Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want!

Non Rotor: Tech

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-12-2003, 03:51 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kkw4p's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 124
Default

What are the benefits to a pushrod engine?



I thought I'd ask the rotor freaks becuase I generally find them one step above the rest mechanically speaking.



Specifics please...
kkw4p is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 03:55 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
DJ Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: teh frozen nort
Posts: 1,030
Default

The only benefit I'm aware of is that it allows the heads to be very compact and low-profile. Hence how they get such gynormous motors under the hood of a Corvette for example. Helps with centre of gravity height. Also I suppose it must be cheaper to make otherwise GM wouldn't still be doing it.



J
DJ Rotor is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 03:57 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kkw4p's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 124
Default

Correct me if I'm wrong: pushrod set ups prevent you from using overhead valving, and limit to 2 valves / cylinder?
kkw4p is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 04:00 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
DJ Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: teh frozen nort
Posts: 1,030
Default

erm not exactly, they have overhead valves (as opposed to a flathead setup), and you CAN use four valves per cylinder but it is a real pain to do. You have to have another little set of pushrods going across the heads. Which is why I don't think any factory pushrod engines have had four valves per cylinder.



J
DJ Rotor is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 04:26 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
j9fd3s's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Default

Originally Posted by DJ Rotor' date='Aug 12 2003, 12:55 PM
The only benefit I'm aware of is that it allows the heads to be very compact and low-profile. Hence how they get such gynormous motors under the hood of a Corvette for example. Helps with centre of gravity height. Also I suppose it must be cheaper to make otherwise GM wouldn't still be doing it.



J
thats what i was gonna say. its actually bad to have cams spinning on top of the motor, think of a gyro, that weighs 10lbs (i have no idea what a cam wieghs) x 4



mike
j9fd3s is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 04:50 PM
  #6  
Administrator
 
phinsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
Default

This is a fairly arguable point, many would claim that the engergy lost from the cam to the lifter, through the pushrod to the valve is more then any disadvantage of the having the cams overhead.



And the fact is less moving parts is less room for something to break, that's the general theory behind the overhead cam as far as I know. Not to mention the potential of multiple valve heads and cams. This is very hard to do with a pushrod engine as you would have to increase the width of an already larger block.
phinsup is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 05:12 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
j9fd3s's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Default

Originally Posted by phinsup' date='Aug 12 2003, 01:50 PM
This is a fairly arguable point, many would claim that the engergy lost from the cam to the lifter, through the pushrod to the valve is more then any disadvantage of the having the cams overhead.



And the fact is less moving parts is less room for something to break, that's the general theory behind the overhead cam as far as I know. Not to mention the potential of multiple valve heads and cams. This is very hard to do with a pushrod engine as you would have to increase the width of an already larger block.
well we're both right. in a packaging sense pushrods are great, but you can make more efficent power with overhead cams and valves.



mike
j9fd3s is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 05:25 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
rfreeman27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fredneck MD
Posts: 4,107
Default

simplicity!
rfreeman27 is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 05:26 PM
  #9  
Administrator
 
phinsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
Default

Sweet, wanna get drunk to celebrate?
phinsup is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 06:38 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Eric Happy Meal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: redondo beach
Posts: 983
Default

Originally Posted by j9fd3s' date='Aug 12 2003, 02:12 PM
[quote name='phinsup' date='Aug 12 2003, 01:50 PM'] This is a fairly arguable point, many would claim that the engergy lost from the cam to the lifter, through the pushrod to the valve is more then any disadvantage of the having the cams overhead.



And the fact is less moving parts is less room for something to break, that's the general theory behind the overhead cam as far as I know. Not to mention the potential of multiple valve heads and cams. This is very hard to do with a pushrod engine as you would have to increase the width of an already larger block.
well we're both right. in a packaging sense pushrods are great, but you can make more efficent power with overhead cams and valves.



mike [/quote]

well all pushrod engines are overhead valve.
Eric Happy Meal is offline  


Quick Reply: Non Rotor: Tech



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.