Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Electrically operated valves.

I’ve been waiting for these since I was a kid, and that’s along time ago.

So what’s the hold up? Formula 1 engineers had a toy with the idea and Mercedes actually has an engine running.

The enormous tuning options are only limited by our imagination.

Just a few:

No cam shafts, timing chains, lifters, rockers etc, etc.

Engine starts decompressed, builds oil pressure then the ecu kicks in some cylinders.

Valve lift, duration and timing all adjustable via the ecu.

Vary the engine capacity by partially filling cylinders to offer a smaller capacity for light load, idle situations.

Completely drop off any cylinder at any time, the mind boggles at some crazy firing orders.

Real engine braking, make the Jake brakes on the Kenworths look twice.

With the fanfare of GM’s “new” olloytec engine and Ford strapping a turbo on their twin cam head, all technology at least 10 years old, where are all the lateral thinkers?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/110009-electrically-operated-valves/
Share on other sites

This would just give manufacturers another reason to f*ck car modifiers in the arse. Notice that it is starting to get a lot harder to modify cars these days because of more and more electrically enhanced products?

An example of this was when the XR6 turbo came out. There were/are measures to prevent turning the boost up too much. It is a complicated issue to fix, which most people have got around by engine management computer modifcations.

You can get around these measures by aftermarket development, but as manufactures get more clued up as to how to protect their development, a lot more work needs to be done by the aftermarket companies to catch up. Hense the price of developing products to overwrite the manufactures settings will be passed onto the consumer.

Edited by Thunderbolt

Would the gains over a well designed multivalve, variable valve timing, variable valve lift engine make the enormous increase in development costs worthwhile? Imagine how much software development would need to go into programming such a thing?

Has been and is still being tested but it needs a Power system much greater than 12 volts.

More like a 48 Volt system and the Current draw on the much larger required alternator to keep the system running puts a massive drain on the engine negating the power penefits gained by not direct driving the Valve train from the Crankshaft.

Works in theory but expense and lack of real world practicality will see it delayed until other problems are overcome.

The valves use a solenoid actuation but with much more control than a conventional on off solenoid.

F1 already use pneumatically actuated valves because a normal cam shaft wouldn't be able to keep up as I understand.

The big determining factor is cost.

The bean counters are the ones who run companies these days.

Doesn't matter if it's a quasiturbine, rotary, 2-stroke, 4-stroke, they all have a valve or port of some sort and that's one of the first areas that gets modified when you're trying for more power.

Incidentally there are a few patents pending and of course they don't use massive voltages, solenoids etc. Mostly electro/hydraulic and are capable of operating well within the range of conventional engine RPM's.

As for developmental costs, have any of you seen how complicated a sleeve valve is? Check out a Bristol Centaurus.

  • 3 months later...
The valves use a solenoid actuation but with much more control than a conventional on off solenoid.

F1 already use pneumatically actuated valves because a normal cam shaft wouldn't be able to keep up as I understand.

The big determining factor is cost.

The bean counters are the ones who run companies these days.

It's not the camshaft that can't keep up, it's the speed at which the valves have to operate that is the problem. They open and close so fast you get valve float. To stop this you have to use stronger valves springs or dual springs. This becomes a game of diminishing returns as revs rise so do spring resistance , sapping power to open and close the stiffer springs ,etc Ducati and earlier Mercedes use Desmodromic valve operation. This system doesn't use valve springs but levers off the camshaft to positively open and close the valves. Pneumatic valves just use air or N2 for springs

  • 2 weeks later...
Rota whatta whatta?

What are these fandangled things you speak of?

:P

The next BIG step will be rotary valves in the everyday engine. This kind of thing makes camshafts and valves obsolete. Once the bugs are ironed out that is.

just google "rotary valve engines" for some good examples.

rotary valves on one of these.

(just trying to up the ante. Don't care much for counter rotation, but more power al all rpm + a higher rev limit...)

and although the how stuff works article implies it, I don't think there has been a working prototype of an internal combustion quasiturbine engine.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...