CAM GUY'S , just when you though theres nothing new

[408swinger]

Finally got around to watching the video..( I was in bed last night when I first saw this thread and the wife would be more tolerant of [Blank Post] than car stuff...lol)
Interesting...
Why hasn't the camless technology like Freevalve taken a foothold ? I know it has been researched since the 80s or longer . I remember reading an article in Automotive Industries around 1999 that indicated Ford would be using a small camless diesel in the Ranger by 2005 . The diesel being more forgiving as a test bed due to lower rpms.

Ducati has used it . Formula one has used it . Now Koenigsig .

[modok]

What does a complex valve gear gain you compared to Direct injection and/or turbocharging? Not much.

[CamKing]

going back to other engines , the biggest part of no throttle is going to be direct injection ,

I worked on a project for the D.O.E. about 15 years ago, that had no throttle. It was a turbo charged engine, with variable MCR. When the boost was low, it had higher compression, and as the boost increased, the compression decreased. The engine RPM's where controlled by cam timing.

[CamKing]

What does a complex valve gear gain you compared to Direct injection and/or turbocharging? Not much.

You should be asking,
"What does a complex valve gear, Direct injection and/or turbocharging gain you ?
Variable valve timing will help in any engine(non-steady state).

[modok]

True, definite advantage, but as far as order I would put the complex valve gear last.

[gunt]

still its fairly ingenious that's the point , sometimes something complex in achieving a simple outcome works very

i have no idea how to do the quote thing

Clever idea for an OEM, but not for the aftermarket.

that's not where i was going , i live in a world where very thing is DOCH , the point was this is a very simple thing to transfer from emission millage to pure power , see the way the lobes were just dropped on , look back at the camery 2.4 engine what a complete numb Atkins cycle engine , but take it back to otto run a turbo and they were running fairly mental figures with ease , and every bit of that engine was was built for it , they ran 800bhp 700tq on std open deck bore and std bearing clearances before they have an issue . 1200-1700 after

going back to the casting and no one will pay , things have change so much , HKS did a intake vvt on the intake only for the RB26 way way back the conversion was the price of a small car , and they all sold, designed probably 30yrs ago , look now at the lambo guys , buy any old 5.0 v10 lambo drop it to the big names they will give you 1500bhp, engine box electronics everything for 150k with 2yrs warrenty on 93 oct , all out they run 3500bhp .

design / build it for a market that you can piss on the rest you will sell it , i would say for all those guys doing billet heads if they offered something incorporating all the best vvt they to would see , but it would not fit in any of your race category , so it can't be done

i know throttles are not needed and BMW had in fact got rid of them over 15yrs ago , only kept as a fail safe ,

freevalve is done see koenigsegg, and see the benefits they retrofitted to a saab and tested for years

[LoganD]

Here's why changing duration is more important then changing lift and area, on a variable system.
With today's technology, we can change a lot of parameters to make the engine more efficient. Timing, fuel, Intake and Exhaust centerlines, lift, duration, runner length, etc, but the one thing we're normally stuck with is Port MCA. The cross-sectional area of the port has to be big enough to feed the engine at max RPM, but that means it's too big, at lower RPMs. at lower RPM, where the velocity in the port is lower then what would be most efficient at that rpm, the best way to crutch it, is to reduce intake duration without decreasing lift. and advance the intake centerline. This gives you a shorter, stronger pulse, which increase the max velocity in the port, compared to leaving the duration alone, and reducing lift.

All poking fun aside, we're talking about two different things here. When I said this:

For performance. Performance operation is in a narrow range, you aren't worried about idle or 2000 rpm operation when you're trying to make more power.

I should have been a bit more clear. You're talking only about WOT MBT conditions, I'm not. I keep referencing throttling, and most of any kind of street engine operation is spent in throttling conditions. When you're idling, or cruising on the highway, port MCA and the corresponding velocity in the port don't matter because the valve is not seeing anything close to 1 atm. With valvetronic you can change that, you can actually increase the air density at the back of the valve significantly because you no longer have to close the throttle to limit BMEP. So when I say performance operation is in a narrow range, it's in a narrow range of the entire engine operation map.

Now, if we're talking about just WOT MBT conditions, you could potentially make a case that this system in conjunction with VVT would be the ideal setup for maximizing MBT from say....2000-8000 RPM. Once you become familiar with the system you realize that there are some real mechanical limitations that hurt this idea though. As you increase valvetrain loads to build an engine that can rev higher, this system needs to be able to handle higher loads (obviously). You can increase the size of the "bearing" surface that the system rotates on, but as far as actually moving it during engine operation you need more force. You can either put a larger motor on it or give it a more advantageous gear ratio. There are clearly limitations to packaging that prevent the ability to put a really large powerful motor on there, not to mention the electrical system needed to power it and control it while not creating electromagnetic interference with other engine electricals. The problem with giving it a higher numerical gear ratio is that the response time gets worse, which is the exact opposite of what you want to happen on a performance engine. This means on a performance engine you are limited to using this over a small low RPM range unless you've got all the space and electrical power in the world.

