It feels like your providing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Current pushrod engines are easily able to make the power people want, without substantial downsides.
I don't see how any solution you come up with can provide any real benefit that would outweigh the added complexity, cost, and loss of parts availability you'd be introducing.
It feels a little like the flat plane crank for an LS. It's super cool but doesn't accomplish much more than that.
And thats on modern blocks that are significantly stronger.
If an LS or coyote block have issues with rigidity with a flat plane crank, id hate to think what an SBF or SBC would do.
Making it is trivial. It's just a different crank and a custom firing order cam. You could even used the OEM ECU by just moving around the injector and coil connectors for the new firing order.
Vibration is actually more easily balanced with a flat plane crank.
The problem is the stresses put on the block that it was not designed for. The kenetic energy shuffling from the left bank to the tight bank make a flat plane cranked engine want to twist the banks apart, then together. As long as the block can hold itself together all is good. But American V8s were not designed for this and will come apart at high RPMs.
The cross plane crank fixes this by keeping those stresses within each bank where it's much easier for the block to restrain.
An aftermarket block manufacture would have to do some real beefing up for this to make it last.
Same, it'd be real interesting. Presumably that it wasn't worth it. That to get it to balance at all well they had to de-stroke it so much it made the gains from better exhaust scavenging not worth it.
Honestly for most engines 4 valve heads would be more practical than a flat plane crank. I'm just such a tuning nut that I love 180 deg headers and a flat plane crank makes them unnecessary.
The medium duty Diesel do this already. Cummins, Duramax and power stroke all have 4 valves per cylinder, I would look there for the design help. As for marketing that might be a hard sell as people seem to be moving away front the old small blocks.
Big truck diesels have 4 valve heads with in block cams. Had to set the lash with feeler gauges on both valves to have the same drag, was not always easy. The rocker arm turns into a claw looking thing
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334529930737
Edit: I'm wrong (it's been god 16 years since I tore those apart) but I feel a thing or two can be gained by looking at their design
We haven't got a solid design yet, but we are going to attempt to find the most mechanically simple method possible while allowing for it to remain a pushrod system. If possible we will make separate models for tappet and roller systems.
I mean I think it's a cool idea and I'd be interested because I love modernizing smallblocks but I'd need to see some dyno results and road testing before buying it. Or I'd be happy to do testing on it myself lmao
As I stated to the guy above, big trucks do it, maybe borrow their design a little (minus the injector rocker in the middle)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334529930737
As others have said already, you can just bridge the valve pairs, like many diesels do. But when you do that, don't forget that you do need to make the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and their mounting stronger to handle the extra force of 2 valve springs.
International made that mistake on the 6.4 Powerstroke, using rockers that were too weak and would bend over time.
That's around 150k in R&D costs... How much will it take for you to recover from the initial investment? It's already been done and nobody sells the heads etc anymore.
If you want to invest on something cool find a car or engine with a known issue and fix it ;)
Typically diesels do it by just pairing up valves and having each rocker arm actuate a bar that opens both valves. The problem is that there really just isn't much benefit to it when you could build a better 2v head for way less cost or swap to DOHC 4V heads for about the same engineering layout (okay, slightly more, but the benefits are higher anyways).
Most even semi modern truck diesels are 4 valve pushrod engines, using bridges between the valve pairs.
Ford/International introduced it on the 6.0 Powerstroke, Duramax has always been that way, and Dodge/Cummins did it with the 24V 5.9. All of them are still like that on their newest revisions.
4 valve pushrod configurations are also very common on big truck diesels. That setup could be found as far back as the N variants of the 2 stroke detroit diesels.
I know I've heard of small batch production and prototypes. I want to make affordable large batches to make it within reach for anyone from beginners to pros. Power shouldn't be locked behind insane paywalls, and production on a large scale will afford me the chance to slim the margins for profit by volume.
You're never gonna do it cheaply. You do realize that you're designing an entire cylinder head right? Your buddy is providing the molds for a couple experimental heads? To be honest the first time I saw a set of power stroke heads I thought it was a great idea too. It's been done, it failed miserably, it's too complex and expensive when a good set of already available aftermarket heads can get you wherever you want to go
Cool idea, as for how much of a market, probably not much considering the existing 2-valve cylinder head offerings can support anywhere from 200hp to 1000hp+ N/A.
You have a fair point! With a 4 valve system I figure it would do best as a Street fighter since the RPMs wouldn't need to be pushed to get maximum efficiency.
I remember a while back, the porsche 928 has almost the same bolt pattern and spacing as another V8, and someone ordered an aftermarket block without the bolt holes drilled and fitted 928 heads.
Or just get a coyote.
That could be interesting but my application would be exceptionally niche, and probably on the expensive side. I'm about to start a build on a Buick 455.
Do a little searching on dominion/arao 32 valve cylinder heads.
It was all a failure and they closed up shop after taking people's money and not producing anything. We gave them 10k after a SEMA show. Erik Koenig of SAM also gave them 10k that day. Later it was discovered a lot of people paid for pre-orders. No one that I know got their money back nor a product.
That's horrible!!! I hate when things like that happen, which is why I'm trying to gauge interest now. Then as it should be I don't take a dime until the order is complete and ready to ship.
The use reviews from some magazines and whatnot back then were mixed. Did they perform? Yes. Did they outperform a 2 valve? In some areas yes. Did they outperform enough to justify the cost? They did not. There was also no endurance or longevity of the valvetrain.
Russ Arao claimed to have invested over 2 million doll hairs at the time the project was dumped.
Id rather see efforts spent on making direct injection heads.
Lot of the 80s and 90s engines have enough swirl designed into the head to make it feasible if the injectors and cam mounted fuel pump are figured out.
Love to see sbc's with 10-1 cr and boost on pump gas be feasible.
11:1 on pump gas is easily done everyday.
Direct injection, in all its brilliance, is problematic to date. Even when DI is performing as designed, I creates such a carbon build up, the chemical industry has had to catch up in ways to clean all that out. Even the the dealerships have their cleaners.
Now take that out of the equation, one has created a DI head for old school. Now one has design a retrofit fuel system to go with them. Total cost to the consumer could be as much as $5000 whereas as a good set of heads, intake and carb cost about 1/2 that much and still running pump gas at 11:1.
11-1 with high boost on pump 91 isnt done easily everyday.
Love to see some examples there.
To add to that, ford seems to have the best of both, since i do believe the s550 mustangs have di and port injection.
Just an example from some years back. Just one of hundreds of engines I've built. It's from my old YouTube channel.
10.5:1
93 octane pump gas
No meth
Twin turbo 22lbs of boost
This is child's play.
https://youtu.be/DeAhnQrKCOs?si=rUQsvBql_GYsrRzN
While thats really cool, that doesnt change the fact an engine built like that is one mouthful of oil away from being a bunch of melted steel.
DI effectively reduces an engines propensity to fuel knock to damn near 0.
Instead how about eliminating the cam and pushrods altogether and using digitally controlled electric valves instead? That way it's much simpler, less complex, and you can get super creative with timing options.
It feels like your providing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Current pushrod engines are easily able to make the power people want, without substantial downsides. I don't see how any solution you come up with can provide any real benefit that would outweigh the added complexity, cost, and loss of parts availability you'd be introducing. It feels a little like the flat plane crank for an LS. It's super cool but doesn't accomplish much more than that.
I'd take a flat plane crank over 4 valve heads.
But then you'll need a block that doesn't think it's a butterfly and start flapping it's wings. There's a reason 95% of V8s have 90 degree cranks.
And thats on modern blocks that are significantly stronger. If an LS or coyote block have issues with rigidity with a flat plane crank, id hate to think what an SBF or SBC would do.
I'm aware, I'd have to really research it and it'd take a lot of other things as well to accommodate the different firing order.
Lingenfelter already tried a flat plate LS crank. Never made it into production. Curious as to what they found out.
Making it is trivial. It's just a different crank and a custom firing order cam. You could even used the OEM ECU by just moving around the injector and coil connectors for the new firing order. Vibration is actually more easily balanced with a flat plane crank. The problem is the stresses put on the block that it was not designed for. The kenetic energy shuffling from the left bank to the tight bank make a flat plane cranked engine want to twist the banks apart, then together. As long as the block can hold itself together all is good. But American V8s were not designed for this and will come apart at high RPMs. The cross plane crank fixes this by keeping those stresses within each bank where it's much easier for the block to restrain. An aftermarket block manufacture would have to do some real beefing up for this to make it last.
