The Car Thread ... !

[quagmire]

I wonder what Quagmire would think about this? Regardless, I Can’t speak for the LT1, but the Coyote engine Can be underestimated. These engines can put out 800/900 HP with a full bolt on kit/add-on’s. When I purchased my GT back in December, really the only main considerations what I wanted was two things, [1.] The S197 body style and [2.] The 5.0 Coyote engine. And then the aftermarket considerations are so vast, the options are really as much as the owner wants to upgrade the engine, suspension, wheels, etc. The last Mustang that I owned was a 2004 Ford GT and it’s amazing to see how far the Mustang has advanced in respect just to the power. (The 2004 GT had 260 HP/4.6l).

One of my initial observations about the Coyote, is that it’s *Loud*. [When I Purchased mine, it was not stock], but I have driven stock mustang GT‘s (Most recently the 2018) and from a stock factory exhaust without any upgrades at all, I’m surprised how loud it is in the cabin and even outside the car. Such a stout engine, even stock its perfectly fine the way it is.
[doublepost=1529485178][/doublepost]On the topic of the 5.0 Coyote. Just a few more photos from another car show.


Boss 302. (Another one of my favorites, but not in “Gotta have it green.”)

View attachment 767000

Immaculately *Clean* GT/CS.

View attachment 767002

It’s just more trolling from AU. You can’t compare the different architectures. They produce power in different methods. OHV uses displacement to produce the power while OHC generally spins the motor faster to produce the power. Both have their pluses and negatives. If you live in a country that taxes based on displacement, OHC will be better. If you have tight physical packaging, OHV will be better.

Then it’s down to personal preference. Do you like the down low power and grunt OHV provides or do you like a rev happy engine?

But HP per liter is the most useless metric because it will naturally bias DOHC and it’s way of producing power.

 

[bunnspecial]

It’s just more trolling from AU. You can’t compare the different architectures. They produce power in different methods. OHV uses displacement to produce the power while OHC generally spins the motor faster to produce the power. Both have their pluses and negatives. If you live in a country that taxes based on displacement, OHC will be better. If you have tight physical packaging, OHV will be better.

No, what it comes down to is that OHV is inherently inefficient at moving air vs. OHC.

I spent a fair bit of time debunking the torque curve argument-look up dyno runs of the Coyote vs. LT1 and you'll see that the torque curves essential have the same profile except that the torque band of the LT1 is SIGNIFICANTLY more narrow. The only other difference of note is that the LT1 shoots up to a flat torque curve about 250 rpms before the Coyote, while the Coyote stays basically flat about 2000rpms more than the LT1.

There are also inherent advantages to having a smaller displacement if you can get the same air flow and consequently the same amount of power. You increase displacement either by increasing the bore size or increasing the stroke length. I'm too lazy at the moment to look both up, but since the classic American V8 tends to be "square" it's a fair assumption that the LT1 designers got to 6.2L by increasing both the bore and the stroke. A longer stroke means longer connecting rods, which means that they are heavier. A larger bore means larger pistons, which are both heavier and have more loss due to friction when moving in the bore. Don't discount the weight thing either-rotational mass is a HUGE deal in engines, and having heavier rods and pistons means that the engine has that much more inertia to overcome every time the pistons change direction in the bore.

You also have another advantage in terms of valve timing. Even in the old days, a DOHC engine allowed you to set the intake and exhaust timing independent of each other to optimize them. With VVT now ubiquitous even in OHV engines, this gives you an even greater advantage since you can STILL vary the intake and exhaust independently in DOHC engines.

I'm not pulling this out of my rear end either. As they say, the "proof is in the pudding"-the 5.0L DOHC turns out higher numbers over a wider RPM range than the OHV engine we're talking about, and the ONLY thing the OHV buys you is torque between 2K and 2.25K.

The ONLY advantages an OHV engine have is in terms of packaging and weight, but even the weight isn't that different. I will also grant that they are simpler, but even the LS/LT series and HEMI are fairly complicated engines.
[doublepost=1529510007][/doublepost]One other thing-if a person wants to "buy" low end torque on an OHC engine, it should be possible to adjust the cam timing to do it.

The rule of thumb I know is that on a 4 cylinder engine, advancing the cam 4º will shift the torque band globally down 300-500 rpm. On a dual cam head, I suspect that the intake timing would have the biggest impact on this. In any case, I'm getting into speculation since I don't know this trim of engine overly well, but it may be possible to get that amount of advance through the ECM or you might need to physically retime the cam. Either way, it can be done.

 

[quagmire]

No, what it comes down to is that OHV is inherently inefficient at moving air vs. OHC.

I spent a fair bit of time debunking the torque curve argument-look up dyno runs of the Coyote vs. LT1 and you'll see that the torque curves essential have the same profile except that the torque band of the LT1 is SIGNIFICANTLY more narrow. The only other difference of note is that the LT1 shoots up to a flat torque curve about 250 rpms before the Coyote, while the Coyote stays basically flat about 2000rpms more than the LT1.

There are also inherent advantages to having a smaller displacement if you can get the same air flow and consequently the same amount of power. You increase displacement either by increasing the bore size or increasing the stroke length. I'm too lazy at the moment to look both up, but since the classic American V8 tends to be "square" it's a fair assumption that the LT1 designers got to 6.2L by increasing both the bore and the stroke. A longer stroke means longer connecting rods, which means that they are heavier. A larger bore means larger pistons, which are both heavier and have more loss due to friction when moving in the bore. Don't discount the weight thing either-rotational mass is a HUGE deal in engines, and having heavier rods and pistons means that the engine has that much more inertia to overcome every time the pistons change direction in the bore.

You also have another advantage in terms of valve timing. Even in the old days, a DOHC engine allowed you to set the intake and exhaust timing independent of each other to optimize them. With VVT now ubiquitous even in OHV engines, this gives you an even greater advantage since you can STILL vary the intake and exhaust independently in DOHC engines.

I'm not pulling this out of my rear end either. As they say, the "proof is in the pudding"-the 5.0L DOHC turns out higher numbers over a wider RPM range than the OHV engine we're talking about, and the ONLY thing the OHV buys you is torque between 2K and 2.25K.

The ONLY advantages an OHV engine have is in terms of packaging and weight, but even the weight isn't that different. I will also grant that they are simpler, but even the LS/LT series and HEMI are fairly complicated engines.
[doublepost=1529510007][/doublepost]One other thing-if a person wants to "buy" low end torque on an OHC engine, it should be possible to adjust the cam timing to do it.

The rule of thumb I know is that on a 4 cylinder engine, advancing the cam 4º will shift the torque band globally down 300-500 rpm. On a dual cam head, I suspect that the intake timing would have the biggest impact on this. In any case, I'm getting into speculation since I don't know this trim of engine overly well, but it may be possible to get that amount of advance through the ECM or you might need to physically retime the cam. Either way, it can be done.

As I said pluses and minuses of both. AU was trolling just to get a rise out of me by going DOHC is better simply because LT1 needs 6.2 liters while Coyote needs 5.0 to make similar power so Coyote is better naurally. It’s the same BS judging everything by displacement.

While I appreciate your explanation and details( because I honestly don’t know the details or have the engineering background), it wasn’t AU’s intent to explain his position. Judging an engine by HP per liter tells me nothing. What you explained is a lot better in explaining why you view Coyote as the better engine than the LT1. And @Zenithal I’m personally biased in that I like the sound of the LT1 over the Coyote. Plus it also depends on exhaust. Pre-refresh the Coyote was too quiet and didn’t sound too impressive. With the new dual mode exhaust it sounds a lot better.

 

[44267547]

I was just at a car meet on Saturday and the majority of the cars were mixture of 6th Gen Camaro's, Mustangs, a few Fourth Gen GTO‘s, Corvettes.

The 6.2 L sounds good, it has a very guttural tone. One of things I like with the newer GEN Camaros/2018 Mustang offers the variable exhaust modes. If you want the exhaust in a more quieter note, you can have it that way or if you want it with the valves wide open, then you can have it significantly louder. To Be honest, I think the Corvette, GTO, Mustang and Camaro _all_ have great sounding exhaust notes, they’re all so distinctive from each other.

But I think what’s an advantage to the buyer with a newer Gen Camaro or 2018 Mustang, is if they don’t plan on modifying the exhaust as I did or others do, then you have the option of making the exhaust louder or quieter at their leisure. I Like that it’s variable, because there might be times where you want exhaust quieter or louder depending on the driving circumstance.

 

[americafirst]

Are you suggesting the Land Cruiser is a cross over?

My dad owned a couple Land Cruisers when I was young. He regretted selling the first one so he bought a second- and he now regrets selling the second. My girlfriend’s father has one as his spare car/beach fishing car- he bought it new and it has over 200k and still runs perfect. They’re great vehicles. I think one of the best aspects it’s that it’s a luxury car that wears a Toyota badge- it doesn’t need a luxury nameplate to be what it is. In terms of value for money, comfort, utility, build quality, reliability, resale value, longevity, etc they are hard to beat. Sure, there’s some more luxurious or sporty options out there (like the Range Rovers or Cayenne), but they don’t offer most of the afformentioned characteristics.

My sister has a Land Cruiser and it's nice. I like the Lexus LX 570 but the 2015 model lost it's rugged look. I might look at a Lexus GX 460 which is based on the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado or a BMW X3 M40i to replace my current car

 

[A.Goldberg]

My sister has a Land Cruiser and it's nice. I like the Lexus LX 570 but the 2015 model lost it's rugged look. I might look at a Lexus GX 460 which is based on the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado or a BMW X3 M40i to replace my current car

There was a time where I considered moving to Alaska for a 3-year contract job that would have paid very well. I would have bought a new LC to live in the middle of nowhere.

I’ve considered buying one as a replacement for my 5-Series. They’re a bit big though, especially living in Boston, though actually not as big as they appear.

I see no purpose in spending the extra money on the Lexus. You spend a lot more money for a couple extra features. The front end on those is also hideous as well.

My girlfriend’s mom has a GX460 and previously a GX470, and apparently will be replacing her GX460 with an RX450h. The GX’s are greatx, all the overall benefits of the LC only a bit more of a manageable size. I’d love to buy one but the problem is they’re so outdated tech and engine wise. I’m not sure what Toyota/Lexus is waiting for other to d/c it entirely. In order to get autonomous safety tech you have to buy the $65,000 top trim and special order a $5,000 package. $70,000 is just far too much for that car.

 

[americafirst]

There was a time where I considered moving to Alaska for a 3-year contract job that would have paid very well. I would have bought a new LC to live in the middle of nowhere.

I’ve considered buying one as a replacement for my 5-Series. They’re a bit big though, especially living in Boston, though actually not as big as they appear.

I see no purpose in spending the extra money on the Lexus. You spend a lot more money for a couple extra features. The front end on those is also hideous as well.

My girlfriend’s mom has a GX460 and previously a GX470, and apparently will be replacing her GX460 with an RX450h. The GX’s are greatx, all the overall benefits of the LC only a bit more of a manageable size. I’d love to buy one but the problem is they’re so outdated tech and engine wise. I’m not sure what Toyota/Lexus is waiting for other to d/c it entirely. In order to get autonomous safety tech you have to buy the $65,000 top trim and special order a $5,000 package. $70,000 is just far too much for that car.

My sister likes her Land Cruiser and I agree it isn't worth spending the money to get the LX 570. In my opinion the Land Cruiser looks better and the extra features aren't worth it. I like the GX 460 but am leaning towards the BMW X3 M40i but I will start looking at both this week. My current car is in the shop again and I am ready to replace it. It won't be driven much since my agency gives me a g ride that I use to commute to and from work

 

[A.Goldberg]

My sister likes her Land Cruiser and I agree it isn't worth spending the money to get the LX 570. In my opinion the Land Cruiser looks better and the extra features aren't worth it. I like the GX 460 but am leaning towards the BMW X3 M40i but I will start looking at both this week. My current car is in the shop again and I am ready to replace it. It won't be driven much since my agency gives me a g ride that I use to commute to and from work

I’ve been toying with the idea of the X3 M40i, but I think I like the XC60 T6 a little bit more. I suppose the X3 is a better in terms of power and handling. I also like the idea of BMW’s I6 3.0t over Volvos 2.0 4cyl Turbo+Supercharger. I have a BMW now and would prefer to have something with less flash. That’s what I like about Volvos, Land Cruisers, Touareg, etc- nice cars without being ostentatious. Volvos new styling is gorgeous. Most things on the road are pretty unoriginal at this point, but I think Volvo has done a good job of stepping outside the box.

