GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
The original article is from 2004. Variable valve timing is ubiquitous now. Even pushrod engines from GM and FCA (the last holdouts still using the OHV configuration for production car and light trucks engines) have this technology.
admittedly though, VTEC Mark I from early 1990's changes cam phasing duration and valve lift, while the pushrod V8's of GM and Chrysler only control phasing and lift in the "extreme" case of total valve deactivation or not (for cylinder deactivation). The VTEC setup is literally two different cams that engage at different speeds.

I think the ricer crowd has given us this kind of bad reputation of the VTEC but it was really a brilliant, cheap and simple design that was really effective, and really long time ago now.



 
None of this really matters.

What counts is packaging.

A Honda 2.0L is as large as an LS1 and very similar in weight. The LS has greater power density.


If you had two ovens that were the same size and one produced significantly more heat, who cares about anything else?
 
^^Back in the day GM had tried having aluminum cam sprockets with nylon teeth molded onto them. It worked great for being quiet but the nylon failed over time. Replacements were normal steel parts. Some people never noticed a problem and drove them until they skipped time or the plastic wedged the pressure relief valve and it lost oil pressure. I replaced a few in my day. Those engines would get to about 70k until they had problems. About the same as some OHC engines lose their chains.
 
'OHV' (Over Head Valve) is a misnomer in any comparison to OHC, as OHC is also OHV.
'OHV' was in comparison to flathead and other non-overhead valve placements.

What we should be morphing to is "OHC" and "IBC" ('In Block Cam').
Considering that the issue in naming is the location of the Cam with respect to the head... It should be OHC (Over the Head Cam) and UHC (Under the Head Cam). It sounds a little weird but it is truly where it is.

On a separate issue but related; OHC engines tend to be large (Tall and Wide) compared to UHC (cam below the head in block) for the same power production. GM has stuck with the UHC but has not really used the advantages of the compactness in their designs, they just have more wasted space under the hood.
 
'OHV' (Over Head Valve) is a misnomer in any comparison to OHC, as OHC is also OHV.
'OHV' was in comparison to flathead and other non-overhead valve placements.

What we should be morphing to is "OHC" and "IBC" ('In Block Cam').
Or IHC for the Opel CIH engines - although not that disimilar to the arrangement in the original SOHC Opel Family I/II engines
 
^^^That is why they should put the 5.3 in the Colorado.....get rid of wasted space.
To just put the 5.3L V8 into the current Colorado, actually creates more wasted space as the 3.6L DOHC V6 is bigger (substantially) than the 5.3L V8. If they then redesigned the Colorado to have a lower hood line and smaller engine compartment and used that space in the cab or something, then you would have something.
 
a 5.3 gm engine is roughly 327 cid the 5.4 ford 3v engine is roughly 351 cid so the 5.4 should produce more power due to its cid advantage
By definition the 5.4L is roughly 329.53 CID. Pretty close to the roughly 323.43 CID of the 5.3L.....

Yes but Why? Why are they the last hold outs? Packaging, Efficiency, Costs? Why when all of their other engines have switched to OHC design? I say cost over benefits. But even Ford's last hold on the Flat Head eventually had to be let go of for change.

The benefits of Direct Valve action will out way the Push Rod, once Chain Stretch is a thing of the past. ie. Valve Actuators.
Good luck on those actuators that have been in work for decades and still don't have the size, strength, reliability, longevity, or cost to manufacture or maintain as a camshaft. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. But, I'm also realistic in it's application ability to mass market on vehicles expected to go 100K under warranty without issue and even longer for public perception.

Why hold out? Well first off, it's the NEWER technology as pushrod came out AFTER overhead cam. Secondly, it's cheaper, more reliable, lighter, smaller, and has proven to be more fuel efficient and powerful than the more complicated OHC design.

admittedly though, VTEC Mark I from early 1990's changes cam phasing duration and valve lift, while the pushrod V8's of GM and Chrysler only control phasing and lift in the "extreme" case of total valve deactivation or not (for cylinder deactivation). The VTEC setup is literally two different cams that engage at different speeds.

I think the ricer crowd has given us this kind of bad reputation of the VTEC but it was really a brilliant, cheap and simple design that was really effective, and really long time ago now.
Actually, GM and Chrysler both control cam phasing with and without reference to AFM (active fuel management). What they don't do is control valve timing events to each other, only to the crankshaft position. As in, the intake AND exhaust cam phasing will change together in relation to the crank angle for GM pushrods (this raises and lowers the torque curve against the RPM). What DOHC cams do is that plus they adjust the LSA, which can increase low end torque and reduce emission by making the LSA wider (less overlap) while also provide more scavenging at high RPM (by increasing valve overlap).

Basically a DOHC engine can maximize (within it's physical limitations of course, static and dynamic) it's BMEP for it's given load and RPM, while also shifting it's powerband up and down as needed for FE, or TQ (or the result of torque at RPM; HP). That's a HUGE advantage. But despite this enormous advantage, they still have a hard time matching the push rod in packaging, weight, HP/TQ, and FE.

Ohh, and be aware, FCA has been working on and has already deployed (in very limited quantities; Viper) a cam-in-cam pushrod engine. Once that happens, successfully and reliably, the DOHC "V" style engines will be obsolete. GM is working on this tech too, along with a few after market suppliers.

As far as other comments related to RPMs. It has less to do with pushrods and cam location than it does to do with rotating mass (bottom half) and displacement. Plenty of guys have 8K plus pushrods daily driven (my Gen2 LT1 goes to almost 7K often on the stock 175K mile lifters and pushrods). A pushrod will rev with the best of them when built for it. The reason why most aren't is because they don't need it; whereas the smaller displacement motors do. And by doing so, you end up with little to no low end TQ (this is where DOHC currently shines; broad power curve, not total power output). But once the cam kicks in and the VE comes up, it hits like a ton of bricks and goes like hell, if the traction is there of course. Don't be surprised to see 9K+ RPM pushrods once cam-in-cam tech is perfected. I wont be.
 
By definition the 5.4L is roughly 329.53 CID. Pretty close to the roughly 323.43 CID of the 5.3L.....



Good luck on those actuators that have been in work for decades and still don't have the size, strength, reliability, longevity, or cost to manufacture or maintain as a camshaft. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. But, I'm also realistic in it's application ability to mass market on vehicles expected to go 100K under warranty without issue and even longer for public perception.

Why hold out? Well first off, it's the NEWER technology as pushrod came out AFTER overhead cam. Secondly, it's cheaper, more reliable, lighter, smaller, and has proven to be more fuel efficient and powerful than the more complicated OHC design.



Actually, GM and Chrysler both control cam phasing with and without reference to AFM (active fuel management). What they don't do is control valve timing events to each other, only to the crankshaft position. As in, the intake AND exhaust cam phasing will change together in relation to the crank angle for GM pushrods (this raises and lowers the torque curve against the RPM). What DOHC cams do is that plus they adjust the LSA, which can increase low end torque and reduce emission by making the LSA wider (less overlap) while also provide more scavenging at high RPM (by increasing valve overlap).

Basically a DOHC engine can maximize (within it's physical limitations of course, static and dynamic) it's BMEP for it's given load and RPM, while also shifting it's powerband up and down as needed for FE, or TQ (or the result of torque at RPM; HP). That's a HUGE advantage. But despite this enormous advantage, they still have a hard time matching the push rod in packaging, weight, HP/TQ, and FE.

Ohh, and be aware, FCA has been working on and has already deployed (in very limited quantities; Viper) a cam-in-cam pushrod engine. Once that happens, successfully and reliably, the DOHC "V" style engines will be obsolete. GM is working on this tech too, along with a few after market suppliers.

As far as other comments related to RPMs. It has less to do with pushrods and cam location than it does to do with rotating mass (bottom half) and displacement. Plenty of guys have 8K plus pushrods daily driven (my Gen2 LT1 goes to almost 7K often on the stock 175K mile lifters and pushrods). A pushrod will rev with the best of them when built for it. The reason why most aren't is because they don't need it; whereas the smaller displacement motors do. And by doing so, you end up with little to no low end TQ (this is where DOHC currently shines; broad power curve, not total power output). But once the cam kicks in and the VE comes up, it hits like a ton of bricks and goes like hell, if the traction is there of course. Don't be surprised to see 9K+ RPM pushrods once cam-in-cam tech is perfected. I wont be.
Good points.

The FCA version is actually something they license/purchase from Mechadyne: http://www.mechadyne-int.com/vva-products/concentric-camshafts

Obviously they integrated it into the Viper engine, but I'm not sure how much of the actual cam phasing development they did.

Another reason most pushrod engines do not rev overly high is because there isn't as much benefit as doing so compared to a DOHC engine, since the valve area tends to work out such that the DOHC breaths better at higher RPMs, as they typically have 4 vpc. As you stated though, since the pushrod design can cram more internal displacement in the same size external package as a DOHC engine, they can make HP that way, and do not have to rev to the moon.
 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts