[RobbyBeefcake87]

I won't call op a troll but he definately came into this with some preconceived notions of what engineering efficacy is and some biases to the dohc design. They both have their benefits, and hp/liter is just one measure but not a very good one at that for all intents and purposes imo. Why measure internal volume and not take external volume into account. Sometimes you can read just enough to confuse yourself without having a large enough knowledge base on a subject to understand it fully.

[KingLT1]

DOHC lacks low end torque. It needs lot's of rpm to move air because cylinder bores are normally tiny in relation to the head flow capability. DOHC greatly increases complexity to the system. Not to mention the size of these engines externally. A LFX 3.6 dohc is roughly the size of a 5.7 LS1 from 20+ years ago. It's also Not something a shade tree mechanic wants to work on in his garage. OHV SBC remains and will remain the pinnacle of HOT rod and Street machine performance because it makes great overall power across the board and is fairly easy to work on and service. Why do you think almost all Coyote builds are shop built. I know next to NO Furd owners that work on their own cars unless they old school Fox body cars likely LS swapped. Yet there are plenty of guys wrenching on their 6th gens....food for thought.

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

HP doesn't work that way.

It's fairly common to assume HP is directly proportional to displacement...but it's not. HP is directly related to torque x rpms. That's why a Porsche 4.0L six (for example) can produce 500 hp: It revs to 9000 rpms. Then factor in the "other" stuff...like frictional & thermal losses.

yes but the Porsche 4.0 needs a twin Turbo to make 500hp.

[Redline_2ss]

I know I'm probably late to this but just wanted to say HP per liter is a stupid measurement used by people with low HP vehicles

I had a 2016 cruze before I got my camaro and the HP per liter shows close to nothing in terms of performance.
Cruze 1.4l has 153 HP that's almost 110HP per liter

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Redline_2ss

I know I'm probably late to this but just wanted to say HP per liter is a stupid measurement used by people with low HP vehicles

I had a 2016 cruze before I got my camaro and the HP per liter shows close to nothing in terms of performance.
Cruze 1.4l has 153 HP that's almost 110HP per liter

I bet the cruze put 50 ft lbs of tq.

[enzia35]

Originally Posted by MakCamaro

Thread revival! Why did you stop the discussion?

Because ricer math is shit.

[cmitchell17]

One thing that I think has been mentioned a little and really isn't a benefit for is but it's a big benefit for GM using OHV. They can basically share the truck engines since they can easily meet the output requirements for truck duty. There's also I believe the ability to share common parts, one cam, one head casting (although I'm not sure if LT1 share head casting between banks).

[oldman]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

yes but the Porsche 4.0 needs a twin Turbo to make 500hp.

Um that is NA.

https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/9...turesandspecs/

[6spdhyperblue]

Originally Posted by oldman

Um that is NA.

https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/9...turesandspecs/

Yes 500hp via rpms

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Redline_2ss

I know I'm probably late to this but just wanted to say HP per liter is a stupid measurement used by people with low HP vehicles

I had a 2016 cruze before I got my camaro and the HP per liter shows close to nothing in terms of performance.
Cruze 1.4l has 153 HP that's almost 110HP per liter

The Cruze is forced induction. So the LT4 wat 650 HP on 6.2 liters would yield 105 HP per liter, meaning the Cruze 4 valves and dual OHC does not add much in FI mode...

[oldman]

also don't forget cam in cam technology can bring another 10 percent more HP to an OHV engine and Chevy does not even use it cause the LT2 already puts the C8 sub 3.0.

http://www.mechadyne-int.com/products/duocam/

[6spdhyperblue]

Originally Posted by oldman

also don't forget cam in cam technology can bring another 10 percent more HP to an OHV engine and Chevy does not even use it cause the LT2 already puts the C8 sub 3.0.

http://www.mechadyne-int.com/products/duocam/

That’s a dam shame too. That would’ve been a nice add on if our ecm would’ve been able to control it

Ported heads, 6.6l crank, and the cam ina cam. 575rwhp with area under the curve on a production cam NA. Would launch these cars to another level.

[oldman]

OEM there would be no issue, GM does not want to pay royalties and / or the lt2 can already sell out the C8 so why bother? Plus the DCT is on the weak side so GM is putting money into a higher rev DOHC engine to bring up the HP via RPM instead of torque which is hard on the DCT. BTW the DCT is limited to 7500 RPM. So much for Hennessy and their 1200 HP C8... it will be Vector all over again.


The first mLSD
and eLSD versions will handle input speeds up to 7,500 RPM and torque capacity of 800 Nm (590 lbft), with higher performance and efficiency versions in development

[KingLT1]

Part of the reason why I would hold off on a C8 unless plan on staying stock. The DCT and Diff has yet to prove itself far as strength and reliability. No guarantee that the ECU will be tuneable either.