Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2010, 08:17 PM   #1
vztrt
IWCMOGTVM Club Supporter
 
vztrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Suburbs Melbourne
Posts: 17,797
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: vztrt is one of the most consistent and respected contributors to AFF, I have found his contributions are most useful to discussion as well as answering members queries. 
Default GM plans to transform small-block V8

Not really much there, but it is a good start to see what GM will do to combat Coyote.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2576BE00008E54

Quote:
General Motors backs V8 engine, planning substantial upgrade

2 February 2010

By JAMES STANFORD

GENERAL Motors has declared its commitment to V8 engines and is planning a “substantial transformation” of its pushrod small-block V8.

Last month’s Detroit motor show might have featured much green technology, but GM vice chairman Bob Lutz backed the GM V8, while Fiat and Chrysler Group CEO Sergio Marchionne promised a long future for the Hemi V8 and Ford presented its new-generation Coyote V8. Mr Lutz indicated the GM small-block V8 would be given a significant mechanical upgrade, and hinted that technology such as direct injection and variable valve timing could be employed.

Asked if GM planned changes for the small-block V8, Mr Lutz said: “Nothing we would want to announce today.

“The V8 is going to have to undergo a substantial transformation and it is going to need new timing technology. A lot of things have to happen with the small block.”

It is not yet clear if GM would move away from pushrods or instead develop a variable overhead cam valve system.

Mr Lutz said the GM small block, which was introduced in 1955, has constantly evolved.

“The small block has always been like grandfather’s axe – you know where it has been in the family for 100 years and sometimes you change the blade and sometimes you change the handle,” he said.

“Because you never change the blade and the handle at the same time it is still grandfather’s axe, even though the blade and the handle have probably been changed about six times so far.

“It is the same old small block, but if you go back in history there is nothing the same.”

The GM small-block V8 family includes the Holden Commodore’s 6.0-litre Gen IV, which now features displacement on demand cruising fuel economy technology as well as the HSV 6.2-litre LS3 and the 7.0-litre LS7 which made a brief appearance in the W427.

Mr Lutz made it clear that eight-cylinder engines still had a role in the GM family, but would need to become leaner.

“The V8 engine is not dead, not by any means,” he said.

“There is plenty of potential to make V8s more fuel efficient. For instance direct injection as opposed to indirect injection, cylinder shut-down (for the LS versions) – there is still quite a bit of technology left that can be deployed in V8 engines to make them more fuel efficient.

“It will continue to be popular and it will be a significant proportion of the portfolio. I think we need to continue to develop the engine.”

There is a view that V8 engines are at odds with the new generation of green engines being put forward by most manufacturers, including Chevrolet’s electric range extended Volt, but Mr Lutz argues there is room for V8 engines alongside GM’s new range of green powerplants.

“We do hybrids and electric vehicles and extended range stuff because that is where the world is moving and our overseas subsidiaries like Holden will benefit from all that technology that comes on stream, but we are still probably the world’s largest producer of V8 engines and proud of it and have some truly excellent cars with V8 engines such as Cadillacs and Holdens,” he said.

Mr Marchionne told GoAuto that the Chrysler Group would still regard the Hemi V8 as an important powerplant under its new leadership.

“It will continue to be popular and it will be a significant proportion of the portfolio,” he said.

Like Mr Lutz, Mr Marchionne said plenty could be done to make the Hemi, which also has displacement on demand, more efficient.

“I think we need to continue to develop the engine,” he said.
__________________
Daniel
vztrt is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 08:33 PM   #2
Mr X
mustang pilot
 
Mr X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SA
Posts: 372
Default

How many pushrod engines are currently in production around the world today I wonder?Not to sully in any way the legend of the small block Chev but its time it joined the 21st century.
Mr X is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 08:38 PM   #3
Bad Bird
Watts a panhard.
 
Bad Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 929
Default

Why? Pushrods engines are lighter and more compact, and since large displacement engines don't need to spin to 9000 rpm to make power it makes perfect sense.
__________________
I don't have low self-esteem. I have low esteem for everyone else.
Bad Bird is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 08:42 PM   #4
LethalLeigh
Get in the van!
 
LethalLeigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr X
How many pushrod engines are currently in production around the world today I wonder?Not to sully in any way the legend of the small block Chev but its time it joined the 21st century.
Probably the same reason they still use carbies in NASCAR. The Yanks have done it for so long not many do it as well.
__________________
The Dad Bus (TM): 2004 BA XT Wagon, soon to be set up as a camper and tourer.
LethalLeigh is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 08:43 PM   #5
Mr X
mustang pilot
 
Mr X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SA
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Bird
Why? Pushrods engines are lighter and more compact, and since large displacement engines don't need to spin to 9000 rpm to make power it makes perfect sense.

I'll leave the experts to explain to you the advantages of four valves per cylinder and variable cam timing.

Would you like to see a new Ferrari with a pushrod V12?
Mr X is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 08:54 PM   #6
LethalLeigh
Get in the van!
 
LethalLeigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr X
I'll leave the experts to explain to you the advantages of four valves per cylinder and variable cam timing.

Would you like to see a new Ferrari with a pushrod V12?
There was a good Bob Lutz interview a while back where he compared the LS7 to BMWs M5 V10. Both made 500hp or there abouts but despite the fact it was 2L bigger in capacity it made more torque lower down, weighed less and was a physically more compact motor.

I'll admit there's certain efficiencies to be had with a DOHC design but the bang for your buck quotient of an American developed pushrod V8 is hard to top.
__________________
The Dad Bus (TM): 2004 BA XT Wagon, soon to be set up as a camper and tourer.
LethalLeigh is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 09:00 PM   #7
chuckles
formerly lorosfalcon
 
chuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Shepparton
Posts: 109
Default

the chrysler hemi v8 is pushrod still
__________________
03 BA XT I6
F6 CAI
3" intake pipe
XForce 2 1/2 exhaust with hidden tip
Battery in boot
Textralia clutuch
T56 conversion
King Springs SL front SSL rear
Pedders shocks
PBR upgrade front brakes
20" koya rush II wheels (street/show)
17" Enkei WRC Tarmac evo wheels (fun)
5% tint
Polk Audio 5x7 speakers
Option Audio 500WRMS amp
Clarion dual voice coil 15" sub in box
TO COME:
Typhoon engine conversion
chuckles is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 09:06 PM   #8
Windsor220
Now Fordless
 
Windsor220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Default

Be interesting to see how variabe valve timing would work on a pushrod engine.
Windsor220 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 09:08 PM   #9
US kills Falcon
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 113
Default

*yawns*
US kills Falcon is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 09:11 PM   #10
Mr X
mustang pilot
 
Mr X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SA
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LethalLeigh
There was a good Bob Lutz interview a while back where he compared the LS7 to BMWs M5 V10. Both made 500hp or there abouts but despite the fact it was 2L bigger in capacity it made more torque lower down, weighed less and was a physically more compact motor.

I'll admit there's certain efficiencies to be had with a DOHC design but the bang for your buck quotient of an American developed pushrod V8 is hard to top.
Don't get me wrong.I own two pushrod V8's which I love and one quad ohc-but pushrods are antiquated technology and GM know they have to move forwards.Bigger capacity requires more fuel and cylinder shut down seems to me to be a bit of band aid.
Mr X is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 11:36 PM   #11
Bad Bird
Watts a panhard.
 
Bad Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr X
I'll leave the experts to explain to you the advantages of four valves per cylinder and variable cam timing.

Would you like to see a new Ferrari with a pushrod V12?
Uh, the Ferrari is a high revving plant that can utilise the high rpm valvetrain stability offered by dohc. It's all antiquated technology, pushrods are not anymore dinosaur than ohc...
__________________
I don't have low self-esteem. I have low esteem for everyone else.
Bad Bird is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 11:41 PM   #12
SSD-85
I ♥ EDM
Donating Member1
 
SSD-85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Bird
Uh, the Ferrari is a high revving plant that can utilise the high rpm valvetrain stability offered by dohc. It's all antiquated technology, pushrods are not anymore dinosaur than ohc...
Correct, Pushrod actuation was actually utilized (if not invented) after OHC. So that makes OHC pretty dinosaur to me. It should be appropriately termed that OHC is being used for the direction that engine tech is going in. I wont speculate how OHC is better than Pushrods, since I really don't have any factual information, but there is obviously a very good reason since nearly all engine manufacturers are moving onto OHC.
SSD-85 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-02-2010, 11:46 PM   #13
Windsor220
Now Fordless
 
Windsor220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Default

OHC is just more efficient. With less parts/space between cam and valve. Multivalve can flow better too. Just uses up more space overall with the multiple cams.
Windsor220 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 12:04 AM   #14
phillyc
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
phillyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,246
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always factual and beneficial. 
Default

Lutz / GM said essentially the same thing 3 years ago.
The Gen 4 was getting DI. Still not here...
The all new Gen 5 was meant to get VCT and be more compact. That was shelved...
The Utra V8 which was to be a smaller 4-5.5L V8 DOHC engine was cancelled.

Not to say that there current stuff is bad. But, GM are broke and are offering nothing new anytime soon.
__________________
BA2 XR8 Rapid M6 Ute - Lid - Tint -18s
226.8rwkW@178kmh/537Nm@140kmh 1/9/2013
14.2@163kmh 23/10/2013

Boss349 built. Not yet run. Waiting on a shell.

Retrotech thread
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...1363569&page=6
phillyc is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 12:24 AM   #15
robertjp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windsor220
Be interesting to see how variabe valve timing would work on a pushrod engine.
How about designing a lifter in two halves, with the lifter situated stationary in the block and hydraulic pressure determining lift. This pressure is controlled by a valve which is computer controlled (what else) from the main oil feed lines. If the system malfunctions then the lifter (sic) reverts back to normal operation.

(sorry this is being done on the fly and without a diagram is really hard to explain, double sorry to any engineers who will undoubtedly say that this will not work due to ....)

Robert.

Last edited by robertjp; 03-02-2010 at 12:28 AM. Reason: expanding and correcting grammer.
robertjp is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 12:33 AM   #16
jpd80
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,249
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Thoughtful contributions to our community 
Default

The Vortec V8 versions of GM's LS engines have had variable Cam timing for years.
It's as simple as one cam phaser on the single cam but that doesn't make it any better than Ford's 5.4 3V.
jpd80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 12:38 AM   #17
Windsor220
Now Fordless
 
Windsor220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd80
The Vortec V8 versions of GM's LS engines have had variable Cam timing for years.
It's as simple as one cam phaser on the single cam but that doesn't make it any better than Ford's 5.4 3V.
I was thinking of it being like that. Similar to Fords VCT sixes in the AUs with single cam.
Windsor220 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 01:11 AM   #18
jpd80
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,249
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Thoughtful contributions to our community 
Default

Yeah, the cam phaser sits in front of the cam timing gear, pretty simple
but the design is still limited by wedge head design and heavy valve train.
sorry about the size of the image but it shows the phaser more easily..

jpd80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 02:06 AM   #19
Swordsman88
Getting it done.....
 
Swordsman88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyc
Lutz / GM said essentially the same thing 3 years ago.
The Gen 4 was getting DI. Still not here...
The all new Gen 5 was meant to get VCT and be more compact. That was shelved...
The Utra V8 which was to be a smaller 4-5.5L V8 DOHC engine was cancelled.

Not to say that there current stuff is bad. But, GM are broke and are offering nothing new anytime soon.
Best not go making any 'we will have' broken promises lists from GM phill....we haven't enough forum storage space for the post LOL....

The small block has been a great engine for GM and in the latest SC forms is very very good. BUT, time is catching up with it and it will need a major overhaul or have to be retired completely within the next few years. Whether GM has the dollars to design a suitable replacment is another thing. In the next few year or two they will just retune it as best they can, then I'd say somwhere in 2012 we will see a 'new' V8 that is really a heavilly overhauled LS block with new heads, VCT etc. Probably OHC but they may find a way to make pushods work. It will meet emissions standards and have the required grunt to ge the job done for another few years.

All new V8 (so called ultra V8) won't be seen for 7-10 years....and that, almost certainly, will be a quad cam, 4v engine etc probably with all new block, 5-5.5L capacity..... So, GM will only be just under a decade behind ford then...so business as usual....
__________________
Dynamic White 1995 EF XR6 Auto

Now with:
Pacemaker 4499s
Lukey Catback Exhaust
Chrome BA XR-style tip
Airdam Mounted CAI with modified (bellmouth) airbox
Trip Computer install
KYB shocks
Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres

Coming Soon:
Exhaust Overhaul.....
Swordsman88 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 03:43 AM   #20
chevypower
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
Default

Well Ford is moving back to 2v on the 6.2. It takes more energy to drive 2 cams than one, so having 2 large valves on that engine sounds good to me. Maybe this is why Ford says the 5.0 will get similar fuel Econ to the 5.4. But when talking about the 6.2, Ford says it will get better fuel econ than the 5.4.
I think the most reliable way to drive a cam is with a chain. For efficiency? Maybe pushrod. I kind of go with chain for reliability cos I bet I'm one of very few people in the world that has thrown a rod and broken a timing belt on the same night in two different cars obviously. They were both Holdens too!
chevypower is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 04:25 AM   #21
Swordsman88
Getting it done.....
 
Swordsman88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chevypower
Well Ford is moving back to 2v on the 6.2. It takes more energy to drive 2 cams than one, so having 2 large valves on that engine sounds good to me. Maybe this is why Ford says the 5.0 will get similar fuel Econ to the 5.4. But when talking about the 6.2, Ford says it will get better fuel econ than the 5.4.
I think the most reliable way to drive a cam is with a chain. For efficiency? Maybe pushrod. I kind of go with chain for reliability cos I bet I'm one of very few people in the world that has thrown a rod and broken a timing belt on the same night in two different cars obviously. They were both Holdens too!
The fuel efficiency gains of the 6.2 over the 5.4 are probably dependent on the vehicles they are in. The 5.4 would have alot more trouble trying to pull a F350 than an FG falcon....hence if you put a 5.0 in the falcon you may not burn that much less but putting the more powerful 6.2 in an F350 you will... Its a bit like the 3.0 SIDI holden v6 debacle...its not that the engine is all that bad (though its far from good) its simply that it can't save fuel with its given performance in a commodore.....

I believe Ford's statements was that the 5.0 would burn the same as the 4.6 anyway....are they putting 5.0 in F series??
__________________
Dynamic White 1995 EF XR6 Auto

Now with:
Pacemaker 4499s
Lukey Catback Exhaust
Chrome BA XR-style tip
Airdam Mounted CAI with modified (bellmouth) airbox
Trip Computer install
KYB shocks
Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres

Coming Soon:
Exhaust Overhaul.....
Swordsman88 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 04:51 AM   #22
chevypower
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsman88
are they putting 5.0 in F series??
Yep, but less power than the Mustang has.
2011 F-150 engines are: (with probable HP/lb-ft)

3.7L V6 280-300/280
5.0L V8 360/360
3.5L V6 EcoBoost 400/400
6.2 V8 411/434

Super Duty (F250/F350)
6.2 V8 411/434
6.7 V8 diesel 400/750

Things couldn't be any more interesting in the Ford world in my opinion.
chevypower is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 08:22 AM   #23
jpd80
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,249
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Thoughtful contributions to our community 
Default

In development Ford built a 5.0 off the 6.2 but couldn't get the efficiency they needed.
Conversely, the larger bore hemi configuration in the 6.2 necessitates dual spark plugs
for shorter flame front ensuring all the mixture is burnt.
So even though the 5.4 could have been saved as a long stroke Coyote,
the 6.2 is a better design for that size.

