[Autonaut]

Originally Posted by Noob

THIS ! i always found the coyote more agile, better flexibility compared to the 2012 SS and the C7 engine.
i mean, chevy has modern 4cyil Turbo´s, V6´s and V6 with turbo all with DOHC and VVT but their 8cyl. have only 1cam and 2valve/cyl. that´s completely outdated.
sure they compensate it with more capacity but our magazine wrote " It´s a funny mix what chevy offers us in their C7 engine."

Wauw.. Im getting tired of this "outdated" term when it comes to OHV engines..
Educate yourself.
Neither the OHC or OHV engines are modern, outdated, or better than the other.

It is different means to achieve the same. Do you think you will be capable of understanding this? Or do we need to make a 50 page forum war where everybody bash eachothers head in claiming x invented something that y then copied.

Its funny that on the internet everyone can be who they choose to be. Yet so many people choose to be ignorant.
If you were to go back 50 years in time and tell someone that in your pocket you had a device that could access all information on this planet, they wouldnt believe you.
You owe yourself and those of us that read this to read up on stuff before you declare anything "outdated"
You're the outdated one here. You have all info right in your hand yet dont know anything about what you write about.

/rant over

[ilirg]

Originally Posted by Noob

THIS ! i always found the coyote more agile, better flexibility compared to the 2012 SS and the C7 engine.
i mean, chevy has modern 4cyil Turbo´s, V6´s and V6 with turbo all with DOHC and VVT but their 8cyl. have only 1cam and 2valve/cyl. that´s completely outdated.
sure they compensate it with more capacity but our magazine wrote " It´s a funny mix what chevy offers us in their C7 engine."

No one cares what your European magazine think about our "outdated" pushrods.

[Z_Rocks]

Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28

Hell yeah!!! You don't?

only if it's "THICK", like our women....

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The LT1 falls on its ass at 4800 rpm. I wonder what causes that.

I don't see that. It builds power and torque at a faster rate than the LS3, hits near peak at 4800 and than hold it until 6000. Then it falls.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

I don't see that. It builds power and torque at a faster rate than the LS3, hits near peak at 4800 and than hold it until 6000. Then it falls.

I'm looking at the torque curve. It runs with the LS7 to about 4800 RPM and then drops off quickly. Yeah, the power still holds ok but, if the torque didn't drop off, it would be pretty close to the LS7.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I'm looking at the torque curve. It runs with the LS7 to about 4800 RPM and then drops off quickly. Yeah, the power still holds ok but, if the torque didn't drop off, it would be pretty close to the LS7.

Ok. I understand where your coming from now

[Noob]

Originally Posted by Autonaut

Wauw.. Im getting tired of this "outdated" term when it comes to OHV engines..
Educate yourself.
Neither the OHC or OHV engines are modern, outdated, or better than the other.

It is different means to achieve the same. Do you think you will be capable of understanding this? Or do we need to make a 50 page forum war where everybody bash eachothers head in claiming x invented something that y then copied.

Its funny that on the internet everyone can be who they choose to be. Yet so many people choose to be ignorant.
If you were to go back 50 years in time and tell someone that in your pocket you had a device that could access all information on this planet, they wouldnt believe you.
You owe yourself and those of us that read this to read up on stuff before you declare anything "outdated"
You're the outdated one here. You have all info right in your hand yet dont know anything about what you write about.

/rant over

sry but it´s techically outdated like Fords truck rear axle in the old Stang´s
it is restricted with those pushrods and 2valves in rpm, in breathing and in power too. The coyote pulls out 87hp/ltr. and the chevy only 74; in other words a chevy 5.0 with the pushrod design would have only 370hp.
ALL our european and Asia sporty cars have now Turbo or kompressor engines ! Even the last of all, the C63 change to a smaller 4.0 but with Biturbo....max.510hp and 0-60 in 4.0.

[ilirg]

See what's easier to get 600 N/A horsepower out of, a pushrod LS or DOHC 5.0, then rethink what's more flexible.

[Noob]

Originally Posted by ilirg

See what's easier to get 600 N/A horsepower out of, a pushrod LS or DOHC 5.0, then rethink what's more flexible.

sure i know that its cheaper to build a simple big engine instead of much (perhaps to much) techical gimmicks. I dont like our VW/AUDI TFSI shit ! But with flexible i mean the driving with such an engine. I like both in some way. The 6.2pushrod had better torque out of the cellar but above 5000 it become "lame" compared to the coyote.
ok, i´ll give that pushrod a last chance next year in the Camaro but before i try another coyote in the actual Stang.
If camaro will be significant more in price i perhaps went with a Stang and for the rest of money put a 2.9 whipple on it.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Noob

sure i know that its cheaper to build a simple big engine instead of much (perhaps to much) techical gimmicks. I dont like our VW/AUDI TFSI shit ! But with flexible i mean the driving with such an engine. I like both in some way. The 6.2pushrod had better torque out of the cellar but above 5000 it become "lame" compared to the coyote.
ok, i´ll give that pushrod a last chance next year in the Camaro but before i try another coyote in the actual Stang.
If camaro will be significant more in price i perhaps went with a Stang and for the rest of money put a 2.9 whipple on it.

rethink the definition of big also. European regulations tax large displacement engines forcing you to use small displacement OHC engines.

In the end you need to move fuel and air. The Coyote needs to spin at a higher rpm with more valves to do it.

[GMGP5X]

This has some good info about the LT1 Engine. http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/lt1/

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Noob

sure i know that its cheaper to build a simple big engine instead of much (perhaps to much) techical gimmicks. I dont like our VW/AUDI TFSI shit ! But with flexible i mean the driving with such an engine. I like both in some way. The 6.2pushrod had better torque out of the cellar but above 5000 it become "lame" compared to the coyote.
ok, i´ll give that pushrod a last chance next year in the Camaro but before i try another coyote in the actual Stang.
If camaro will be significant more in price i perhaps went with a Stang and for the rest of money put a 2.9 whipple on it.

You forget gearing is what keeps an engine in usable RPM range, not the design of the engine. You dont need to stay above 5k for long if driveline is setup correctly. Also take a look at NASCAR engines or even the LS7. Pushrods can do higher RPMs just fine. You just don't need to unless you are forced to use small displacement. Then OHC becomes necessary.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[SpeedIsLife]

NASCAR motors aren't a hood comparison since they're rebuilt after every race weekend.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

NASCAR motors aren't a hood comparison since they're rebuilt after every race weekend.

They also have deal with essentially a lifetime of abuse in a single race. Wont find many production motors that would put up with that same abuse.


Even the Ford 289, old 302(70s BOSS), and 302 in the 1st gen Z/28s would turn almost 8k in stock trim.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk