Discuss-engine wear-8 valve vs 16 valve!

[turbovanman²]

Don aka 4cefedomni was over today and we were chatting about his desire to build a bulletproof 8 valve engine, of course, I say go 16 valve, :eyebrows:

I say that if you have 2 engines, both making 500 whp, the 8 valve at 30 psi and the 16 valve at 20 psi, that the 16 valve has less forces being exterted on the crank/rods/pistons thus will have an easier life and reduced engine wear.

He says it doesn't matter, 500whp is 500whp and engine wear/stress will be the same.

Discuss! :nod:

[jl93sundance]

I'd say 16v running less boost.


You should make a poll:thumb:

[turbovanman²]

I can't, too late.

[Directconnection]

hp is hp.... BUT... you have things like the 8v being a bit more prone to detonation.

Mostly... an 8v 2.2 vs a 16v 2.2 will make more torque than the 16v down low, and that can "cause more wear" (actually...breakage)

On the flip-side.... the 16v will rev higher, and those revs can lead to failures as well.

[turbovanman²]

hp is hp.... BUT... you have things like the 8v being a bit more prone to detonation.

Mostly... an 8v 2.2 vs a 16v 2.2 will make more torque than the 16v down low, and that can "cause more wear" (actually...breakage)

On the flip-side.... the 16v will rev higher, and those revs can lead to failures as well.

What about the 10 psi pressure differential?

[4cefedomni]

Bah, either way the same volume of air is getting into the cylinders making the same bang so with identicle dyno charts they both will be exerting the same force on the crank. The 16 valve is just more efficient so it takes less boost to get the same volume into the cyllinders. the turbo would probably wear out alot faster.

[turbovanman²]

Bah, either way the same volume of air is getting into the cylinders making the same bang so with identicle dyno charts they both will be exerting the same force on the crank. The 16 valve is just more efficient so it takes less boost to get the same volume into the cyllinders. the turbo would probably wear out alot faster.

The turbo on the 16 valve? :confused:

[bakes]

I believe that 8v needs the extra 10# to make the same CYLINDER PRESSURE that the 16v makes due to better flowing head (more cfm).
With the cylinder pressures and rpm the same the load should be same on the piston,rod,bearings for those hp torque readings.

Now a 16v at 30- 40 # boost:evil::eyebrows:

[Anonymous_User]

first, horsepower is simply torque over time, so they are nearly identical. Because of the formula for determining horsepower, when someone talks about a high torque motor, that simply means the torque peak is below 5252 rpm. Conversely, when speaking of a high horsepower motor, the torque peak is above 5252 rpm.

Now, to produce torque, the piston has to push down on the rod and the rod has to push on the crank. The force applied to the top of the piston determines the power output of the crank.

Let's consider a 400 hp motor. Each of our pistons now has to produce 100 horsepower. That 100 hp force to push the piston down requires a set amount of oxygen and fuel. No more, no less. In order to get that air/fuel mixture into the cylinder, we either use massive force on a low flowing head or moderate force on a high flowing head. Either way, we introduce the same air and same fuel. We produce the same forces.

400 hp = 400 hp.

Now, with that being said, the other variable is piston speed. Remember that ever revolution, your piston stops twice. It accelerates up the bore, decelerates and stops. Then it accelerates down the bore, decelerates and stops. The higher the RPM, the more stressful this starting and stoping is on the rods, rod bearings, crank, etc.

So, if one 400 hp motor makes that power at 5000 rpm and the other needs 7000 rpm to do it, then the first one will live a longer life, all things being equal.

A rough example of the last statement: My old Ford has a 385 ci V8. I launch at 5600 rpm and I shift between 8000 and 8500 depending on the track. Friend of mine has a 540 ci engine. Launches at 3500 and shifts at 6000 - 6500. I launch where he shifts. Guess which one needs less maintenance?

[GLHNSLHT2]

Masi 16v with custom pistons and longer rods has a better rod ratio and will wear less :)

[4cefedomni]

The turbo on the 16 valve? :confused:

no the 8v turbo cause it has to boost high

[gasketmaster]

What about the 10 psi pressure differential?

Given a perfect tune up on each engine and all the matching components for the task at hand.....I don't think there would be any additional wear in either engine :)

The turbo might be a different story :p

[4cefedomni]

chew on this simon, the 16 valve motors have an extra cam to turn so I would think that would mean it would need to make extra power to make up for that on the dyno. Thus the 16 valve motor would need higher cylinder pressures and that would mean more wear:p it's miniscule I know but proves my arguement more

[boost geek]

16 valve also costs more money. Good luck finding a $50 Lotus head...:yuck:

[Anonymous_User]

chew on this simon, the 16 valve motors have an extra cam to turn so I would think that would mean it would need to make extra power to make up for that on the dyno. Thus the 16 valve motor would need higher cylinder pressures and that would mean more wear:p it's miniscule I know but proves my arguement more

Would have to know all the spring pressures to determine the power needed to turn the cams.


if you have 2 engines, both making 500 whp

Good luck finding a $50 Lotus head

Good luck finding any 500 hp capable head for $50.

Oh, if you do, let me know, I'll take three!! :D

[t3rse]

chew on this simon, the 16 valve motors have an extra cam to turn so I would think that would mean it would need to make extra power to make up for that on the dyno. Thus the 16 valve motor would need higher cylinder pressures and that would mean more wear:p it's miniscule I know but proves my arguement more

So now you have to equate for frictional differences between water pumps, oil pumps, distributors (or lack thereof), etc....

my vote: 8v rod bearing will go sooner than 16v, all else the same more or less....excluding turbos :eyebrows:

[boost geek]

Would have to know all the spring pressures to determine the power needed to turn the cams.




Good luck finding any 500 hp capable head for $50.

Oh, if you do, let me know, I'll take three!! :D

I'll see how gasketmaster makes out with his van. If he pulls it off, I just picked up a 655 head at pick a part for $50, and I have a $50 2 piece intake to go with it.:eyebrows:

[turbovanman²]

chew on this simon, the 16 valve motors have an extra cam to turn so I would think that would mean it would need to make extra power to make up for that on the dyno. Thus the 16 valve motor would need higher cylinder pressures and that would mean more wear:p it's miniscule I know but proves my arguement more

I bet you can't even measure that. The midrange in my van is unreal at low boost, way more than my 8 valve setup, :partywoot:


16 valve also costs more money. Good luck finding a $50 Lotus head...:yuck:

So go Neon head, after the costs of porting an 8 valve head, custom intake and ported ex manni, ;) :nod:

[BadAssPerformance]

Added poll and moved to 'engine' section.

Assumptions

both are 2.2L displacement
8v = SOHC
16v = DOHC
both produce 500whp

Anything else to add?

EDIT: by "Engine wear" lets define that as gereral engine durability... bearings, rings, turbo life, etc. cool?

[boost geek]

I bet you can't even measure that. The midrange in my van is unreal at low boost, way more than my 8 valve setup, :partywoot:



So go Neon head, after the costs of porting an 8 valve head, custom intake and ported ex manni, ;) :nod:

I had a Neon head, but I needed custom intake and exhaust manifolds, new pistons (again), remachined block (again), plus I would have to mess around with a 16 valve cal. If it wasn't my daily driver it would be doable, over a long period of time, but I need my car running by monday morning, and don't have the cash to build a good second engine.:o

[1 bad day]

Would have to know all the spring pressures to determine the power needed to turn the cams.




Good luck finding any 500 hp capable head for $50.

Oh, if you do, let me know, I'll take three!! :D

well grab a used common block head and get to porting....tada, as long as you know how to keep air flowing properly its actually not that hard, you can even use a flow bench, figure out how many cfm's you would need to get 500whp, and goto town.

[turbovanman²]

Added poll and moved to 'engine' section.

Assumptions

both are 2.2L displacement
8v = SOHC
16v = DOHC
both produce 500whp

Anything else to add?

EDIT: by "Engine wear" lets define that as gereral engine durability... bearings, rings, turbo life, etc. cool?


Sure, or a 2.5, either way.

Yep, bearings, rings, etc, :nod:



well grab a used common block head and get to porting....tada, as long as you know how to keep air flowing properly its actually not that hard, you can even use a flow bench, figure out how many cfm's you would need to get 500whp, and goto town.

Well you don't really need a flowbench, just hog the crap out of it, :thumb:


BTW, there's probably 1 or 2 that make 500whp, its very hard to reach, :(

[4cefedomni]

i still say 500hp is 500hp there will be the same forces applied to the bearings and crank, doesn't matter how the air gets in there.
That being said there is no question as to which setup makes a better more efficient engine, the 16 valve wins hands down. But in terms of wear it wouldn't matter.
now 500 hp in a 4cyl versus 500 in a inline 6 would be another matter. the inline 6 has 2 more rods and pistons and 2 more main bearings to spread the load so an inline 6 would last longer at those power levels.

[cordes]

Given a perfect tune up on each engine and all the matching components for the task at hand.....I don't think there would be any additional wear in either engine :)

The turbo might be a different story :p

I am of the same opinion.

[moparzrule]

There's additional wear to the 16v as far as the rings. The more RPM's an engine turn's the faster it wears out, thats a simple fact.
As far as turbo failure because of the 10 extra PSI, thats debatable....but the rings will 100% for sure wear out faster in the higher revving engine. I don't see how the bearings would last longer in a 16v either, I would think quite the opposite again because of the higher RPM's.
This is why diesel engines go for so many miles before a rebuild, never turning over 2000 RPM so they don't wear out near as fast.

Edit-on the turbo, I don't see how the 10 PSI will affect anything. The turbo should be spinning the same speed to be making 500 HP in the 16 valve and 8 valve. The turbo has the be putting out the same amount of air to make the same HP, PSI is just a percent of restriction. Obviously the 8v has more restriction, but the turbo itself is spinning the same speed. So, the turbo should last just as long on either engine.

[turbovanman²]

There's additional wear to the 16v as far as the rings. The more RPM's an engine turn's the faster it wears out, thats a simple fact.
As far as turbo failure because of the 10 extra PSI, thats debatable....but the rings will 100% for sure wear out faster in the higher revving engine. I don't see how the bearings would last longer in a 16v either, I would think quite the opposite again because of the higher RPM's.
This is why diesel engines go for so many miles before a rebuild, never turning over 2000 RPM so they don't wear out near as fast.

