msgZ28
09-10-2006, 03:07 AM
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=471602
Go there^ and see the glory that is GM powertrain.
Go there^ and see the glory that is GM powertrain.
Automotive News, Media & Press - Big News On Engine Stuff!! Chevy Patents Single And Twin Cam 3v Ohv Things!!
View Full Version : Big News On Engine Stuff!! Chevy Patents Single And Twin Cam 3v Ohv Things!!
Kevano26
09-10-2006, 03:12 AM
Yes!!! that is freaking awesome :headbang: :usa:
1fastTransAm
09-10-2006, 04:43 AM
Nice! Wonder what ride that would go in.
Mssingkid
09-10-2006, 11:23 AM
Is that two cams i see in the last .pdf?? Thats crazy! :loco: Interesting Designs though.... :chug:
bruddah_man_matt
09-10-2006, 11:49 AM
There comes a time when being different just to be different can get out of hand. I just hope GM isn't planning on fucking around and giving us another V8-6-4 of some kind. Some manufacturers have been successful when it comes to being different. Mazda has experimented with rotaries and even won Le Mans with one, VW is playing with mass market twincharging (using a blower and a turbo on the same motor which saw action in the 80s on cars such as the Group B Lancia Delta S4) at the moment and high hp diesels, Volvo continues to use it's inline 5 design and Ford has even dropped it into the European market Focus ST220 etc... but I'm sure there have been more stories of failure than there have been of success when it comes to experimental or unconventional engine layouts.
In a time when every penny counts at GM I hope they aren't choosing to be different simply because people are being stubborn about pushrods or to show the world that it can do something others haven't or aren't doing. If GM knows it can build a more efficent DOHC design for less money then they should do it and quit fucking around. Get to building more DOHC 2.8L and 3.6L HF V6s to replace those cheap ass pushrod HV engines. I mean supposedly the G6 didn't get the DOHC motor because they don't have enough of them to go around. And while they're at it refine the god damn Ecotec and put it on a level playing field with Honda and Toyota 4 bangers before you go off and build this thing.
Sorry but as cool as all of that is I just feel like GM already has the means to build a 600-650hp engine for an uberVette without doing something as drastic as a 2 cam pushrod motor and as much as I'd want to see it in action I feel they could use the resources elsewhere.
In a time when every penny counts at GM I hope they aren't choosing to be different simply because people are being stubborn about pushrods or to show the world that it can do something others haven't or aren't doing. If GM knows it can build a more efficent DOHC design for less money then they should do it and quit fucking around. Get to building more DOHC 2.8L and 3.6L HF V6s to replace those cheap ass pushrod HV engines. I mean supposedly the G6 didn't get the DOHC motor because they don't have enough of them to go around. And while they're at it refine the god damn Ecotec and put it on a level playing field with Honda and Toyota 4 bangers before you go off and build this thing.
Sorry but as cool as all of that is I just feel like GM already has the means to build a 600-650hp engine for an uberVette without doing something as drastic as a 2 cam pushrod motor and as much as I'd want to see it in action I feel they could use the resources elsewhere.
Hydramatic
09-10-2006, 03:12 PM
I'm thinking you might be missing some of the important parts of those designs. First of all, look what the 3v heads did for the Mustang. It went from like 260-300 hp in no time whatsoever. Think about what that would do for our truck and car V8s. Let's just say that same amount of horsepower is gained. My 4.8L would be making something in the area of 325 horses, way above the stock 280.
The second thing to consider is the almost apparant twin-spark-plug design that is presented on the last one. Twin plugs really help an engine burn all of it's fuel more efficiently, therefore reducing emissions and increasing power all at once.
Third, DIRECT INJECTION. This technology alone would be a quantum leap in refinement for GM's Pushrod engines. Increases in power and efficiency across the board here.
With all this new technology, in addition to GM's VVT systems, I see the next generation of engines as the best yet. Why don't you? :confused:
The second thing to consider is the almost apparant twin-spark-plug design that is presented on the last one. Twin plugs really help an engine burn all of it's fuel more efficiently, therefore reducing emissions and increasing power all at once.
Third, DIRECT INJECTION. This technology alone would be a quantum leap in refinement for GM's Pushrod engines. Increases in power and efficiency across the board here.
With all this new technology, in addition to GM's VVT systems, I see the next generation of engines as the best yet. Why don't you? :confused:
college slacker
09-10-2006, 05:47 PM
There were many who thought going to a "plastic" intake manifold was crazy. ;)
WECIV
09-10-2006, 07:01 PM
VVT, DI, DOD, two cams, OHV, these are all great and I cannot wait to get in a Maro with such an engine. However, why 3V and not 4V? What gives?
W
W
msgZ28
09-10-2006, 11:30 PM
Too many rods to push and no more room?
LTSpeed
09-11-2006, 12:06 AM
What a trainwreck.... Could they possibly have added any more mass to the valvetrain? :nono:
Nick04
09-11-2006, 12:55 AM
that 3OHV twin-in-cam block looks fucking awsome. I loved reading their explanations of everything involved in the patents. I would like to see somthing like this in a future LS9.
WECIV
09-11-2006, 09:41 AM
If they use all the lightweight shit used in the LS7 I do not think this will be a trainwreck. Though I am in the simple is better camp. Why not just add DI and VVT to the LS2 and LS7?
W
W
bruddah_man_matt
09-11-2006, 04:54 PM
I'm thinking you might be missing some of the important parts of those designs. First of all, look what the 3v heads did for the Mustang. It went from like 260-300 hp in no time whatsoever. Think about what that would do for our truck and car V8s. Let's just say that same amount of horsepower is gained. My 4.8L would be making something in the area of 325 horses, way above the stock 280.
The second thing to consider is the almost apparant twin-spark-plug design that is presented on the last one. Twin plugs really help an engine burn all of it's fuel more efficiently, therefore reducing emissions and increasing power all at once.
Third, DIRECT INJECTION. This technology alone would be a quantum leap in refinement for GM's Pushrod engines. Increases in power and efficiency across the board here.
With all this new technology, in addition to GM's VVT systems, I see the next generation of engines as the best yet. Why don't you? :confused:
Did you even read my post? My comments were directed specifically toward the twin cam pushrod design. 3 valve heads have been done, twin spark plugs have been done, direct injection is the latest fad. All of these things have been proven to work (although Mercedes will probably tell you that there's good reasoning behind their move from 3v to 4v heads with their latest engines) and are much more mainstream than a twin cam pushrod engine. My arguement is that it seems like GM could have pushed the LS2 and LS7 further without blowing money on such a radical design as a twin cam pushrod motor. They're already implementing VVT on their pushrod engines like the Vortec 6200, have implemented direct injection on the 260hp turbo Ecotec that's going into the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline/GT and people claim the LS7 is far from it's limit in terms of output. If that's the case then why go through all the trouble of developing this new motor?
GM has tried a twin cam in block design in the past in case you didn't know. Back in 2001 the Opel Signum2 Concept was shown with a 4.3L V8 dubbed XV8 that used a twin cam pushrod layout with 3 valves per cylinder, direct injection, variable valve timing and cam phasing. GM talked about potentially mass producting this engine and using it in a few of it's passenger cars but the plans obviously fell through which begs the question "if it's such a great design then why didn't they finish bringing the XV8 from the concept stage to the production stage?" If a twin cam in block design truly is much more efficient then I'd much rather see GM go with a smaller more mass production friendly engine like the XV8 first that more people are likely to get their hands on rather than an expensive limited production engine that will only see duty in a Super Vette and possibly a Super Camaro and/or CTS-V.
The second thing to consider is the almost apparant twin-spark-plug design that is presented on the last one. Twin plugs really help an engine burn all of it's fuel more efficiently, therefore reducing emissions and increasing power all at once.
Third, DIRECT INJECTION. This technology alone would be a quantum leap in refinement for GM's Pushrod engines. Increases in power and efficiency across the board here.
