Actually your now showing that you don't know very much about engines.
How ironic.
OHC
>is a lot more complicated than even engines with two extra cylinders and
>costs more rather than saving any. GM's "obsolete" pushrod engines have
>been refined for many years are are able to push a car to the same mpg as
>an overly complex OHC engine
Oh, OH cams are "overly complex", huh? I guess that's why about 99% of vehicle engines use them. LOL
without requiring any maintenance at 60k mile
>intervals. Sure the OHC engine can boast more HP per liter but when that
>HP only comes near peak rpm and at a sacrifice of torque its not worth it.
>To actually get to use all that high HP you have to run the engine where
>its least efficient
What a load of crap. Engines are most efficient at their torque peaks. Duh.
so you get a tradeoff of either driving extremely slow
>to get the advertised mpg or getting low mpg and getting that advertised >HP.
Clueless nonsense.
Pushrod engines have peak torque at a low rpm where normal everyday
>driving occurs so you get good power while still getting good mpg.
The RPM's the motor is spinning is not that significant, and (duh), the smaller motor is simply geared-down more to compensate for it's preference for higher RPM's.
Then, there's the increased weight of the larger, less-efficient push rod engine. What's that do for milage?
The
>general car buying public doesn't understand this so they hear the bigger
>HP numbers and think those are the better engines. Instead of refining the
>simpler technology its quicker to take a shortcut and stick in an OHC amnd
>advertise the numbers.
Pull your head out and look around you. OH cams are better in most situations. That's why they are made. Duh.