Edit-on the turbo, I don't see how the 10 PSI will affect anything. The turbo should be spinning the same speed to be making 500 HP in the 16 valve and 8 valve. The turbo has the be putting out the same amount of air to make the same HP, PSI is just a percent of restriction. Obviously the 8v has more restriction, but the turbo itself is spinning the same speed. So, the turbo should last just as long on either engine.

You guys keep assuming you have to spin the engine on a 16 valve engine to make power when you don't. My current compo, for example, I rarely need to ever rev the crap out of it, it just has so much power at lower rpm's, I rarely get it past 4000 rpm unless I am racing someone or trying to pass a turd in the fast lane.

[moparzrule]

Simon we are talking 2.2L here, not 2.5.

[turbovanman²]

Simon we are talking 2.2L here, not 2.5.

JT chose 2.2, I said either 2.2 or 2.5.

A 2.2 16 valve will still make more midrange than an 8 valve, just look at an R/T.

[BadAssPerformance]

Sure, or a 2.5, either way.

Yep, bearings, rings, etc, :nod:




Simon we are talking 2.2L here, not 2.5.

OK, I only said 2.2L because there never was a factory DOHC 2.5L available, but like the poll question say "same displacement" meaning same 2.0L 2.2L, 2.5L or 2.4L, etc... for both 8v vs. 16v

Updated poll for fence sitters

[moparzrule]

IMO it makes a difference, 2.2 or 2.5.

[moparzrule]

JT chose 2.2, I said either 2.2 or 2.5.

A 2.2 16 valve will still make more midrange than an 8 valve, just look at an R/T.

Well the poll is 2.2 anyway...

An 8 valve's mid range is at a lower RPM! Lower RPM= less wear!

[Marcus86GLHS]

".......thus will have an easier life and reduced engine wear..........."


when the debate centers around over 3.7 hp per cubic inch, the head design is nearly irrelevant to overall engine reliability/durability. neither config will have high reliability.

[cordes]

A turbo will have to spin faster to put out Xlbs. of air at a higher boost. Look at the maps. The shaft speed goes up as the pressure ratio increases at the same level of airflow.

[turbovanman²]

An 8 valve's mid range is at a lower RPM!

I respectfully disagree. N/A yes, turbo, no.


I've driven my van with both engines and no way in hell the 8 valve made more low rpm power. This new combo decimates it.

[4cefedomni]

the debate wasn't over rpm, of course reving higher will cause the engine to wear out faster. the debate we had was about a 16 valve lasting longer because it puts less stress on the bearings to make the same horsepower because it requires less boost to achieve the same power levels.

I disagreed saying that in either case the same amount of air was getting into the cylinders so the cylinder pressures would be the same reguardless of the amount of boost that put it there.

Where an engines powerband is has more to do with cam profile, turbo choice, port work, tune etc. then it does with how many valves it has. you can make a torque monster 16valve that falls on its face above 5000rpm and you can make an 8 valve motor that doesn't come alive until then.

[thefitisgay]

what about location of spark plugs... the 16 valve looks like they are centered in the combustion chamber and the 8 valve is a little to one side so that the combustion starts at one side and sort of blow the piston to one side and cause more wear

[BadAssPerformance]

JT chose 2.2, I said either 2.2 or 2.5.

A 2.2 16 valve will still make more midrange than an 8 valve, just look at an R/T.


IMO it makes a difference, 2.2 or 2.5.

In a theoretical discussion like this, displacement should not matter, as long as the same displacement is used for each 8v and 16v.

And in a theoretical discussion, dont think about the currently available components, imagine that the same exact identical valve lift, duration and overlap are used for each of the SOHC 8v and DOHC 16v so the cams really do noe offer an advantage, but the extra valves... might?

Soooo, maybe I should have said "for example a ... 2.8L vs 2.8L? :D


what about location of spark plugs... the 16 valve looks like they are centered in the combustion chamber and the 8 valve is a little to one side so that the combustion starts at one side and sort of blow the piston to one side and cause more wear

Good observation ... there would be a difference in a SOHC 'wedge' head and a DOHC 'center plug' or 'hemi' head .... at eth same HP and displacement... is one... less wear tho?

[turbovanman²]

Good observation ... there would be a difference in a SOHC 'wedge' head and a DOHC 'center plug' or 'hemi' head .... at eth same HP and displacement... is one... less wear tho?

Theoritically yes, as the "HEMI" head fires in the center and the wedge fires at the side thus loading one side of the piston more which equals more wear, ala SBC.

[BadAssPerformance]

Theoritically yes, as the "HEMI" head fires in the center and the wedge fires at the side thus loading one side of the piston more which equals more wear, ala SBC.

Not a diect comparison to a SBC as the "V" changes the geometry... more like... a /6

but it kinda does have to fire from the side on the SOHC cuz the cam is in the way, LOL!

[chilort]

Most of the bearing wear is due to the mass and speed of the rotating assembly. Combustion pressures aren't near as significant as the mass you are slinging around. With rings, you're exploding the same of pretty much everything regardless of head configuration. I'd call 'em even.

If there is something that makes one more reliable than other, then it is something we are totally overlooking in the entire discussion so far. Flame travel is probably the closest to one of those things though.

[moparzrule]

I respectfully disagree. N/A yes, turbo, no.


I've driven my van with both engines and no way in hell the 8 valve made more low rpm power. This new combo decimates it.

Simon you never had a proper cal for your 2.5L 8 valve. It's not a fair comparison at all. You said your G headed 2.5 was a dog, well no wonder cuz from the cal I got from Rob I added over 20 degree's of timing advance in the part throttle table until I got it where I wanted it! I also thought the engine was kinda doggish before boost, but then when I started doing my own cal's and it was night and day!
I had just started doing my own cal's when you ditched your 8 valver. I wish I could have sent you a cal once I had gotten it tuned. I've sent my G head cal's to a few people now, and everyone of them was like ''holy $hit!'' what a difference! No more traction!

[turbovanman²]

Not a diect comparison to a SBC as the "V" changes the geometry... more like... a /6

but it kinda does have to fire from the side on the SOHC cuz the cam is in the way, LOL!

The V is not the issue, lol, the spark plug is angled like our 8 valve engines, it loads up one side of the bore/piston like our 8 valves and causes more wear on the thrust side.

[thefitisgay]

my friend explaned it to me... he was having trouble with his harley he built the thing so fast he couldnt keep the motor together for more than like 6 months... the piston pin rings kept popping out and chewing everything up so he switched to teflon buttons and it rean for lik 2 years so he tore it down to see how it was inside and he said the button on the side of the piston opposite the plug was half as thick and the one on the ame side of the plug was like brand new still

dual plugs ftw! lets punch some extra plug holes in our heads lol

[8valves]

Simon you never had a proper cal for your 2.5L 8 valve. It's not a fair comparison at all. You said your G headed 2.5 was a dog, well no wonder cuz from the cal I got from Rob I added over 20 degree's of timing advance in the part throttle table until I got it where I wanted it! I also thought the engine was kinda doggish before boost, but then when I started doing my own cal's and it was night and day!
I had just started doing my own cal's when you ditched your 8 valver. I wish I could have sent you a cal once I had gotten it tuned. I've sent my G head cal's to a few people now, and everyone of them was like ''holy $hit!'' what a difference! No more traction!

Big time point there.

Just for fun to spark some energy around here, how many people ACTUALLY make 400HP, hell 500HP on a 16V motor? Hmmm... still trying to count. How many of them are at only 20 psi? Hmmm....

[moparzrule]

LOL, you know I just realized what the poll's question was. It's asking which will have more wear, I thought it was asking the opposite for some reason. Anyway, I voted for the 8 valve...meant to vote for 16 obviously.

[BadAssPerformance]

Big time point there.

Just for fun to spark some energy around here, how many people ACTUALLY make 400HP, hell 500HP on a 16V motor? Hmmm... still trying to count. How many of them are at only 20 psi? Hmmm....

now that you mention it... not a direct comparisson, but, my 2.2L 8v (race ported big valve head) and 2.4L 16V (stock head) both ran 120mph in the 1/4 at 24psi (same turbo)... but no idea on wear...

[amoparacer]

It's very funny that the fence sitters graph bar is yellow. Kind of like being an Independant registered voter you can waffle to ether side with not clear cut moral bearing.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[chilort]

There needs to be 4 categories.

C. All things being equal, all things will be equal.
D. People that like to vote and don't really know.

I wish I could change my vote now. I'd vote for the 16v having more wear. There's twice as many of every valve train part to wear out! Rod and main bearings I would predict ZERO difference.

[8valves]

now that you mention it... not a direct comparisson, but, my 2.2L 8v (race ported big valve head) and 2.4L 16V (stock head) both ran 120mph in the 1/4 at 24psi (same turbo)... but no idea on wear...

Exactly. I keep seeing people "upgrading" from a ported 8V setup to a stock head, log manifold, stockish intake 16V and making the same power at the same boost they would have, had they stuck with it before.

Look how quick Slowe's car is running at way less boost going from a stockish 16V top end to a well sorted top end 16V setup. There is the key... and few people actually go that route for some reason. :confused2:

That's why any time anyone ever brings it up I would be outraged if I put together a 16V setup and the thing didn't accidently make 500 whp. Then again, I wouldn't put one together with stock cams and a stock head either! But I suppose you've got to start somewhere, espescially when it's afirst time venture.

[turbovanman²]

Simon you never had a proper cal for your 2.5L 8 valve. It's not a fair comparison at all. You said your G headed 2.5 was a dog, well no wonder cuz from the cal I got from Rob I added over 20 degree's of timing advance in the part throttle table until I got it where I wanted it! I also thought the engine was kinda doggish before boost, but then when I started doing my own cal's and it was night and day!
I had just started doing my own cal's when you ditched your 8 valver. I wish I could have sent you a cal once I had gotten it tuned. I've sent my G head cal's to a few people now, and everyone of them was like ''holy $hit!'' what a difference! No more traction!

I should have clarified, my swirl setup.


Big time point there.

Just for fun to spark some energy around here, how many people ACTUALLY make 400HP, hell 500HP on a 16V motor? Hmmm... still trying to count. How many of them are at only 20 psi? Hmmm....

20 psi was a number I threw out, just like 500 whp and 30 psi.

There are a few high HP 16 valvers, and a few 8 valvers.

