GM plans to transform small-block V8

[4117kev]

Having built a SB2.2 engine which is nascar based I can tell you these things rev and make power all the up the rev range, I am yet to see many N/A overhead cam motors produce upwards of 850hp at 8500rpm.

However I would like to try the 32 valve heads that fit on a normal 23degree SBC without the change of the cam.

[jpd80]

The hunt is on now for the first OEM fully emission NA 5.0 V8 to reach 450 hp and then 500 hp.
Ford opens the first shot with 412 hp and promise of a hotter NA version to come.

It will be interesting to see how GM answers this challenge bearing in mind the
coming CAFE and CO2 regs. I hope they do something interesting and novel......

[mickyyyy]

Hey i like technology as it makes things faster and better but even after all this technology with the boss DOHC engine i have not seen 1 with high comp, big head work and big cams on the street. Being so difficult sort out this combo is just rediculas and so enpensive for what actually gains and reliablity compared to a pushrod.

Stick to basics and guess what it always works and it has worked for GM for many yrs and have a loyal customer base.

If BA & BF still cam out with a pushrod V8 im sure they would of sold a bucket load more plus there would be alot more of them being stroked and what not.

[banarcus]

Thats aftermarket world micky and I agree with you 100% however car makers, esp in the US have cafe guidlines which means efficiency for their fleets. Seeing that a large percetage of the GM fleet are big vehicles with LSX motors, upcoming emission laws will have an effect on how you get your power. It is one thing for them to provide power, but with tighter emissions regulations it's getting harder and harder.

I'm sure if there were no such things as Euro4 this and Euro1 that, FoMoCo here in Australia could start recasting cleveland motors again as they made good power for the enthusiasts. Imagine what they could've done to it given what they have done to the 6cyl? Alloy 2v heads from the factory, EFI etc.

[Mr X]

Originally Posted by smoo

You might wanna find out just how (in)efficient the internal combustion engine really is, then you might realise been on the dohc high horse/band wagon is a waste of time.

What band wagon?Why isn't every high performance manufacturer in the world using pushrod engines eg Aston Martin ,AMG,Lamborghini etc etc.
Should we bring back carbies and distributors too ?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Mr X

What band wagon?Why isn't every high performance manufacturer in the world using pushrod engines eg Aston Martin ,AMG,Lamborghini etc etc.
Should we bring back carbies and distributors too ?

not this argument, thats like saying why are fuel cars pushrod and not ohc.
not all porsces were ohc, some were both.
to ask a strait question do you really need complex motors?
millers, sarich

the most simple motors is ram jet, pulse jet, ****el.

[Mr X]

Originally Posted by burnz

not this argument, thats like saying why are fuel cars pushrod and not ohc.
not all porsces were ohc, some were both.
to ask a strait question do you really need complex motors?
millers, sarich

the most simple motors is ram jet, pulse jet, ****el.

I'm not on here 24/7 so I don't know whats been discussed before-but yes you might have something there with the KISS principle .
A lot of the stuff we get in the workshop SEEMS TO BE unneccesarily complicated.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by svov88

Pushrods are limited for reliability at high rpm eh?! Please explain to me why NASCAR engines pull constant 9500 rpm for 500 mile races? That is also with restrictor plates on. Who knows what these engines will be capable of without restrictions.P.S. Take the time to look at these new PUSHROD NASCAR engines. They really are state of the art! I keep on saying, because an engine has pushrods,it does NOT make it redundant.

The Nascar engines have valve spring seat pressures of around 200 lb/inch to achieve that. In comparison a 2L touring car engine that revs to 8500 rpm only requires a valve spring seat pressures of 35 lb/inch. Seems pretty obvious to me which engine will have the more reliable valve train.

[mickyyyy]

Borgwarner has the techonology to pass a high hp pushrod engine but alot of people dont know that Borgwarner have designed alot of stuff which big car manufactueres claims that its there technology.

Dont be feed the crap that we need DOHC cam to pass emmisions and blah blah blah

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by boris

As do most other motorcycle companies, for a long time!

What I meant was that Moto Guzzi have an engine that runs 4 valves per head using pushrods so why can't car manufacturers?

The Moto Guzzi is a 1200cc pushrod V-twin with 4 valves per head making 80kw@7500rpm times that by four and you have a 4.8L V8 making 320kw! :

[Wally]

Originally Posted by sleekism

What I meant was that Moto Guzzi have an engine that runs 4 valves per head using pushrods so why can't car manufacturers?

The Moto Guzzi is a 1200cc pushrod V-twin with 4 valves per head making 80kw@7500rpm times that by four and you have a 4.8L V8 making 320kw! :

I guess to do that the complexity of head design and manufacture starts to approach that of a DOHC and thus the cost benefit diminishes. It would probably also require a double up on cam lobes and push rods, which may add even more mass and flex to the valvetrain. The cam tunnels would need to be beefed up and the block revised for increased rigidity and consequential weight.