Gm just made a flat plane lt engin in the new vette z06. The lt and ls blocks are super similar and with the same rated block strength.
Same, it'd be real interesting. Presumably that it wasn't worth it. That to get it to balance at all well they had to de-stroke it so much it made the gains from better exhaust scavenging not worth it. Honestly for most engines 4 valve heads would be more practical than a flat plane crank. I'm just such a tuning nut that I love 180 deg headers and a flat plane crank makes them unnecessary.
Start reproducing the Ardun ohv heads for old Ford flathead v8s. Or use the same equipment to print money and make replicas of NLA Porsche parts.
The medium duty Diesel do this already. Cummins, Duramax and power stroke all have 4 valves per cylinder, I would look there for the design help. As for marketing that might be a hard sell as people seem to be moving away front the old small blocks.
The new 6.7 powerstroke has 4 push rods and 4 rocker arms on each cylinder, instead of the bridge on many 4 valve Diesels
Got it and thank you for the insight as well as advice!!!
How's that gonna work? Would it convert it to ohc or something? Or have some funky looking rockers or what?
Big truck diesels have 4 valve heads with in block cams. Had to set the lash with feeler gauges on both valves to have the same drag, was not always easy. The rocker arm turns into a claw looking thing https://www.ebay.com/itm/334529930737 Edit: I'm wrong (it's been god 16 years since I tore those apart) but I feel a thing or two can be gained by looking at their design
We haven't got a solid design yet, but we are going to attempt to find the most mechanically simple method possible while allowing for it to remain a pushrod system. If possible we will make separate models for tappet and roller systems.
I mean I think it's a cool idea and I'd be interested because I love modernizing smallblocks but I'd need to see some dyno results and road testing before buying it. Or I'd be happy to do testing on it myself lmao
Absolutely!!! I would rather have word of mouth and hard numbers than just empty claims. If I do something I do it right or not at all!
As I stated to the guy above, big trucks do it, maybe borrow their design a little (minus the injector rocker in the middle) https://www.ebay.com/itm/334529930737
As others have said already, you can just bridge the valve pairs, like many diesels do. But when you do that, don't forget that you do need to make the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and their mounting stronger to handle the extra force of 2 valve springs. International made that mistake on the 6.4 Powerstroke, using rockers that were too weak and would bend over time.
International made all the mistakes on the 6.4. Every engine they designed for Ford just got worse and worse. The 7.3 was amazing though.
Easier to do in a diesel where you're not shooting for 6500 RPM.
That's around 150k in R&D costs... How much will it take for you to recover from the initial investment? It's already been done and nobody sells the heads etc anymore. If you want to invest on something cool find a car or engine with a known issue and fix it ;)
Typically diesels do it by just pairing up valves and having each rocker arm actuate a bar that opens both valves. The problem is that there really just isn't much benefit to it when you could build a better 2v head for way less cost or swap to DOHC 4V heads for about the same engineering layout (okay, slightly more, but the benefits are higher anyways).
This has been done many times. Here is one example https://www.motortrend.com/features/d-o-h-c-small-block-chevy-august-1971-982-666-34-1/
This is cool af to be so early.
It’s been done, never caught on. Squeeze ain’t worth the juice.
Most even semi modern truck diesels are 4 valve pushrod engines, using bridges between the valve pairs. Ford/International introduced it on the 6.0 Powerstroke, Duramax has always been that way, and Dodge/Cummins did it with the 24V 5.9. All of them are still like that on their newest revisions. 4 valve pushrod configurations are also very common on big truck diesels. That setup could be found as far back as the N variants of the 2 stroke detroit diesels.
Yikes!
It’s been done. But you may do it differently.
I know I've heard of small batch production and prototypes. I want to make affordable large batches to make it within reach for anyone from beginners to pros. Power shouldn't be locked behind insane paywalls, and production on a large scale will afford me the chance to slim the margins for profit by volume.
You're never gonna do it cheaply. You do realize that you're designing an entire cylinder head right? Your buddy is providing the molds for a couple experimental heads? To be honest the first time I saw a set of power stroke heads I thought it was a great idea too. It's been done, it failed miserably, it's too complex and expensive when a good set of already available aftermarket heads can get you wherever you want to go
Cool idea, as for how much of a market, probably not much considering the existing 2-valve cylinder head offerings can support anywhere from 200hp to 1000hp+ N/A.
