Is modular superior to pushrod

I think gm tried that once. But it was a lot more complicated and heavier than a 2 valve, and at that point you might as well just go dohc

4 valves with pushrod is possible. Just adds complexity to a design that was meant for low revs. 2 valves is proven to be better when N/A and lower than roughly 5000rpm. 4 Valves takes over from this point allowing better swirl into the cylinder. The high inertia of a pushrod design makes high revs less than ideal, so 2 valve suits it.

Ford's flat plane on the left, regular cross plane on the right.

You sure about that less mass part?

All the info I can find points to the cylinder heads and valvetrain being the cause of more rpm and power, not the flat plane crank.

Fpc was more a marketing ploy. I suppose it worked.

> i can tell the mass difference of two objects from comparison pictures taken at different angles, scales, and lighting
Okay bud

>Ones twice as big as the other.
>Lighter.

Whatever you say, I see you didn't provide proof otherwise.

What you can't? lol Mr Magoo

better exhaust scavenging

doesn't cummins do 4-valve pushrod?

yes it's easier to do with diesels. and makes more sense because low rpms

Thy have flat heads which make then easier to arrange I think

First off, the Modular engine design is a pretty bad DOHC V8 design. Quite large, reasonably limited in the valvetrain as far as high RPM is concerned, and even with a flat plane crank it's significant stats (BSFC and BMEP) compared to similar motors is pretty low. It's robust though, and early mod motor have shown that the internals Ford put in the boosted applications can take a beating in terms of raw horsepower.

No, let's compare the 5.2 Voodoo to the 7.0 LS7. Mopar isn't making aluminium block engines, and although they flow more air than either Voodoo or LS7, the Hemi's are more limited in terms of aftermarket, and they just weigh more. Why compare the Voodoo and the LS7? Because they're both the engine of choice for the companies' respective track rats, the Z/28 and the GT350.

Fuel consumption? Nearly identical. 13/19 for the Z (the extra displacement and weight of the Camaro doesn't help), 14/21 for the GT350.
Power? Slight advantage for the Voodoo again (526hp > 505hp). The flat plane crank really does help flow air high up - peak power is 1200 rpm higher with the Voodoo.
Torque is more of the LS7's game, with 470 lbft compared to the 429 of the Voodoo. Adding displacement here helps.

Now, there's one big difference between the two: compression ratio. The LS7 is 11:1, the Voodoo is 12:1. If you had a higher compression ratio on the LS, it's fuel economy, torque and power would all improve: the basic design makes up for that.

Which gets us to size. The Voodoo/Modular is substantially bigger, and slightly heavier. If you're building your own engine, get that pushrod V8, up the compression a bit, and enjoy similar specs - but a way easier engine to place into an engine bay.

Now, if Ford could just redesign the Modular not to be as wide as it is, GM could put direct injection on the LS7 (LT7?) and if Dodge could finally build an aluminium engine, we could do some proper benchracing. Untill then, the big three are pretty similar.

Guys, go look up the Honda CX500. Dirt cheap, 4 valve pushrod engines that'll spin 9500 RPM on the factory limiter - and they can take some more.

Not just a different sound. It evens out the exhaust pulses, making for better scavenging, and ultimately higher power output if you tune correctly for it. NVH is actually improved, because the exhaust sound is more even. Mileage doesn't have to decrease, but they're tuning it for high RPM - which means they lost some bottom end torque. GM and Mopar could just as easily apply a flat plane crank to their engines.

>2 valves is proven to be better when N/A and lower than roughly 5000rpm
Go look up any Trans Am racer from when they used the 302's/304's. Those could efficiently spin up to 8000 RPM. In terms of raw airflow, 2 valve heads generally exceed their equivalently ported 4 valve head.

>The high inertia of a pushrod design makes high revs less than ideal, so 2 valve suits it.
You're confusing the pushrod layout's limits, and the limits imposed by an engine's stroke. Running a standard 350 Chev at 8000 RPM means you're at almost 24m/s of piston speed - that's not good. It's not the valvetrain per that'll stop working at that point - it's the standard old heads that stop flowing, a cam made for lower RPM, and finally those pistons just going too damn fast, exponentially increasing internal friction. Now, destroke it to a 302, run some heads (camel humps) and cam that'll go up to that RPM, maybe change the lifter, and you can turn 7000 RPM - more in a heavily modified example.

>flatheads
No they don't.

theoldmotor.com/?p=104928

chebby pushrod will be running around a city in france in just over a month. Ford believes the modular v8 is inferior to a v6 turbo so it doesn't get to race in the big leagues

Less reciprocating mass
Can rev higher

>Mopar flows more air than either Voodoo or LS7
Genuinely curious, How do you know this and what are the flow rates compared to the Ford 4 valve, Chev Gen 4 and modern Hemi heads?

Pic unrelated, but an engine I find quite interesting.

By Mopar, I meant the modern 3rd gen Hemi's. Because of the bigger bore size, 2nd gen Hemi's can outflow just about anything, so let's stick to the 3rd gen Hemi/4th gen GM small block and Ford 4 valve. I'll try to use as much comparison at .600'' intake valve lift.

Hemi head flow:
>Stock 5.7: 285 cfm
>''Eagle'' 5.7: 330 cfm
>Stock 6.1: 320 cfm
>Apache 6.4: 340cfm
>Ported 6.4 heads: 367cfm
Solid numbers all around. Factory casting supporting almost 370cfm is great.

Sources:
Stock numbers: hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ccrp-1210-inside-the-g3-hemi-cylinder-head/
Ported 6.4: hotrod.com/how-to/engine/1601-top-ten-tricks-to-optimize-the-chrysler-6-4l-hemi-cylinder-head/

GM 4th gen small block flow:
>Stock LS3: 314cfm
>Stock LS7: 360cfm
Keep in mind, those LS7 heads have the biggest bore in this comparison, and are already CNC ported from the factory.

Sources:
Stock LS3: hotrod.com/how-to/engine/hrdp-1102-ls3-l92-rectangle-port-cylinder-heads-test/
Stock LS7: corvetteforum.com/forums/c6-z06-discussion/1252849-ls7-flow-numbers.html

Ford 4 valve:
>FR500: 301cfm
>'03 DOHC: 268 cfm @.500''
>Ported FR500 or '03 DOHC: 340cfm
Needs porting to over 300cfm unless you find those rare FR500's.

Source:
mustangandfords.com/parts/m5lp-0412-ford-four-valve-head-information-guide/

Taking allt his into account, you can see that the LS7 and ported 6.4 are almost similar - untill you compare valve and bore sizes. It's just that semi-hemi layout that severely increases head flow. Aftermarket Hemi-style heads flow the best in the business.

>You're confusing the pushrod layout's limits, and the limits imposed by an engine's stroke. Running a standard 350 Chev at 8000 RPM means you're at almost 24m/s of piston speed - that's not good. It's not the valvetrain per that'll stop working at that point.

Piston speed is not the problem. The inertia from the extra mass of the pushrods makes the valves harder to close at high RPM. This cases valve float over 6000RPM on most factory builds. To bring spring pressured up to cope often results in cam failure. This is why roller lifters were introduced, which creates more inertia again.

I have built several pushrod motors, and I love them. I know their limitations however.

Good to know.
As you stated before hand, I'd still favour the GM shit on the account of overall performance and weight.

Why would you even get a car with that shit engine when a VR38DETT makes more power while having fewer cylinders and being smaller?

Or you could just build a god damn I6 and use your big brain for more relevant things

>Or you could just build on a heavier, slower, capacity limited platform
Ironic that it seems you struggle to use your brain period.

k

Some people want their car to not sound like a fart.

because nissan is a shit and more displacement will always be better fuckin weeb tripfag