basically what i wanted to say but i'm an idiot
and i didn't nessicarily mean that the valvetrain breaks easier but since there are alot more parts to the valvetrain, there is greater chance just 1 of those parts can **** up/more friction because of more moving parts

that's what i was thinking. if you have the new c/d, check out the complaints about the chevy malibu in the letters section. i don't know why some people are so hung up on pushrods equalling crappy technology. and if a pushrod engine can make as much power as an OHC engine, then who cares?

i for one wouldn't care if my car was powered by a hamster running in a wheel under the hood - as long as it was fast.

then why create the topic

people complain about gm using "low tech" engines all the time (not so much on here). i was wondering what's bad about them...

and when "big boy" v8s get smoked by "ricers" they say "well how much money did they put into it?"

"I put $6000 into my integra and I hit a 13.0. You hit a 13.2 hahaha:fawk:"

"My camaro is stockh:. $1000 in mods would put me in the low 12s"

"Another $6000 would put me in the low 12s :squint:"

haha

they are umm noisy :dunno:

I never cared one way or the other.

Too many moving parts.

I don't really care one way or another but low displacement engines need high rpm to make power. Overhead cams are better for high rpm because the valvetrain is simpler, lighter, and more precise.

But what's the advantage of sticking with engines that were outdated in 1970? Pushrod valvetrains are good enough, but is that really a strong argument to keep using them? Why not just use a steam engine? Or a horse?