C7 engine?
Heel & Toe
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
TBH get rid of push rods, cams, and that whole rotating assembly:
USE DIRECT VALVE ACTUATION
loose wieght in the top end, loose a rotating assembley, gain truely infinite variable engine timing, gain gobs of power, gain efficiency
its a win/win/win/win/win
USE DIRECT VALVE ACTUATION
loose wieght in the top end, loose a rotating assembley, gain truely infinite variable engine timing, gain gobs of power, gain efficiency
its a win/win/win/win/win
Instructor
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 189
Likes: 8
From: NW Burbs IL
No it's not...
Everybody gets so caught up in new engine tech like DOHC, VVT, horsepower per liter, etc. Let's take the S65 mill from the new V8 M3... It's 4.0L motor putting out 414HP - so it hits that magic 100HP+ per liter mark everybody talks about. Now look at the LS7 in the Z06... It's a 7.0L motor putting out only 505HP - so way less than 100HP per liter. Obviously the LS7 is crap compared to the S65 - right? If you look beyond the HP per liter argument, you realize that pushrod engines are smaller and lighter than more modern OHC designs (of similar displacement). The S65 in the M3 weighs 445 LBS - the LS7 weighs 458 LBS... Now maybe it's me, but I'd imagine only a fool would complain about an extra 91HP for a measly 13 LBS. And if the extra 91HP isn't enough of an argument, then the extra 175 FT-LBS of torque should be.
There's more than one valid right way to get horsepower out of a motor. GM has done a great job with the LS series motors over the years... They're bulletproof and easy to work on. No they don't rev to 8,400rpm or have high HP per liter, but they put out a remarkable amount of HP/torque in a relatively small and lightweight package.
Everybody gets so caught up in new engine tech like DOHC, VVT, horsepower per liter, etc. Let's take the S65 mill from the new V8 M3... It's 4.0L motor putting out 414HP - so it hits that magic 100HP+ per liter mark everybody talks about. Now look at the LS7 in the Z06... It's a 7.0L motor putting out only 505HP - so way less than 100HP per liter. Obviously the LS7 is crap compared to the S65 - right? If you look beyond the HP per liter argument, you realize that pushrod engines are smaller and lighter than more modern OHC designs (of similar displacement). The S65 in the M3 weighs 445 LBS - the LS7 weighs 458 LBS... Now maybe it's me, but I'd imagine only a fool would complain about an extra 91HP for a measly 13 LBS. And if the extra 91HP isn't enough of an argument, then the extra 175 FT-LBS of torque should be.
There's more than one valid right way to get horsepower out of a motor. GM has done a great job with the LS series motors over the years... They're bulletproof and easy to work on. No they don't rev to 8,400rpm or have high HP per liter, but they put out a remarkable amount of HP/torque in a relatively small and lightweight package.
The Consigliere
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 22,991
Likes: 6,040
From: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
By the way, those who keep bringing up the "high tech" "low tech" "modern" "outdated" terms when talking about OHC v. OHV might consider OHC is old tech.
History
The first DOHC engines were two valve per cylinder designs from companies like Fiat (1912), Peugeot (1913), Alfa Romeo (6C- 1925, 512 - 1940), Maserati (Tipo 26, 1926), and Bugatti (Type 51, 1931).
Which also corresponds with the time frame OHV engines began going mainstream as well.
One isn't "newer" or "higher" tech than the other. They are simply different tech, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Travis.
History
The first DOHC engines were two valve per cylinder designs from companies like Fiat (1912), Peugeot (1913), Alfa Romeo (6C- 1925, 512 - 1940), Maserati (Tipo 26, 1926), and Bugatti (Type 51, 1931).
Which also corresponds with the time frame OHV engines began going mainstream as well.
One isn't "newer" or "higher" tech than the other. They are simply different tech, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Travis.
Instructor
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 211
Likes: 1
I'm sure the new 5.5 will be in the base model and it should make great hp, but that engine won't be able to make sufficient power for models like the Z06 without forced induction.
The Z should stay NA as it always has, so if GM plans to squeeze 550 or more naturally aspirated horses from the 5.5, it won't happen - GM could do it, but they won't.