The reason that I said VVT should be what the aftermarket is focusing on is three fold:

1. Ease of adaptation
2. Response time
3. Ability to deal with RPM/Load

Backwards adapting VVT to even something like an LS is very very possible, Mahle's cam in cam system would make this possible. Trying to fit this Hyundai system to an engine that didn't originally come with it would at the very least require completely new heads, but you have a problem with calibration and setup as you don't really know how the end user is going to apply it in their application. You can design a VVT system that's robust enough to deal with virtually any non-extreme race application, that's precisely what the VVT suppliers do.

VVT has, by a hugely significant margin, the best response time of any type of continuously variable valvetrain system. iVTEC has even better response time, but it's not continuously variable and that's why Honda still use VVT in conjunction with it. Modern VVT systems have huge range, 30 cam degrees per actuator is the norm giving you 60 degrees of camshaft overlap change (120 degrees crank). Obviously this means you can advance or retard the cams a huge amount too.

A modern VVT system can change camshaft position every firing cycle on a 9000 RPM GT3 engine with 100k mile durability. Valvetronic cannot do that, and neither can this Hyundai system. The Valvetronic setups deal with higher valvetrain loads better than the Hyundai system, but you still aren't going to be running big valvespring pressure/high valvetrain load with them. This is one area where iVTEC is phenomenal, it deals with performance/race applications perfectly.

None of this gets into turbocharged applications, which valvetronic is absolutely BRILLIANT for. The ability to keep boost pressure at the back of the valve during BMEP restricted situations (throttled with the intake valve) means boost response with valvetronic is absolutely unmatched. You can really feel it when you drive BMW's latest turbocharged engines.

[CamKing]

Now, if we're talking about just WOT MBT conditions, you could potentially make a case that this system in conjunction with VVT would be the ideal setup for maximizing MBT from say....2000-8000 RPM.

That's the great part about this system, it has VVT built in. Not only does it decrease and increase duration, it advances and retards the centerlines. It also keeps the valvetrain dynamics in control, by reducing the valve acceleration at higher RPM's.
It's a simple mechanical system, that does a lot.

No, it's not something you would try to retro-fit on another engine platform, but it's something that would be easy to modify for aftermarket applications. It would be very easy for me to design and manufacture new lobes for this system.

[LoganD]

Now, if we're talking about just WOT MBT conditions, you could potentially make a case that this system in conjunction with VVT would be the ideal setup for maximizing MBT from say....2000-8000 RPM.

That's the great part about this system, it has VVT built in. Not only does it decrease and increase duration, it advances and retards the centerlines. It also keeps the valvetrain dynamics in control, by reducing the valve acceleration at higher RPM's.
It's a simple mechanical system, that does a lot.

No, it's not something you would try to retro-fit on another engine platform, but it's something that would be easy to modify for aftermarket applications. It would be very easy for me to design and manufacture new lobes for this system.

The practical VVT range isn't that large. You'll notice that even Hyundai has VVT cam phasers on the head in the video....trust me, they wouldn't spend that money unless they really needed that.

It's not that simple because you have a large electric motor that needs its own control and power circuit. Developing that control algorithm is not trivial, and the second you change the loading with say....a more aggressive cam and valvesprings it would have to be completely recalibrated. The motor has power limitations. This is much, much more difficult to set up and control than a VVT system. It's also much harder to get it to deal with a performance application where the valvetrain loads are higher as I said. Oil controlled VVT systems have a more stable medium, even if you apply more force the oil won't be compressed in any practical way, and the PID control can deal with an offset through the integral component. When you're dealing with an electric motor the power needed in the motor to move or hold a certain position will change with force, so you change valvesprings and suddenly you need 500 hours of dyno time to make it respond correctly in every engine operation situation.

As I originally said, this would be a great system if you could make it have super fast response and load limits weren't a problem, but the reality is much more difficult than that.

[midnightbluS10]

I think this is absolutely brilliant.
I would hope something like that would find it's way to our Chevy variants, but I can also see a OHC would be needed.

GM has multiple OHC engines the Camaro V6 is OHC, plus many others. Just because they can't use it on their trucks engines, which is only a single family of a few engines, doesn't mean they can't use it period.