Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
JDP Motorsports
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


View Poll Results: DOHC/OHC vs. OHV
DOHC/OHC 14 26.92%
OHV 38 73.08%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-14-2008, 10:42 AM   #1
smokn'
 
Drives: Banana boat
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The carribeen
Posts: 228
DOHC/OHC vs. OHV

which one would you like 4 the camaro v8(or maybe it's future gen V)? 4 me, the DOHC/OHC.
smokn' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 11:21 AM   #2
MerF
Go Rays!
 
MerF's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Trailblazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,537
"For".

Thanks.
MerF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 01:00 PM   #3
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 26,370
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
I don't care which config it has. I really don't. GM's proven time and again that you don't need OHC/DOHC to have a world-class engine...

So as long as it does it's job well, I couldn't give a rat's behind what configuration they use.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 01:35 PM   #4
wildpaws

 
wildpaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 1999 Blazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
I don't care which config it has. I really don't. GM's proven time and again that you don't need OHC/DOHC to have a world-class engine...

So as long as it does it's job well, I couldn't give a rat's behind what configuration they use.
Ditto, performance is far more important to me than configuration!!
Clyde
wildpaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 05:28 PM   #5
Jinx
Owner of Shunt
 
Jinx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2001 Mustang GT vert
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Trunk, NC
Posts: 323
After working with current Mustangs, I dont want a Camaro to get a OHC/DOHC. Ive had enough of it. Its more expensive and time consuming to do mods. Not to mention aftermarket is slower. Thats the main attraction I have with LS engines, besides the superior power numbers.

Most old school wrench jockeys can do a cam swap on a LS anywhere, but with SOHC or DOHC most of them guys dont even want to help even with a case of beer. With Mustangs the only option you have is third party port work or hope Ford comes out with a better design soon. With LS engines or most OHV engines; you have a hand full of aftermarket companies producing head.

OHC is great if the car is going to stay stock or get nothing more than bolt-ons and supercharger. But I miss having a car that can be brand new and still be tinkered on and even your friend have fun helping. Maybe I am biased and have been scarred by Mustangs.
__________________


Support the "JINX CAMARO FUND" at http://www.zazzle.com/jinxdesign
Jinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 09:54 PM   #6
ihc95
 
ihc95's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW 335i E92
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 649
doesn't OHV engines usually have more torque than DOHC/OHC engines? OHV engines are also cheaper to make, so OHV.
ihc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 10:19 PM   #7
z28collection
waiting for 5th gen
 
z28collection's Avatar
 
Drives: 99 z28 6 speed, 81 z28 auto
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: chapin s.c.
Posts: 195
OHV

give me a pushrod motor anyday much easier and cheaper to work on.
__________________
speed kills-drive a ford and live forever

http://www.myspace.com/ashleyjfowlkes
z28collection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:02 PM   #8
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 23,082
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihc95 View Post
doesn't OHV engines usually have more torque than DOHC/OHC engines? OHV engines are also cheaper to make, so OHV.
yes, but thats because its easier to make more rpms with (d)ohc than ohv. so they tend to use that.

still, i'd rather have ohv, they are smaller, simplier and lighter
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
Originally Posted by FbodFather
My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors......
........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!
__________________

Camaro Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:05 PM   #9
The_Beast_
THE GoldMember
 
The_Beast_'s Avatar
 
Drives: '92 Pathfinder A.K.A The BEAST
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 1,163
I'll say OHC cause theyre genrally lighter and can produce higher engine speeds than that of OHV 's can. Not to mention better engine performance and even better design flexiblity.
__________________
So the Goldmember has spoken, So shall it be done.
_________________________________________________

AUGUST 2009 AURORA HITSS THE SSTREETSS!!!!!

~MY SSCHEME: BLACK W/GOLD BUMPER 2 BUMPER Z-28 SSTRIPESS.~
^In the wise words of Pink, "NO NOT MUSTANG GOLD"

Forget a automatic, a MUSCLE car needs STICK! To bad I'm getting auto

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lonely Island
IM RIDIN ON A DOLPHIN DOIN FLIPS N' SHIT!!!!



May The Beast Rest In Peace. For Now.
The_Beast_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:18 PM   #10
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 26,370
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast_ View Post
I'll say OHC cause theyre genrally lighter and can produce higher engine speeds than that of OHV 's can.
They are, and can? I've always been under the impression that it's the other way around.

OHV's are lighter due to only having one Cam, etc.
And OHC's can rev higher due to the reduction in valve-float, etc.

__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:30 PM   #11
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Doesn't matter to me, personally. Then again, I'll be getting the V6 (not the V8) and the only modding I'll be doing will be a custom exhaust system.
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:30 PM   #12
Jinx
Owner of Shunt
 
Jinx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2001 Mustang GT vert
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Trunk, NC
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
They are, and can? I've always been under the impression that it's the other way around.

OHV's are lighter due to only having one Cam, etc.
And OHC's can rev higher due to the reduction in valve-float, etc.

You are correct. OHV are lighter due to less material overall. Just to get an idea I wish everyone would get the chance to see an LS# vehicle next to a Cobra with both hoods popped. That 4.6L DOHC will make an LS1 look tiny even though the LS1 would have over an liter of displacement over the cobra. OHV are simple and Gm uses it to there advantage. I hate hearing the arguement about the OHV being outdated. Its BS. The OHC design dates back about just as far. If GM can produce an engine with larger displacement, manage high 20s in gas mileage, and make mind bending power and potential; then I say dont **** with it.
__________________


Support the "JINX CAMARO FUND" at http://www.zazzle.com/jinxdesign
Jinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:47 PM   #13
The_Beast_
THE GoldMember
 
The_Beast_'s Avatar
 
Drives: '92 Pathfinder A.K.A The BEAST
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 1,163
dont know last time i check OHC have better engine speeds.
__________________
So the Goldmember has spoken, So shall it be done.
_________________________________________________

AUGUST 2009 AURORA HITSS THE SSTREETSS!!!!!

~MY SSCHEME: BLACK W/GOLD BUMPER 2 BUMPER Z-28 SSTRIPESS.~
^In the wise words of Pink, "NO NOT MUSTANG GOLD"

Forget a automatic, a MUSCLE car needs STICK! To bad I'm getting auto

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lonely Island
IM RIDIN ON A DOLPHIN DOIN FLIPS N' SHIT!!!!



May The Beast Rest In Peace. For Now.
The_Beast_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 02:40 AM   #14
Jinx
Owner of Shunt
 
Jinx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2001 Mustang GT vert
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Trunk, NC
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast_ View Post
dont know last time i check OHC have better engine speeds.
Each one has there pros and cons. Packaging is going to be an issue with a DOHC with larger displacement. So a small displacement with DOHC will prolly be chosen to do the same as an larger displacement with OHV. I think the engine bay is about the same size as the last gen camaro, so try to imagine a 6.2 with DOHC,.....it would be ****ing huge.

Plus, the ability for high engine speeds is great if if you need to spin the hell out of it to get the needed power. Thats not needed when you got an engine that makes its power in low and mid range and the displacement to spare do it in.

Perfect example of high revving to get bigger numbers from DOHC:

Lexus IS-F: 415hp @ 6600; 371tq @ 5200 (5.0L DOHC with DI)
BMW M3: 414hp @ 8300; 295tq @ 3900 (4.0L DOHC with DI)
Ferrari F430: 483 hp @ 8500; 343tq @ 5250 (4.3 DOHC)

These are all wonderful engines, but I like an affordable car too. If high revving is what you want, its going to take more than just heads. Its going to take an bottom end that handle the speeds to take advantage of that feature.

As for me I like low and mid range power from GM's current OHV offerings and at a price I cant argue with. Even if GM manage to squeeze a 6.2 DOHC into the engine bay and make 500+ hp; I dont think anyone in this decade or the next half decade will drive away with a under 40k Camaro.

Saleen managed to pull off 390hp with 5.0L SOHC. Ford made the Cobra R with 385 hp from a 5.4L DOHC. Hell I contemplated the idea of building a 5.4 based Ford Modular for my Mustang, but after some research it wouldnt be worth the money even with the best parts chosen for the build. I hate to say it, but I wouldnt bet on GM to build a larger displacement engine (6.0L +) with DOHC with power optimized in regular production cars anyway. Not because they cant, but because they have more cost effective ways to make the power (they are looking at forced induction, LSA, LS9). Not to mention the fact gas mileage is good on current OHV engines. So why change?

If it isnt broke, dont fix it.

If we are talking V6 and I4s then by all means use DOHC. Because I dont think we will ever see a 4.5L bastard OHV V6 in a Camaro, nor do I want to. Lol.
__________________


Support the "JINX CAMARO FUND" at http://www.zazzle.com/jinxdesign

Last edited by Jinx; 06-16-2008 at 02:52 AM.
Jinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 10:35 AM   #15
radz28
Petro-sexual
 
radz28's Avatar
 
Drives: Ultra-Grin
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Crapramento, Crapifornia
Posts: 13,052
Give me pushrods and I'll be happy. Actually, I don't really care either way, I just know they are simpler and it's been proven they are not "lower technology." Hmm... 427 ci and 7000 redline?... Hell, a lot of cam only LS1 guys run to 7000 grand on a stock shortblock and heads. Of course they change the springs, retainers, pushrods and timing chain but still. You don't need need four cams to make power.
__________________
"...What IS true: We anticipated that this would happen - we are never finished - and yes, Ford DOES deserve to win now and then. To think that GM can come out with a car to make ford throw in the towel is simply foolhardy..." - fbodfather
radz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 01:40 PM   #16
wildpaws

 
wildpaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 1999 Blazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast_ View Post
I'll say OHC cause theyre genrally lighter and can produce higher engine speeds than that of OHV 's can. Not to mention better engine performance and even better design flexiblity.
Last time I checked, the Nascar OHV engines were turning 9500+ rpm, how many more rpms do you need? Are they purpose built engines? Sure they are, but no more so than a high revving Ferrari DOHC engine.
Clyde
wildpaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 05:19 PM   #17
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 23,082
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildpaws View Post
Last time I checked, the Nascar OHV engines were turning 9500+ rpm, how many more rpms do you need? Are they purpose built engines? Sure they are, but no more so than a high revving Ferrari DOHC engine.
Clyde
And the last time I checked, F1 race engines run about twice that. If you could get a Nascar engine to do that, they'd need restrictor plates at martinsville.

Also, could the person who says that ohc engines are lighter please explain? I have never heard of that being the case. I always hear its the other way around.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
Originally Posted by FbodFather
My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors......
........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!
__________________

Camaro Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is online now   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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ZL1 Camaro 94blackcamaroz28 Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 57 07-11-2008 12:09 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.