Point/Counterpoint: DOHC v OHV - ZR-1 Net Registry Forums

Paul Workman · 08-13-2015

i agree with Mike and Dom and others re their comments and observations relative to the advantages and power delivery of the DOHC vs. OHV. Faced with the superiority of the DOHC architecture, how much longer can GM continue to attempt to mitigate those advantages and embrace what is clearly become a 'damage control' effort (with the OHV architecture)?

Millions was spent on development of the new OHV LT1-4 motors. But, out of the box track performance (and reliability too) has been marginal. And, how much is GM going to bank on the C7's chassis improvements to save the bacon of their latest OHV entry? (Without even touching on the huge swell of reliability issues with LT4's heating PR catastrophe).

In spite of GM hoopla (and excuses), the acid test is going to be performance against European and Japanese in the theater of racing. In view of initial performance (or lack thereof, relative to the latest OHV entries) one has to wonder if we are seeing a repeat of GM's mentality when it stubbornly held to the L98 as being sufficient for Corvette buyers. Or, is there real hope to see an all-out focus on performance as the primary objective?

In the mean time, I've no fear of any match-up with any stock cammed stock-bottomed LS1, or 6.2L LS2, or 3 (LS7s?...maybe them as well, in the right venue?). Just crossing my fingers that GM will endeavor to build a motor and (GT) Corvette capable of the kind of 'take no prisoners' type of car the ZR-1 was when it hit the pavement!

EDIT:

I concur w/ Dom's focus on the MM endeavor. However, that effort (last we saw it) was very preliminary; no variable cam/valve timing or direct injection - IIRC. So, that would also need to be considered.

For example, Ford and Mercedes has a pretty good examples of where DOHC might be had GM continued to develop it (C-link).

08-13-2015	#11
Paul Workman Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Squires (near Ava MO in the Mark Twain N'tl Forest) - Missouri Posts: 6,466	Re: Point/Counterpoint: DOHC v OHV i agree with Mike and Dom and others re their comments and observations relative to the advantages and power delivery of the DOHC vs. OHV. Faced with the superiority of the DOHC architecture, how much longer can GM continue to attempt to mitigate those advantages and embrace what is clearly become a 'damage control' effort (with the OHV architecture)? Millions was spent on development of the new OHV LT1-4 motors. But, out of the box track performance (and reliability too) has been marginal. And, how much is GM going to bank on the C7's chassis improvements to save the bacon of their latest OHV entry? (Without even touching on the huge swell of reliability issues with LT4's heating PR catastrophe). In spite of GM hoopla (and excuses), the acid test is going to be performance against European and Japanese in the theater of racing. In view of initial performance (or lack thereof, relative to the latest OHV entries) one has to wonder if we are seeing a repeat of GM's mentality when it stubbornly held to the L98 as being sufficient for Corvette buyers. Or, is there real hope to see an all-out focus on performance as the primary objective? In the mean time, I've no fear of any match-up with any stock cammed stock-bottomed LS1, or 6.2L LS2, or 3 (LS7s?...maybe them as well, in the right venue?). Just crossing my fingers that GM will endeavor to build a motor and (GT) Corvette capable of the kind of 'take no prisoners' type of car the ZR-1 was when it hit the pavement! EDIT: I concur w/ Dom's focus on the MM endeavor. However, that effort (last we saw it) was very preliminary; no variable cam/valve timing or direct injection - IIRC. So, that would also need to be considered. For example, Ford and Mercedes has a pretty good examples of where DOHC might be had GM continued to develop it (C-link). Last edited by Paul Workman; 08-13-2015 at 01:23 PM.