[Kirgiz]

Originally Posted by hotlap

They are manufacturing small displacement engines for countries that punish ownership of large displacement engines. Escalating purchase and registration taxes at 1.7 L, 2.0 L, 3.0 L, etc. ...escalating CO2 scale. Euro gasoline taxes the double the cost vs what US customers pay.

My annual registration for my 6.2 L Camaro SS is 75 USD. It had no gas guzzler tax. I pay 0.60 USD per liter. Euro pays more than double.

So to answer your question. Auto makers are building cars that are within the constraints set by global governments. Most Americans own similarly constructed passenger cars. Even my wife drives a 3.5 L DOHC.

of a 7.3 L push rod engine, Ford engine ...that would be awesome in a truck. Not so awesome in a Mustang (iron block) but who knows. ...Dodge does it in the Challenger.
Largely, GM isn’t building the Camaro for markets outside North America. We are getting large displacement, torque rich engines in our trucks and cars.

You obviously have no clue what is going on in Europe. Every country is different. We pay huge fuel taxes regardless of what engine displacement is.
When country decides to tax for displacement it is above 2 liters in majority of countries. It doesn't matter if it is 5 or 7 liters. Pushrods were abandoned decades ago - when nobody talked environmental bullshit or taxed by displacement.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Kirgiz

You obviously have no clue what is going on in Europe. Every country is different. We pay huge fuel taxes regardless of what engine displacement is.
When country decides to tax for displacement it is above 2 liters in majority of countries. It doesn't matter if it is 5 or 7 liters. Pushrods were abandoned decades ago - when nobody talked environmental bullshit or taxed by displacement.

He was painting with a broad brush, which is not the same as "no clue".

Japan has had a liter tax 1.0 to 2.0 to above as long as I can remember. so you don't know all the countries either.

Plus he said it was a tax on size, not technology. Push rods were abandoned in many places cause a large engine just would NOT fit, was not needed. You don't need buku torque to move a 1800 lbs POS down the road. Look I can reach around the front of most "trucks" in Japan and hug both doors Ya think it needs a large displacement engine????
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/...-united-264689

Ford went with their mod motor 4.6 and 5.4 and the Mustang performance was a complete and total JOKE till the Coyote came out and jee, they figured out the engine needed a higher port to breath better, something Yamaha knew in the early 70s and hence Yamaha made heads like the 2TG and much later the SHO engines. Even give buku evolutions of this OHC technology, and the "end" of the pushrod engine, the newest LT5, is at least in the same realm of the DOHC GT40, that shed its "better DOHC V8 with supercharger to an even "better" DOHC V6 with twin turbo... I'm not saying OHV will be here for ever, I'm saying its demise has been greatly exaggerated. Truck magazine did a test and the economy ecoboost 2.7 vs plain old 5.0 (yes I know it is a DOHC), and found all the supposed savings in fuel was fiction, others are finding the same thing. Oh and don't forget Dodge went with the 4.7 SOHC V8 that was a complete and total flop.

Here is the Boss hype:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_engine
"
Ford Boss V8
Overview
Manufacturer Ford Motor Company
Also called Ford Hurricane V8 (obsolete)
Production 2010–
Layout
Displacement 6.2 L (379 cu in)
Piston stroke 3.74 in (95 mm)
Valvetrain OHC with Roller Rocker Shafts
Chronology
Predecessor Modular V8
Boss is the internal name for a family of large-displacement V8 engines from Ford Motor Company intended to compete with Chrysler Hemi engines and General Motors' 6.0 L Vortec engines. Originally, Ford developed the engine architecture under the name Hurricane; however, development of the engine was delayed due to its temporary cancellation in 2005. It was revived in early 2006 by Mark Fields[citation needed] and was given the new name of Boss in light of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.[1] In spite of this change, Ford has yet to officially market the engines with the Boss name in any production vehicle where they are to be used, instead referring to the engines by their displacement.