[4cefedomni]

I intend to add one more to the list of high HP 8valvers:P
Rob called me today about getting it align bored for the new mains $700:eek:

[Pat]

8v or 16v makes no difference. It's all in what rpm band you set your motor up to make more power. Do you rev the ---- out of it or do you go with insane low rpm cylinder pressure to make it a low rpm stump puller? My guess is that high rpm screamers are harder on the rings, the oiling system, top end, etc where low rpm torque monsters beat the hell out of rod bearings, pop headgaskets and are more prone to detonation which would eat pistons.

Tune, head prep, head flow, runner length, compression ratios, cams, manifolds, turbos, etc, those are the better questions.

[moparzrule]

OK seems everyone admits that higher RPM's equals more wear, thats good because it's true. So why exactly is no one admitting that the 16v is going to be turning higher RPM's? This is pretty much common sense here. If the 8 valve needs 10 more PSI to make the same HP as the 16 valve, than it's quite apparent the 8 valve is less efficient. Less efficient means it will make it's peak HP at a lower RPM.

[Pat]

OK seems everyone admits that higher RPM's equals more wear, thats good because it's true. So why exactly is no one admitting that the 16v is going to be turning higher RPM's? This is pretty much common sense here. If the 8 valve needs 10 more PSI to make the same HP as the 16 valve, than it's quite apparent the 8 valve is less efficient. Less efficient means it will make it's peak HP at a lower RPM.


Not always...I'm not spinning my stock headed/manifolded 16v any higher than you spin your modified 8v. I'm shifting it at about 67-6800 or so.

[8valves]

OK seems everyone admits that higher RPM's equals more wear, thats good because it's true. So why exactly is no one admitting that the 16v is going to be turning higher RPM's? This is pretty much common sense here. If the 8 valve needs 10 more PSI to make the same HP as the 16 valve, than it's quite apparent the 8 valve is less efficient. Less efficient means it will make it's peak HP at a lower RPM.

If that were the golden rule then all SRT4's should be zipping to 8K+. But they're not.

[8valves]

I intend to add one more to the list of high HP 8valvers:P
Rob called me today about getting it align bored for the new mains $700:eek:

:confused: Time to find a new machinist.

[t3rse]

There needs to be 4 categories.

C. All things being equal, all things will be equal.
D. People that like to vote and don't really know.

I wish I could change my vote now. I'd vote for the 16v having more wear. There's twice as many of every valve train part to wear out! Rod and main bearings I would predict ZERO difference.

This thread is about as scientific as saying there is a magical cam advance number that will gain you 20 hp...maybe a lot of good speculation, but not any fact...that's why there is no need for D, because everyone falls under that category.

[contraption22]

As stated many times above, I think the only increased "wear" on the 8v would be to the turbocharger itself.

But also take this into consideration. With the lower boost pressure required to achieve the same HP goal with a 16v setup, you will also need less charge-air cooling capacity, as well as less turbine backpressure.

[88_pacifica]

Well, to be perfectly technical, and I mean totally technical, here's the proper answer:

The 16V will have more wear because of nothing more than the fact that it has more moving parts. More moving parts= more wear, plain and simple. Done...

[t3rse]

but will it "wear out" faster?

[Shadow]

As stated many times above, I think the only increased "wear" on the 8v would be to the turbocharger itself.

I have to dissagree with this, after 2 years of running 35-38psi with the 57 trim it was tight as the day I put it on. As long as you maintain a turbo properly it will operate fine. (assuming said turbo is ment to operate in the proposed PR and NOT a missmatch for your build)

[karlak]

Whichever one I own is the one that will wear out fastest........

[moparzrule]

Not always...I'm not spinning my stock headed/manifolded 16v any higher than you spin your modified 8v. I'm shifting it at about 67-6800 or so.

We aren't talking about 2 seperate engines with different setups making different power. Apples and oranges there...

[moparzrule]

I should have clarified, my swirl setup.

.

What cal did you have? I've added 10 degree's to the swirl cal, still made a huge difference. IMO my 2.5 had V8 torque, and I know V8 torque my first car had a 440!

[turbovanman²]

OK seems everyone admits that higher RPM's equals more wear, thats good because it's true. So why exactly is no one admitting that the 16v is going to be turning higher RPM's? This is pretty much common sense here. If the 8 valve needs 10 more PSI to make the same HP as the 16 valve, than it's quite apparent the 8 valve is less efficient. Less efficient means it will make it's peak HP at a lower RPM.

Again, no, I've stated that as have others.


:confused: Time to find a new machinist.

He has to make a jig as they have to bore it, not just hone. Not many around here have the jigs for that.


We aren't talking about 2 seperate engines with different setups making different power. Apples and oranges there...

No we are not, we are talking about 2 different setups making the SAME power.


What cal did you have? I've added 10 degree's to the swirl cal, still made a huge difference. IMO my 2.5 had V8 torque, and I know V8 torque my first car had a 440!

Had a Paul V cal and a Shelgame cal. AGain, absolutely no comparision, I barely need to spin the TIII 99% of the time or run more than 10 psi, it has enough power for a DD.

[Pat]

We aren't talking about 2 seperate engines with different setups making different power. Apples and oranges there...


I'm not sure I understand what your saying.

[contraption22]

I have to dissagree with this, after 2 years of running 35-38psi with the 57 trim it was tight as the day I put it on. As long as you maintain a turbo properly it will operate fine. (assuming said turbo is ment to operate in the proposed PR and NOT a missmatch for your build)

Thats cool, and it may last forever, but the fact of the matter is that backpressure is really the only major strain on a turbocharger.

[moparzrule]

No we are not, we are talking about 2 different setups making the SAME power.




I'm not sure I understand what your saying.

Pat you made a reference to YOUR personal engine compared to MINE, saying about how your stock head 16v only rev's as high as my 8 valve. Thats NOT the engines in question we are comparing in this thread, so it's an apples and oranges comparison.

[turbovanman²]

We can argue until we are blue in the face that 8valve is better than 16 valve and vice versa but I'll leave it at this-how much time, money, tuning did it take to get a high hp 8 valve vs a stock or mild TIII/Neon head making the same or more power?

Extremepickup is making over 400 whp with minor bolt on's with his TIII.

Mine should make 450 with a mild ported head and ex manny, large plenum intake and my turbo, that won't happen with an 8 valve.

Has anyone made 500 whp besides SMP? and who can forget Larry's TIII that made 500 whp with a cal, turbo and IC?? NO 8 valve can boast that, :nod:

Now I just opened up a whole new can of worms, hehehhehehe, :evil:

[moparzrule]

We can argue until we are blue in the face that 8valve is better than 16 valve and vice versa but I'll leave it at this-how much time, money, tuning did it take to get a high hp 8 valve vs a stock or mild TIII/Neon head making the same or more power?

Extremepickup is making over 400 whp with minor bolt on's with his TIII.

Mine should make 450 with a mild ported head and ex manny, large plenum intake and my turbo, that won't happen with an 8 valve.

Has anyone made 500 whp besides SMP? and who can forget Larry's TIII that made 500 whp with a cal, turbo and IC?? NO 8 valve can boast that, :nod:

Now I just opened up a whole new can of worms, hehehhehehe, :evil:

Absolutely everything you just said was never part of the original discussion/thread topic.

[moparzrule]

Simon would rather ride this than a turbo dodge with an 8 valve

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/toiletbike1.jpg

[moparzrule]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/BT-pinata-gallery-32101-1.jpg

[turbovanman²]

Absolutely everything you just said was never part of the original discussion/thread topic.


Read the last sentence in my post.

[moparzrule]

Read the last sentence in my post.

Your last sentence still has nothing to do with the original thread topic :D

[Pat]

Pat you made a reference to YOUR personal engine compared to MINE, saying about how your stock head 16v only rev's as high as my 8 valve. Thats NOT the engines in question we are comparing in this thread, so it's an apples and oranges comparison.

No need to shout...

You said in an earlier post "So why exactly is no one admitting that the 16v is going to be turning higher RPM's? This is pretty much common sense here."

I was simply using our motors as examples of how it's the set up of the motor and not necessarily the number of valves that dictate the rpm band an engine is efficient.

[moparzrule]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/BT-dysentery-gallery-8451-1.jpg

[moparzrule]

No need to shout...
.

Wasn't shouting, was just using caps to emphasize.

[turbovanman²]

Your last sentence still has nothing to do with the original thread topic :D

And thats why I said what I said, I opened up another debate and thats why I said what I said.

As for me not wanting to drive an 8 valve, you couldn't be further from the truth, I did drive one for 4 years but the sheer mass and goals of my van would have me spending a ton of money to get what I wanted, the TIII was and is an easier route.

If I had a gutted van, or an Omni, Shadow, I would most likely stick with an 8 valve.

[turbovanman²]

Wasn't shouting, was just using caps to emphasize.

Caps are considered shouting, ;)

[moparzrule]

Caps are considered shouting, ;)

If you caps an entire sentence I would consider that shouting....but whatever.

[moparzrule]

And thats why I said what I said, I opened up another debate and thats why I said what I said.

As for me not wanting to drive an 8 valve, you couldn't be further from the truth, I did drive one for 4 years but the sheer mass and goals of my van would have me spending a ton of money to get what I wanted, the TIII was and is an easier route.

If I had a gutted van, or an Omni, Shadow, I would most likely stick with an 8 valve.

I was just screwing with you when I posted the toilet bike. Trying to bring a few laughs into a retarded thread that has no point other than once again try to prove that the 16 valve is far superior to the 8 valve in every way shape and form. :blah:

[moparzrule]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/BodyOfAGod_Fullpic_11.gif

[moparzrule]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/BT-mesohorny-gallery-7181-1.jpg

[turbovanman²]

that the 16 valve is far superior to the 8 valve in every way shape and form.

I am sooooo glad you've seen the light, ;) :nod:

[moparzrule]

I am sooooo glad you've seen the light, ;) :nod:


LOL. Trust me I would never make a stupid argument like the 8 valve could make as much power as a 16 valve all things being equal, but the thing is question is the wear factor. More RPM's equals more wear. Your argument is that you have to be in that high of RPM's all the time....yeah I dunno how you drive but if I had 500 HP on tap whether it would be 8 valve or 16 I'd be there at the peak HP a lot :thumb::thumb::thumb:

[moparzrule]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/spider21.jpg

[moparzrule]

Thanks for helping me up my post count simon :p

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/1188703855326my41.gif

[moparzrule]

Come on simon you know you want to try this-
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m216/87wagon/fire1.gif

[86Shelby]

I'm Not Shouting!!! My Keyboard Is Broken. :(

They'll Wear About The Same, Niether Will Have A Long Life At Those Levels.

EDIT: THAT'S NICE, IT'S NO LONGER ALL CAPS ONCE I POST.:thumb:

EDIT2: OH NOW WTF???

[Shadow]

Thats cool, and it may last forever, but the fact of the matter is that backpressure is really the only major strain on a turbocharger.

As far as I know, choking a turbo or surging a turbo are the two major strains, other than stupid ones like out of balance, hot shutdowns, lack of lub ect. Is that what you mean by backpreasure? Enough preasure coming back on the compressor wheel to make it surge. That will only happen if the wheel is being used in an application that it shouldn't be. (bad match for the engine)
Crap, that prob happens all the time! lol Should have just posted.....Agreed! :lol:

[gasketmaster]

LOL. Trust me I would never make a stupid argument like the 8 valve could make as much power as a 16 valve all things being equal, but the thing is question is the wear factor. More RPM's equals more wear. Your argument is that you have to be in that high of RPM's all the time....yeah I dunno how you drive but if I had 500 HP on tap whether it would be 8 valve or 16 I'd be there at the peak HP a lot :thumb::thumb::thumb:


I think they are just saying you don't NEED to spin the 16 valve high rpm to make 500 whp ;)

That fact that it WILL spin the higher rpm is simply a bonus :thumb:

Ah crap.......I guess I'm yelling :p

This thread lets me know the race tracks are all closed for the winter! LOL!

January & February's topics should be really great :D

[cordes]

I think they are just saying you don't NEED to spin the 16 valve high rpm to make 500 whp ;)

That fact that it WILL spin the higher rpm is simply a bonus :thumb:

Ah crap.......I guess I'm yelling :p

This thread lets me know the race tracks are all closed for the winter! LOL!

January & February's topics should be really great :D

I laughed. :thumb:

[turbovanman²]

I think they are just saying you don't NEED to spin the 16 valve high rpm to make 500 whp ;)

That fact that it WILL spin the higher rpm is simply a bonus :thumb:

Ah crap.......I guess I'm yelling :p

This thread lets me know the race tracks are all closed for the winter! LOL!

January & February's topics should be really great :D

YOU'RE NOT YELLING!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol:

[Shadow]

YOU'RE NOT YELLING!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol:

Why are you yelling Simon?:confused2:

[Shadow]

Has anyone made 500 whp besides SMP?

If I recollect Stephan made 513hp on an engine dyno with the 8v. I only ever heard him chassis dyno the 16v. After I dyno'd 480WHP (around 560 crank HP) I turned the boost a little higher just to see how next season is going to go, but no time this year to dyno again. Let's just say that I don't think 500WHP is far off. :thumb:

[moparzrule]

If I recollect Stephan made 513hp on an engine dyno with the 8v. I only ever heard him chassis dyno the 16v. After I dyno'd 480WHP (around 560 crank HP) I turned the boost a little higher just to see how next season is going to go, but no time this year to dyno again. Let's just say that I don't think 500WHP is far off. :thumb:

SMP is stephane B.

[Shadow]

SMP is stephane B.

You sir are correct!

[turbovanman²]

If I recollect Stephan made 513hp on an engine dyno with the 8v. I only ever heard him chassis dyno the 16v. After I dyno'd 480WHP (around 560 crank HP) I turned the boost a little higher just to see how next season is going to go, but no time this year to dyno again. Let's just say that I don't think 500WHP is far off. :thumb:

I figured Stephane made 500 whp, I guess not.

Very impressive on your end, I guess you'll be the first!! :nod:

[Shadow]

I figured Stephane made 500 whp, I guess not.

Very impressive on your end, I guess you'll be the first!! :nod:

Weather I'll be the first or not, I couldn't say. MAYBE the first all turbo gas 500whp? It's already been done on nitrous. I'm also not saying that Stephane didn't/couldn't do it either, it was more of a Q. The last I heard was 513 on an engine dyno with the 8v. Then he went 16v and blew everything out of the water! That's also when I started hearing his #'s in WHP, 880whp is the last thing I heard on the 16v. Either way, there must be at least a few getting close, cause my build is still very limited in my eye's. The parts and knowlege are out there to put together a reliable 500whp @ 28-30psi 8v which would be a sold 425whp on pump gas. Who knows, with one of the new BW turbo's it might be 500whp @ 25psi ON pump! :)

[8valves]

Weather I'll be the first or not, I couldn't say. MAYBE the first all turbo gas 500whp? It's already been done on nitrous. I'm also not saying that Stephane didn't/couldn't do it either, it was more of a Q. The last I heard was 513 on an engine dyno with the 8v. Then he went 16v and blew everything out of the water! That's also when I started hearing his #'s in WHP, 880whp is the last thing I heard on the 16v. Either way, there must be at least a few getting close, cause my build is still very limited in my eye's. The parts and knowlege are out there to put together a reliable 500whp @ 28-30psi 8v which would be a sold 425whp on pump gas. Who knows, with one of the new BW turbo's it might be 500whp @ 25psi ON pump! :)

Oh, it's certainly possible. :eyebrows:

[The Pope]

on the ware issue everything being the same the 16v should ware faster at the same HP level for the same reason a cummins last so long. Breaks down into simple RPMs. An engine twisting over 8,000 RPM all the time is going to ware faster than one twisting 6,000. The constant higher RPM also creates more flex in the engine and vibration. All apples to apples, not a long rod 2.2 16v vs a short rod 2.5 8v. An easy physic's question.

Shadow should still have another 10% (ish) more flow he can use in his intake and a big valve head will soke that up. So Shadow getting over 500 WHP is a short mod away. A plus 1 valve head is near the 17% range for flow and the lower piece welded and polished is in the 25% range and a big valve gets a little over 30% more flow. So maxxing Shadows intake with a big valve is going to do it. But I think he wants to make 500 WHP with a +1 valve head to make a record lol.

[Directconnection]

on the ware issue everything being the same the 16v should ware faster at the same HP level for the same reason a cummins last so long. Breaks down into simple RPMs. An engine twisting over 8,000 RPM all the time is going to ware faster than one twisting 6,000. The constant higher RPM also creates more flex in the engine and vibration. All apples to apples

Not apples to apples.

It ALL has to do with engine design. For example: a high revving Honda engine easily lasts 200,000+ miles.... yet many a larger stroke/small bore 4-cylinder engines have troubles making it past 140,000.

High revving engines are designed to run those rpms due to reciprocating geometries, light weight components, etc... and it is not hard on them to do so.

Are Harley's notorious for outlasting their Japanese high rpm capability counterparts?

[badandy]

I voted 16v for more wear simply because more rotational mass and more moving parts ='s more friction.

The parts that actually take the brunt of the punishment (pistons/rings/bearings) are going to wear the same no matter how many valves or what the boost level providing each combination is optimized in timing and fuel.

Aside from all of the other reasoning...8v is definately more reliable if you compare the Chrysler 2.2/2.5 family of engines.

[puppet]

It ALL has to do with engine design. Bang on. Like the AUX/oil pump shaft sprocket change for the 16v from the 8v size. A design change that makes the shaft spin 27% faster ... and more than a few 16v'ers have gone down with oil pump issues.

[Shadow]

So maxxing Shadows intake with a big valve is going to do it. But I think he wants to make 500 WHP with a +1 valve head to make a record lol.

I can count at least 5 different ways I could go to top 500WHP from where I am now. 1. Turn up the boost
2. swap in a FWD F4 cam, or S3, or Simon's S60 roller.
3. Build a header
4. big valve fully ported head (as mentioned above)
5. Possibly just retard the stock cam and let it breath up top.
Here's the deal, and this is also the part where I prove this is not a total thread jacking. I have a non-CB 2.2 that has been making over 400whp for 3 full seasons without touching(or even looking at) the bottom end. I've buzzed it to 7000 too many times to count, broke rockers, spit rockers and replaced 1 HG and it doesn't show any sighns (gauge and monitoring wise) of slowing down. Now don't think for one second that I haven't wondered the same thing most of you have wondered......HOW? After all, I've gotta be getting close to the edge! (prob sitting right on it now) What is it about this combo that keeps it alive and happy? The more I think about it, the more I lean towards my powerband with the stock cam. 480whp @ 5900rpm and by 6300rpm I loose what, 8hp? I really believe that a cam is my next move because I don't want to just do it by turning up the boost, but by moving my PB that far up......will that be it's demise?(see, told you this would play into the thread) Only time will tell, but the big valve head idea is something I hadn't thought about before. Lot of work for 20whp though, specially when I know I could do it right now with no other change but boost. Lucky I have all winter to think about it!:nod:

[bakes]

I can count at least 5 different ways I could go to top 500WHP from where I am now. 1. Turn up the boost
2. swap in a FWD F4 cam, or S3, or Simon's S60 roller.
3. Build a header
4. big valve fully ported head (as mentioned above)
5. Possibly just retard the stock cam and let it breath up top.
Here's the deal, and this is also the part where I prove this is not a total thread jacking. I have a non-CB 2.2 that has been making over 400whp for 3 full seasons without touching(or even looking at) the bottom end. I've buzzed it to 7000 too many times to count, broke rockers, spit rockers and replaced 1 HG and it doesn't show any signs (gauge and monitoring wise) of slowing down. Now don't think for one second that I haven't wondered the same thing most of you have wondered......HOW? After all, I've gotta be getting close to the edge! (prob sitting right on it now) What is it about this combo that keeps it alive and happy? The more I think about it, the more I lean towards my power band with the stock cam. 480whp @ 5900rpm and by 6300rpm I loose what, 8hp? I really believe that a cam is my next move because I don't want to just do it by turning up the boost, but by moving my PB that far up......will that be it's demise?(see, told you this would play into the thread) Only time will tell, but the big valve head idea is something I hadn't thought about before. Lot of work for 20whp though, specially when I know I could do it right now with no other change but boost. Lucky I have all winter to think about it!:nod:

i would go option 2.3.4. with boost being the last thing .

[GLHNSLHT2]

For example: a high revving Honda engine easily lasts 200,000+ miles....

