AndrewG:
But there is…less valve train components meaning less reciprocating mass.
Maybe enough to make a difference at F1 or motorcycle type engine speeds but obviously not even at NASCAR type ones let alone truck diesels.Bearing in mind we’re comparing CIH with pushrod not OHC anyway.While the specific output figures of pushrod Scania v CIH competition seem to speak for themselves. 
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
An overhead cam engine has direct contact via buckets on the valves and a cam in head engine operates the valves through short rockers. An overhead valve engine (as per Scanias V8) has very long pushrods acting on rockers which add flex in the valve train. Variable valve timing reuces overlap at low rpm to increase torque output and efficiency and increases it higher up the rev range to improve power output, these are the advantages of VVt. Forced induction or naturally aspirated, VVT has the same advantages. The V8 Scania although still being able to push out the hp numbers is technologically way behind on much newer designed engines like Volvos 13litre and 16litre range.
As for comparing a Monaro with a BMW theyre chalk and cheese. The Vauxhall is way behind on tech and quality compared to the German car and i would suggest the BMW will always ultimately be the more desirable car. Compare the VXR8 with an M5, there really is no comparison…As I said how many VVT CIH engines are there and what is the point anyway in the case of a low revving forced induction truck diesel when it’s just more pointless tech to go wrong.Bearing in mind the Scania V8’s specific torque potential which currently stands at around 160 lb/ft per litre.
As for the LS powered VXR8 v E39 M5 V8 for example either in terms of their respective output potential or maintenance costs or residual values which part have I got wrong.
Its not pointless tech at all,the very point of VVT is as ive already mentioned, its to do with making the maximium torque and power over the available rev range making the engine more fuel efficient, it doesnt matter whether the engine is petrol/ diesel/ high revving /low revving, the advantages of VVt are the same.An engine with VVT will inherantly have lower nox emmisions especially when combined with staged combustion (although we’re more into injection here)
As for the car debate, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree as its always going to be down to personal preference on this one…
AndrewG:
Its not pointless tech at all,the very point of VVT is as ive already mentioned, its to do with making the maximium torque and power over the available rev range making the engine more fuel efficient, it doesnt matter whether the engine is petrol/ diesel/ high revving /low revving, the advantages of VVt are the same.An engine with VVT will inherantly have lower nox emmisions especially when combined with staged combustion (although we’re more into injection here)
As for the car debate, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree as its always going to be down to personal preference on this one…
Firstly I don’t think that we’re even comparing VVT truck engines with pushrod Scania.Nor do I think you’d be able to make it work on the single cam CIH design anyway.Only proper dohc which obviously isn’t what we’re talking about in the case of truck engines.While as I said 160 lb/ft per litre and Euro 6 is a tough act to follow if you want to beat it anyway let alone going to all the aggro of CIH, let alone VVT and dohc,to try to do it. Pushrod wins on this one just as it does anywhere except an F1 or motorcycle race circuit . 
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
Its not pointless tech at all,the very point of VVT is as ive already mentioned, its to do with making the maximium torque and power over the available rev range making the engine more fuel efficient, it doesnt matter whether the engine is petrol/ diesel/ high revving /low revving, the advantages of VVt are the same.An engine with VVT will inherantly have lower nox emmisions especially when combined with staged combustion (although we’re more into injection here)
As for the car debate, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree as its always going to be down to personal preference on this one…Firstly I don’t think that we’re even comparing VVT truck engines with pushrod Scania.Nor do I think you’d be able to make it work on the single cam CIH design anyway.Only proper dohc which obviously isn’t what we’re talking about in the case of truck engines.While as I said 160 lb/ft per litre and Euro 6 is a tough act to follow if you want to beat it anyway let alone going to all the aggro of CIH, let alone VVT and dohc,to try to do it.
Sliding rockers make it work on any new tech single cam egine. CIH and VVT has been around for years and its not ‘aggro’ for manufacturers designers to incorporate reliable workings into new engines. As per your previous post ref ’ cant see the point of it’ its likely that you dont fully understand how it all works. As for 160lb/ft per litre, what power rating are we talking here…undoubtedly the 730 hp version…a minimal difference but Volvos 750hp 16 litre pushes out 225nm/ litre or 166lb/ft per litre so Scanias claim is not really that so tough act to follow…
I had a mooch around an S series today, the fridge is bigger and yup the bed seems a lot bigger, I like the interior more than the exterior as the exterior just seems a bit lacking in personality if you know what I mean.