I'm willing to bet there will be larger displacement engine choices for the Z or forced induction will be the only option.
I see twin turbos being introduced for models like the Z06 and hopefully the ZR1 if there is one.
In short, a NA 5.5 won't be able to support every model, so I'm sure we will see some other choices as well.
The Z should stay NA as it always has, so if GM plans to squeeze 550 or more naturally aspirated horses from the 5.5, it won't happen - GM could do it, but they won't.
I'm willing to bet there will be larger displacement engine choices for the Z or forced induction will be the only option.
I see twin turbos being introduced for models like the Z06 and hopefully the ZR1 if there is one.
In short, a NA 5.5 won't be able to support every model, so I'm sure we will see some other choices as well.
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: Minneapolis MN
No it's not...
Everybody gets so caught up in new engine tech like DOHC, VVT, horsepower per liter, etc. Let's take the S65 mill from the new V8 M3... It's 4.0L motor putting out 414HP - so it hits that magic 100HP+ per liter mark everybody talks about. Now look at the LS7 in the Z06... It's a 7.0L motor putting out only 505HP - so way less than 100HP per liter. Obviously the LS7 is crap compared to the S65 - right? If you look beyond the HP per liter argument, you realize that pushrod engines are smaller and lighter than more modern OHC designs (of similar displacement). The S65 in the M3 weighs 445 LBS - the LS7 weighs 458 LBS... Now maybe it's me, but I'd imagine only a fool would complain about an extra 91HP for a measly 13 LBS. And if the extra 91HP isn't enough of an argument, then the extra 175 FT-LBS of torque should be.
There's more than one valid right way to get horsepower out of a motor. GM has done a great job with the LS series motors over the years... They're bulletproof and easy to work on. No they don't rev to 8,400rpm or have high HP per liter, but they put out a remarkable amount of HP/torque in a relatively small and lightweight package.
Everybody gets so caught up in new engine tech like DOHC, VVT, horsepower per liter, etc. Let's take the S65 mill from the new V8 M3... It's 4.0L motor putting out 414HP - so it hits that magic 100HP+ per liter mark everybody talks about. Now look at the LS7 in the Z06... It's a 7.0L motor putting out only 505HP - so way less than 100HP per liter. Obviously the LS7 is crap compared to the S65 - right? If you look beyond the HP per liter argument, you realize that pushrod engines are smaller and lighter than more modern OHC designs (of similar displacement). The S65 in the M3 weighs 445 LBS - the LS7 weighs 458 LBS... Now maybe it's me, but I'd imagine only a fool would complain about an extra 91HP for a measly 13 LBS. And if the extra 91HP isn't enough of an argument, then the extra 175 FT-LBS of torque should be.
There's more than one valid right way to get horsepower out of a motor. GM has done a great job with the LS series motors over the years... They're bulletproof and easy to work on. No they don't rev to 8,400rpm or have high HP per liter, but they put out a remarkable amount of HP/torque in a relatively small and lightweight package.
Heel & Toe
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
No actually forget a CAM completely...
There is tech to actuate the valves with no cam, just a hydraulic piston, it's been used in racing and it is not even in the same ball park of capability as a Cam motor.....
SOHC/DOHC/OHV all pale in comparison to the timing capability and high rev capability of the system. Think wider torque curves than any existing street NA motor, yet revs to 10k....
There is tech to actuate the valves with no cam, just a hydraulic piston, it's been used in racing and it is not even in the same ball park of capability as a Cam motor.....
SOHC/DOHC/OHV all pale in comparison to the timing capability and high rev capability of the system. Think wider torque curves than any existing street NA motor, yet revs to 10k....
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
2027 Corvette vs The World: Every C8 vs Its Closest Competitor
Joe Kucinski
Heel & Toe
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: Ontario
No actually forget a CAM completely...
There is tech to actuate the valves with no cam, just a hydraulic piston, it's been used in racing and it is not even in the same ball park of capability as a Cam motor.....
SOHC/DOHC/OHV all pale in comparison to the timing capability and high rev capability of the system. Think wider torque curves than any existing street NA motor, yet revs to 10k....