HAHHAHAH I see tons of Civic's here with oil blow by out the exhaust. More so than the 3.0 V6 cars cruising around. It might last but it'll suck a quart of oil every 500 miles for the last 100k miles of it's life. Reliable my a$$

[Shadow]

i would go option 2.3.4. with boost being the last thing .

I was going to pick ONE of the five. lol If I do 2.3.4. I'll be pushing 600WHP and my bottom end will vaporize! (or did you mean 2 or 3 or 4?)

[bakes]

I was going to pick ONE of the five. lol If I do 2.3.4. I'll be pushing 600WHP and my bottom end will vaporize! (or did you mean 2 or 3 or 4?)

You can do all 3 at once if you want to beat Simon at the carnage game !!!!LOL:eyebrows:

always one thing at a time

[Directconnection]

HAHHAHAH I see tons of Civic's here with oil blow by out the exhaust. More so than the 3.0 V6 cars cruising around. It might last but it'll suck a quart of oil every 500 miles for the last 100k miles of it's life. Reliable my a$$


Hey... I have one of those 3.0 V6 cars belching out blue smoke! It has only 146,000 on it, too. So I just stuck a stick in your spokes!

I am sure the 3.0 had been neglected as ANY engine should go much longer than 146k before belching blue smoke.

I HATE Hondas, but cannot dismiss their reliability having owned many Honda 4-stroke dirtbikes over the years.

But my point is: 6,000 rpms is NOT 6,000 rpms. 6,000 rpms on a Harley = Ka-boom! 6,000 rpms on a rice rocket is just off idle and "tractoring" as we call it.

[GLHNSLHT2]

Honda makes great bikes. But they need to stick to that and lawnmowers. Well wait, My g/f had a Honda mower, Gutless POS that wouldn't cut more than an inch of grass. Her John Deere that barely turned any rpm would kill that Honda to bits. And you're basing your opinion of a completely different type of vehicle? Come On.

I've been in both 3.0 v6 mopars and Honda cars. I'd take the mopar any day. My mom just got rid of her 89 acclaim. No smoke at all and had over 150k and is still going strong in the family. But if I look for 3.0 V6's around here vs. the Honda's there's way more honda's smoking that are fairly new vs 3.0 V6's and that's what I was saying. So you really didn't stick a stick in my spokes at all.

[Directconnection]

In all honesty... I've only noticed ONE Honda that smoked...and it was a beat ricer.

A fat kid that used to work with us went through cars faster than most do with toilet paper. Seriously, he had a different car every 2-3 months as he BEAT the snot out of them. Always showing off and floating the valves... burnouts every time he left work, etc. This poor 200+k 198x Honda had a leaking radiator and it poured out as he was filling it. He'd run the rad on empty as it would be drained after just 5 minutes. Couldn't kill the friggin thing. Poor car... was a POS... Some oher kids up north of me had a stock 1.8 Honda on my friend's dyno. Home brewed turbocharged setup that made 240whp on a 200k mile engine. I was grimacing on every 7,500-8,000 rpm pull waiting for it to explode. Never did...

I still hate hondas..... just saying one shouldn't crap on them because they definately do not make bad engines.

[turbovanman²]

I have to agree with Steve, I see tons of Honda's running around without issues if they are maintained.

[chilort]

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC WARNING:
I have 5 friends that are engineers at Honda. They drive their Hondas to work and all talk about how great Honda is. BUT, each one of them owns at least 1 American car. I've pointed this out to them before, it is kind of funny to watch. Implicitly, they hate Honda, but to reduce their cognitive dissonance caused by working for Honda, they all own one, drive it to work, and talk about how good their group or department is.

[Directconnection]

Just so you know, Jay... I do *LOVE* seeing/hearing about Hondas not being what they are all cracked up to be. But it sucks when all I see are positive results.

Ex: the fat kind that used to work with me... he brought in a 200k+ top end into the shop as he thought he was going to port it, etc, and swap it with his current one. The cam and bearing surfaces in the head looked like NEW! No scratches, gouging, burning, or wear. I was pissed about it... but what can you do? Look at any 2.2 head and they are... well... you know.

To get back onto topic: I think this thread should be changed from "engine-wear" to which one will frig up 1st? 8v T-II or T-III? We know the answer to that one ;-)

[86Shelby]

To get back onto topic: I think this thread should be changed from "engine-wear" to which one will frig up 1st? 8v T-II or T-III? We know the answer to that one ;-)

Yeah, those T-IIs can only aspire to be as reliable as the T-IIIs.:thumb:




*That said, I have gone through 3 headgaskets in 11 months on my TIII

[puppet]

Yeah, those T-IIs can only aspire to be as reliable as the T-IIIs.:thumb:




*That said, I have gone through 3 headgaskets in 11 months on my TIII
Bet you've got the replacement down to a half hour now :P

[rbryant]

Would a narrow power band from the 8V also make things more likely to break?

With the 8V the power band is pretty narrow and it seems like the engine would require more shifts, have more drastic surges in power throughout the band, when peaking, etc.

I haven't thought about it much or had experience with it yet just something that came to mind because the torque curve can never be as flat on the 8V as it is on the 16V.

-Rich

[The Pope]

AND back to what I said, apples to apples. A Dodge 2.2 will last longer at a slightly lower RPM with the same power. If you run a Neon head, lotus head or Cosi or an 8v isn't part of the question. Because the question is towards the bottom end.

With Shadow, I vote for the head before the cam. At 40 PSI the engine isn't going to like overlap with a stock exhaust manifold. Wait for a header for a big cam, biggest cam I would run is a no duration higher lift F2. But all of the big breathing cams need some type of header.

As for the Honda junk. Of course they last a long time, there is another pretty simple physic's question. Zero engine torque and 3" wide 80 series tires put almost no stress on the car anywhere. You take real good care of a car with zero stress and it'll run forever. An 83.5' SC makes as much torque as an S2000 and for a longer power band. You add boost to a Honda and the thing is ready to blow.

Even the Honda example brings to light the main part of the thread. Stress on the bottom end will cause it not to last as long. But in the TD case the torque is off the map. So add the RPM range of a Honda NA and over 4 times the torque level at the same time. The 8v has a strong mid range, better street engine in my opinion. A thread like this must not be asking about a drag engine, but a street engine. In a drag engine a higher RPM is nice for the end of the track.

[The Pope]

Would a narrow power band from the 8V also make things more likely to break?

With the 8V the power band is pretty narrow and it seems like the engine would require more shifts, have more drastic surges in power throughout the band, when peaking, etc.

I haven't thought about it much or had experience with it yet just something that came to mind because the torque curve can never be as flat on the 8V as it is on the 16V.

-Rich

basically everything you said was the opposite of what happens.

Narrow band has a lower stress run.

higher RPM bang shifts are harder on the drivetrain than low RPM shifts.

My dyno slips are flat as a board with an 8v and they are sharp as a knife on most 16v dyno slips. Normally a 16v flows more than what there CID can handle. So they run best above 4,000 RPM. Much like full race heads on a low compression V8, bog down low. A reason VTEC even exists. A well built 8v should start making power 2,000 RPM sooner and stop making power 2,000 RPM sooner. GLHNSLHT2's Daytona is an example of massive mid range. With the ported head, header and large plenum 2 piece and 58mm TB the engine is building boost hard at 1,400 and ends around 6,500. Long and broad with tons down low. Also built around a 2.5 and S60 turbo. The same type of build in 16v would rev 8,000 RPM and start really building boost around 3,500.

[turbovanman²]

My dyno slips are flat as a board with an 8v and they are sharp as a knife on most 16v dyno slips. Normally a 16v flows more than what there CID can handle. So they run best above 4,000 RPM. Much like full race heads on a low compression V8, bog down low. A reason VTEC even exists. A well built 8v should start making power 2,000 RPM sooner and stop making power 2,000 RPM sooner. GLHNSLHT2's Daytona is an example of massive mid range. With the ported head, header and large plenum 2 piece and 58mm TB the engine is building boost hard at 1,400 and ends around 6,500. Long and broad with tons down low. Also built around a 2.5 and S60 turbo. The same type of build in 16v would rev 8,000 RPM and start really building boost around 3,500.

I said it earlier and I totally disagree. In N/A form, 16 valve motors suffer from low end torque due to bad port velocity but add a turbo and there is no way an 8 valve can make more torque down low.

My TIII has so much power down low, its stupid, and it easily spools a Stage III turbine where my 8 valve had issues. I just advanced my cam timing and its like a tractor off idle, gobs of power, and the midrange, :wow1:

I've been driving my Jimmy for a few days and I you forget how fast your car/van is, I've had to beat the snot out of it to merge, whereas the van, just gently push the gas pedal and hold on, :nod:

[moparzrule]

Simon, I see your point here is to say that as a daily driver you don't have to rev it...thats fine I understand that. But would you agree that the 16 valve with 500 HP will make PEAK hp at a higher RPM than the 8 valve with 500?
So yeah I understand that as a daily driver and you just putt around with it and never get into it, the 16v would probably last longer. But again as I said earlier, if I had 500 HP on tap I am going to use it....which means taking it to peak HP pretty often. So if peak is higher with a 16v that means you are revving it higher. Higher RPM's equals more wear.
We already know that the 16v makes more power, thats evident just by admitting that it would take 30 PSI to make the same power as the 16v on 20 PSI.

[turbovanman²]

Simon, I see your point here is to say that as a daily driver you don't have to rev it...thats fine I understand that. But would you agree that the 16 valve with 500 HP will make PEAK hp at a higher RPM than the 8 valve with 500?
So yeah I understand that as a daily driver and you just putt around with it and never get into it, the 16v would probably last longer. But again as I said earlier, if I had 500 HP on tap I am going to use it....which means taking it to peak HP pretty often. So if peak is higher with a 16v that means you are revving it higher. Higher RPM's equals more wear.
We already know that the 16v makes more power, thats evident just by admitting that it would take 30 PSI to make the same power as the 16v on 20 PSI.

Who said they weren't daily drivers? ;)

Seriously though, you still don't need to make a 16 valve rev and if you do, the valve train is alot more stable than the 8 valve. The factory rev limiter on a TIII is what, 6500??, thats not much higher than a 8 valve. As for a SRT setup, those engines aren't wearing out prematurely.

[rbryant]

Narrow band has a lower stress run.



Only due to less overall power... The narrow power band is also peaky so it will be on again off again more than the 16V which is often what breaks things.




higher RPM bang shifts are harder on the drivetrain than low RPM shifts.



Isn't RPM all relative to the gearing? I suppose if you regear then the speed gears and synchros see the RPMs but the axles, etc don't. Either way if all things are equal then is it even fair to talk about running the engines at different RPMs or should we keep that constant between the 8V and 16V?




My dyno slips are flat as a board with an 8v and they are sharp as a knife on most 16v dyno slips. Normally a 16v flows more than what there CID can handle. So they run best above 4,000 RPM. Much like full race heads on a low compression V8, bog down low. A reason VTEC even exists. A well built 8v should start making power 2,000 RPM sooner and stop making power 2,000 RPM sooner. GLHNSLHT2's Daytona is an example of massive mid range. With the ported head, header and large plenum 2 piece and 58mm TB the engine is building boost hard at 1,400 and ends around 6,500. Long and broad with tons down low. Also built around a 2.5 and S60 turbo. The same type of build in 16v would rev 8,000 RPM and start really building boost around 3,500.

Overall the more torque you make the more things will break. The 16V will make more torque so it will break more things.

The issue is that we said all else is equal so we have to assume that the peak torque numbers are the same for this discussion. Then the only difference is how the torque curve looks.

Even if the 16V flows more than bottom end can make at low RPMs it will still be equal to the 8V until it reaches the higher RPMs...

So over the same RPM range the 16V power will be equal or higher than the 8V (higher if the same dollar for dollar modifications are made) and then higher atfter the 8V shift point.

If someone still shifts the 16V at 6k-6.5k then I don't see how your example applies.

Plus this is then an apples to oranges comparison because we are pushing the 16V beyond the 8V capabilities. To keep things even we have to run them through the same conditions.

-Rich

[moparzrule]

If someone still shifts the 16V at 6k-6.5k then I don't see how your example applies.


OK well if you want to make it apples to apples you should be shifting the 8 valve at a thousand RPM lower than where it makes it's peak HP too :rolleyes:


Simon the stock rev limiter on the 16v is 6700, 8 valve is 6200. But I don't understand why you guys keep talking about a STOCK 16 valve compared to a highly modded 8 valve. A 500 HP 16 valve is going to making peak HP above 6700, thats probably about where the 8 valve will make peak actually. YOU guys are the ones not comparing apples to apples here. Both engines making 500 HP the 16 valve WILL make peak HP at a higher RPM. So if you never take the 16 valve to it's peak, than you have to do the same with the 8 valve to make an apples to apples comparison. So since the 8 valve peaks lower, that means less RPM's which means less wear.

[rbryant]

OK well if you want to make it apples to apples you should be shifting the 8 valve at a thousand RPM lower than where it makes it's peak HP too :rolleyes:


Simon the stock rev limiter on the 16v is 6700, 8 valve is 6200. But I don't understand why you guys keep talking about a STOCK 16 valve compared to a highly modded 8 valve. A 500 HP 16 valve is going to making peak HP above 6700, thats probably about where the 8 valve will make peak actually. YOU guys are the ones not comparing apples to apples here. Both engines making 500 HP the 16 valve WILL make peak HP at a higher RPM. So if you never take the 16 valve to it's peak, than you have to do the same with the 8 valve to make an apples to apples comparison. So since the 8 valve peaks lower, that means less RPM's which means less wear.

Is there even such a thing as a 500HP 8V engine that is reliable? I haven't ever seen a dyno sheet for one...

-Rich

[moparzrule]

Is there even such a thing as a 500HP 8V engine that is reliable? I haven't ever seen a dyno sheet for one...

-Rich

Where's the 500 WHP 16 valve dyno sheet? And even if you could find one it won't be at 20 PSI boost.

So why don't we make this more realistic? 400 WHP which is plenty possible at 20 PSI with a 16v and 30 PSI with an 8 valve.

[rbryant]

Where's the 500 WHP 16 valve dyno sheet? And even if you could find one it won't be at 20 PSI boost.

So why don't we make this more realistic? 400 WHP which is plenty possible at 20 PSI with a 16v and 30 PSI with an 8 valve.

I have actually seen a 500HP 16v dyno sheet but either way I agree. 400hp is more reasonable.

I actually think that 350 is probably more reasonable if we are talking about a long term use engine but hey call me conservative...

-Rich

[moparzrule]

I have actually seen a 500HP 16v dyno sheet but either way I agree. 400hp is more reasonable.

I actually think that 350 is probably more reasonable if we are talking about a long term use engine but hey call me conservative...

-Rich


BTW, if we are talking 30 PSI boost we apparently aren't doing this on pump gas. So who's saying these are daily driver's again? I've failed to see how this was a daily driver comparison right from the start!

[GLHNSLHT2]

OK well if you want to make it apples to apples you should be shifting the 8 valve at a thousand RPM lower than where it makes it's peak HP too :rolleyes:


Simon the stock rev limiter on the 16v is 6700, 8 valve is 6200. But I don't understand why you guys keep talking about a STOCK 16 valve compared to a highly modded 8 valve. A 500 HP 16 valve is going to making peak HP above 6700, thats probably about where the 8 valve will make peak actually. YOU guys are the ones not comparing apples to apples here. Both engines making 500 HP the 16 valve WILL make peak HP at a higher RPM. So if you never take the 16 valve to it's peak, than you have to do the same with the 8 valve to make an apples to apples comparison. So since the 8 valve peaks lower, that means less RPM's which means less wear.

2.5 8v rev limter is 6250, 2.2 8v is 6500. I'll take your word for it that a T3 is 6700.

[GLHNSLHT2]

, the valve train is alot more stable than the 8 valve. .

Really? The T3 uses basically the same setup as an 8v. Chews more cams and breaks more valvetrain parts though than an 8v. Now if you were referring to a cam on bucket (Masi FTW!) then maybe I could agree with your statement.

[turbovanman²]

Really? The T3 uses basically the same setup as an 8v. Chews more cams and breaks more valvetrain parts though than an 8v. Now if you were referring to a cam on bucket (Masi FTW!) then maybe I could agree with your statement.

There is no weak link on a TIII, the only issue is poor cam treating which is easily fixed. After that issue is done, the vavletrain is bullet proof and will easily take any revs you throw at it. Isn't the ceiling for an 8 valve 7000 rpm and even that is hard on valvetrain parts. Masi, sure, its probably bulletproof too, if you can get one, ;)

[GLHNSLHT2]

There is no weak link on a TIII, the only issue is poor cam treating which is easily fixed. After that issue is done, the vavletrain is bullet proof and will easily take any revs you throw at it.

You've got to buy new expensive lifters for the T3, weld in aluminum plugs, plug oil holes, add Ti retainers, fix the intermediate shaft issue so you don't lose an oil pump and motor. There are tons of "weak" links on a T3 simon, don't kid yourself.



Isn't the ceiling for an 8 valve 7000 rpm and even that is hard on valvetrain parts.

I wouldn't say the ceiling on an 8v head is 7000 at all. Maybe stock yes and that's it's weak link but at least parts are cheap. Hemi 5.7 Comp Cam Beehives and some PT lifters and you're able to rev to the moon held back by stuff other than the valve train.


Masi, sure, its probably bulletproof too,

Even the Masi has a weak link. The exhaust valves. After those you're good to go unless you want to increase it's performance further :)


if you can get one, ;)

Good thing I have 2 then :)

[turbovanman²]

You've got to buy new expensive lifters for the T3, weld in aluminum plugs, plug oil holes, add Ti retainers, fix the intermediate shaft issue so you don't lose an oil pump and motor. There are tons of "weak" links on a T3 simon, don't kid yourself.



You were talking about valve train so how did this turn into the whole TIII engine.

ALL the TIII's issues are easily fixable when rebuilt, so it had some bugs, big deal. Find me ANY engine that doesn't have issues. ;)




I wouldn't say the ceiling on an 8v head is 7000 at all. Maybe stock yes and that's it's weak link but at least parts are cheap. Hemi 5.7 Comp Cam Beehives and some PT lifters and you're able to rev to the moon held back by stuff other than the valve train.


From all the posters on here, 7 grand is the ceiling before things go boom. Until I see a post to prove otherwise, 7 grand it is, :eyebrows:

[Shadow]

Is there even such a thing as a 500HP 8V engine that is reliable? I haven't ever seen a dyno sheet for one...

-Rich

I have a 480whp dyno sheet for an 8v that has been running reliably for 3 years. What's your deff of reliable? In 3 years I've changed 1 HG. I'd drive the car to Florida and back without batting an eye and get 40mpg while I'm at it! ;)

[Shadow]

Here's one to chew on, and may add some validity to what most of you are saying. My 8v makes 480/440 @ 5767rpm on the stock cam.:eyebrows:

[turbovanman²]

I have a 480whp dyno sheet for an 8v that has been running reliably for 3 years. What's your deff of reliable? In 3 years I've changed 1 HG. I'd drive the car to Florida and back without batting an eye and get 40mpg while I'm at it! ;)

Yep, thats reliable, but not 500 whp, hehhhehe! :lol:


Here's one to chew on, and may add some validity to what most of you are saying. My 8v makes 480/440 @ 5767rpm on the stock cam.:eyebrows:


Nice, a low revving 8 valve, perfect, :nod:

[moparzrule]

There is no weak link on a TIII, the only issue is poor cam treating which is easily fixed. After that issue is done, the vavletrain is bullet proof and will easily take any revs you throw at it. Isn't the ceiling for an 8 valve 7000 rpm and even that is hard on valvetrain parts. Masi, sure, its probably bulletproof too, if you can get one, ;)

Sooo, you can put all this money into the T3 head to make it reliable but nothing to the 8 valve head? HELLO! Apples to oranges once again. As GLHNSLHT2, pt lifters and beehive springs fixes all, too bad it's not that simple with the T3 head huh?

Thats not even the point anyway because the 8 valve doesn't need to rev higher than 7K anyway, but who cares. You are so biased it makes me laugh...I try to actually come up with facts and sensible findings, all you could say was again how much superior the 16 valve is. You keep comparing your 2.5L 16 valve to a higher revving 2.2 8 valve, I have not seen you once compare apples to apples. I didn't know you had such a fragile inferiority complex about your 16 valve...it has to be superior in absolutely every way, so you can sleep better tonight right? :rolleyes:

[badandy]

Sooo, you can put all this money into the T3 head to make it reliable but nothing to the 8 valve head? HELLO! Apples to oranges once again. As GLHNSLHT2, pt lifters and beehive springs fixes all, too bad it's not that simple with the T3 head huh?

Thats not even the point anyway because the 8 valve doesn't need to rev higher than 7K anyway, but who cares. You are so biased it makes me laugh...I try to actually come up with facts and sensible findings, all you could say was again how much superior the 16 valve is. You keep comparing your 2.5L 16 valve to a higher revving 2.2 8 valve, I have not seen you once compare apples to apples. I didn't know you had such a fragile inferiority complex about your 16 valve...it has to be superior in absolutely every way, so you can sleep better tonight right? :rolleyes:

In my best Larry The Cable Guy:

"I don't care who you are that's funny rite there" :lol:

Seriously Simon...what gives with you these days man? :confused:

[moparzrule]

It's like wipen before ya poop, it don't make no sense!

[moparzrule]

2.5 8v rev limter is 6250, 2.2 8v is 6500. I'll take your word for it that a T3 is 6700.

Strange, I thought the 2.5 8v limit was 5900, 2.2 was 6200 or 6250. Well whatever I'll take your word for it. I've never run a stock cal for more than a day or 2 anyway LOL.

[GLHNSLHT2]

You were talking about valve train so how did this turn into the whole TIII engine.

Because you said this
There is no weak link on a TIII, the only issue is poor cam treating which is easily fixed.

Was just pointing out the "weak" links on a T3 setup.




ALL the TIII's issues are easily fixable when rebuilt, so it had some bugs, big deal. Find me ANY engine that doesn't have issues. ;)

Yes they seem to be fixable nowdays. But still if you get a T3 you basically have to rebuild the whole thing just to make it somewhat reliable right off the bat. If someone gives you a 8v you just drop it in the car and go.






From all the posters on here, 7 grand is the ceiling before things go boom. Until I see a post to prove otherwise, 7 grand it is, :eyebrows:

All the posters? Really? Hmm guess I either shouldn't post or take 200rpms off the rev limiter in the calibration. If I weren't worried about the 2.5's rod ratio I'd set it for 8grand cause she really sings over 3500rpms.

[Shadow]

Yep, thats reliable, but not 500 whp, hehhhehe! :lol:

Actually, IF I dyno'd on a Dynojet like most, it would prob be more like 515whp.:clap:

[Shadow]

Nice, a low revving 8 valve, perfect, :nod:

Who said anything about low reving? I've rev'd this engine past 7000rpm more times than I can remember. All I was saying is I have 480whp by 5767rpm. I also have 470whp @ 6500rpm. :thumb:

[GLHNSLHT2]

Wait!!! Simon says you can't rev an 8v past 7grand!!! You sir speak of blashphemy!! :)

[turbovanman²]

Wait!!! Simon says you can't rev an 8v past 7grand!!! You sir speak of blashphemy!! :)

Wow, so one guy posts up over all these years. All the other posts have the valve train coming apart. Care to find all the others that rev past 7 grand with no problems????

[turbovanman²]

Because you said this

Was just pointing out the "weak" links on a T3 setup.


The discussion at hand was valvetrain and you turned it into the engine. Sorry you can't keep up.





Yes they seem to be fixable nowdays. But still if you get a T3 you basically have to rebuild the whole thing just to make it somewhat reliable right off the bat. If someone gives you a 8v you just drop it in the car and go.



Wow, so you rebuild it to fix it, what a concept, that really sucks, rebuilding an old, tired engine and making it reliable, the shame, the horror, who would do such a thing, :confused:

A stock 8 valve will rev over 7000k? You must get special stock engines up in Spokane.




All the posters? Really? Hmm guess I either shouldn't post or take 200rpms off the rev limiter in the calibration. If I weren't worried about the 2.5's rod ratio I'd set it for 8grand cause she really sings over 3500rpms.

You've never posted your rpm ceiling so pardon me for not having my crystal ball out tonight to read your rpm limit. I would love to see your 8 valve valvetrain hold together at 8 grand. Oh, out of 1000's of 8 valves, now 2 rev past 7000 grand. I keep forgetting, Spokane has those special cars and mods that defy laws and physics, :o


Who said anything about low reving? I've rev'd this engine past 7000rpm more times than I can remember. All I was saying is I have 480whp by 5767rpm. I also have 470whp @ 6500rpm. :thumb:

Nice, I guess I read into it a bit much, doh! ;)

[moparzrule]

Oh, out of 1000's of 8 valves, now 2 rev past 7000 grand. I keep forgetting, Spokane has those special cars and mods that defy laws and physics, :o




People with 16v engines typically have more money, so they have more money into their car and are making more power and revving higher. The 8 valve crowd is looking for power on the cheap, typically with not rev that high. You need a well ported head and large turbo to be spinning over 7K on an 8 valve, not many have that but most 16v guys who's cars are not bone stock have hybrid turbo's. It's also hard to compare people with 8v versus 16v, because there's 10 times as many 8 valves out there.

I had my rev limit set for 7600, and it would be bouncing off that while I was doing the burnout before staging. I had no issues with it there, but I backed it down to 7200 because I'm not making as much upper RPM power with the swirl head anymore. I used to shift at 7000-7200 (depending on what gear) with the G head but now it's more like 6700-6800.

[The Pope]

Wow, so one guy posts up over all these years. All the other posts have the valve train coming apart. Care to find all the others that rev past 7 grand with no problems????

Well, GLH has had the PT lifters in there for years too. Then the new engine has shorter intake runners and 3 times the plenum to breathe. A big one though has been lifters than don't squish at 6,000 RPM. So we've both been shifting over 6 for years. But GLH also has the conical Beehive Comp springs with the PT lifters, the valve train is much more solid than people running the old type springs with a 1.89 rocker ratio. And how much does it cost for the valve train? Less than $200, you pay about twice as much JUST for lifters on a T3. O wait, thats right you didn't shim your 3.3 springs years ago like you were supposed to and now a Comp spring is crap. The best thing for the 8v next will be buying a cam with the larger base circle to run the Pt's without shims. So even though you have a rotten ratio the follower will still push straight down on the valve. Or hey why don't we F up the 8v valve train more by sticking in a .500" lift REGRIND and slip the follower off the valve faster! :thumb: Using shimmed stock lifters that build up windage, a huge regrind murdering valve train geometry and harmonic prone older springs with the factory rocker ratio. It is easy to see how you think the valve train comes apart so easy :lol:

GLH's combo is not stock now, the current combo is done right and likes over 7,000 RPM. His last combo worked great over 6,000 RPM. His combo has had for many years a great pressure differential and a TBI cam with Pt's. So things are close to stock but not completely. My 92 spits the followers when you start it up cold, let alone pushing over 6,000 RPM. The stock lifters are another reason these cars get a bad wrap for reliability.

[8valves]

My shift point was 7300 rpms in the old '86 for two years, WITH a regrind S3 cam, WITH stock lifters, WITH old MP 061 springs. Never had a failure. The car saw 8K miles a year of relentless beating.

Why are people debating this? Neither of the stock, and I mean STOCK setups will like going 1500 rpms higher than OE. Each needs certain items tinkered with. Each has their own respective limit in the end though, the bottom end geometry.

Simon, check out the carb engine I have for sale. It's been built and running in a car since 1983 (various different rebuilds and specs obviously) and raced competitively throughout that time revving to a god bit over 8000 rpms. It has a well thought out, simplified valvetrain setup that has proven itself.

That's far beyond what a stock rod length setup will be very happy for long at. No matter the cylinder head.

[Shadow]

Why are people debating this? Neither of the stock, and I mean STOCK setups will like going 1500 rpms higher than OE. Each needs certain items tinkered with. Each has their own respective limit in the end though, the bottom end geometry.

Like someone else already stated, it's obviously the "off season", time for ppl to practice blowing it out the other end of their anatomy for a while!:blah:

[turbovanman²]

People with 16v engines typically have more money, so they have more money into their car and are making more power and revving higher. The 8 valve crowd is looking for power on the cheap, typically with not rev that high. You need a well ported head and large turbo to be spinning over 7K on an 8 valve, not many have that but most 16v guys who's cars are not bone stock have hybrid turbo's. It's also hard to compare people with 8v versus 16v, because there's 10 times as many 8 valves out there.

I had my rev limit set for 7600, and it would be bouncing off that while I was doing the burnout before staging. I had no issues with it there, but I backed it down to 7200 because I'm not making as much upper RPM power with the swirl head anymore. I used to shift at 7000-7200 (depending on what gear) with the G head but now it's more like 6700-6800.

I am not disagreeing with revving either engine, but from I've read on here, it seems after 7000 rpm, the valvetrain comes apart. Now it seems that people are getting away with it, which is fine, :thumb:


Well, GLH has had the PT lifters in there for years too. Then the new engine has shorter intake runners and 3 times the plenum to breathe. A big one though has been lifters than don't squish at 6,000 RPM. So we've both been shifting over 6 for years. But GLH also has the conical Beehive Comp springs with the PT lifters, the valve train is much more solid than people running the old type springs with a 1.89 rocker ratio. And how much does it cost for the valve train? Less than $200, you pay about twice as much JUST for lifters on a T3. O wait, thats right you didn't shim your 3.3 springs years ago like you were supposed to and now a Comp spring is crap. The best thing for the 8v next will be buying a cam with the larger base circle to run the Pt's without shims. So even though you have a rotten ratio the follower will still push straight down on the valve. Or hey why don't we F up the 8v valve train more by sticking in a .500" lift REGRIND and slip the follower off the valve faster! :thumb: Using shimmed stock lifters that build up windage, a huge regrind murdering valve train geometry and harmonic prone older springs with the factory rocker ratio. It is easy to see how you think the valve train comes apart so easy :lol:

GLH's combo is not stock now, the current combo is done right and likes over 7,000 RPM. His last combo worked great over 6,000 RPM. His combo has had for many years a great pressure differential and a TBI cam with Pt's. So things are close to stock but not completely. My 92 spits the followers when you start it up cold, let alone pushing over 6,000 RPM. The stock lifters are another reason these cars get a bad wrap for reliability.

Never said PT's and conicals were bad, they are a great design. As for shimming the 3.3 springs, when you had that posted up, THERE WAS NOTHING said about shimming and again, I never really had an issue per say.


My shift point was 7300 rpms in the old '86 for two years, WITH a regrind S3 cam, WITH stock lifters, WITH old MP 061 springs. Never had a failure. The car saw 8K miles a year of relentless beating.

Why are people debating this? Neither of the stock, and I mean STOCK setups will like going 1500 rpms higher than OE. Each needs certain items tinkered with. Each has their own respective limit in the end though, the bottom end geometry.

Simon, check out the carb engine I have for sale. It's been built and running in a car since 1983 (various different rebuilds and specs obviously) and raced competitively throughout that time revving to a god bit over 8000 rpms. It has a well thought out, simplified valvetrain setup that has proven itself.

That's far beyond what a stock rod length setup will be very happy for long at. No matter the cylinder head.

Again, see my answer to Matt, all the posts on here and a few on TD were "I keep throwing a rocker arm when revving up past 7000 rpm"

If you guys do it, great, but now due to this thread, I see 4-5 people getting away with it, :thumb: I also said the 16 valve will do it stock, the 8 valve needs mods to do it, ;)

[moparzrule]

The only real weak link in the 8 valve past 7000 RPM is the lifters, once the PT's are in there's no more issue.

I was talking to Glenn Smith about solid lifters, he makes them. He's had them in his turbo engines running to 7600 RPM and N/A 8 valves to 8600 with them.

[The Pope]

The only real weak link in the 8 valve past 7000 RPM is the lifters, once the PT's are in there's no more issue.

I was talking to Glenn Smith about solid lifters, he makes them. He's had them in his turbo engines running to 7600 RPM and N/A 8 valves to 8600 with them.

They were made to 10,000 RPM in the Neon head. Question is though, at what point do you need to go from a PT to solid? Solid can make a daily driver a PITA. PT's make one less thing to ever worry about again and cheap. :nod:

I know Simon likes the T3 but the stock lifters suck. I don't think I would take the chance running the stock POS lifters to over 7,000 RPM. I would rip them out for FWDs and "mod" the thing. <--- chicken, the T3 is too costly to break a $150 a piece rocker in half.

[OmniLuvr]

"Like someone else already stated, it's obviously the "off season", time for ppl to practice blowing it out the other end of their anatomy for a while!"

man, im glad i dont live where it snows, its only rained here about 5 days this season

[moparzrule]

They were made to 10,000 RPM in the Neon head. Question is though, at what point do you need to go from a PT to solid? Solid can make a daily driver a PITA. PT's make one less thing to ever worry about again and cheap. :nod:

I know Simon likes the T3 but the stock lifters suck. I don't think I would take the chance running the stock POS lifters to over 7,000 RPM. I would rip them out for FWDs and "mod" the thing. <--- chicken, the T3 is too costly to break a $150 a piece rocker in half.

True. Solids are probably good for race only.

[turbovanman²]

I know Simon likes the T3 but the stock lifters suck. I don't think I would take the chance running the stock POS lifters to over 7,000 RPM. I would rip them out for FWDs and "mod" the thing. <--- chicken, the T3 is too costly to break a $150 a piece rocker in half.

I run the stock lifters to 7500, ;)


True. Solids are probably good for race only.

There's a rumour that running solids will break thru the head?

[moparzrule]

There's a rumour that running solids will break thru the head?


Well I mentioned that to Glenn (cracking the lifter bore is what I heard) but he said he's had zero incidents of any kind with his with turbo engines turning to 7600 and his personal N/A circle track car turning 8600!

[Directconnection]

My 92 spits the followers when you start it up cold, let alone pushing over 6,000 RPM. The stock lifters are another reason these cars get a bad wrap for reliability.

There's something wrong with your head then.... Ooopsy! I mean the one on your car.

My cars NEVER spit out a rocker in below zero temps, and never at the "accidental gung-ho" 7,000 rpms I subjected them to. (used to shift at 6,200)

I do agree... the stock oem lifters and valvetrain could be upgraded.... but the above statement of spitting out rockers when it's cold is simply dumbfounded.

[GLHNSLHT2]

I didn't personally witness it but I don't doubt it. Years of dino oil and just sitting they won't pump up. Cam comes around on a lose follower and WHACK!

There's a guy here in town that has thrown 2 followers through his Valve cover while driving. Yet he's too cheap to get a set of PT's. He'd rather go to the J-yard and get a valve cover and whatever else he needs to repair it so it runs again.

[The Pope]

my 92 has 170,000 miles on it and the lifters are toast so bad they fool the computer into pulling timing under boost. When cold the oil flow to them is tight as the oil is thicker. The stock lifter has been beat with windage air for so long they bleed off. So when the engine starts they don't get oil fast enough before the followers fall off.

On the lifter bores cracking, I have seen this many times. Sloppy lifters cause this. One out of ten cores seem to have broken lifter bores at the machine shop on the 782 heads. But the lifter slap causes a big impact. A solid lifter set right should be a lot stronger.

[Shadow]

Well, I've busted two roller rockers in half and have only ever spit 1. Just happened this fall, the run before the 10.99 actually. Car was to rich down low and in an effort to come into the next gear higher in the rpm range I decided to try WOT shifting it at 7000rpm. So, what my rpm were between shifts I don't know (cause I didn't datalog that one) but I'm thinking south of 7500! Thought I broke the mtr on that one, it was the 3-4 shift and the car dropped a cyl and sounded like something went. (different than the 2 intake rollers I snapped) When I removed the VC, there was the exhaust roller lying in the head. At that point I figured the mtr is just indestructable! After all the runs, tuning runs, plain fun runs ect, and a non-CB to boot, UNREAL! Slapped another roller in there and went and ran the 10! This on MP 061 springs with stock retainers.

[The Pope]

Well, I've busted two roller rockers in half and have only ever spit 1. Just happened this fall, the run before the 10.99 actually. Car was to rich down low and in an effort to come into the next gear higher in the rpm range I decided to try WOT shifting it at 7000rpm. So, what my rpm were between shifts I don't know (cause I didn't datalog that one) but I'm thinking south of 7500! Thought I broke the mtr on that one, it was the 3-4 shift and the car dropped a cyl and sounded like something went. (different than the 2 intake rollers I snapped) When I removed the VC, there was the exhaust roller lying in the head. At that point I figured the mtr is just indestructable! After all the runs, tuning runs, plain fun runs ect, and a non-CB to boot, UNREAL! Slapped another roller in there and went and ran the 10! This on MP 061 springs with stock retainers.

Into muscle car building for so long I mix and match different year blocks often. Then reason is that the steel crank blocks didn't need to be very strong. Then later on with cast cranks Mopar built really strong blocks. With the 440s I use the older steel crank and the 75-78 block :nod: But they need all they can get now days. In your setup your not running a big stroke cast crank like commen block 2.5 people. The steel crank 2.2 is just stronger than people give them credit for. Granted the 89 T2 up is best but when is it a "need". I've known many that thought they needed a commen block even on a 250 WHP build from the cavemen pushing them. I thought you said once you dyno on a mustang? Those post pretty low from what I've seen.

[turbovanman²]

On the lifter bores cracking, I have seen this many times. Sloppy lifters cause this. One out of ten cores seem to have broken lifter bores at the machine shop on the 782 heads. But the lifter slap causes a big impact. A solid lifter set right should be a lot stronger.

I've had a few heads where the lifters were so loose, it would knock and you'd swear it was a piston or wrist pin, :(

[Shadow]

I thought you said once you dyno on a mustang? Those post pretty low from what I've seen.

Yep, closest dyno to me is a Mustang dyno. I went there first, so really no reason to go anywhere else now. I'm more concerned about consistancy than # anyways, now that I have a base I can see what gains I've made.

[The Pope]

I've had a few heads where the lifters were so loose, it would knock and you'd swear it was a piston or wrist pin, :(

the lifter bore is a real weak design, they could have added a lot more material there to save head ache. I was worried my lifter bore was cracked from the followers dropping but the lifter that drops is right next to the feed hole. Doesn't matter, new car thing. Soon the head comes off and the top end is redone. :thumb:

[john1320]

Wouldn't the 16v car using less boost put less stress on the head gasket? I mean wouldn't one have more peace of mind about the integrity of the HG and other parts running 16psi vs an 8v at 25?

[moparzrule]

As long as you don't have any detonation and assuming the block and head were flat prior to installation the head gasket should be just fine.

[The Pope]

Wouldn't the 16v car using less boost put less stress on the head gasket? I mean wouldn't one have more peace of mind about the integrity of the HG and other parts running 16psi vs an 8v at 25?

cylinder pressure is cylinder pressure. The gaskets don't care with same power levels. Boost pressure is super tiny compared to cylinder pressure. Boost pressure doesn't matter, more boost is need for the same power between the 2 on the one that flows less. So same power levels have the same cylinder pressure and different boost pressures.

[Reaper1]

I've also seen cracked lifter bores in the attempt at using solid lifters. IIRC the crack happened becuase of a set-screw that was put in the bore to keep the lifter from turning(I *think*...it's been YEARS ago).

The only other issue I can readily think of is the same as when you shim...the bottoms of the bores are not flat, so unless the lifters are made to match the chamfer in there you could induce stresses that could crack the lifter bore easily...

[moparzrule]

I know that Glenn says that he CNC's each one, so I'm guessing he took the specs of a stock lifter.
IMO probably the largest reason you would see a cracked lifter bore is if you didn't check the lash adjustment often and/or didn't set it with the engine warmed up. If someone were to set the lash adjustment cold, well it's a whole different ball game warmed up and it's probably too tight. Thats a crack waiting to happen.

[zin]

Wear and tear wise, the number of valves wouldn't really effect anything, but, since a 16V engine will rev much higher and make power, and therefore will likely spend more time in the higher RPMs, the 16V engine would wear faster, but only because it is operating at higher RPMs, as RPM will wear an engine faster than anything else. Juggle RPM, boost, cam timing, rod ratios etc and your mileage may vary, but merely adding another 8 valves wouldn't change the wear on the engine, all other things being equal.

Mike

PS I didn't read all the posts as I'm trying to leave work, but still felt the need to leave my .02! ;)

[moparzrule]

^LOL, it's quite obvious you didn't read the other posts. But thanks for agreeing with me hahaha