I think the perception of the efficient pushrod engines is solely due to the Corvette. Compare gas mileage between the old Ford 5.0L pushrod that made 215hp, and the new 3.7L DOHC V6 with 305hp.
The Dodge 6.4L is thirsty too. It's not thirsty compared to something like that from 10-20 years ago, but it is compared to cars now. Only car I've ever paid a gas guzzler tax on. The one I'm looking at now is almost 200hp more, and gets better mileage (and is DOHC).
Why is it Germans and Italians can get 500HP out of a 5.0L engine and we get 450 out of a 6.2L?
Why is it Germans and Italians can get 500HP out of a 5.0L engine and we get 450 out of a 6.2L?
"they don't have to"?????Chevy could do it as well, but they are smart enough to know, they don't have to. That's what the aftermarket is for. Compare the aftermarket for small block Chevy's vs any of the Europeans.
Chevy can play conservative with their engine numbers to increase reliability and simplify maintenance which keeps costs down for the masses. For those people that don't care about warranties and 100,000+ mile reliability, the huge aftermarket will let them push their engine as far as their wallet can handle.
OHC isn't unreliable by any means, but any system with less parts is going to be more reliable, all else equal.I think it's going a bit far to say that an OHV engine is automatically more reliable than a OHC. Maybe that was true twenty years ago, yeah...
OHC isn't unreliable by any means, but any system with less parts is going to be more reliable, all else equal.
Sounds like an awful lot of on-paper peak HP number comparisons going on with out much attention being given to the torque and the power band of the engine.
Sure, engine X may get 280HP out of 2.8 liters while engine Y gets 250 out of 4.0, but if the torque is low on engine x and requires high revs to get that HP number and that additional 30 HP doesn't show up until right at at the end, while engine Y has more torque and a flatter power band, engine Y will still perform far better over all. Peak HP numbers mean very little without everything else taken into account. Except for marketing, I suppose.
Sounds like an awful lot of on-paper peak HP number comparisons going on with out much attention being given to the torque and the power band of the engine.
Sure, engine X may get 280HP out of 2.8 liters while engine Y gets 250 out of 4.0, but if the torque is low on engine x and requires high revs to get that HP number and that additional 30 HP doesn't show up until right at at the end, while engine Y has more torque and a flatter power band, engine Y will still perform far better over all. Peak HP numbers mean very little without everything else taken into account. Except for marketing, I suppose.
In 1996 Jeep had a 4.0L I6 putting out 190hp at 4600rpm, 225lbft at 3000rpm, 5300rpm redline
BMW had a 2.8L I6 putting out 190hp at 5300rpm, 210lbft at 3950rpm, 6500rpm redline
So... BMW had a smaller motor putting out 15lbft less at 1000 higher rpm's? I'll bet that torque curve on the Jeep was dead flat. Are you making the argument for or against the OHV motor? And the GM 3800 series of motors through the 90's were also known for their flat torque curves.In 1996 Jeep had a 4.0L I6 putting out 190hp at 4600rpm, 225lbft at 3000rpm, 5300rpm redline
BMW had a 2.8L I6 putting out 190hp at 5300rpm, 210lbft at 3950rpm, 6500rpm redline
So... BMW had a smaller motor putting out 15lbft less at 1000 higher rpm's? I'll bet that torque curve on the Jeep was dead flat. Are you making the argument for or against the OHV motor? And the GM 3800 series of motors through the 90's were also known for their flat torque curves.
OHV motors have their advantages. Which is why people get so defensive about them. HP/L is just one of many ways to judge a motor -- arguably the worst way.
So... BMW had a smaller motor putting out 15lbft less at 1000 higher rpm's? I'll bet that torque curve on the Jeep was dead flat. Are you making the argument for or against the OHV motor? And the GM 3800 series of motors through the 90's were also known for their flat torque curves.
OHV motors have their advantages. Which is why people get so defensive about them. HP/L is just one of many ways to judge a motor -- arguably the worst way.
I6s are probably cheaper than V6s as long as you don't have to do anything crazy to fit them in (e.g. Volvo transaxle)My example wasn't arguing either way, just pointing out that different engines are...well, different. Not sure what the following post was about.
The N55 (3.0 DI turbo) is a fucking torque monster throughout the RPM range. The Nissan 3.7 isn't. At all.
If you're trying to argue that displacement = power/torque, the Jeep 4.0 is kind of a bad example. Really inefficient, underpowered engine. Its torque probably stems most from that fact that it's an I6, which has always seemed to produce more than V6 designs. Not sure what the science on that is...or if there is any. But I gotta think so, what with the rather ubiquitous nature of I6's in big trucks (as in semis).
"they don't have to"?????
they don't want to is probably more accurate IMHO. They want to keep costs down, especially warranty costs.
Also, they want to keep the base model fairly low power to allow them to make small changes that cost very little, but develop significant bumps in power to higher cost models, so they have increasing margins.
there are many reasons, but they mostly revolve around $
In 1996 Jeep had a 4.0L I6 putting out 190hp at 4600rpm, 225lbft at 3000rpm, 5300rpm redline
BMW had a 2.8L I6 putting out 190hp at 5300rpm, 210lbft at 3950rpm, 6500rpm redline
You're giving me peak numbers again. What's the power band look like? Torque curve?
Torque curve on the M52 is pretty good, BMW tuned it for torque while sacrificing topend power due to the intake manifold. Tons of dynos here: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=478545
Wait, why don't HP and FTLB meet at 5250 on the BMW dyno?
Wait, why don't HP and FTLB meet at 5250 on the BMW dyno?