 big block overhead cam engine way back in '60's as a special race engine, so overhead cam motors can have large displacement.
How is it a better design?

The LS3 produces more peak hp and more through the powerband and thus has less moving parts. With a disadvantage of 2 valves per cylinder and no VVT like the coyote.

What's better about that?

Why focus on displacement?
Why aren't you saying wow the LS3 produces more hp with 2 less valves per cylinder?

The coyote needs 2 more valves per cylinder and two cams and yet still 6 hp short of the LS3 even with VVT that the LS3 doesn't have.

Then with all that crap the motor has packaging problems compared to the LS3 and all those extra parts on top of the motor effect handling negatively compared to one cam low in the block.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:06 PM   #27
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
Why do you only care about cubic inches? It doesn't even have an impact on fuel economy as a bigger displacement push rod motor has less frictional losses and thus the same fuel economy.

What advantage does smaller displacement give you?

There are so many other factors that matter in the real world to the performance of a motor that a push rod motor is superior.

Cost
Weight
Packaging
Fuel economy
Weight distribution
Power throughout the powerband

How are all these trumped by displacement when it has no bad impact on weight and fuel economy?
My statement about the overhead cam motor being the better design is based on performance only--not cost. I think you are wrong about weight, fuel economy, and power throughout the powerband. I am not sure what you even mean with weight distribution and packaging.

I don't just care about displacement, but as someone above pointed out, there is no substitute for displacement for making power, all things being equal.

I am amazed that anyone would think the pushrod motor is a better motor for performance from a design standpoint than an overhead cam. I wonder why all performance motorcycles use overhead cams if the overhead cam has all of the disadvantages that you cite above. I also wonder why the most fuel efficient small cars use overhead cams if the motors weigh more and get less fuel economy than a pushrod motor.

I think people on websites become fans of something even when logic and facts say otherwise. After all, I am on a Chevrolet forum. In short, nothing you wrote above is true and you should know that.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:11 PM   #28
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
My statement about the overhead cam motor being the better design is based on performance only--not cost. I think you are wrong about weight, fuel economy, and power throughout the powerband. I am not sure what you even mean with weight distribution and packaging.

I don't just care about displacement, but as someone above pointed out, there is no substitute for displacement for making power, all things being equal.

I am amazed that anyone would think the pushrod motor is a better motor for performance from a design standpoint than an overhead cam. I wonder why all performance motorcycles use overhead cams if the overhead cam has all of the disadvantages that you cite above. I also wonder why the most fuel efficient small cars use overhead cams if the motors weigh more and get less fuel economy than a pushrod motor.

I think people on websites become fans of something even when logic and facts say otherwise. After all, I am on a Chevrolet forum. In short, nothing you wrote above is true and you should know that.
Ok.

The coyote makes 420 hp compared to 426 hp for the LS3.
426 > 420 hp. Thus the LS3 has better performance.

Everything I wrote is true.

The coyote motor weights 430 lbs. The LS3 weights 418 lbs.
The LS3 is a lighter motor.

Having the weight down low in the block like the LS3 has a handling advantage and having the weight up high like in the overhead cam coyote has a handling disadvantage.

The coyote motor is larger physically and thus uses more space in the engine compartment. The LS3 is able to fit in much smaller spaces.

What have I said that is false?

I think people get brainwashed into thinking a particular motor is a better design and more advanced without actually doing some research and thinking for themselves.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:13 PM   #29
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
How is it a better design?

The LS3 produces more peak hp and more through the powerband and thus has less moving parts. With a disadvantage of 2 valves per cylinder and no VVT like the coyote.

What's better about that?

Why focus on displacement?
Why aren't you saying wow the LS3 produces more hp with 2 less valves per cylinder?

The coyote needs 2 more valves per cylinder and two cams and yet still 6 hp short of the LS3 even with VVT that the LS3 doesn't have.

Then with all that crap the motor has packaging problems compared to the LS3 and all those extra parts on top of the motor effect handling negatively compared to one cam low in the block.
Which one produces more HP per cubic inch, and it is not even close. Nothing you wrote is correct. The LS is a bigger motor. I guess by your logic the LS3 should produce the same HP as the LS7. Bigger motors will produce more HP than a smaller motor, all things being equal.

Look, you can kid yourself all you want, but the overhead cam design produces more HP per cubic inch and is a better design than pushrods. If you don't believe that then I will let you believe what you want to believe.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:14 PM   #30
Irnwkrkev
 
Irnwkrkev's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Miami
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
Cost
Weight
Packaging
Fuel economy
Weight distribution
Power throughout the powerband

How are all these trumped by displacement when it has no bad impact on weight and fuel economy?
Great example of above is the Chrylser/Jeep 4.7l SOHC vs 5.7 Hemi
Cost- probably cheaper for the hemi
Weight- they weigh the same
Packaging- They fit the same vehicles
Fuel Economy- The same rating
Weight distribution- Hemi's center of gravity is lower
Power- HEMI makes 100 more horsepower!

I get better fuel mileage with my '11 1500 longhorn crewcab then I did with my 2002 durango w/ a 4.7l. The durango weighed less and had much less power. Same gear ratio and same transmission!

By the way, the Ford 427 SOHC was HUGE!!! it wouldn't fit in most vehicles. It mad a great swap for a boss 429 hemi that had the shock towers modified at a factory.
Irnwkrkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:17 PM   #31
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
Ok.

The coyote makes 420 hp compared to 426 hp for the LS3.
426 > 420 hp. Thus the LS3 has better performance.

Everything I wrote is true.

The coyote motor weights 430 lbs. The LS3 weights 418 lbs.
The LS3 is a lighter motor.

Having the weight down low in the block like the LS3 has a handling advantage and having the weight up high like in the overhead cam coyote has a handling disadvantage.

The coyote motor is larger physically and thus uses more space in the engine compartment. The LS3 is able to fit in much smaller spaces.

What have I said that is false?

I think people get brainwashed into thinking a particular motor is a better design and more advanced without actually doing some research and thinking for themselves.
The coyote puts out 440 HP in the Boss 302, and it does it with a much smaller motor. You don't seem to understand that larger motors produce more HP. The LS3 is much larger than the 5.0. The weight is almost the same-no big difference. Again, if the pushrod motor is so great, why are all the other cars (other than Dodge) not using them in any of their cars, including their small cars. It's not brain washing, its facts and logic.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:19 PM   #32
Irnwkrkev
 
Irnwkrkev's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Miami
Posts: 474
You can't compare a DOHC motor to a pushrod motor with equal displacement.

The added displacement of the pushrod motor is one of it's inherent advantages.

A DOHC motor must be smaller to fit in the same space and weigh the same.

Get over the displacement and look at the engines for what they are!
Irnwkrkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:22 PM   #33
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irnwkrkev View Post
Great example of above is the Chrylser/Jeep 4.7l SOHC vs 5.7 Hemi
Cost- probably cheaper for the hemi
Weight- they weigh the same
Packaging- They fit the same vehicles
Fuel Economy- The same rating
Weight distribution- Hemi's center of gravity is lower
Power- HEMI makes 100 more horsepower!

I get better fuel mileage with my '11 1500 longhorn crewcab then I did with my 2002 durango w/ a 4.7l. The durango weighed less and had much less power. Same gear ratio and same transmission!

By the way, the Ford 427 SOHC was HUGE!!! it wouldn't fit in most vehicles. It mad a great swap for a boss 429 hemi that had the shock towers modified at a factory.
I don't think your "example" is great at all. Dodge cannot produce a decent overhead cam engine--no surprise there at all. The Hemi is much larger, so I hope it produces more HP.

Again, if push rod motors are so great, why are all economy cars, motorcycles, and other cars using overhead cams? If fuel economy is so good with pushrod motors, why are all economy cars using overhead cams? In short, the facts do not back up anything you are saying. Look at other cars. Where are all your great pushrod motors?
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:33 PM   #34
Irnwkrkev
 
Irnwkrkev's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Miami
Posts: 474
You just don't get it.

You don't understand about the physical size of the engines. The weight and where it's placed in the engines. The cost of manufacturing the engines. The amount of parts in the engines. The fuel economy of the engines.

Here's another example:

Boat motors. With 4-stroke motors why do they still make 2-stroke motors?
They weigh less
They make more torque
They have less parts
They are cheaper to manufacture

There's more then one way to skin a cat. Just because two of the largest automobile manufacturers decided to embrace pushrod engines doesn't meat they are antiquated.

With todays technology you have pushrod engines that can rev from 600 to 7,000rpm without a hiccup. They are light, small in size, big in displacement, cheaper to produce, reliable.

With direct injection, multi displacement, and VVT they are only going to get better. Just wait until the C7 corvette's LT1 engine has some time to develop an aftermarket following!
Irnwkrkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:36 PM   #35
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irnwkrkev View Post
You can't compare a DOHC motor to a pushrod motor with equal displacement.

The added displacement of the pushrod motor is one of it's inherent advantages.

A DOHC motor must be smaller to fit in the same space and weigh the same.

Get over the displacement and look at the engines for what they are!
The Ford GT 500 has a larger motor than the 5.0 and it fits in the Mustang just fine and it produces a lot more HP than the ZL1. I think your statements above are exaggerated--the weight, size, center of gravity, etc. are not as big a difference as you make them out to be. What little difference there is in those factors is far outweighed by the pure HP advantage per cubic inch of the overhead cam design.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:40 PM   #36
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Which one produces more HP per cubic inch, and it is not even close. Nothing you wrote is correct. The LS is a bigger motor. I guess by your logic the LS3 should produce the same HP as the LS7. Bigger motors will produce more HP than a smaller motor, all things being equal.