With all this new technology, in addition to GM's VVT systems, I see the next generation of engines as the best yet. Why don't you? :confused:
Did you even read my post? My comments were directed specifically toward the twin cam pushrod design. 3 valve heads have been done, twin spark plugs have been done, direct injection is the latest fad. All of these things have been proven to work (although Mercedes will probably tell you that there's good reasoning behind their move from 3v to 4v heads with their latest engines) and are much more mainstream than a twin cam pushrod engine. My arguement is that it seems like GM could have pushed the LS2 and LS7 further without blowing money on such a radical design as a twin cam pushrod motor. They're already implementing VVT on their pushrod engines like the Vortec 6200, have implemented direct injection on the 260hp turbo Ecotec that's going into the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline/GT and people claim the LS7 is far from it's limit in terms of output. If that's the case then why go through all the trouble of developing this new motor?
GM has tried a twin cam in block design in the past in case you didn't know. Back in 2001 the Opel Signum2 Concept was shown with a 4.3L V8 dubbed XV8 that used a twin cam pushrod layout with 3 valves per cylinder, direct injection, variable valve timing and cam phasing. GM talked about potentially mass producting this engine and using it in a few of it's passenger cars but the plans obviously fell through which begs the question "if it's such a great design then why didn't they finish bringing the XV8 from the concept stage to the production stage?" If a twin cam in block design truly is much more efficient then I'd much rather see GM go with a smaller more mass production friendly engine like the XV8 first that more people are likely to get their hands on rather than an expensive limited production engine that will only see duty in a Super Vette and possibly a Super Camaro and/or CTS-V.
LTSpeed
09-11-2006, 06:08 PM
If they use all the lightweight shit used in the LS7 I do not think this will be a trainwreck. Though I am in the simple is better camp. Why not just add DI and VVT to the LS2 and LS7?
Maybe better in the advanced tech section, but I'll just list some things I see seriously wrong with this contraption...
1) 3V leads to high piston temps requiring special coatings,
2) Valve float in this setup will shoot a rod through your valve cover,
3) Valvetrain mass is high in the non-spinning parts, but not the worst I've seen (even good in some ways),
4) You think the pushrods in an LS1 bend--wait till you see these!
5) This is going to be very expensive to machine with any level of quality,
6) My LT1's valvetrain is going to be quiet as a mouse compared to this one,
7) Very difficult to lubricate,
8) What rocker arm material will hold up to what this things in for?
Maybe better in the advanced tech section, but I'll just list some things I see seriously wrong with this contraption...
1) 3V leads to high piston temps requiring special coatings,
2) Valve float in this setup will shoot a rod through your valve cover,
3) Valvetrain mass is high in the non-spinning parts, but not the worst I've seen (even good in some ways),
4) You think the pushrods in an LS1 bend--wait till you see these!
5) This is going to be very expensive to machine with any level of quality,
6) My LT1's valvetrain is going to be quiet as a mouse compared to this one,
7) Very difficult to lubricate,
8) What rocker arm material will hold up to what this things in for?
Hydramatic
09-11-2006, 10:50 PM
VVT, DI, DOD, two cams, OHV, these are all great and I cannot wait to get in a Maro with such an engine. However, why 3V and not 4V? What gives?
W
Here's my take. With four valves, there might not be enough room for the twin plugs AND DI system, while maintaining decent size valves.
W
Here's my take. With four valves, there might not be enough room for the twin plugs AND DI system, while maintaining decent size valves.
Checkmate
09-12-2006, 01:07 PM
patent date jan 2003.
1CAMWNDR
09-12-2006, 08:28 PM
Did anyone else notice the angle of the intake port?? It looks high and much more vertical that the current LSx heads.
bruddah_man_matt
09-12-2006, 10:11 PM
Here's my take. With four valves, there might not be enough room for the twin plugs AND DI system, while maintaining decent size valves.
True. I'm pretty sure Mercedes went back to a single plug design when they went from their previous 3v designs to their current crop of 4v engines.
True. I'm pretty sure Mercedes went back to a single plug design when they went from their previous 3v designs to their current crop of 4v engines.
Ramair-WS6
09-14-2006, 12:41 PM
Maybe better in the advanced tech section, but I'll just list some things I see seriously wrong with this contraption...
1) 3V leads to high piston temps requiring special coatings,
Please tell me how you come to this conclusion. Combustion temperatures, and therefore pistons temperatures are related to compression ratio and more importantly, the fuel-to-air ratio. The second intake valve only allows airflow to remain unrestricted at higher rpms. It has nothing to do with combustion temps unless you want to make the case that it would help the engine from not going to a rich condition in the upper revs by supplying more air than would a single intake valve.
2) Valve float in this setup will shoot a rod through your valve cover,
And the current design would not? I have seen the damage to an LS1 engine on a missed shift and the revs quite likely went well over 8000rpm. Also, see below.
3) Valvetrain mass is high in the non-spinning parts, but not the worst I've seen (even good in some ways),
Valvetrain mass in the dualcam 3V design will probably be less than the current LSx design. The XV8 has a 75* bank angle insted of the current 90* used, this fact alone will shorten the pushrods, now figure that the intake cam will be above the exhaust, then the intake pushrod will be even shorter yet, and therefore lighter. The only point where you could look at a possible weight increase would be the forked rocker, but even that can be easily negated with the use of aluminum or better yet, magnesium. GM can also reduce reciprocating mass with the use of elliptical spring wire for the vale springs and using titanium for the retainers and keepers.
4) You think the pushrods in an LS1 bend--wait till you see these!
Completely untrue. Shorter pushrods are stronger pushrods for a given diameter. Don't believe me? Take a 10 ft long 2x4 and support it at each end. Now standing in the middle push down, doesn't take much to bend it does it? Now shorten it to only 3 ft long and try to deflect it again, it requires alot more pressure doesn't it? The same is true for the pushrods.
5) This is going to be very expensive to machine with any level of quality,
How is the XV8 going to be any harder to machine thean the current LSx? The block is goung to require a few extra oil passages and a second linebore for the camshaft, these processes have been around as long as the SBC and will probably take an extra 10 mins worth of machining on an assembly line. The head will a second intake valve, nothing new there, a port for the injector in the combustion chamber, new rocker arm mounting points, and possibly a full casting change to allow for the new location of the pushrods. That's it. Nothing radical or expensive at all.
6) My LT1's valvetrain is going to be quiet as a mouse compared to this one,
Highly doubtful. The biggest source of noise on a 90* V8 engine is the "echo chamber" that is above the camshaft and below the intake manifold. With this engine having only a 75* angle between banks and the second cam taking up much of this empty space it will quiet the engine greatly. Also, the engine uses full roller rockers and on the intake side it also incorporates 3 hydraulic lash adjusters per cylinder. One is the located in the cam follower ans then there are two located in the forkered rocker at the valve stems. (As a side note this could also be used as a variable lift device if the cam follower was of a Rhodes variable lifter design for greater valve lift at higher engine rpms)
7) Very difficult to lubricate,
The addition of an extra cam, cam phasers, a balance shaft, and a few lash adjusters is going to make it hard to lubricate? Do some reading, the XV8 utilizes dual in-series oil pumps. At low rpms one is only used for the DoD so that it can shut down 4 cylinders at idle. This engine requires less pressurized lubrication the GM's current 3.6 HF engine
8) What rocker arm material will hold up to what this things in for?
Well, magnesium tops that list quite easily but there are plenty of aluminum alloys that will work just fine and still be light enough for the engine to have a 7500rpm redline.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0302_GM_5_z.jpg
1) 3V leads to high piston temps requiring special coatings,
Please tell me how you come to this conclusion. Combustion temperatures, and therefore pistons temperatures are related to compression ratio and more importantly, the fuel-to-air ratio. The second intake valve only allows airflow to remain unrestricted at higher rpms. It has nothing to do with combustion temps unless you want to make the case that it would help the engine from not going to a rich condition in the upper revs by supplying more air than would a single intake valve.