AndrewG:
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
Its not pointless tech at all,the very point of VVT is as ive already mentioned, its to do with making the maximium torque and power over the available rev range making the engine more fuel efficient, it doesnt matter whether the engine is petrol/ diesel/ high revving /low revving, the advantages of VVt are the same.An engine with VVT will inherantly have lower nox emmisions especially when combined with staged combustion (although we’re more into injection here)
As for the car debate, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree as its always going to be down to personal preference on this one…Firstly I don’t think that we’re even comparing VVT truck engines with pushrod Scania.Nor do I think you’d be able to make it work on the single cam CIH design anyway.Only proper dohc which obviously isn’t what we’re talking about in the case of truck engines.While as I said 160 lb/ft per litre and Euro 6 is a tough act to follow if you want to beat it anyway let alone going to all the aggro of CIH, let alone VVT and dohc,to try to do it.
Sliding rockers make it work on any new tech single cam egine. CIH and VVT has been around for years and its not ‘aggro’ for manufacturers designers to incorporate reliable workings into new engines. As per your previous post ref ’ cant see the point of it’ its likely that you dont fully understand how it all works. As for 160lb/ft per litre, what power rating are we talking here…undoubtedly the 730 hp version…a minimal difference but Volvos 750hp 16 litre pushes out 225nm/ litre or 166lb/ft per litre so Scanias claim is not really that so tough act to follow…
I understand how VVT ‘works’ but even in the case of that E39 M5 car engine v Chevy LS for example,I can’t see the point of all that extra aggro and complication for very little,if any,return in output.But no I wasn’t aware of VVT working on any set up except dohc not single cam CIH. 
So are we saying that the Volvo D13/16 engines are VVT. Which I didn’t know nor even realise was possible on that type of design so thanks for the update at least.Although having said that I can’t find any references to the D13/16 having VVT.
While even if so,all that extra built in aggravation of CIH and VVT,has resulted in an advantage,at best,of around 3.5% in specific torque. 
On that note as I said let’s see Scania start selling its V8 as a loose option and then see what the US market at least thinks.
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
Its not pointless tech at all,the very point of VVT is as ive already mentioned, its to do with making the maximium torque and power over the available rev range making the engine more fuel efficient, it doesnt matter whether the engine is petrol/ diesel/ high revving /low revving, the advantages of VVt are the same.An engine with VVT will inherantly have lower nox emmisions especially when combined with staged combustion (although we’re more into injection here)
As for the car debate, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree as its always going to be down to personal preference on this one…Firstly I don’t think that we’re even comparing VVT truck engines with pushrod Scania.Nor do I think you’d be able to make it work on the single cam CIH design anyway.Only proper dohc which obviously isn’t what we’re talking about in the case of truck engines.While as I said 160 lb/ft per litre and Euro 6 is a tough act to follow if you want to beat it anyway let alone going to all the aggro of CIH, let alone VVT and dohc,to try to do it.
Sliding rockers make it work on any new tech single cam egine. CIH and VVT has been around for years and its not ‘aggro’ for manufacturers designers to incorporate reliable workings into new engines. As per your previous post ref ’ cant see the point of it’ its likely that you dont fully understand how it all works. As for 160lb/ft per litre, what power rating are we talking here…undoubtedly the 730 hp version…a minimal difference but Volvos 750hp 16 litre pushes out 225nm/ litre or 166lb/ft per litre so Scanias claim is not really that so tough act to follow…
I understand how VVT ‘works’ but even in the case of that E39 M5 car engine v Chevy LS for example,I can’t see the point of all that extra aggro and complication for very little,if any,return in output.But no I wasn’t aware of VVT working on any set up except dohc not single cam CIH.
So are we saying that the Volvo D13/16 engines are VVT.
While even if so,all that extra built in aggravation of CIH and VVT,has resulted in an advantage,at best,of around 3.5% in specific torque.
This has turned into a Willy Waving contest of the highest order.
It gets the thumbs up from Stavros.
ThrustMaster:
It gets the thumbs up from Stavros.
That guy looks like Chris De Burgh’s evil twin. 
philgor:
Just seen this doing the rounds on Facebook…0
I quite like it! Comon scania, you know you want to…
Looks a little like a MACK Pinnacle, but who cares, I want one!!!