I would consider both 5.0 an 6.2 well designed for their respective sizes and intended purposes.
jpd80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 08:28 AM   #24
chevypower
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
Default

I wasn't aware of a 5.0 "Boss" motor under development. I know the Boss was a originally to come as a 5.8 and 6.2. 5.8L for regular F150 and Expedition. The 6.2 was for Navigator and premium model F150s. But that 5.8 was axed. I believe people are finding out about this 5.8 and making the assumption that there is a 5.8L Coyote engine in development, which I don't believe for 1 second is going to happen.
chevypower is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 08:48 AM   #25
4117kev
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 653
Default

You can buy 4 valve heads to suit SBC now, still uses same cam and inlet manifold and were about 5300 a set with everything supplied to bolt them on and these are not overhead cam.

I will try to find the link again it's on 1 of my puters, but they made about 130extra hp over a set of after market heads.
4117kev is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 09:12 AM   #26
4Vman
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
4Vman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,654
Default

Coyote will finally force GM to look at better technology like DOHC...



__________________
335 S/C GT: The new KING of Australian made performance cars..
4Vman is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 09:44 AM   #27
outback_ute
Ute Forum Moderator
Contributing Member
 
outback_ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb
Posts: 7,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lutz
“The small block has always been like grandfather’s axe – you know where it has been in the family for 100 years and sometimes you change the blade and sometimes you change the handle,” he said.

“Because you never change the blade and the handle at the same time it is still grandfather’s axe, even though the blade and the handle have probably been changed about six times so far.

“It is the same old small block, but if you go back in history there is nothing the same.”
Surely the Gen III was new block and heads at the same time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty85
Correct, Pushrod actuation was actually utilized (if not invented) after OHC.
Are you sure? Not aware of any engines pre-1900 that didn't use pushrods.
outback_ute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 09:49 AM   #28
Burnout
Falcon RTV - FG G6ET
Donating Member3
 
Burnout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In Da Bush, QLD
Posts: 31,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Vman
Coyote will finally force GM to look at better technology like DOHC...
Hope the top of the heads stays together - not like the 307's where the rocker gear came loose and fell off all the time.
__________________
BAII RTV - with Raptor V S/C.

RTV Power
FG G6ET 50th Anniversary in Sensation.
While the basic Ford Six was code named Barra, the Turbo version clearly deserved its very own moniker – again enter Gordon Barfield.
We asked him if the engine had actually been called “Seagull” and how that came about.
“Actually it was just call “Gull”, because I named it that. Because we knew it was going to poo on everything”.
Burnout is online now   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 10:02 AM   #29
mcnews
Trev
 
mcnews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Was Perth, now country Vic
Posts: 8,017
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Trev has owned several boosted fords and has really contributed a lot of info on them. His posts in the bike section are also very helpful. I think he should be recognised as a technical contributor. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chevypower
Well Ford is moving back to 2v on the 6.2. It takes more energy to drive 2 cams than one, so having 2 large valves on that engine sounds good to me. Maybe this is why Ford says the 5.0 will get similar fuel Econ to the 5.4. But when talking about the 6.2, Ford says it will get better fuel econ than the 5.4.
I think the most reliable way to drive a cam is with a chain. For efficiency? Maybe pushrod. I kind of go with chain for reliability cos I bet I'm one of very few people in the world that has thrown a rod and broken a timing belt on the same night in two different cars obviously. They were both Holdens too!
Two valve engines are generally much more efficient at lower rpm due to better gas flow speeds. Thus why some engines have two valves operating at low rpm then switching to four valves at higher rpm. Trying to get the best of both worlds.
__________________
Trev
(FPV FG II GT-E thus the fully loaded burger with the lot as standard +Alpine/Dynamat fitout - 2 of only 4 ever made GT-E factory 9" rear rims - Michelin Pilot Supersports - Shockworks Suspension)
mcnews is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-02-2010, 10:18 AM   #30
burnz
VFII SS UTE
 
burnz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,352
Default

you can VVT pushrod a 4Valve unit, nothing new cummins, cat, have been doing it for years.
__________________
I don't often hear the sound of a screaming LSX.
But when I do, So do the neighbours..
GO SOUTHS
burnz is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL