Jump to content

"hemi" heads?


Recommended Posts

Posted

There's a debate on one of the dodge forums as to wether or not most modern day engines use hemispherical heads or not. I know some are somewhat hemispherically shaped, but others are still wedge shaped..

 

So my question is, does GM use hemispherical heads on their 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, and 8.1 Gas motors?

what about the LS1/LS6 motors?

Posted

Nope, they are all wedge shaped. On a true hemisherical head the spark plug goes through the valve cover into the cylinder head with a valve on each side. The valves are not in a straight row front to back. Intake valves are on the intake side of the head and exhaust vavles are on the exhaust side.

Posted

Yes. A DOHC engine by design, has it's valves on 'opposite' sides of the chamber with the plug (or plugs) in the middle.

Posted

This is true, i was just reading what Rotorwrench posted about what charachteristics a hemi has, and the Northstar popped in my mind and fits those requirements. Working on Northstars all the caddy dealer, they just seem to be a familiar motor to me.

 

Isn't also true that all the Mopar Hemi's are pushrod motors? Or is the new one OHC?

  • 3 months later...
Posted

The 5.7L HEMI is indeed a push rod motor.

 

This was observed at their NAIAS display.

Posted

I remember reading awhile ago that GM also made a hemi head back in the 60's (if I remember correctly even before Chrysler) but it was just a prototype and never made it into production as they thought it was too expensive.

Posted

Diamler is confusing everyone with "HEMI" and just using the word "HEMI" to describe their new 5.7L engine.

 

Mopar "HEMI" heritage started (someone correct me if wrong, I'm not a Mopar historian) in the late 50's with the Chrysler 300 as a 392CI using hemispherical heads. The current floating lore of the "HEMI" is thought of as the late 60's 426CI as used in NASCAR, SuperBird-DaytonaCharger.

 

Diamler ads never say 5.7L "HEMI", just "HEMI" and will show a 5.7L intake cover as a way to avoid someone legally demanding a 426CI in their truck instead of a 357CI. Had Diamler been smarter they should have just call'd them Powered by Magnum 357 as a reverse word play on the handgun cartridge.

Posted

:P Tuscon 02Silverado Not to quibble but the Chrysler "Hemi" thing started back in about 1953 with the original 331 CI used in Chyslers, Dodges, etc. It then went to 354 ci (just an overbored 331) in the late 50s, then to 392ci and finally 426ci.

 

You are correct in that when people think of a "Hemi" they are most likely thinking of the 392 and/or 426 versions. The old 331 was a "Hemi" but it weighted a ton and produced very little power unless highly modified.

 

Not being a Chyrsler lover I have no information about the new 5.7 "Hemi" configuration. I will bet however that the 8.1 Vortec heads are as good if not better than the Chrysler 5.7 "Hemi" heads. Seems to me Chrysler is just trying to get a lot of advertising mileage from the old "Hemi Ledgend". A friend had a 1965 or 66 "Street Hemi" and it was one bad car right off of the assembly line. The "Old 426 Hemis" were very, very strong!!!!

 

A long time ago I took a 331 Hemi, bored it to 354, put lots of carbs (6X 2bbls) and internal parts in it, coupled it to an early 50s Cad-Lassall 3 speed manual transmission and an Oldsmobile rear end and stuffed the whole mess into a 1953 Studebaker. Was kinda a neat streed/drag car - but very, very crude by todays standards. :thumbs:

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
Diamler is confusing everyone with "HEMI" and just using the word "HEMI" to describe their new 5.7L engine.

 

Diamler ads never say 5.7L "HEMI", just "HEMI" and will show a 5.7L intake cover as a way to avoid someone legally demanding a 426CI in their truck instead of a 357CI.  Had Diamler been smarter they should have just call'd them Powered by Magnum 357 as a reverse word play on the handgun cartridge.

Go to the Dodge website and you will see the engine specified as "5.7 Liter Hemi"

  • 4 months later...
Posted

First of all you guys clearly have no idea what you are talking about because chev was rated the worst truck of the year. they are lacking in power, ground clearance and there down right good for nothing. And i saw someone advertising that they had a 98 chev with a 4.3L o no stand back he might run me over. HAHAHAHA! You guys should get your thumb out of your but and get a real truck. A hemi :puke:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Hey everyone, I recently had an issue with my 07 2500HD GMT900. My DRL’s stay on at all times. Right front turn and right mirror turn signal indicator stay on solid at all times. By “at all times” I mean the only way to make them go off is disconnecting the battery. I tore the headlight assemblies out, tried disconnecting the harnesses to eliminate bad wiring at the harness, I unplugged the headlight switch, no change and the mirror turn signal still stayed on. My first thoughts were : Bad bulb and/or socket somewhere, under hood fuse panel bad, bcm bad, tail light or trailer wiring problem, or some random short to power in the harness.  Possibly a bad ground but unlikely. I had a big clue in the fuse panel, it had a burnt smell. I started pulling every fuse that had to do with DRL or right turn/park lamp. Nothing made the right directional turn off but pulling the DRL2 fuse made the DRL’s go out.  After studying wiring diagrams, I found that both problems had that fuse panel in common, the bcm also controls both problems but knowing the fuse panel had a burnt smell I removed and disassembled the fuse panel and found a little corrosion on the printed circuit board.  I ordered a new fuse panel from Amazon for like $260. When it arrived I installed it, and put everything back together, the problem was fixed. I figured the fuse panel needed to be replaced anyway so that was a logical place to start. Hopefully this story helps someone in the future. Regretfully I didn’t scan for codes before I did everything.
    • That stinks. I’m sitting on the side of the road right now with the same issue. Never had an issue before taking it in for the ground strap recall. Now I’m outside of warranty and they’ll probably want $200 just to diagnose what they already “fixed”. 
    • I wonder kind of nuts and bolts they will come up with next? Jim
    • “It should be recognized, however, that there becomes a point where fuel economy oils do not make much economic sense for the end consumer—we talk about a fuel saving of ~€100 compared to a risk of €1000 Euros if the oil is too thin and causes increased engine wear rates. However, the benefit of these oils accrues to the car manufacturers. If their vehicles can save 1–2% fuel by using a special fuel economy lubricant, then that OEM can drastically reduce the amount of fines they need to pay.”   I liked this and the following paragraph as well but it’s really only touching the beginning of the benefits OEMs see from spec’ing these oils. After you factor in “out of warranty” service work and new car sales when these engines fail before their time, it’s a good racket for them. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
    • Too much voodoo and snake oil.   Time to go EV    😉
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...