Unless DrRansom442 objects, we have one down and three to go.

Hi All,


Its been 5 days with no answer. Looks like another of DrRansom442s statements he is not capable of explaining.

Do I remember hearing of a four valve 4, 6, or 8 cylinder Oldsmobile engine?

Anyone?

Regards, Norm

Hi Norm, all



Are you refering to the "Quad 4"? (not sure on the specifics of the quad 4) The only other 4 valve I can think of is the OW-30 project of the early to late 60's. (DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder, all aluminum, 455 ) Never produced, but is on display at the olds museum.

Did Olds ever make a 6 cylinder? (inline or v?)

Andrew

not to bring life to a dead beaver here...Aurora... i believe that the 4.0L Aurora specifically an Olds division development (if i recall it was part of their IRCE indy car engine program for years before it was in production and then spawned the N*)

it also directly spawned the 3.5L V6 shortstar...

the GM "Caddy" Northstar is based off an olds engine's architecture...just look at the GM/Olds DRCE engine's architecture origine's

no different than the GM corporate engine that is just the evolution/offspring of the buick V6

Like andrew i also recall the DOHC 455 olds...if i recall 3 engine's were built????

i remember that i was curious why the hell they never went through with it...but i guess like the buick stage 2/3 stuff that never got mass produced...damn beancounters...

yea, the LX5 3.5L was a 6 cylinder engine from Oldsmobile and was only for Oldsmobiles.

TOC Admin
Brando

Hi andrewk, All,

Thanks for allowing me to clarify my initial post.


Reason I asked, is because I didn't know.


If it had 4 valves, yes.


I'm aware of it. It was never in production.

To my knowledge, they never released any tech information, such as, flow data or images/descriptions of the ports. Since the use of 4 valves is self explanatory, it has never interested me.

To clarify: Do I remember hearing of a production four valve 4, 6, or 8 cylinder Oldsmobile engine? Does any Member of TOC, own one?


I don't know. It's why I asked.

To clarify: It doesn't matter whether it was made by Olds, or (since we are discussing one of DrRansom442s posts) the Pope.

If an Olds came off the line with a 305, it was an Olds engine.

If one were to ask questions relating to that Olds engine, one should ask a Chev board, as it would have much more information than an Olds board.

If one were to ask questions relating to it's original application in a production Olds, an Olds board would be more likely to have the answers.

Is there anyone on this board that has, or has had, either a quad 4 or another 4 valve Olds engine?

Regards, Norm

hi andrewk, Turbocharged400sbc, Brando, All,




Thanks for the input.

Do any of these engines have two intake runners to each cylinder?

Regards, Norm

Hi All,

Since DrRansom442 complains I single him out, I will now show I pick on anyone who makes an incorrect statement.

I pick on James very little, because he makes few mistakes. He has, rightly, picked on me when I've made mistakes.

.
DRCE block was based on the BBC. Whether the resulting engine was an Olds or Pontiac, depended on which heads were used.

For DrRansom442s benefit, my source is the HRM periodical from the day, as discussed here.

Regards, Norm

yes. i have rebuilt two quad4's one SOHC and one DOHC HO

4 valves per cylinder...one port per cylinder (I and E) the ports split into two once inside the head...



yes and no...of course a 4 valve head has two seperate runners for each intake and exhaust valve...the difference lies in whether the "twin'd" ports are 1 inch long and only exist inside the head, or whether they extend all the way...seperatly...from the COMMON plenum chamber to the valve...

all the named engines above are the former...
the ford (Yamaha) SHO engine's (DOHC V6 and V8's) as well as the OHV 4.0's 3.8's etc were available at some point with two seperate runners per cylinder (for obvious reasons the systems design for two valve heads is not applicable in this discussion as they become a common port inside the head)
these intake design's were made to improve low and high end power by selecting one of two runner lengths

the DOHC 3.0L V6 and the 3.4L V8's didnt have selectable runners...one port had the short runner the other the long...i guess it kinda balanced out that way...who knows...but that 3.4L V8 sure can scream...



AHHHHH Norm's on an E-tak!!!11!111!



thanks for clarifying that...i fergot on the DRCE engine's the heads are the big difference in the "make" (lol) of the engine...though from what i hear the teams have been liking what they see of the new genIII DRCE (Warren Johnson among the first to play with em) i cant wait to see how well it does this season...

any of ya see the intake/exhaust port design on an audi 5v per cylinder head....yup a single runner timm it enters the head...then it splits into 3 ports...not exactly a good example but it does highlight that at some point the complexity/weight of the intake comes into play (could you picture a V6 intake with 18 runners? i dont see it happening in mass production OE engines...well no engine's that i'd e able to afford...not that i'd want em...damn euro-pee-on cars...

So if one was discussioning intake manifolds, it looks like the following would be an incorrect statement.


Now, giving him the benefit of the doubt and considering a possible typo: If he had said "one intake valve per runner", this manifold wouldn't work.

the LT5... engine's were exercises of possible engine design
this gets heavy into fluid dynamics...but given two equivalent mass' of air flowing through two tubes or one (two tubes have equal total crosectional area as the single) they will flow the same...now when the two prts make a turn vs the single the big difference show's itself...a small diameter (small crossection) port will have less of a flow "speed" difference between the inside and outside of the bend curve, improving flow than a larger port where most of the airflow (mass) is hugging the outside wall of the port curve, as this large ID port has a much larger difference in the speed of the air on the inside of the curved port vs the outside wall of the port (short radius vs large radius)

now this defines an intake designed to flow only air...it get's alot trickier once you throw fuel into the air, as an intake with wet flow (air/fuel) has to have compromises to keep fuel suspended and keeping the air fuel distribution as even as it can be...

then dont forget that OEM's are looking fer cheap easilly packaged engine's to power their vehicle...and i can def see a 16 port intake outcosting an 8 port intake

and without talking to an engineer of the LT5 we may never know how neccessary the 16 ports were...but i do know that fairly long runners like those style are usually used to help the low rpm Tq curve...which this engine may have traded off heavily, in exchange for high rpm power...

who knows......i know i dont....lol

Or a way to boost the sagging image of the Corvette?


They were needed to meet the targeted power curve, not because there were two intake valves.

yeah the smog chocked 350's werent the greatest...but i believe the LT5 was designed more for winning the 24hrs of lemans and other factory backed corvette racing teams (much the way the LS7 grew out of their GT class racing of the LS1's)


thats more than likely it right there...besides with the LT5 they had a "clean" sheet of paper to work with...so the head could be cast with two ports per cylinder...as well as an 18 runner intake/plenum
besides on a race engine space constraints are less important than the power curve

i recall seeing a power chart of an LT5 a while back and they dont really "wakeup" till 3 grand... and of course i bet the vett's were geared to make advantage of the high winding LT5

Wouldn't that be the ideal way to boost the sagging image of a Sports Car?


Yep. Perfect for a road race course.

There it is... the Offy dual port...

Andrew