The first (modern) Boss engine, a 6.2 L V8, is produced at Ford's Romeo Engine Plant in Romeo, Michigan.[2]


So basically it was a DUD like other attempts to bury the pushrod V8.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Kirgiz

You obviously have no clue what is going on in Europe. Every country is different. We pay huge fuel taxes regardless of what engine displacement is.
When country decides to tax for displacement it is above 2 liters in majority of countries. It doesn't matter if it is 5 or 7 liters. Pushrods were abandoned decades ago - when nobody talked environmental bullshit or taxed by displacement.

Pushrod engines are cheaper and they produce more low end torque. The valve train is simpler. And in the case of high power American versions the DOHC engines have been less reliable. (Looking at you 5.0 typewriter car and 5.2 oil drinking glutton)

[oldman]

Try to rebuild a DOHC engine. I've pulled apart LS engines, some machine work, new guides, many times crank and main bearings are GOOD to go for another 150K miles. My 440 1969 Dart that I got in HIGHSCHOOL has a standard size crank!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Compare this to my Type R, expensive cams and valve train, a valve spring went soft at 10,000 miles and it bent then ate a valve. Check all the springs we are talking $$$$$ springs, and all are soft. Change the springs to spec springs, new season, the cam cracks into thrids.... JC! Back to smaller cam and much cheaper springs for a season. It is so friggen crazy expensive to keep these DOHC engines racing. Always always big dollar parts and then 10K to 20K failure modes. Please I've raced DOHC since the 2tg Toyota engines shipped in from Japan, and my older bros had BMW 2002, 2000 CS, 2800 CS, 3.0 CSL, from the early 70s late 60s. All expensive stuff, all bust heck of easy, none can come close to what the LT1 can put out per cylinder... None can go any sort of miles without stuff like new valve guides, new guides, new valve springs, new cams... repeat every 20 K minimally. Then hope some silly stuff like cams cracking into 3 pieces... Jun IIIs if you must know.
https://www.junauto.co.jp/products/camshaft/b16.en.html

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Kirgiz

You obviously have no clue what is going on in Europe. Every country is different. We pay huge fuel taxes regardless of what engine displacement is.
When country decides to tax for displacement it is above 2 liters in majority of countries. It doesn't matter if it is 5 or 7 liters. Pushrods were abandoned decades ago - when nobody talked environmental bullshit or taxed by displacement.

You pay huge fuel taxes to discourage you from owning large V8 engines.

Because governments force the use of small displacement engine through taxes, OHC are the solution to make power from them. Turbo options give them acceptable torque (artificial displacement).

You’ve never had the opportunity to enjoy a 6.2, 6.6 or 7.5 L engine with massive low end torque right off idle and power. Never. Not even decades ago when you were forced to own weak, low displacement engines with pushrods.

I’m not an expert on Europe but have been to Germany every three months for the past 10 years and lived there a year prior. I kind of get how it goes ...there

[Kirgiz]

You all are missing the point and talking about Ford or US engines, etc.
Fueling car is expensive in Europe no matter if it is 5,0 DOHC or 6,2 pushrod which consume same amount. Tax is also the same for such a big engine.
Nobody produces pushrods, and we still have big v8 in Europe, but DOHC. Try to convince AMG, Ferrari, Lambo, Mclaren to have pushrods. We don't even use them in trucks. They are powered by huge diesel engines. So it is not tax related. If pushrods are superior why they are only in US?

[chaospiece]

Originally Posted by Kirgiz

You all are missing the point and talking about Ford or US engines, etc.
Fueling car is expensive in Europe no matter if it is 5,0 DOHC or 6,2 pushrod which consume same amount. Tax is also the same for such a big engine.
Nobody produces pushrods, and we still have big v8 in Europe, but DOHC. Try to convince AMG, Ferrari, Lambo, Mclaren to have pushrods. We don't even use them in trucks. They are powered by huge diesel engines. So it is not tax related. If pushrods are superior why they are only in US?

Because torque!
AMG's 6.3 V8 had a flat torque curve starting all the way up at 3000k rpm and only was 369 ftlbs.
100 less then the Camaro, and this was Europe's holy grail displacement V8 .
Now take all that weight with the extra valve train parts sitting up high and tell us what's better for handling?
What's simpler for working on?
What's more cost effective producing better power, and how is that trickled down to the consumer in cost savings resulting in selling more cars?

The answer is simple, you got a Camaro or an amg 6.3, between the two, which costs less in buying/maintenance/depreciation?

Look at fords mass produced dohc V8, when I have to fix something on my gen 2 coyote, most likely the timing chain, getting to that is such a pain for my friends who work on dohc engines. Techs hate it, takes longer, Costs more, more places to break, hard to even get to with such a massive engine. Simple.

[Kirgiz]

Tell AMG engineers they are stupid and should built pushrod. 2009 AMG 6,3 produced 630 Nm, weight is 200 kg, while current Camaro 617 Nm .

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by Kirgiz

Tell AMG engineers they are stupid and should built pushrod. 2009 AMG 6,3 produced 630 Nm, weight is 200 kg, while current Camaro 617 Nm .

Consider the cost difference, then get back to us..

[Kirgiz]

Poor AMG. Could have built better engine lot cheaper. Must be bunch of morons in AMG.

[whiteboyblues2001]

HP is directly proportiaonl to torque multiplied by RPMs. So if you want more power you can add more torque or more RPMs or both.

Choosing DOHC gives you more RPMs, and hence more power. But it is a signifantly bigger engine than the same displacement OHC engine. BUT, since every car has a distinct size limitation, you are now faced with a choice:

More RPMs (from more cams) or more torque (from more displacement). NOT both. Each has it's pluses and minuses.

The advantage USED TO be that a lower displacement engine that reved higher, got the same peak power number (which sells cars) AND better fuel efficency, since it has a lower displacement. Things like variable valve timing, direct injection, cylinder deactivation, etc. has removed the fuel effieciency advantage. The disadvantage is a lack of low end torque, because you have less displacement, and you have to tune the cams, intake, etc. to provide much of the available torque in the upper RPM range (otherwise the additional RPMS would be useless). When you do that, you lose low end torque, and hence, low end HP. You end up with a car that feels like it has turbo-lag. You hit the gas and nothing happens until you build RPMs, then finally the HP kicks in.

The advantage of pushrods are that you can have more displacement in the same size package, which gives you more available torque. Since you don't have to wind the engine up in RPM's to get power, you can tune the cams, intake runner length, etc. to provide torque everywhere, and therefore you have power everywhere in the RPM range. The dissadvantage USED TO be, that you got worse fuel efficiency. Technology has largely changed that now.

As one can see from the LT1 and Coyote engine, they produce roughly the same peak power number, they are roughly the same size and wieght, but the LT1 has significantly more power throughout the entire RPM range until the Coyote finally catches up in the upper RPM range. The LT1 produces 315 lb.ft. of tourqe at 1,000 RPM (that's amazing!). It puts out more than 400 lb.ft. of torque just after 2,200 RPM and never goes below 400 all the way to peak power at 6,000 RPM's.

So, it really just depends on what you are trying to do with this engine. Clearly since these V8's produced by the American manufacturers are shared with big pickup trucks, choosing the design that has more torque down low is a priority. Thas is probably one of the biggest reasons FCA and GM still make large displacement pushrod V8s. How many European car manufacturers produce and sell large volumes of full size pickup trucks? Probably a good reason why they don't go with pusrods. When Mercedes makes a big truck, it's usually a diesel. And diesel is more accepted and widely available in Europe thant the US.

Another factor is that Mercedes/BMW/Audi etc. usually plan on taking their engines and adding FI, either through turbo or supercharging. DOHC makes more sense with FI since you are trying to ram more air(and fuel) into smaller and smaller heads and cylinders. Having smaller heads mean smaller valves and smaller intake ports. Having twice the amount helps increase flow.

The GM and FCA pushrod engines are oversquare designs (while the Coyote is pretty close to square). Which means the piston diameter is larger than the stroke length. Having a larger pison means larger heads, which can accomodate larger valves and larger intake ports. Which means more flow. Which means you don't really need two intake valves. The two intake valves of the Coyote are almost equal in area than the one in the LT1. Not a coincidence folks... That's what you need to produce mid-400 HP levels either way. BUT, when adding FI, undersquare is better. That is probably why the Coyote takes to FI better than the LT1 in the aftermarket (extra valves and not oversqure).

So, your choice is a more complicated engine that is peaky in it's power delivery like a turbo, or and engine that has torque (and hence power) everywhere in the RPM range. Both are similar in other factors like size, weight, fuel efficiency, etc. BUT, if you are going to add FI later...

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by hotlap

You’ve never had the opportunity to enjoy a 6.2, 6.6 or 7.5 L engine with massive low end torque right off idle and power. Never. Not even decades ago when you were forced to own weak, low displacement engines with pushrods.

Modern turbo engines make full torque from ~1500rpm. With hot-vee, tapping right off the ports next to the engine, dual-scrolls, electric spoolers, and other modern technology, it's not the case that you have to rev up to 2800-3000 to start making boost. I've driven those cars too and while a few still remain (cough, sti, cough), it's not the rule anymore. Modern turbo cars with flat torque lines from ~1500 have an immense area beneath the curve and show it in their acceleration and lap times.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Modern turbo engines make full torque from ~1500rpm. With hot-vee, tapping right off the ports next to the engine, dual-scrolls, electric spoolers, and other modern technology, it's not the case that you have to rev up to 2800-3000 to start making boost. I've driven those cars too and while a few still remain (cough, sti, cough), it's not the rule anymore. Modern turbo cars with flat torque lines from ~1500 have an immense area beneath the curve and show it in their acceleration and lap times.

Very true and very impressive, however, these cars tend to die out on the top end pretty quickly. You definately have to short shift them to keep them in the power range. It's great for around town driving and fuel efficiency. You really don't feel much turbo-lag at all. But when you push these engines, you can begin to feel the turbo-lag, and again, they fall aprart up top. I have been looking for an engine that combines the low end torque of these modern turbos, while not falling off so hard at the top end. It's coming, but I haven't seen one quite yet...

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Modern turbo engines make full torque from ~1500rpm. With hot-vee, tapping right off the ports next to the engine, dual-scrolls, electric spoolers, and other modern technology, it's not the case that you have to rev up to 2800-3000 to start making boost. I've driven those cars too and while a few still remain (cough, sti, cough), it's not the rule anymore. Modern turbo cars with flat torque lines from ~1500 have an immense area beneath the curve and show it in their acceleration and lap times.

Agree. You deleted this part from my post

Originally Posted by hotlap

Because governments force the use of small displacement engine through taxes, OHC are the solution to make power from them. Turbo options give them acceptable torque (artificial displacement).

I was trying to make the point that our friend, or AMG, doesn't have the choice of push rod engines. Small displacement DOHC engines are the only option given the regulations. Fuel cost is an additional barrier to ownership.

Adding boost makes them very potent packages but compared to a LT1 are expensive, physically large, complex in design and don't really get better fuel economy.

A LT1 naturally aspirated engine is potent, inexpensive and still capable of delivering over 20 mpg in every day use. Start talking about LT4 or Hellcat engines and the power/torque value is far better than AMG's top tier engines.

So ...our friend joins Camaro6 to crap on push rod engines missing that they are affordable to average people here. AMG makes wonderful high powered vehicles that only the wealthy can afford.