[4117kev]

[QUOTE=sleekism]What I meant was that Moto Guzzi have an engine that runs 4 valves per head using pushrods so why can't car manufacturers?

These heads are out there and available as straight bolt on's so as you say why don't the manufacturers use them.

i think a 6.2lt 4valve motor would sound pretty wicked and to throw in a new cam (aftermarket) would not cost you 4 grand as it does with the overhead cams.

Don't get me wrong on here I love my boss motor but why would I spend 25-30 grand on it for 500hp when i could get 700hp for the same money by doing a SBC using the same fuel.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by burnz

not this argument, thats like saying why are fuel cars pushrod and not ohc.
not all porsces were ohc, some were both.
to ask a strait question do you really need complex motors?
millers, sarich

the most simple motors is ram jet, pulse jet, ****el.

The OHC fuel engine got banned because it was too powerful compared to the class std pushrod engine, fuel engines make plenty enough power without needing to introduce or improve technology.

Why do people use extreme racing examples to try to justify a production based stance?

The best measure of power production efficiency is KW/L of displacement....

With the world heading towards smaller engines as a marketing advantage KW/L of displacement will be a critical measurement in years to come...

[4117kev]

Here is some info on these heads, there web site is worth a look.


Arao Engineering 32Valve Aluminum Cylinder Heads are available in six basic packages.
w Chevrolet High Port

w B-Series Stage 2 Port

w B-Series Stage 3 Port

w C-Series Stage 2 Port

w C-Series Stage 3 Port




Download Information Brochures

DYNO Charts


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation and Applications for ‘B’ and ‘C’ heads and Stage II or III porting


‘B’ designates the maximum valve sizes that will fit into a 4.0” to 4.060” bore. These valve sizes are: Intake valves 2@ 1.650” each. Exhaust valves 2@ 1.400” each.


The II and III designate the stages of porting.


B-II porting has a port area approximately equal to a 220 cc runner. This is a Fel-Pro 1207 (Chevy) or Fel-Pro 1262 (Ford) gasket. (The runner volumes are not directly comparable because of the different lengths of the runners and the runners are divided into a one into two ‘Y’ to supply both valves). This is why we refer to a cross sectional area of the port. Comparing the port to a Fel-Pro 1207 (Chevy) or Fel-Pro 1262 (Ford) for a stage II port and a Fel-Pro 1209 for a stage III port.

This porting is recommended for a street use 350 or 383 cu in (Chevy) motor or 302, 351, or 408 cu. in. (Ford) motor. It has high port velocity for good, all around torque. Along with the high flowing, low and mid valve lift numbers building huge mid range torque, numbers incomparable to any 2 valve heads.

Horsepower numbers in the 650+ hp range are very attainable, with street useable torque characteristics.

B-Series Stage 2 Port

B-III porting is approximately equal to a 265 cc runner, or a Fel-Pro 1209 (Chevy) or Fel-Pro 1262 (Ford) gasket. This head is intended for a 350cu.in. to 383cu.in. and larger for all out competition. The huge port volume yields flow in the 368cfm+ range, along with huge low and mid range lift flow. Remember this is where the cylinder is getting fully filled and fully excavated.

Meaning, more air ingested and excavated having a directly linear relationship on sheer horsepower. Horsepower numbers in the 750+ range.

Race oriented due to port velocity but street useable on a large displacement motor. In other words, not recommended for street use on a 350 or 351, but for a larger displacement motor, it would be OK

B-Series Stage 3 Port

‘C’ designates the maximum valve sizes that will fit into a 4.125” or larger bore. These valve sizes are: Intake valves 2@ 1.720” each. Exhaust valves 2@ 1.450” each. This head is intended for engine sizes of 406 cu. in or larger


The II and III designate the stages of porting.

C-II porting also has a port area approximately equal to a 220cc runner. This is again a Fel-Pro 1207 (Chevy) or Fel-Pro 1262 (Ford) gasket. Street useable on motors 406 cu in and larger.
C-Series Stage 2 Port

C-III porting has a runner volume approximately equal to a Fel-Pro 1209 (Chevy) or Fel-Pro 1262 (Ford) gasket. This is the head that can approach 1000 horsepower normally aspirated on a large high compression racing engine. Not recommended for street use in light cars with a high stall, or low drag gears with a manual transmission, unless you have a motor over 406 cu. in. with a frame and body that will handle the immense torque.
(note: these heads will produce torque and horsepower that will LITERALLY rip a car apart)

C-Series Stage 3 Port

Notes on forced induction or nitrous. The supercharging, nitrous oxide or turbo-charging of these heads is truly phenomenal. This severe duty has been built-into the design of the 32Valve Heads. In that, both the thick combustion chamber skull and the increased breathing of both the intake and exhaust ports which come into play to yield truly amazing and unexpected results. The centrally located spark plug and the 360 degree squish towards the plug yields both the shortest flame front, the fastest burn, and the least tendency to detonate of all the combustion chamber shapes possible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download Information Brochures

B1 and C1 are also available as special orders

A-Series Stage 1 Port

Intake valves 2@ 1.600” dia. 322 CFM flow
Exhaust valves 2@ 1.400” dia. 252 CFM flow
Stage I designates no porting, as cast
Has port area equal to a 200 cc runner
Recommended for street use on 350 cu in
Horsepower from 475 to 575HP
Use standard intake manifolds, cam, pistons to 10.5:1 comp ratio, Hooker or Stahl 7 bolt pattern exhaust headers
Kits include PR heads completely assembled, valve covers, rockers, head bolts, head gaskets and pushrods.

[mickyyyy]

pretty serious heads there, good info on the website but man they have a bad rap when u google them unfortunatly

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The OHC fuel engine got banned because it was too powerful compared to the class std pushrod engine, fuel engines make plenty enough power without needing to introduce or improve technology.

Why do people use extreme racing examples to try to justify a production based stance?

The best measure of power production efficiency is KW/L of displacement....

With the world heading towards smaller engines as a marketing advantage KW/L of displacement will be a critical measurement in years to come...

There are other measures of power production efficiency that are just as or even more important; kW/kg, kW/m^3.

[4117kev]

Hi mickyyy,

I have spoken with them in regards to there all out race heads but not googled.

My point is more that these heads are out there so why don't the manufacturers use them.
All the r&d has been done.

There was a company in Australia that made them as well but I can't remember their name.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

There are other measures of power production efficiency that are just as or even more important; kW/kg, kW/m^3.

kw/kg is about the vehicle as a whole RE its performance capacity....

Brake Specific Fuel efficiency is a common measurement of the fuel burn of an engine as a unit (not linked to vehicle weight) for example, but L/100km is the whole package. In the end it is the latter that really matters but in engine design teh former is a major aspect. Explained here: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_110216/article.html

This link provides info on another measurement of interest....Brake Mean Effective Pressure (the av. pressure exerted on the piston face during its 4 strokes) http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_2807/article.html Essentially how 'effective' the engine is in making atcual piston movement irespetive of size/design etc. It works out as [kw*1200]/ [rpm(peak)*capacity(L)]. Examples are last of the line 260kw monaro (5.7l) at 9.3bar, versus a BA I6T at 13.7bar!!! No wonder manufacturers are going to forced induction....

For me, what i look for in a road car engine is a good Torque (nm)/litre and set up so that is it useable torque at low to mid RPM. If you look at the best engines in the world right now they all make very good nm/litre (and generally low down). Coyote V8 makes 102nm/L approx, 4.0 I6 makes 98nm/L (but over 100 when on the same 95ROn as the V8) etc. The small block V8s under discussion here are generally much less impressive in this area, making anywhere from 91nm/L in the HSV W427 to 88nm/L in a HSV E2 GTS/SS non afm. Hardly impressive.

Now of course it doesn't really matter as long as the engine gets the job done overall (they aren't exactly lacking in grunt at 6-6.2L in size) but it is very hard to match the superior engine overall (assuming both engines are right sized) for fuel burn if you are always dealing with greater capacity. Also, the LS engines aren't great at Brake Mean Fuel efficiency niether since they lack VCT....

You can see the problem when Holden tries to improve fuel efficiency via AFM...the nm/L drops even lower on AFM V8 commodores to 86nm/L....

This is why sooner or later, baring an extensive overhaul of the pushrod set up (for VCT on both intake and exahust...) its hard to see how GM will remain competitive let alone legal RE power/fuel economy and emissions respectively. Its hard to see them going DI without VCT niether since you need very precise control over the timing to make DI work properly (to my understanding anyway).

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by 4117kev

Hi mickyyy,

I have spoken with them in regards to there all out race heads but not googled.

My point is more that these heads are out there so why don't the manufacturers use them.
All the r&d has been done.

There was a company in Australia that made them as well but I can't remember their name.

Before you transfer any of your hard earned just goggle words like lawyer and fraud first. Whether or not there is anything in it I don't know, but I would sure be wary.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

kw/kg is about the vehicle as a whole RE its performance capacity....

...and of course the vehicles fuel efficiency.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

...and of course the vehicles fuel efficiency.

potentially yes. But once again its not the whole picture....the recent upgroar RE the SIDI commodores is an example, kw/kg of an FG 4.0 I6 is line ball with the 3.0 SIDI commodore.....yet holden claims based on adr fuel test it burns approx 6-7% less. Turns out it burns the same....so it depends on measurement etc.

Fuel burn (real world) is probably the most complex factor of all...extremely hard to predict and very hard to engineer while maintaining perf required. it is so dependent on a range of variables (weight, driving style, driving terain, maintenance, air temp, aero, tyres/wear). Hillarious when you realise it is used so heavilly by marketers in a dumbed down fashion to sell cars. Ah, for the days of good old hp and quarter mile LOL

[mickyyyy]

411kev

Im with u dude, the technology is here so why dont the manufacturers use it is a very good question.

Like i said Borgwarner has the technology and expierence to get pushrods engine to pass emmisions. I believe they also designed the VCT head technology and they have done alot of things in the background that not many ppl know about, and car manufacturers use there technology and claim it as theres which is halarious.

[Saraco]

ARAO ENGINEERING HEADS unreal potential but some what obscure, haven't heard about them in 10-15 years. Rumour is they are billet not cast,which probably goes into explaining their price, well into nose bleed levels. Heard they were selling Big Block Ford heads for about US$4000, back in the early 90's. OUCH!!

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The OHC fuel engine got banned because it was too powerful compared to the class std pushrod engine, fuel engines make plenty enough power without needing to introduce or improve technology.

Why do people use extreme racing examples to try to justify a production based stance?

The best measure of power production efficiency is KW/L of displacement....

With the world heading towards smaller engines as a marketing advantage KW/L of displacement will be a critical measurement in years to come...

um no.
the problem is the restiction of placment of the spark plug!!
it simply gets wash out/immersed, failing the engine due to hydrolock.

i'll look for link...
http://www.northernthunder.com/cycle.html

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by svov88

Pushrods are limited for reliability at high rpm eh?! Please explain to me why NASCAR engines pull constant 9500 rpm for 500 mile races? That is also with restrictor plates on. Who knows what these engines will be capable of without restrictions.P.S. Take the time to look at these new PUSHROD NASCAR engines. They really are state of the art! I keep on saying, because an engine has pushrods,it does NOT make it redundant.

And how many k's can they do before a rebuild. 500 miles?

How many hundreds of thousands of k's could it do in a production car, while meeting current emmisions laws?

Absolutely pointless example to make, they are solely designed for mega rpm power. How many production cars do you think they would sell with one of these engines fitted, that needed to be rebuilt every few weeks?

I can appreciate how much power they can make, but they have also had constant development on them for at least a few decades and they are not production engines, so comparing them to one is rather silly.

With enough dollars spent on it just about any type of car engine could pull 9000rpm. How many production engines do though, only 2 off the top of my head, the Honda S2000 and the new Ferrari 458 Italia.

[jpd80]

The 5.0 is a smart capacity for Ford if indeed it plans forced induction as performance variant
and as a future replacement for the 6.2 Boss V8. I'm thinking that like Jaguar's V8s, Ford could also
offer a future smaller 4.2 V8 variant of the 5.0 as a DI blown engine producing around 420 hp/420 lb ft?

[chevypower]

I don't think the 5.0 will replace the 6.2, they are both coming out at the same time. I think the EcoBoost/Bobcat technology could probably be applied to both engines. I highly doubt Ford will do a 4.2L version. There is no need for it.

[Falc'man]

Regarding GM's new V8 there was some talk of it getting dual cam OHV.

Originally Posted by chevypower

I don't think the 5.0 will replace the 6.2, they are both coming out at the same time. I think the EcoBoost/Bobcat technology could probably be applied to both engines. I highly doubt Ford will do a 4.2L version. There is no need for it.

Sadly, Bobcat's technology is dead.

Only a month ago Ford were also saying it's hard to Ecoboost the 5.0 as there was no room for tt in the Mustang.

[boris]

Why don't ford use the tech from inside out heads on the new power stroke diesel engines, that way a single sequential could nestle in the valley of the v. Plus surely one turbo is cheaper than two?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I don't think the 5.0 will replace the 6.2, they are both coming out at the same time. I think the EcoBoost/Bobcat technology could probably be applied to both engines. I highly doubt Ford will do a 4.2L version. There is no need for it.

Agree, there's no nee for it now but I'm not talking about right away, I'm talking about
the future when vehicles like the F150 need to meet even tighter CAFE regulations.

Ultimately engines of higher capacity will be replaced by smaller forced induction engines.
Although a V8 Ecoboost is much harder to plumb, a DI Supercharged V8 is not and all I'm saying
is that the option for a "future" 4.2 DI Supercharged engine is there whether they use it or not.

At the moment companies like GM and Chrysler don't even look like having downsized V8 engines...