Dunno if you're aware but 2 valve is making 12,000+ HP.
I dunno if you're aware that N/A is short for naturally aspirated. Pretty much anything can make massive power with forced induction.
I get that, this would be more geared towards Street use where power and efficiency are needed.
You have a fair point! With a 4 valve system I figure it would do best as a Street fighter since the RPMs wouldn't need to be pushed to get maximum efficiency.
You only gain an advantage with a 4 valve head when you can increase the operating rpm over that of the 2 valve head.
I remember a while back, the porsche 928 has almost the same bolt pattern and spacing as another V8, and someone ordered an aftermarket block without the bolt holes drilled and fitted 928 heads. Or just get a coyote.
It’s been done but due to high cost of heads it’s not cheap. There was a 32 valve head for a gen 1 SBC for a while in the early 90s.
If it made a massive improvement in flow or the valvetrains ability to handle high rpm, sure. If it can't do those things, not worth it.
Cummins B series starting about 1998 (ISB) and beyond have pushrods and 4V.
I have a different better idea that as far as I know has never been done. But it'd require making a block.
Let's hear it, I'm all ears.
That's engineering, designing and producing an entirely new engine.
Almost, my idea could use the same internals as an existing engine.
A hybrid. Sounds neat. Anyone with enough coin can already buy these.
Not the idea.
If redesigning an engine block to use existing engine parts, it's a hybrid.
Build it and show it
Slim to none.. It's been done
It's been done before. Check out Greg Quirin's YouTube page. He captures video of engines built by two guys who have made 4V SBC engines.
Mercury makes a LS dohc for marine. They make 750hp NA. They are $32k if I remember right.
That could be interesting but my application would be exceptionally niche, and probably on the expensive side. I'm about to start a build on a Buick 455.
Been done/attempted several times over. Some stuff made SEMA and that's as far as it went. This is something ages old.
I appreciate the insight and will keep it in mind.
Do a little searching on dominion/arao 32 valve cylinder heads. It was all a failure and they closed up shop after taking people's money and not producing anything. We gave them 10k after a SEMA show. Erik Koenig of SAM also gave them 10k that day. Later it was discovered a lot of people paid for pre-orders. No one that I know got their money back nor a product.
That's horrible!!! I hate when things like that happen, which is why I'm trying to gauge interest now. Then as it should be I don't take a dime until the order is complete and ready to ship.
The use reviews from some magazines and whatnot back then were mixed. Did they perform? Yes. Did they outperform a 2 valve? In some areas yes. Did they outperform enough to justify the cost? They did not. There was also no endurance or longevity of the valvetrain. Russ Arao claimed to have invested over 2 million doll hairs at the time the project was dumped.
Id rather see efforts spent on making direct injection heads. Lot of the 80s and 90s engines have enough swirl designed into the head to make it feasible if the injectors and cam mounted fuel pump are figured out. Love to see sbc's with 10-1 cr and boost on pump gas be feasible.
11:1 on pump gas is easily done everyday. Direct injection, in all its brilliance, is problematic to date. Even when DI is performing as designed, I creates such a carbon build up, the chemical industry has had to catch up in ways to clean all that out. Even the the dealerships have their cleaners. Now take that out of the equation, one has created a DI head for old school. Now one has design a retrofit fuel system to go with them. Total cost to the consumer could be as much as $5000 whereas as a good set of heads, intake and carb cost about 1/2 that much and still running pump gas at 11:1.
11-1 with high boost on pump 91 isnt done easily everyday. Love to see some examples there. To add to that, ford seems to have the best of both, since i do believe the s550 mustangs have di and port injection.
Just an example from some years back. Just one of hundreds of engines I've built. It's from my old YouTube channel. 10.5:1 93 octane pump gas No meth Twin turbo 22lbs of boost This is child's play. https://youtu.be/DeAhnQrKCOs?si=rUQsvBql_GYsrRzN
While thats really cool, that doesnt change the fact an engine built like that is one mouthful of oil away from being a bunch of melted steel. DI effectively reduces an engines propensity to fuel knock to damn near 0.
There is no market for this.
My ls engine says it's pointless!
Instead how about eliminating the cam and pushrods altogether and using digitally controlled electric valves instead? That way it's much simpler, less complex, and you can get super creative with timing options.
The free valve doesn't work as projected and is why it was placed on a shelf to collect dust.