flynbludream

iTrader: (1)

Man these things are the coolest things ever invented for an internal combustion engine! Spherical Rotating Valves, anyone ever heard of them? They ran a set on a Ford engine and about doubled the horsepower at the same RPM's. They were also able to spin a completely stock Ford V8 to 14+ Krpms <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

<img src="http://www.coatesengine.com/eGallery/images/pic06.jpg" alt=" - " />

They say you can run 14:1 and higher compression with these heads and valves because they are so efficient and they don't retain the heat that normal poppet valves do. They are also way better on emissions since there is no oil required for the head assembly. Can you picture a FI setup with these heads spinning at 10krpms? <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />

The website is Coates Engine

Unfortunately they are doing a big industrial project right now so the automobile applications are on hold, but they are working on it. I don't see why GM or one of the domestic automakers have not picked this up! If Ford gets a hold of this technology we are going to be SOL!

<img src="http://www.coatesengine.com/eGallery/images/pic03.jpg" alt=" - " />

Comments?

Old SStroker

F1 engines with poppet valves currently spin 18,000, but they do use pneumatic (gas) springs. last week one of the F1 teams was rumored to be at 19,000 with a qualifying engine.

As far as these rotating valves, the airflow path seems a bit convoluted to me. The thing that impressed me most was " They were also able to spin a completely stock Ford V8 to 14+ Krpms."
I'd like to see the bottom end after that run!

As far as state-of-the art engine technology, piston speed is probably the limiting factor now, not valvetrain. Take a guess on bore/stroke of 9400 rpm (all day) Winston Cup 358 cube V-8s (which use flat, not roller lifters). How about 18-19K F1 bore/stroke? Piston speeds are similar.

Louis

iTrader: (7)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
<strong>F1 engines with poppet valves currently spin 18,000, but they do use pneumatic (gas) springs. last week one of the F1 teams was rumored to be at 19,000 with a qualifying engine.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats Ferrari's Qualifying Engine <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" /> If you ever watch one of those races, during a pitstop, youll see a guy with a hose in the Side pod. He is re-filling the Air tank for the Pneumatic valves <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

I knew about the Coates Spherical Rotary Valve engines when I bought my car. I took delivery in May 1999 and sent them an e-mail asking if they would develop heads for the LS1. They said they had no interest in a conversion for the LSx motors. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

wrencher

iTrader: (2)

You'll never see it from one of the big 3 from the factory. Cant screw up the bottom line. Had seen one about 8yrs ago, never knew they kept at it. They had alot of problems with durability/longevity back then.

Old SStroker

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by G2 LS1:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
<strong>F1 engines with poppet valves currently spin 18,000, but they do use pneumatic (gas) springs. last week one of the F1 teams was rumored to be at 19,000 with a qualifying engine.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats Ferrari's Qualifying Engine <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" /> If you ever watch one of those races, during a pitstop, youll see a guy with a hose in the Side pod. He is re-filling the Air tank for the Pneumatic valves <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's very difficult for anyone to get the straight dope on current F1 technology. Yea, the 19K claim was about the Ferrari. I'll bet the engine designers have a few laughs about what the media thinks they are doing.

It's my understanding that there's enough "air", probably pure nitrogen, for the valves for the entire race unless there is a leak. It's not a total loss system; it's more like an air spring in a suspension or an air mattress. I've only notice them "topping up" on occasion. Of course with 14-16 guys around the car it's hard to tell.

I watched a slow F1 pitstop of about 12 seconds for 4 tires and 20 or so gallons of fuel by those 14 guys and a quick Winston Cup pitstop for 4 tires, a suspension adjustment, windshield clean and 20+ gallons of fuel in 14 and change with about 6 guys, one manual jack and 20 wheel nuts.
I think the Cup crews work harder!

flynbludream

iTrader: (1)

Well, F1 engine technology not withstanding, I would venture that this type of valve system would rule all on a street car. According to the website the test V8 that they were using flowed 18x cfm with standard heads, with the CSRV heads as the only change, they saw 32x cfm flow so I'd say the airflow path is fairly good. They also said that this type of system takes a lot less crankshaft rotation to achieve max flow which allows much better cylinder fill.

This setup offers a lot less parasitic power loss from valvetrain components, perfect timing, never having to worry about floating a valve at high RPM, much cooler combustion chamber temps, better fuel efficiency, less parts to wear out. God I want one of these setups. <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />

JimmyKash

i have a 5 page article on this that was in a popular hot rodding issue a while back....definately interesting stuff but majorly expensive

m1a1

Would someome be kind enough to give a cliffs notse version of how these valves work. I dont feel like sorting through the tens of pages they have on the website.

Please?

Pete Mobley

I built a rotary valve head for my masters thesis. Mine was for a Briggs & Stratton since it's a lot easier to make revisions for a single cylinder engine then a V-8. There is the potential to make a lot of power with these heads. Longetivity is a real problem though.

JackZ28

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> This is going to be huuuuuuuuuge...

<small>[ September 20, 2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Jack ]</small>

FASST

If valve-train takes a big leap in technology, it will most likely with electronically controlled valve systems. They get rid of camshafts all-together and allow you to spin to some rediculous rpms. F1 teams have been working on this technology due to the fact that the camshaft is the largest source of vibration in the engine. Supposedly, it will allow a 7k rpm increase. 25-26k redline....39% increase in hp assuming a flat torque curve.

Cool28

iTrader: (2)

I wonder what a v-8 spinning to 26k would sound like <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

Christian Millard

iTrader: (1)

Sadly Coates' valvetrain was never practical for mass production engines, or so time has told. I remember reading about them several years ago hoping something would happen.

Hopefully the next big jump for the corvette will be an electromechanical valvetrain. This can't happen before the 42 volt changeover, so it's going to be a couple years. Take a peek here:

http://media.siemensauto.com/mediace...prjob_num=1195

Gears turning,
-Christian

Old SStroker

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by FASST:
<strong>If valve-train takes a big leap in technology, it will most likely with electronically controlled valve systems. They get rid of camshafts all-together and allow you to spin to some rediculous rpms. F1 teams have been working on this technology due to the fact that the camshaft is the largest source of vibration in the engine. Supposedly, it will allow a 7k rpm increase. 25-26k redline....39% increase in hp assuming a flat torque curve.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Currently piston speed seems to be the limiting factor on engine rpm. 7k more valvetrain potential would mean reducing the stroke to maybe 30 mm(!) from maybe 42-44 mm now to keep the piston speed reasonable. So to get 3.0 L, you'd need a 95 mm bore, 30 mm stroke 14 cyl engine. I don't think that's going to happen.

I'd suggest that torsional vibration in the crank might be more of a problem than cam vibration, especially with a 106 bank angle degree (+/- a couple of degrees) Renault V-10.

So with motoring hp (friction hp + pumping work hp) losses increasing nearly at the square of the rpm increase, a flat torque curve will be a challenge.

As they solve the piston speed problem, rpm will creep up, and we may see camless F1 engines on the track. I haven't heard any team admit to more than dyno testing camless. Weight (up high) is still a big problem.

NoOne

This pops up on the net every once and a while.

Coates heads have been around for a long time, the big problem is emissions with them.

Too much raw fuel in the exhaust. Very very dirty heads, power nonewithstanding.

SlowZ28

So these heads would benefit from a direct injection fuel device like what Audi has?

Alan

Fenris Ulf

Those heads look awesome <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> Kind of a hybrid between a rotary and a cammed car it looks like?

flynbludream

iTrader: (1)

RE Emissions: Why would raw fuel in the exhaust be a problem? Seems like you could tune this out especially with current EFI setups or run a higher compression ratio?

RE Mass production: I can't see why other than lack of money this type of setup wouldn't be practical on modern cars. The setup is fairly simple, has less moving parts, should be REALLY easy to setup. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Old SS: Why do you say that piston speed limits engine RPM? Seems to be that people around here are more concerned with floating valves at high RPM or piston slap. With this type of setup you eliminate a good portion of the frictional losses due to no camshaft and all of the valvetrain parts in the heads being gone. This means that there is basically the crankshaft, pistons and rods are the only highly stressed components in the engine. I'm not sure where you are coming from with this statement. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

JackZ28

Only time will tell fellas, but one can sure as heck hope!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />