Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-15-2005, 03:57 PM   #16
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88GrandPrixSE
Actually, no they haven't. A DOHC engine will always make a bit more power than a SOHC equivalent. They're close, yes, but DOHC still does make more power. Might only be another 10hp on a 200hp engine, but still an improvement no matter how you look at it. You're much more limited to how you can design the heads of a SOHC over a DOHC.

No. How the valves are actuated hasn't got any bearing on it. Only the actual cam lobe profile, how many valves are actuated, compression ratio, porting, timing, displacement, etc. Hmm. In fact everything BUT how many cams it has.

Think about it for a minute: teh lift, duration, and overlap of teh valves is teh key. Separating the intake lobes from the exhaust lobes (so they are on two cams instead of one) won't let the engine make more power, only the actual SHAPE of those lobes. ANY engines you want to use as an example will have differnt lobe shapes, too, so that what is making the power is teh lobe shape, not how many cams it has.

The primary benefit of having the lobes on separate cams is teh ability to tune them separate. But at the point where they are optimized on separate cams, you made a single cam that duplicated that timing, the engine would make identical power with that single cam as it did with the dual cams.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2005, 04:04 PM   #17
Inygknok
El del Supra
 
Inygknok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
A litle correction here... The Mustang hasn't had a pushrod engine since '95. The standard V8 Mustang since then has been the 4.6 liter SOHC (yes, overhead cam) engine, with the later Cobras getting a DOHC version.

Man, why is it that people can't even get the basics right?

Oh, and while technically, pushrod engines are OHV, so are SOHC and DOHC engines! In all cases, the valves are "above" the piston, i.e. overhead.

And Kardon, as to your original question,



Think about it... In the same car, would a 250 hp engine of ANY sort perform like a 500 hp version? If they did why would having more power in the same car be any better?

With the same gearing and same powerband, a 250 hp engine would perform like a 500 hp engine only if the car it was in was HALF the weight of the car that the 500 hp engine was in. Basic math. Has nothing to do with how the valves are actuated.


i believe ppl here know that the valves are located on top of the piston area. wat i stated about the OHV ordeal was something a bit formal in the way that pushrod engines are classified as OHV in sites and stuff, as not to cause confusion, but im quite aware of the simple facts, and i was hoping other ppl are aware of it. simply put, actual "Pushrod" engines, not just any motor that pushes rods, i mean specifically PUSHROD engines (just in case somebody around here doesnt understand im just talking about engines classified as pushrod engines n not just anything that pushes a rod, or else males would be pushrods too) have their cams on top of their crankshaft case while the valve head is all alone up there.

PS: my bad bout the newer stangs.
__________________


Supra: To surpass or go beyond.
Inygknok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2005, 08:10 PM   #18
Zalight
Who's house? Runs house.
 
Zalight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,264
Damnit!!I can't find a picture online because I don't remmber what exactly it is called, but:

Not all engines are overhead valve desings. I was reading a recent edition of Bike magazine (or maybe it was two wheels only...), and in it they had a list of different engines and the way they worked. Of course they had the classic piston and rotary engines, then they had a few other engines like the Veselsovy rotary/piston engine:http://www.machaon.ru/tetra/veselo.htmAnd an engine driven only by compressed air:http://www.abc.net.au/newinventors/txt/s1072065.htm

Then they had an enine which was set up much like a conventional piston engine but the combustion chamber was underneath the piston, so that the piston was pushed upward to spin the crank shaft. Since the combustion chamber was underneath the piston, so were the valves. Thus the engine wasn't an OHV design. The valves were opened and closed by special lobes on the crankshaft. Since there was no need to have a head, this engine was very small, which was the point of inventing it.

They also had another rotary pisto engine in which the piston was placed on the same centerline as the crankshaft, and instaed of having the combustion simply push the pisto down the cylinder, it used a set of grooves in the cylinder walls to make the piston spin. OK I know how I said that was confusing...basically the force of the explosion pushes the piston down, but since the grooves that the piston are set in wont allow it to go down it spins, and in turn spins the crankshaft...Get it? I suck at explaining stuff.

Sorry for making you read all that nonsensical dribal, but I found it very interesting.
__________________
1999 BMW ///M3
Zalight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2005, 09:04 PM   #19
VMJYogi
CF Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 258
Of course not all engines are overhead valve engines. Whoever thinks that that is true must be stupid. But you guys sure love bitching huh? Like women... I have a real arguement for you guys; who'll win Batman or Spiderman? And please dont have the comeback of me saying you all bitch like "We dont bitch, we are merely intent on correcting others mistakes something u obviously don't have the capabilities of you nimrod. So please think before you type" because that is really gay and lame.
__________________

Self-appointed anchorman of CF. I bring the news with a savvy tongue b*tch!
Now an ever prouder DEP of the USMC
I get fresh from Yankee Stadium to the Gardens i beg your pardon, stop it, my closet Macys mens department pants shirt scarf phone if you checkin get the scoop on the cologne belt and shoe section fur for fur baby baby you'll go stir crazy
VMJYogi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 02:31 AM   #20
88GrandPrixSE
CF Freak
 
88GrandPrixSE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalight
Damnit!!I can't find a picture online because I don't remmber what exactly it is called,

It's called a 2-stroke, T head, flat head, L head...

Chris V:

SOHC limits the design of the head, and as I'm positive you know, the head plays a great role in the power an engine is able to produce. If it was just lift that limited the power, they could easily change that, they could make the lobes for the intake more aggressive and leave the exhaust however they wanted it. Or they could just increase lift all the way around. That's not the limiting factor of SOHC. If it was, why don't they just put a more aggresive cam in them?
__________________
88GrandPrixSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 05:39 AM   #21
Zalight
Who's house? Runs house.
 
Zalight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88GrandPrixSE
It's called a 2-stroke, T head, flat head, L head...

Did you read my whole post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalight
Then they had an enine which was set up much like a conventional piston engine but the combustion chamber was underneath the piston, so that the piston was pushed upward to spin the crank shaft. Since the combustion chamber was underneath the piston, so were the valves. Thus the engine wasn't an OHV design. The valves were opened and closed by special lobes on the crankshaft. Since there was no need to have a head, this engine was very small, which was the point of inventing it.

Thats not how a 2 stroke works, not even close.
__________________
1999 BMW ///M3
Zalight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 06:14 AM   #22
88GrandPrixSE
CF Freak
 
88GrandPrixSE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalight
Did you read my whole post?

No, no i didn't. I highly doubt there was ever an engine invented that ignited fuel under the piston, for, that just wouldn't work. It raises questions:

1. How was it ignited? Piston would hit spark plug if it was in the wall
2. What about the oil and crank over-heating?
3. How does it suck fuel in/push it out? It's not trying to push it at all.
4. How does it compress it to ignite it?

Also it would be so inefficient it's not even funny. It would be building up pressure in the the hole block.

I could be wrong but it just doesn't make logical sense to me.

Besides, you can build a two stroke smaller than anything. Hell, R/C cars generally have a .12ci (3.5cc) motor.

Also there is no piston in a rotary motor, it's called a rotor. The groves don't make it spin either. It's the way the fuel is ignited. They have two spark plugs, one at each end of the combustion chamber, they ignite the fuel just closer to the end of the compression stroke, just before the power stroke, so the far plug is more compressed than the ealier one, which creates a circular motion because of the length of the combustion chamber. It's a very simple motor, quite a bit simpler than the conventional piston engine, just they're very in-efficient due to low compression. Though I do believe if they put the money into the wankel that they did the piston, they wankel would be the better engine.
__________________

Last edited by 88GrandPrixSE : 03-16-2005 at 06:31 AM.
88GrandPrixSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 02:07 PM   #23
Wally
I Know More Than You
 
Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 2,564
I had no idea so many people had so little knowledge on DOHC I really liked the pushrod DOHC humour.

Here's one reason F=ma, there are another two very compelling reasons and a few other minor ones.
__________________
"She gave me a look only a mother could give a child."

Last edited by Wally : 03-16-2005 at 02:12 PM.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 05:31 PM   #24
Inygknok
El del Supra
 
Inygknok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,863
argh, didnt know ppl were gonna be such a bitch about things. ok, if we are going to include engines that even work on weed whackers (which are usually 2-stroke.... though ive never seen a 4 stroke one in my life) then no, not all engines have their valves over the head. old steam engines dont even have valves (as far as i remember at least). a train's engine doesnt have valves either (maybe new ones do since im not a train expert). in fact, many other engines actually operate via actuators that are not referred to as valves to handle the whole process of intake and exhaust.


geez.... thats the problem in this forum, everyone gets so bitchy about technicalities and specifics in general when the subject originated from something completely different.

as for igniting in engines, diesel engines dont really ignite the fuel, the compression just makes the air/fuel mix ignite due to the high compression.

as for the 2-strokes in mopeds and such, they do get ignited with a spark (im betting a great percentage of them, if not all of them), but part of the mix actually goes around the engine itself while some of it stays on top of the piston, n then goes out. they have small levers that act as valves (they are called read valves, or reed valves, or something), n if i remember correctly, they dont have a valve at the exhaust port, most of the time i believe, since the piston itself handles when the gases will exit since it performs everything in 2 strokes (goes up once to take in everything, then goes down and everything goes out while allowing more to come in).


