Discuss

Discuss.

>tfw sohc

>an engineers guide
is that engineer from somalia?

Mainland Europe actually. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

Pushrods are for lawnmowers

>inline engine
>emissions are a priority
>so is low displacement
Actually, DOHC is perfect for lawnmowers.

What the difference between pushrods and DOHC?

With a pushrod engine, a single camshaft actuates pushrods which actuate rockers which actuate valves.
With a DOHC engine, two camshafts per bank actuate the rockers.

In practical terms, DOHC engines have packaging in inline form, superior valve control (for better emissions values and higher RPM) and produce more power per internal displacement.
Pushrod engines package a lot better externally (in V form) compared to their internal displacement, so they can make just as much power for their external size. If you don't need high RPM, good emissions, low displacement or aren't using an inline engine, a pushrod engine might be good for that specific usage scenario.

>do you want your engine to be reliable
>Yes -> pushrods
>No -> whatever meme you fell for

>implying adding parts to your valvetrain is adding reliability

>drive without wheels and you'll never have a flat xD

>reply with strawman and you'll never have to make a valid argument xD

>drive without sidewalls and you'll never have a flat
Fact: simplificiation usually improves reliability.

>mfw sohc 4v/cyl

Could be worse

>pushrod 4v/cyl @9500RPM
Dat reciprocating inertia

you're clearly fucking stupid. not surprised though, most engineers are.

a physicist experience.

>Work at volvo trucks
>Daily tear apart inline 6 pushrod engines that are older then i am by a longshot.

Picture sort of related, tho pushrod engines becoming more rare here.

iv'e seen these before, why isn't this a thing?

Because they suck at performance driving.

Loud as fuck and overheat at speed

Actually, it's mostly patent trolling, not performance issues.

They want to sell you replaceable conventional tires instead of lifetime tires.

I know the guy who filed the original tweel patent, sold his patent to Michelin in the late 80s. They wanted the patent so that it wouldn't get made, were pretty clear they had no intention of making it.

Then they must not teach you shit there, because all of your flow chart iconography is wrong. Decision points should be in diamonds, and yes/no labelled on the line itself next to the decision point.

It explains about Europeans in genral, really.

How can chart iconography be wrong? I guess your way is more efficient, but maybe they're used to their ways.

>implying flow chart iconography is used in mechanical engineering education
>arguing about semantics
There's several dozens of styles of iconography, and if it works, it works.

Efficiency and effectiveness is important. Sure, I could whip out my management book and spend fifteen minutes making that graph exactly to some kind of fancy ISO spec, or I could do it in 5 minutes on some draw.io and achieve some results. The former is 1% more effective and 200% less efficient.

>wanted the patent so that it wouldn't get made
A patent holder can sue for royalties, but can't stop production.

Yeah, that must be it, since it's not the rubber that wears in traditional tires, it's the air. They want to keep selling you new air all the time to stay in business. Take away the air and the tires would never wear out.