2) Valve float in this setup will shoot a rod through your valve cover,
And the current design would not? I have seen the damage to an LS1 engine on a missed shift and the revs quite likely went well over 8000rpm. Also, see below.
3) Valvetrain mass is high in the non-spinning parts, but not the worst I've seen (even good in some ways),
Valvetrain mass in the dualcam 3V design will probably be less than the current LSx design. The XV8 has a 75* bank angle insted of the current 90* used, this fact alone will shorten the pushrods, now figure that the intake cam will be above the exhaust, then the intake pushrod will be even shorter yet, and therefore lighter. The only point where you could look at a possible weight increase would be the forked rocker, but even that can be easily negated with the use of aluminum or better yet, magnesium. GM can also reduce reciprocating mass with the use of elliptical spring wire for the vale springs and using titanium for the retainers and keepers.
4) You think the pushrods in an LS1 bend--wait till you see these!
Completely untrue. Shorter pushrods are stronger pushrods for a given diameter. Don't believe me? Take a 10 ft long 2x4 and support it at each end. Now standing in the middle push down, doesn't take much to bend it does it? Now shorten it to only 3 ft long and try to deflect it again, it requires alot more pressure doesn't it? The same is true for the pushrods.
5) This is going to be very expensive to machine with any level of quality,
How is the XV8 going to be any harder to machine thean the current LSx? The block is goung to require a few extra oil passages and a second linebore for the camshaft, these processes have been around as long as the SBC and will probably take an extra 10 mins worth of machining on an assembly line. The head will a second intake valve, nothing new there, a port for the injector in the combustion chamber, new rocker arm mounting points, and possibly a full casting change to allow for the new location of the pushrods. That's it. Nothing radical or expensive at all.
6) My LT1's valvetrain is going to be quiet as a mouse compared to this one,
Highly doubtful. The biggest source of noise on a 90* V8 engine is the "echo chamber" that is above the camshaft and below the intake manifold. With this engine having only a 75* angle between banks and the second cam taking up much of this empty space it will quiet the engine greatly. Also, the engine uses full roller rockers and on the intake side it also incorporates 3 hydraulic lash adjusters per cylinder. One is the located in the cam follower ans then there are two located in the forkered rocker at the valve stems. (As a side note this could also be used as a variable lift device if the cam follower was of a Rhodes variable lifter design for greater valve lift at higher engine rpms)
7) Very difficult to lubricate,
The addition of an extra cam, cam phasers, a balance shaft, and a few lash adjusters is going to make it hard to lubricate? Do some reading, the XV8 utilizes dual in-series oil pumps. At low rpms one is only used for the DoD so that it can shut down 4 cylinders at idle. This engine requires less pressurized lubrication the GM's current 3.6 HF engine
8) What rocker arm material will hold up to what this things in for?
Well, magnesium tops that list quite easily but there are plenty of aluminum alloys that will work just fine and still be light enough for the engine to have a 7500rpm redline.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0302_GM_5_z.jpg
1CAMWNDR
09-14-2006, 01:11 PM
Awe inspiring :hail: .
Ramair-WS6
09-14-2006, 01:53 PM
http://www.acarplace.com/brands/gm/xv8-engine.html (http://)
http://www.autospeed.com/issue_156/cms/issue.html (http://)
Very good explanations of the XV8
http://www.autospeed.com/issue_156/cms/issue.html (http://)
Very good explanations of the XV8
LTSpeed
09-14-2006, 07:25 PM
Please tell me how you come to this conclusion....
Eighteen years experience in the development of new vehicles--including very advanced prototypes you've never even heard of. How about you?
Eighteen years experience in the development of new vehicles--including very advanced prototypes you've never even heard of. How about you?
1CAMWNDR
09-19-2006, 11:32 AM
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0302_GM_5_z.jpg
There goes any chance for a stroker crank with the twin cam set up :( .
There goes any chance for a stroker crank with the twin cam set up :( .
Ramair-WS6
09-21-2006, 03:06 PM
Eighteen years experience in the development of new vehicles--including very advanced prototypes you've never even heard of. How about you?
BS in Engineering and 15 years building racing engines.
BS in Engineering and 15 years building racing engines.
Ramair-WS6
09-21-2006, 03:07 PM
There goes any chance for a stroker crank with the twin cam set up :( .
Possibly, but a good turbo will still work quite well :devil:
Possibly, but a good turbo will still work quite well :devil:
LTSpeed
09-21-2006, 08:01 PM
BS in Engineering and 15 years building racing engines.
Sounds good--I thought there was some engineering background there! My comments are not based on racing, though I could look at it that way. Your comments make a lot of sense with respect to racing--much less so for a 150K mile high output motor. I'm talking about the problems I see making this thing affordable, high-volume, and long lived.
Sounds good--I thought there was some engineering background there! My comments are not based on racing, though I could look at it that way. Your comments make a lot of sense with respect to racing--much less so for a 150K mile high output motor. I'm talking about the problems I see making this thing affordable, high-volume, and long lived.
Ramair-WS6
09-21-2006, 08:26 PM
Sounds good--I thought there was some engineering background there! My comments are not based on racing, though I could look at it that way. Your comments make a lot of sense with respect to racing--much less so for a 150K mile high output motor. I'm talking about the problems I see making this thing affordable, high-volume, and long lived.
I was not looking at this as a racing engine at all. This is the next step in the evolution of the cam-in-block V8 and V6 engine. This engine is very sound in it's engineering and will have no problem in enduring for 150,000 in production trim. You are correct though in saying that this is a premium engine and it is going to cost more than the current LS-x series, but it is still going to be less to design and manufacture than say the next Northstar replacement. You really have to look at what this engine will be, this engine is going to negate almost all of the real world advantages that a DOHC 4V has over a 2V OHC. Yet, it will be lighter, less expensive, and easier to package than a DOHC.
I was not looking at this as a racing engine at all. This is the next step in the evolution of the cam-in-block V8 and V6 engine. This engine is very sound in it's engineering and will have no problem in enduring for 150,000 in production trim. You are correct though in saying that this is a premium engine and it is going to cost more than the current LS-x series, but it is still going to be less to design and manufacture than say the next Northstar replacement. You really have to look at what this engine will be, this engine is going to negate almost all of the real world advantages that a DOHC 4V has over a 2V OHC. Yet, it will be lighter, less expensive, and easier to package than a DOHC.
WECIV
09-21-2006, 09:36 PM
Why create a new North Star? Make this the GM family engine design template as it were. I think a Caddy would be fine with this thing.
W
W
Ramair-WS6
09-21-2006, 09:56 PM
Why create a new North Star? Make this the GM family engine design template as it were. I think a Caddy would be fine with this thing.
W
In the market that Cadillac is in it needs a DOHC with every electronic gismo thrown on it to compete with the "Jones". Luxury cars are about perception and a pushrod engine, no matter how advanced, will not cut it in that market.
Sad but true
BTW, the Northstar replacement is the Ultra V8 and it is already well into development
W
In the market that Cadillac is in it needs a DOHC with every electronic gismo thrown on it to compete with the "Jones". Luxury cars are about perception and a pushrod engine, no matter how advanced, will not cut it in that market.
Sad but true
BTW, the Northstar replacement is the Ultra V8 and it is already well into development
LTSpeed
09-21-2006, 10:59 PM
I was not looking at this as a racing engine at all. This is the next step in the evolution of the cam-in-block V8 and V6 engine. This engine is very sound in it's engineering and will have no problem in enduring for 150,000 in production trim...
The single biggest flaw in this--and I don't mean weakness, I mean flaw--is the push rod assembly (parts 54, 56, 58) in Figure 1 in the first PDF. You cannot lubricate this. You can't design it to compensate for wear. There is no material that will run 150K miles without wear. It will come apart in non rev-limited engines (modders!) when the rpm's cause valve float, trashing a lot of expensive hardware. The older it wears, the more likely it is to come apart. It will also drop off severely in performance without some means of wear compensation.
As for the 3-valve design: the 3-5hp gain in power is not worth the added complexity and increase in piston temp--been there, done that. There's a reason 2 & 4-valve designs rule. Everyone knows how to do 3-valve. It just isn't worth it. (The Mustang's setup makes no sense by any measure.)
I like the idea of dual cams and I have nothing against pushrods (if done right). You are 110% right about the advantages in packaging. The problems I listed are fixable and hopefully the final design is more thought out than what's in these drawings.
The single biggest flaw in this--and I don't mean weakness, I mean flaw--is the push rod assembly (parts 54, 56, 58) in Figure 1 in the first PDF. You cannot lubricate this. You can't design it to compensate for wear. There is no material that will run 150K miles without wear. It will come apart in non rev-limited engines (modders!) when the rpm's cause valve float, trashing a lot of expensive hardware. The older it wears, the more likely it is to come apart. It will also drop off severely in performance without some means of wear compensation.
As for the 3-valve design: the 3-5hp gain in power is not worth the added complexity and increase in piston temp--been there, done that. There's a reason 2 & 4-valve designs rule. Everyone knows how to do 3-valve. It just isn't worth it. (The Mustang's setup makes no sense by any measure.)
I like the idea of dual cams and I have nothing against pushrods (if done right). You are 110% right about the advantages in packaging. The problems I listed are fixable and hopefully the final design is more thought out than what's in these drawings.
Ramair-WS6
09-21-2006, 11:16 PM
Oil will be supplied through the lower pushrod just like current pushrods and the first rocker will be cross drilled to let the oil flow into the second pushrod. They could also use a very simple drip system to lubricate the rockers, they need next to nothing when it comes to oil. Once again this is a non-issue.
You have to remember, these engines already exist and are in testing as we type this thread. The new GMT-900 were supposed to have these engines but when GM moved up the release date they got moved aside by two to three years. You will likely see one or both of these engines in the new Camaro when it debuts.
You have to remember, these engines already exist and are in testing as we type this thread. The new GMT-900 were supposed to have these engines but when GM moved up the release date they got moved aside by two to three years. You will likely see one or both of these engines in the new Camaro when it debuts.
LTSpeed
09-22-2006, 06:05 PM
Oil will be supplied through the lower pushrod just like current pushrods and the first rocker will be cross drilled to let the oil flow into the second pushrod. They could also use a very simple drip system to lubricate the rockers, they need next to nothing when it comes to oil. Once again this is a non-issue.
You have to remember, these engines already exist and are in testing as we type this thread. The new GMT-900 were supposed to have these engines but when GM moved up the release date they got moved aside by two to three years. You will likely see one or both of these engines in the new Camaro when it debuts.
The only thing I've got to say is: If these answers are good enough for you, then good luck with that. I'm just glad that my engineers see contraptions like this for what they are: junk. And we've got a pretty good track record to back it up. I really wish I could tell you what that is...damn NDA's!! :(
It would be fun to really sit down and break this thing down. Trust me, a much better design would come from it. Let's come back in 2-3 years and see how many other companies are trying to copy this idea...and how much aftermarket stuff comes out for it. My guess is, you won't be seeing this in any successful racecars either.
You have to remember, these engines already exist and are in testing as we type this thread. The new GMT-900 were supposed to have these engines but when GM moved up the release date they got moved aside by two to three years. You will likely see one or both of these engines in the new Camaro when it debuts.
The only thing I've got to say is: If these answers are good enough for you, then good luck with that. I'm just glad that my engineers see contraptions like this for what they are: junk. And we've got a pretty good track record to back it up. I really wish I could tell you what that is...damn NDA's!! :(
It would be fun to really sit down and break this thing down. Trust me, a much better design would come from it. Let's come back in 2-3 years and see how many other companies are trying to copy this idea...and how much aftermarket stuff comes out for it. My guess is, you won't be seeing this in any successful racecars either.