Is "overhead-valve" the wrong way to describe a modern pushrod engine?

4 replies [Last post]'s picture
Joined: 2011-08-08

A reader recently complained that it has been decades since a volume American car has had an actual "overhead-valve" architecture and that modern "OHV" designs should be described as cam-in-block or pushrod engines. Should the term "OHV" be retired?


abinder's picture
Joined: 2012-01-03

I don’t agree.
Although he is right regarding the long-time absence of “flat head” or side-valve engines, and technically OHC engines also have “overhead” valves, the OHV
designation is still a useful and commonly used descriptor, and not just by Ward’s.
GM Powertrain, for example, uses the terms “overhead valves” in specifications sheet for engines that are not overhead cam, as do most other manufacturers.

f383sc's picture
Joined: 2012-11-13

Back in the US automotive manufacturing day, when there were Flat Head and OHV engines, Flat Head engines were not considered OHV as the vlaves are beside the piston.Once they moved the valves to over the piston, or "over the head" the designation became OHV. Two seperate designations.'s picture
Joined: 2011-08-08

So is OHV still an accurate and valid description, or should it be retired and replaced with cam-in-block or pushrod engine?

is228979's picture
Joined: 2011-12-16

PUSHROD! At least that's what all of us in the steel industry still call them.....

Please or Register to post comments.

Connect With Us

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×