I’d say skip the GX. They don’t have the updates found in the LC or LX. They’re great cars, super reliable, one of the last true SUV’s you can buy, but they’re super dated and not worth what Lexus wants to charge for them. The X3 and GX however are two completely different vehicles.

 

[bunnspecial]

As I said pluses and minuses of both. AU was trolling just to get a rise out of me by going DOHC is better simply because LT1 needs 6.2 liters while Coyote needs 5.0 to make similar power so Coyote is better naurally. It’s the same BS judging everything by displacement.

There again, you can't get around the fact that-all else being equal-the smaller displacement has significant advantages. Like I said, rotating mass is a VERY big deal inside the engine. There's also the fact that at a given rotational speed, a longer stroke is going to translate into higher peak piston velocities which also lead to more frictional losses in the engine and more of a fight with inertia when the pistons are slamming around.

If nothing else, the discrepancy here shows the inherent inefficiency of an OHV engine. BTW, I'm talking about efficiency in a thermodynamic sense-energy output vs. energy input. As I said, these days the on thing an OHV engine can really claim is that it's simpler and smaller(for a given displacement).

I should also specifically say push rod engines or cam-in-block engines since OHC engines are OHV engines as well, although of course it's commonly understood that when one says "OHV" one specifically means an engine without cam(s) sitting right on top of the valves.

 

[americafirst]

I’ve been toying with the idea of the X3 M40i, but I think I like the XC60 T6 a little bit more. I suppose the X3 is a better in terms of power and handling. I also like the idea of BMW’s I6 3.0t over Volvos 2.0 4cyl Turbo+Supercharger. I have a BMW now and would prefer to have something with less flash. That’s what I like about Volvos, Land Cruisers, Touareg, etc- nice cars without being ostentatious. Volvos new styling is gorgeous. Most things on the road are pretty unoriginal at this point, but I think Volvo has done a good job of stepping outside the box.

I’d say skip the GX. They don’t have the updates found in the LC or LX. They’re great cars, super reliable, one of the last true SUV’s you can buy, but they’re super dated and not worth what Lexus wants to charge for them. The X3 and GX however are two completely different vehicles.

I haven't considered the Volvo XC60 T6. I am leaning towards the X3 but I'm not sold either way. You're right the Land Cruiser does have less flash and I was impressed with my sister's when I first saw it. If the GX is dated than I might skip it. I want something new with Android Auto at a minimum and CarPlay would be nice

 

[0388631]

Ah, the X3 M40i. That was nearly 5 months ago. The issue with Toyota's larger SUVs or even their 4R is they're very fuel hungry compared to competitors with similar or better setups. The engine in my own car isn't as fuel hungry as the big Lexus cars but it's close. I think the absolute worst I got a few times was about 8 mpg in city.

The major benefit to almost any SUV is space. It makes Costco trips a breeze.

 

[A.Goldberg]

I haven't considered the Volvo XC60 T6. I am leaning towards the X3 but I'm not sold either way. You're right the Land Cruiser does have less flash and I was impressed with my sister's when I first saw it. If the GX is dated than I might skip it. I want something new with Android Auto at a minimum and CarPlay would be nice

Yeah, forget CarPlay on the GX... or any Lexus or Toyota product. Point is the GX is probably the most dated luxury car on the market tech wise. I have to resent BMW a bit for making CarPlay a $300 option and is said to become a subscription based service in the future- such nonsense.

Ah, the X3 M40i. That was nearly 5 months ago. The issue with Toyota's larger SUVs or even their 4R is they're very fuel hungry compared to competitors with similar or better setups. The engine in my own car isn't as fuel hungry as the big Lexus cars but it's close. I think the absolute worst I got a few times was about 8 mpg in city.

The major benefit to almost any SUV is space. It makes Costco trips a breeze.

Yes, that’s the other problem with the GX/T4R, theyre using decades old drivetrains (but yet people keep buying them). It’s tried and true, rock solid equiptment but it lacks the effluency of newer engines, transmissions etc. That said, any body-on-frame SUV is going to have inherently worse efficiency due to things like weight, low range transfer cases, utility oriented 4wd and gearing, etc.

 

[D.T.]