Look, you can kid yourself all you want, but the overhead cam design produces more HP per cubic inch and is a better design than pushrods. If you don't believe that then I will let you believe what you want to believe.
Why more hp / cubic inch?

Why not more hp / lb (engine weight)?

Why not hp / number of valves?

Why not hp / number of cams ?

I have given you category after category of where pushrod motors are superior and you focus on one.

Do you not understand that displacement is limited on the 5.0 due to packaging. You have theoretical gains based on displacement but don't you understand that engine has to go into a car under a good and the packaging problems of a overhead cam engine restrict displacement.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:41 PM   #37
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irnwkrkev View Post
You just don't get it.

You don't understand about the physical size of the engines. The weight and where it's placed in the engines. The cost of manufacturing the engines. The amount of parts in the engines. The fuel economy of the engines.

Here's another example:

Boat motors. With 4-stroke motors why do they still make 2-stroke motors?
They weigh less
They make more torque
They have less parts
They are cheaper to manufacture

There's more then one way to skin a cat. Just because two of the largest automobile manufacturers decided to embrace pushrod engines doesn't meat they are antiquated.

With todays technology you have pushrod engines that can rev from 600 to 7,000rpm without a hiccup. They are light, small in size, big in displacement, cheaper to produce, reliable.

With direct injection, multi displacement, and VVT they are only going to get better. Just wait until the C7 corvette's LT1 engine has some time to develop an aftermarket following!
I disagree with everything you wrote above. There is no big weight or size disadvantage at all or all small cars would be using pushrod motors. You must live in a bubble. Look what all other cars are using. Why does GM use overhead cams in their 4 and 6 cylinder cars? Why not use push rods in the V6? I can tell you the answer. HP per cubic inch. You must be kidding about fuel economy. I guess Honda civics should be using push rod motors. Cost, long term reliability, etc.? Again, look at the Japanese economy cars. What are they using? Your arguments don't match up with reality or the facts or we would see the other manufactures using them. Your boat motor example is wrong too but I won't type a book on all of this. LOL.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:42 PM   #38
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Again, if push rod motors are so great, why are all economy cars, motorcycles, and other cars using overhead cams? If fuel economy is so good with pushrod motors, why are all economy cars using overhead cams? In short, the facts do not back up anything you are saying. Look at other cars. Where are all your great pushrod motors?
Some are leaders in the industry and others are sheep that follow.

Where do those cars originate from? What markets are they marketed in and do those countries have tier licensing based on displacement or taxes?
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:44 PM   #39
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
I disagree with everything you wrote above. There is no big weight or size disadvantage at all or all small cars would be using pushrod motors. You must live in a bubble. Look what all other cars are using. Why does GM use overhead cams in their 4 and 6 cylinder cars? Why not use push rods in the V6? I can tell you the answer. HP per cubic inch. You must be kidding about fuel economy. I guess Honda civics should be using push rod motors. Cost, long term reliability, etc.? Again, look at the Japanese economy cars. What are they using? Your arguments don't match up with reality or the facts or we would see the other manufactures using them. Your boat motor example is wrong too but I won't type a book on all of this. LOL.
The japanese have very lame motors. The corolla has been using the same 1.8L engine for over a decade producing the same enemic 130 hp.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:46 PM   #40
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
I disagree with everything you wrote above. There is no big weight or size disadvantage at all or all small cars would be using pushrod motors. You must live in a bubble. Look what all other cars are using. Why does GM use overhead cams in their 4 and 6 cylinder cars? Why not use push rods in the V6? I can tell you the answer. HP per cubic inch. You must be kidding about fuel economy. I guess Honda civics should be using push rod motors. Cost, long term reliability, etc.? Again, look at the Japanese economy cars. What are they using? Your arguments don't match up with reality or the facts or we would see the other manufactures using them. Your boat motor example is wrong too but I won't type a book on all of this. LOL.
So then why did GM chose to stay with pushrods when they designed the new small block motor?
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:46 PM   #41
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
Why more hp / cubic inch?

Why not more hp / lb (engine weight)?

Why not hp / number of valves?

Why not hp / number of cams ?

I have given you category after category of where pushrod motors are superior and you focus on one.

