I don’t see an OHV (2v) engine producing more torque than an OHC (4v) engine at the same displacement. IIRC … on the torque-rpm curves I’ve seen, an OHC (4v) design produces more torque across the board. Although, at lower rpms its advantage is less over a 2v design.
1.8 1987 VW spec’s from my owners manual … hp/torque …
1.8 - 2v… 102 at 5250/110@3250
1.8 - 4v … 123 at 5800/122@4250
I’d wager that the 4v design is still producing more torque at 3250 than the 2v design. 4v designs tend to have very flat torque curves and these spec’s are from the days where the 4v designs were tuned for hp higher up. The 4v designs of today are tuned for more lower end power and torque.
Dodge Caravan 3.3 OHV … … 180hp/210 @ 4000 (torque)
Toyota Sienna 3.3 OHC (4v)… 230hp/242 @ 3600
The Sienna engine has a higher compression ratio (10.8 vs 9.3) which accounts for some of the difference. But nevertheless, the 4valve designs produce better torque. The only way to compensate for that is to give the OHV design a larger displacement. This is typically what GM was doing, selling a ~ 200hp 3.8 OHV versus 200hp 3.0 OHC-4v designs from Japan. The 3.8 will likely have more torque than a 3.0 (4v) engine it competing against.
The downside to a 4v design versus a 2v design is that the 4v design gets worse gas mileage. But one would expect that, with more breathing you pump more gas through it and get more power. The 1.8 4v design for my 1987 Jetta had a significantly worse gas mileage rating than the 2v design. Tuning the 4valves with different parameters and Vtec designs are helping in that area. The 3.3l Sienna has a better gas mileage rating than the 3.3l Caravan, and has 50 more hp.
Pushrod engines are cheaper to make (generally), and a 2v large pushrod design can get fairly good gas mileage. The GM 3.8 is an example of a larger displacement V6 that gets very good mileage for its size. A 4v 3.8 design would produce more power -- but would be more thirsty. So how does one want to produce 200 hp, 3.8-2v or 3.0-4v -- they’re just different ways of getting 200hp. These 2v OHV larger displacement engines (like GM’s truck V8’s) are a relatively inexpensive way to produce a fair amount of power with decent torque in the low end.
1.8 1987 VW spec’s from my owners manual … hp/torque …
1.8 - 2v… 102 at 5250/110@3250
1.8 - 4v … 123 at 5800/122@4250
I’d wager that the 4v design is still producing more torque at 3250 than the 2v design. 4v designs tend to have very flat torque curves and these spec’s are from the days where the 4v designs were tuned for hp higher up. The 4v designs of today are tuned for more lower end power and torque.
Dodge Caravan 3.3 OHV … … 180hp/210 @ 4000 (torque)
Toyota Sienna 3.3 OHC (4v)… 230hp/242 @ 3600
The Sienna engine has a higher compression ratio (10.8 vs 9.3) which accounts for some of the difference. But nevertheless, the 4valve designs produce better torque. The only way to compensate for that is to give the OHV design a larger displacement. This is typically what GM was doing, selling a ~ 200hp 3.8 OHV versus 200hp 3.0 OHC-4v designs from Japan. The 3.8 will likely have more torque than a 3.0 (4v) engine it competing against.
The downside to a 4v design versus a 2v design is that the 4v design gets worse gas mileage. But one would expect that, with more breathing you pump more gas through it and get more power. The 1.8 4v design for my 1987 Jetta had a significantly worse gas mileage rating than the 2v design. Tuning the 4valves with different parameters and Vtec designs are helping in that area. The 3.3l Sienna has a better gas mileage rating than the 3.3l Caravan, and has 50 more hp.
Pushrod engines are cheaper to make (generally), and a 2v large pushrod design can get fairly good gas mileage. The GM 3.8 is an example of a larger displacement V6 that gets very good mileage for its size. A 4v 3.8 design would produce more power -- but would be more thirsty. So how does one want to produce 200 hp, 3.8-2v or 3.0-4v -- they’re just different ways of getting 200hp. These 2v OHV larger displacement engines (like GM’s truck V8’s) are a relatively inexpensive way to produce a fair amount of power with decent torque in the low end.