as for the rotary piston engine thing zalight explained..... wat the hell?


lets see, another technicality since ppl seem to wanna bitch this week about changing the categories, from low category of 4-stroke engines with valves from the modern days (or pre-modern) to any engine ever created.

electrical engines..... whoever says something like that needs any sort of fuel or anything by themselves.... well u know the rest.

hydrogen powered engines.... i actually still havent bothered reading how they worked, i did once with the BMW's that were being produced, by i didnt pay any attention. so, someone else can take care of that.


everyone happy now?
__________________


Supra: To surpass or go beyond.
Inygknok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 06:05 PM   #25
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88GrandPrixSE
Chris V:

SOHC limits the design of the head, and as I'm positive you know, the head plays a great role in the power an engine is able to produce. If it was just lift that limited the power, they could easily change that, they could make the lobes for the intake more aggressive and leave the exhaust however they wanted it. Or they could just increase lift all the way around. That's not the limiting factor of SOHC. If it was, why don't they just put a more aggresive cam in them?

In street engines, NONE of them are optimized, otherwise no one would be able to make more power from their stock vehicle.

But, the point we are discussing is now head design. SOHC limiting the head design? With the cam above the valves OR in the center higher than the valves, the port size and shape can easily be identical, whether comparing 2 valve per cyl or 4 (and yes, there are 4 valve per cyl SOHC engines, jut like there are 2 valve per cyl DOHC engines).

But since you brought it up, please show how the placement of a single cam above the valves vs two cams above the valves "limits" the port size or shape in any way. What is it about the CAM number that limits the head? I'm really interested to see you work your way out of this one.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2005, 09:48 PM   #26
VMJYogi
CF Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inygknok
argh, didnt know ppl were gonna be such a bitch about things. ok, if we are going to include engines that even work on weed whackers (which are usually 2-stroke.... though ive never seen a 4 stroke one in my life) then no, not all engines have their valves over the head....

...everyone happy now?

Haha thats funny.

Note: Yeah there are four-stroke leaf blowers, snow blowers, weed whackers. For the really tough bush!
__________________

Self-appointed anchorman of CF. I bring the news with a savvy tongue b*tch!
Now an ever prouder DEP of the USMC
I get fresh from Yankee Stadium to the Gardens i beg your pardon, stop it, my closet Macys mens department pants shirt scarf phone if you checkin get the scoop on the cologne belt and shoe section fur for fur baby baby you'll go stir crazy
VMJYogi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2005, 01:29 AM   #27
Wally
I Know More Than You
 
Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 2,564
88GrandPrixSE the number of valves and roof design in a SOHC can be pretty much the same as a DOHC.

If say you have 4 valves per pot on a SOHC the room for cam lobes is pretty tight and generally do not line up with the valve stems (the intake and exhaust stems are usually opposite each other). Therefore the rocker arms are offset angled. Have you ever noticed how much more effort and less stability you get when you try to tighten a nut with the spanner lifted at an angle to the the nut's flat? At the same time have you noticed how your grip deforms because the effort is concentrated on a smaller part of you palm?
__________________
"She gave me a look only a mother could give a child."

Last edited by Wally : 03-17-2005 at 01:32 AM.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2005, 08:06 AM   #28
Zalight
Who's house? Runs house.
 
Zalight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88GrandPrixSE
Also there is no piston in a rotary motor, it's called a rotor.

God damnit, dude, READ my post before you criticize it.

I wasn't talking about the wankel rotary, I was tralking about a completly different engine....I know how a wankel works (hmm, notice the sig?) This one was invented by some Italian guy.
__________________
1999 BMW ///M3
Zalight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2005, 06:49 PM   #29
Inygknok
El del Supra
 
Inygknok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMJYogi
Haha thats funny.

Note: Yeah there are four-stroke leaf blowers, snow blowers, weed whackers. For the really tough bush!


rofl really??? kinda makes sense though... even though that would be one mighty strong weed whacker


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
In street engines, NONE of them are optimized, otherwise no one would be able to make more power from their stock vehicle.

But, the point we are discussing is now head design. SOHC limiting the head design? With the cam above the valves OR in the center higher than the valves, the port size and shape can easily be identical, whether comparing 2 valve per cyl or 4 (and yes, there are 4 valve per cyl SOHC engines, jut like there are 2 valve per cyl DOHC engines).

But since you brought it up, please show how the placement of a single cam above the valves vs two cams above the valves "limits" the port size or shape in any way. What is it about the CAM number that limits the head? I'm really interested to see you work your way out of this one.

i dont think he even bothered reading wat i said about the 2nd gen VR6 engines n how they operated the valves despite the location of the valves vs location of the cams.
__________________


Supra: To surpass or go beyond.
Inygknok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.