Valve train Q>
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Valve train Q> How much HP needed to run the valve train?
Anybody seed this
http://coatesengine.com/csrv.html
explain this please:
HIGH EFFICIENCY IN PART-LOAD OPERATIONS:
Low pumping work
• Use less than 10% power to operate the poppet valve mechanism
----------------------------------------------
Do you think this is true:
Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent
Read full story
http://coatesengine.com/look_mom_no_camshaft.html
Thanks.
Anybody seed this
http://coatesengine.com/csrv.html
explain this please:
HIGH EFFICIENCY IN PART-LOAD OPERATIONS:
Low pumping work
• Use less than 10% power to operate the poppet valve mechanism
----------------------------------------------
Do you think this is true:
Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent
Read full story
http://coatesengine.com/look_mom_no_camshaft.html
Thanks.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, North Mexico
I didn't read the whole story, but from what I read there, that is bullshit.
There is no way you have well over 200ft lbs of friction torque.
From my classroom lab, a part throttle 3.8L V6 had about 30ft lbs at 1700rpm and 35ft lbs at 2500 rpm
+200ft lbs is a ridiculous number for pumping losses and whatever.
They have been around forever. I think they have trouble acknowledging that they have a flawed design. That thing will never seal long term.
There is no way you have well over 200ft lbs of friction torque.
From my classroom lab, a part throttle 3.8L V6 had about 30ft lbs at 1700rpm and 35ft lbs at 2500 rpm
+200ft lbs is a ridiculous number for pumping losses and whatever.
They have been around forever. I think they have trouble acknowledging that they have a flawed design. That thing will never seal long term.
Last edited by treyZ28; Dec 14, 2005 at 11:05 AM.
Originally Posted by treyZ28
They have been around forever. I think they have trouble acknowledging that they have a flawed design. That thing will never seal long term.
Ryan
There is one rotary valve motor running in competiton today.
Husaberg-Roton
For a 450cc motor it makes 49rwhp
FWIW Richard @ WCCH has a ported KTM 450cc that makes 67rwhp.
I really don't see the point of a setup like this if your going to be down 35% in power to your competitors.
Bret
Husaberg-Roton
For a 450cc motor it makes 49rwhp
FWIW Richard @ WCCH has a ported KTM 450cc that makes 67rwhp.
I really don't see the point of a setup like this if your going to be down 35% in power to your competitors.
Bret