There is tech to actuate the valves with no cam, just a hydraulic piston, it's been used in racing and it is not even in the same ball park of capability as a Cam motor.....
SOHC/DOHC/OHV all pale in comparison to the timing capability and high rev capability of the system. Think wider torque curves than any existing street NA motor, yet revs to 10k....
You read too many information articles on F1 motors.You should do some reading up on why the LS series motor is a Cam in block motor, and not a OHC setup.
You should also spend some time working on a OHC motor, then spend some time working on a LS1. Id like to see you put LT headers into a 99-04 mustang.
LS9 makes 639hp, and meets all Federal Emissions standards. I dont see where the LS platform is lacking in any way, not to mention its still a standard Fuel injected setup. Im sure we will see more power, and better emissions when theirs a direct injection head in the LS motors
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 13,629
Likes: 3,566
From: NorCal
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,559
Likes: 4,501
From: North Dallas 40 TX
"The valves are operated by the standard cams, lifters and pushrods. This is done through shaft mounted needle bearing rockers, that operate 2 valves with one rocker arm. "
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 13,629
Likes: 3,566
From: NorCal
Race Director
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,183
Likes: 85
From: Castle Rock CO
St. Jude Donor '15
I think it would be important for GM to continue to look at higher voltage electrical systems as well, as those systems have the potential to save gas at criticle times in the drive cycle. Systems could be used to help get a city MPG number higher. Combine a newer, more effecient engine with some electrically driven accessories and there may be some nice MPG improvements.
Racer
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 266
Likes: 1
From: Mobile Al
Intermediate
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Yea thats what the vette needs more MPG LOL!!!
I think it would be important for GM to continue to look at higher voltage electrical systems as well, as those systems have the potential to save gas at criticle times in the drive cycle. Systems could be used to help get a city MPG number higher. Combine a newer, more effecient engine with some electrically driven accessories and there may be some nice MPG improvements.
Intermediate
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Boston MA
Yeah stop with the HP/Liter debate , its overplayed
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,330
Likes: 903
From: Kentucky
Direct Injection is the best thing to do. In fact, if that's the only thing changed, then that would possibly be just perfect.
The current engine is bullet proof and already has pretty high mpg's the keep the CAFE folks quiet. Chevrolet has already shown what great things they can do with DI. Just look at the Equinox, it's 4 cylinder can get up to 32mpg, with owners reporting even more than that. And it's an SUV, with absolutely no hybrid technology. The Corvette needs this kind of improvement.
As for the sound, yea they are kind of quiet. But, if you add the optional exhaust system to the current lineup of base C6 cars, then they turn out great. The engine isn't the problem, they should just add that exhaust as a standard option across the base C6 lineup.
The current engine is bullet proof and already has pretty high mpg's the keep the CAFE folks quiet. Chevrolet has already shown what great things they can do with DI. Just look at the Equinox, it's 4 cylinder can get up to 32mpg, with owners reporting even more than that. And it's an SUV, with absolutely no hybrid technology. The Corvette needs this kind of improvement.
As for the sound, yea they are kind of quiet. But, if you add the optional exhaust system to the current lineup of base C6 cars, then they turn out great. The engine isn't the problem, they should just add that exhaust as a standard option across the base C6 lineup.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,559
Likes: 4,501
From: North Dallas 40 TX
So were DOHCs
DOHC sounds much more advanced, especially since they have so many more moving parts! and take up so much more volume per cubic inch of displacement. And weigh more. Yeah they are a lot more advanced.
The Wankel is much more advanced than both! They make tremendous power per cubic inch, they must be the best! Unfortunately their fuel mileage and emissions suck by comparison, and the long term reliabilty is still lacking. And I am a big fan of the rotary engine and its design simplicity.
DOHC sounds much more advanced, especially since they have so many more moving parts! and take up so much more volume per cubic inch of displacement. And weigh more. Yeah they are a lot more advanced.
The Wankel is much more advanced than both! They make tremendous power per cubic inch, they must be the best! Unfortunately their fuel mileage and emissions suck by comparison, and the long term reliabilty is still lacking. And I am a big fan of the rotary engine and its design simplicity.