Do you not understand that displacement is limited on the 5.0 due to packaging. You have theoretical gains based on displacement but don't you understand that engine has to go into a car under a good and the packaging problems of a overhead cam engine restrict displacement.
Displacement is not limited in an overhead cam motor. That is a myth. And overhead cam motors do not weigh more per cubic inch than a pushrod motor. Another myth. The reason overhead cam motors are smaller is because they can get the HP they need with less displacement--more HP per cubic inch. That is also why all cars (other than GM V8 and Dodge V8) use overhead cams. All cars. Do you not understand that fact. The pushrod motor is an obsolete design.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:48 PM   #42
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Displacement is not limited in an overhead cam motor. That is a myth. And overhead cam motors do not weigh more per cubic inch than a pushrod motor. Another myth. The reason overhead cam motors are smaller is because they can get the HP they need with less displacement--more HP per cubic inch. That is also why all cars (other than GM V8 and Dodge V8) use overhead cams. All cars. Do you not understand that fact. The pushrod motor is an obsolete design.
The reason overhead cam motors exist is because some countries liscence and tax based on displacement and the only way you can get any power out of a smaller motor is to spin the piss out of it and overhead cams help with that. Do you not understand that? It's governed more by stupid law and taxes than a technical advantage.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:49 PM   #43
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
The japanese have very lame motors. The corolla has been using the same 1.8L engine for over a decade producing the same enemic 130 hp.
That is not true. The HP has increased over the years. I have owned them and know that. I could google the numbers to prove that you are wrong on HP, but I will let you do that. The motor is also not the same. The engine has been complete redesigned several times. The size may be the same, but that is about all.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:52 PM   #44
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
That is not true. The HP has increased over the years. I have owned them and know that. I could google the numbers to prove that you are wrong on HP, but I will let you do that. The motor is also not the same. The engine has been complete redesigned several times. The size may be the same, but that is about all.
You want to prove it, then you google it.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:52 PM   #45
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
The reason overhead cam motors exist is because some countries liscence and tax based on displacement and they only way you can get any power out of a smaller motor is to spin the piss out of it and overhead cams help with that. Do you know understand that? It's governed more by stupid law and taxes than a technical advantage.
It is not the spinning that produces the HP. It is the more efficient design of the overhead cam. It is true that pushrod motors cannot rev as high because all of that extra drivetrain (lifters, pushrods, rocker arms) float at higher rpms.

It is true that countries do require smaller motors, but even if they allowed larger motors, those motors would not be pushrod motors. Only GM and Dodge believe in that technology, and then only in the V8. They have conceded the point in the V6 an 4 cylinder.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:53 PM   #46
Irnwkrkev
 
Irnwkrkev's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Miami
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Displacement is not limited in an overhead cam motor. That is a myth. And overhead cam motors do not weigh more per cubic inch than a pushrod motor. Another myth. The reason overhead cam motors are smaller is because they can get the HP they need with less displacement--more HP per cubic inch. That is also why all cars (other than GM V8 and Dodge V8) use overhead cams. All cars. Do you not understand that fact. The pushrod motor is an obsolete design.
LOL at all the myths. Who's really in a bubble!

If it's obsolete why are two of the largest automobile manufacturers making them to this day and have them planned for well into the future?

Today's pushrod engines can hold their own. The LS9 was the highest horsepower V8 engine produced until the GT500 came out in 2013!
Irnwkrkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:55 PM   #47
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
You want to prove it, then you google it.
I don't need to prove it. I know it for a fact. I have owned a couple of Corollas over the years. The variable valve timing and fuel injection and other things along increased the HP over the old carburetor motors. It is also common sense. I could prove it with a google search, but I think we both know you are wrong so what is the point. Are you still saying you are correct?
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:59 PM   #48
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
So then why did GM chose to stay with pushrods when they designed the new small block motor?
I really do not know the answer to that. I read different reasons from GM, but their story keeps changing. To be honest, it does not make sense why they are sticking with pushrod motors.

Of course, it does not make sense to me that GM uses fiberglass for the corvette when no other manufacturer of high end sports cars uses it.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:00 PM   #49
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Camaro Z28, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
The coyote puts out 440 HP in the Boss 302, and it does it with a much smaller motor. You don't seem to understand that larger motors produce more HP. The LS3 is much larger than the 5.0. The weight is almost the same-no big difference. Again, if the pushrod motor is so great, why are all the other cars (other than Dodge) not using them in any of their cars, including their small cars. It's not brain washing, its facts and logic.

It does it with less DISPLACEMENT, not a smaller engine. It also has CNC ported heads, different cams and different exhaust. It's not a direct comparison to the LS3.

DOHC engines have
higher center of gravity
larger external dimensions
weight less

Most cars are not V8s. Most are 4 bangers or V6s which do not have the same packaging problems as a DOCH V8.
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:01 PM   #50
Irnwkrkev
 
Irnwkrkev's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Miami
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
I have owned a couple of Corollas over the years.
You sir have just lost all credability!
Irnwkrkev is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.