Took a few days off for Father's Day, hit NSB with some friends, we took the RT, and wound up seeing ~24MPG (occasionally pushing 25) @ 75MPH with 5 people, 4 suitcases ("carry on" sized), 48 cans of wine/6 handles, 3 backpack/bags (electronics, food, coffee devices, other misc supplies). This vehicle has a 24.6g tank, so the resulting range is pretty spectacular (especially for an SUV that can also tow over 7000 lbs). Everyone had plenty of room, very comfortable (3 zone AC controls), tons of charging ports.

The really interesting test will be a trip to The keys, 6 people, tons more gear, a hitch carrier (with another 250+ lbs of supplies/dive equipment). One tank? I think so

 

[0388631]

@A.Goldberg True. Though from a Toyota perspective, those engines are solid. You could, in theory, shoot them with a rifle, and they'd still operate just fine. From a reliability standpoint, Toyota is number one, from a modern standpoint, you trade in new for old yet stable.

@D.T. I read into the DDT after your PM and I'm genuinely surprised and very impressed with the performance for a performance SUV with those capabilities. I forgot to ask you or you posted it and I missed it, but did you get it with 2nd row captain's chairs or just the bench seat for row 2 and 3? It's also got a massive gas tank. Mine beats it by just over a gallon, IIRC. Except yours doesn't slurp fuel like it's drinking water while walking in the Gobi desert.

@Relentless Power I'm not a fan of that orange Mustang, or the older bodies with the throwback frontend. I don't think I'd ever want to drive a car that vivid in color. I don't mind Skittles colors, but if I had to for a Mustang, Grabber Blue would likely be my go-to color.


I retain my preference if I were shopping for something outlandish such as a GT3. Neon green would probably my pick. Daily-ing it would be a PITA, especially with my back.

 

[AustinIllini]

I saw another picture of the 2019 Camaro SS. It's kind of growing on me. The initial renderings look terrible.

 

[44267547]

Delivered. Install today. Eliminating the wheel gap will look much better, but The handling aspect is what I look forward to testing most and everything I have read said these make a huge impact how the Mustang drives and reduces the ‘nosediving’ greatly.

On the topic of driving, I will be tracking the SHO for the first time this weekend since I have owned it. [I have a standby speedway pass for a free two hour track time]. Something I have been wanting to do for a while, just never have, but I plan on meeting up with another SHO owner {Way *more* modified than mine-Dropped/P.P/Upgraded intercooler, T-Stat, Tires/Brakes/rotors}. What Will be interesting is we will change cars in the middle of tracking, see how each other’s handles/Responds differently. My SHO is already Livernois tuned and has an intake, but that’s all it has at this point. I will provide updated impressions later.

(Obviously these are turbo charged cars, and The temperatures have been exceedingly hot as of late, so we are driving at night, which hopefully will help with the performance being Cooler.)

 

[americafirst]

Yeah, forget CarPlay on the GX... or any Lexus or Toyota product. Point is the GX is probably the most dated luxury car on the market tech wise. I have to resent BMW a bit for making CarPlay a $300 option and is said to become a subscription based service in the future- such nonsense.

I would rather have Android Auto over CarPlay because I use Google Maps and Google Play Music. I wasn't aware CarPlay was a $300 option on BMW. I might do what I do in my g ride and use a dock and cable

Yes, that’s the other problem with the GX/T4R, theyre using decades old drivetrains (but yet people keep buying them). It’s tried and true, rock solid equiptment but it lacks the effluency of newer engines, transmissions etc. That said, any body-on-frame SUV is going to have inherently worse efficiency due to things like weight, low range transfer cases, utility oriented 4wd and gearing, etc.

I would prefer a proven system over something new. Efficiency is on the bottom of my list anyway

@A.Goldberg True. Though from a Toyota perspective, those engines are solid. You could, in theory, shoot them with a rifle, and they'd still operate just fine. From a reliability standpoint, Toyota is number one, from a modern standpoint, you trade in new for old yet stable.

Since the Toyota is proven I might add a Land Cruiser to my list. Currently I am considering a Lexus GX 460 which is based on the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado or a BMW X3 M40i to replace my current car

 

[D.T.]

@D.T. I read into the DDT after your PM and I'm genuinely surprised and very impressed with the performance for a performance SUV with those capabilities. I forgot to ask you or you posted it and I missed it, but did you get it with 2nd row captain's chairs or just the bench seat for row 2 and 3? It's also got a massive gas tank. Mine beats it by just over a gallon, IIRC. Except yours doesn't slurp fuel like it's drinking water while walking in the Gobi desert.

Yes, got the optional 2nd row Captain's Chairs (vs. the standard bench ... was a request from the little G ), which are fantastic (also Nappa leather, red stitched, heated, to match the front seats in the RT). The 3rd row doesn't have any options, it's just a 2 person bench (splits, lays flat for lots of storage, remote headrest drop).

There's not a ton of options at the RT level, but we got these packages: Tow (which includes several options, including load leveling suspensions, it should be a no-brainer), Blacktop (black wheels/side mirrors), Tech (this is all the extra active safety systems like lane control, ACC, crash mitigation, etc.) and the Captain's Chairs. All the other stuff like remote "smart climate" start, the higher end audio option, etc., are standard at this trim level, and the RT has specific suspension, ride height, front/rear fascia/hood/fender-trim, seating, a specific AWD system that includes 2-speed/low range, sport mode and comes standard with the 5.7L
[doublepost=1529585262][/doublepost]

I would rather have Android Auto over CarPlay because I use Google Maps and Google Play Music. I wasn't aware CarPlay was a $300 option on BMW. I might do what I do in my g ride and use a dock and cable

FYI, iOS 12 will have an update to allow 3rd party navigation in Car Play (so Google Maps and Waze) and right now Car Play supports Google Play Music

 

[americafirst]

Yes, got the optional 2nd row Captain's Chairs (vs. the standard bench ... was a request from the little G ), which are fantastic (also Nappa leather, red stitched, heated, to match the front seats in the RT). The 3rd row doesn't have any options, it's just a 2 person bench (splits, lays flat for lots of storage, remote headrest drop).

There's not a ton of options at the RT level, but we got these packages: Tow (which includes several options, including load leveling suspensions, it should be a no-brainer), Blacktop (black wheels/side mirrors), Tech (this is all the extra active safety systems like lane control, ACC, crash mitigation, etc.) and the Captain's Chairs. All the other stuff like remote "smart climate" start, the higher end audio option, etc., are standard at this trim level, and the RT has specific suspension, ride height, front/rear fascia/hood/fender-trim, seating, a specific AWD system that includes 2-speed/low range, sport mode and comes standard with the 5.7L

What SUV is that

FYI, iOS 12 will have an update to allow 3rd party navigation in Car Play (so Google Maps and Waze) and right now Car Play supports Google Play Music

When did CarPlay start supporting Google Play Music? Had I known that I would have upgraded the system in my current car

 

[bunnspecial]

One more thought, and then I promise I'll drop the OHV vs. OHC thing.

This is actually sort of "low hanging fruit" and it's often one of the first things that comes up when discussing the relative merits of the two engine designs.

OHC engines have virtually no inertia in the valve train, as the cam actuates the valves directly.

By contrast, you have a LOT in an OHV engine in the tappet+pushrod+rocker assembly. Modern pushrods are super light weight(anyone need a set of 8 1/2" long racing pushrods for a BMC B-series engine? I'll make you a screaming deal on them...and the full set of 8 weighs less than a single stock 'long" pushrod), although roller tappets are somewhat heavier than flat tappets. Of course, rockers are lighter than they use to be, but they still have some mass.

In addition, there is intentional "slop" in an OHV valve train. This is called valve lash, and it's actually speced in the design of the engine/camshaft to reduce wear on the valves, tappets, and cams by "cushioning"-or at least spreading out-the collision events as the valve is opened. Modern OHV engines are more-or-less self adjusting through the use of engine oil, but the lash still MUST be there. If you ever play with older OHV engines, valve lash is one of those things you have to set. On a BMC B-series engine(I reference that because it's the engine I know best) it's set at 15 thousands of an inch cold. I often run mine at 14 thou to make the engine quieter(at 15 the engine sounds like a sewing machine).

Lash aside, though, we once again come down to the persistent issue of mass and inertia in the engine-in this case in the valve train. This is actually a huge deal in OHV engines, and it's the reason why they rarely redline over 6500 rpms or so. If you try to spin them faster, the valves will "float"-meaning that the valve train can't physically keep up with the cam shaft and the valves stay open when they shouldn't. Depending on the engine design, this may be an annoyance or it may be catastrophic(piston-valve collision).

If one desires to spin an OHV engine to higher revs, the usual solution is to fit heavier valve spring. This will cause the valves to "spring" back closed sooner so the engine can spin faster before float becomes a problem, but you're expending more energy to physically close the valves-again that's another power loss. That's why no one in their right mind fits "racing" valve springs on a street engine-they make sense if you spend 90% of your time at WOT and 7000rpm+, but rob power when you're driving around town.

 

[quagmire]

One more thought, and then I promise I'll drop the OHV vs. OHC thing.

This is actually sort of "low hanging fruit" and it's often one of the first things that comes up when discussing the relative merits of the two engine designs.

OHC engines have virtually no inertia in the valve train, as the cam actuates the valves directly.

By contrast, you have a LOT in an OHV engine in the tappet+pushrod+rocker assembly. Modern pushrods are super light weight(anyone need a set of 8 1/2" long racing pushrods for a BMC B-series engine? I'll make you a screaming deal on them...and the full set of 8 weighs less than a single stock 'long" pushrod), although roller tappets are somewhat heavier than flat tappets. Of course, rockers are lighter than they use to be, but they still have some mass.

In addition, there is intentional "slop" in an OHV valve train. This is called valve lash, and it's actually speced in the design of the engine/camshaft to reduce wear on the valves, tappets, and cams by "cushioning"-or at least spreading out-the collision events as the valve is opened. Modern OHV engines are more-or-less self adjusting through the use of engine oil, but the lash still MUST be there. If you ever play with older OHV engines, valve lash is one of those things you have to set. On a BMC B-series engine(I reference that because it's the engine I know best) it's set at 15 thousands of an inch cold. I often run mine at 14 thou to make the engine quieter(at 15 the engine sounds like a sewing machine).

Lash aside, though, we once again come down to the persistent issue of mass and inertia in the engine-in this case in the valve train. This is actually a huge deal in OHV engines, and it's the reason why they rarely redline over 6500 rpms or so. If you try to spin them faster, the valves will "float"-meaning that the valve train can't physically keep up with the cam shaft and the valves stay open when they shouldn't. Depending on the engine design, this may be an annoyance or it may be catastrophic(piston-valve collision).

If one desires to spin an OHV engine to higher revs, the usual solution is to fit heavier valve spring. This will cause the valves to "spring" back closed sooner so the engine can spin faster before float becomes a problem, but you're expending more energy to physically close the valves-again that's another power loss. That's why no one in their right mind fits "racing" valve springs on a street engine-they make sense if you spend 90% of your time at WOT and 7000rpm+, but rob power when you're driving around town.

And I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to say OHV was better. Just get a bit irritated when people judge an engine just by displacement. There is a lot more to it than that. And yes DOHC is a more flexible architecture in that you can adjust the exhaust and intake individually in an DOHC setup( well easier, because I believe the last version of the V10 in the Viper could adjust both individually, but again adds complexity).

As your explanations prove, there is a lot more to the discussion. I was also keeping things simple in my OHV produces power by displacement where DOHC by spinning the engine faster as those are the general ways of getting power is either increasing the torque( through bigger displacement) or by spinning the motor faster which is a benefit of DOHC. Yes DOHC has 4 valves vs OHV's 2 so there is also more efficiency in feeding the motor the air therefore making more power in a more efficient method.

I am not an engineer. I don't necessarily care about the whole HP/liter discussion because HP/liter doesn't do anything for my driving experience with the car as a whole. What matters is power delivery, powerband, fuel economy, performance, etc. That is where OHV vs DOHC becomes more relevant. HP/liter is useless and like I said is more biased towards DOHC due to the increased efficiency in producing the power in a smaller displacement( but with a general sacrifice of torque) where OHV has to use displacement. There is fun in driving both motor types. I love the LT1 with its "laziness" in that I can be at 1200 RPM and still accelerate without lugging the engine because of the down low torque, but I would also love driving the GT350 for the Voodoo and have it scream at 8500 RPM. Both provide amazing experiences despite the different ways of doing so.

 

[bunnspecial]

That is where OHV vs DOHC becomes more relevant. HP/liter is useless and like I said is more biased towards DOHC due to the increased efficiency in producing the power in a smaller displacement( but with a general sacrifice of torque) where OHV has to use displacement.

Again, this is still an incorrect statement to make in a general sense.

Please go look up the torque curves of the engines under discussion and you'll see that it's just not true.

 

[quagmire]

Again, this is still an incorrect statement to make in a general sense.

Please go look up the torque curves of the engines under discussion and you'll see that it's just not true.

HP= RPM* torque. How is it inaccurate for a general statement as a general rule of thumb of how DOHC and OHV produces their power? A smaller displacement engines produce less torque, so if you have a smaller displacement motor, but want to produce the same power as a bigger displacement motor, you spin it faster. I am not discussing the Coyote vs LT1 in specifics with that statement. The Voodoo is an example of my statement. The S2000 motor is an example of my statement. The V10 and V8 in the E60 and E90 M vehicles are an example of my statement.

It's a general rule of thumb. Yes there are DOHC's out there that can produce power lower. But those are specifics vs general.

 

[bunnspecial]

HP= RPM* torque. How is it inaccurate for a general statement as a general rule of thumb of how DOHC and OHV produces their power? A smaller displacement engines produce less torque, so if you have a smaller displacement motor, but want to produce the same power as a bigger displacement motor, you spin it faster. I am not discussing the Coyote vs LT1 in specifics with that statement. The Voodoo is an example of my statement. The S2000 motor is an example of my statement. The V10 and V8 in the E60 and E90 M vehicles are an example of my statement.

It's a general rule of thumb. Yes there are DOHC's out there that can produce power lower. But those are specifics vs general.

You've admitted that you really don't know what you're talking about.

The amount of torque produced at any given rotational speed is mostly dependent on the number of cylinders, the length of the connecting rods, and the amount of fuel/air in the cylinders. BTW, the last point isn't entirely a function of displacement-it's affected as much as anything by timing of the intake valve opening and how easily the engine can pull air through the intake valves.

I'm point you to a specific case because you say that you like torque down low. In comparing the two engines side by side, the smaller displacement engine only has to be wound up 250rpm more to get to a "flat" torque curve with a higher value than the larger displacement engine. As I said, I suspect someone with experience with the engine could probably shift the torque curve down so that it starts at the same place but still extends well past the redline of the LT1.

Comparing Japanese engines like the one in the S2000 isn't really relevant as Japanese engines tend to be large bore with a short stroke. This allows them to be very efficient for the displacement, but also make the torque curve very "peaky" and requires the engine to spin very fast to generate significant amounts of torque.

American V8s-whether OHV or OHC-tend to use the same basic "square" layout-with square meaning that the bore and stroke are equal. If they vary from that, they tend to favor a longer stroke which, again, translates directly into more torque.

To be honest, you're grasping at the straws because torque is determined more by the bottom end design than it is by the valve configuration. The fact that the torque curves are essentially identical save for a tuning choice in cam timing that means the the engine needs to be wound up a bit more means that the engines effectively have similar design goals and construction philosophies.

However you slice it, too, performance/displacement has always been a big deal.

 

[D.T.]

What SUV is that

When did CarPlay start supporting Google Play Music? Had I known that I would have upgraded the system in my current car

It's a Dodge Durango R/T, AWD. If you read back through my posts you'll see my thought process, research, general gyrations, that led to this purchase decision.

I tend to buy models, not makes, our previous two SUVs were a BMW X5 4.4i, and a 4Runner V8 AWD Limited, so German, Japanese, Domestic, that's not as much of a factor as how we intend to use the car, our current price targets, what's current pushing my buttons, etc. If you're looking for a 3-row, a "real" SUV with stout towing capacity and AWD, that falls into a neat little niche between big options like the Suburban and smaller, less SUV-ish models, the Durango is a very interesting choice.

More info and a pic here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/picture-of-your-car-2018.2098780/page-4#post-26112171

re: Google Play, it's been there for some time, along with Amazon Music, Spotify, in fact, I was using as an example of Apple being willing to allow Google an app in CP for their music service, so why not their mapping option? Which of course, will now be an option (since it made zero sense as a competitive play).

I can't really attest to the specifics of the implementation, I just installed it, tested it, went, "Yeah, it works" and that was the extent of my experience