look mom, no camshaft!

[Patrick66]

http://www.projecttransam.com/coates.htm

http://www.coatesengine.com/look_mom_no_camshaft.html

they made 475hp and 454 ft/lbs on a stock 302 short block.

"Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve. Bench-marking a 5.0 Liter 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 that engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319 cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynode 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. "




then they spun a built one to 14750RPMs!!

"Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. Test run at Coates’ facility have seen a Ford 5.0-liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm!"

 

[Thad]

IIRC Coates came out with this system 20 years ago or so and still no takers.

Look at all their claims and if one is questionable, ask why and question the rest.

"then they spun a built one to 14750RPMs"

Sounds extreme especially when the flame speed of gasoline limits a 5.0 to about 10,000 rpm. And even if on fuel how long would a 5.0 block and bottom end last at 14750 rpm.

And if the system is so fantastic, why is it not used by any OEM?

Rotary valves have been around in one form or another from the beginning. Some aero engines WW-I and WW-II used but aero engines operate at a much slower rpm than an auto engine. If it were a system that was better than the poppet valve, the military and war time would have perfected. Then the aero racers would have polished. Why not?

 

[80broncoman]

THey do not seal off as well as a poppet vavle and therefore they will not last. They just burn up. I think we will see them one of these days.
When there is a ceramic material that will hold up it will work then.

 

[wallaka]

They work all right on 2-strokes because of the constant lubrication, but on a 4-stroke, not so much. Bombardier used them for years (still do) on Ski- and Sea-Doos.

 

[BIGREDRASA]

One can only the level of refinement that the CSRV will offer when integrated with a block that is designed for it.

 

[Patrick66]

And even if on fuel how long would a 5.0 block and bottom end last at 14750 rpm.

probably not very long, and i wouldnt want to be anywhere near one when its goin that fast. however i doubt it was a stock bottom end.

And if the system is so fantastic, why is it not used by any OEM?

thats a good question, but if everyone always accepted that we wouldnt be coming up with anything new. we'd still be using carburetors and points in 2008 models, and id still have the stock intake and 1100 on my engine. i think the production cost would be too high for a manufacturer to use it right now, and i think theyre just now perfecting it (getting them to seal properly). i wish i could find the thread i was reading about it.

I think we will see them one of these days.
When there is a ceramic material that will hold up it will work then.

i honestly don't think this technology will make its way onto the production lines, ever. i dont think manufacturers are going to spend time and money developing and implementing new technology on internal combustion engines when they most likely wont even be producing them 50 years from now, maybe sooner. research and development will probably focus on hydrogen and other 'alternative fuels'. thats what the market wants, and thats what theyre going to do. it would be a poor investment to spend millions revising something that will be obsolete soon enough. its still a cool idea and a good read.

 

[BIGREDRASA]

Production is one thing. Formula 1 is another. They seem to have no end of funding for engine developement. A few years back Renault dominated F1 when they started using "pneumatic" springs to close the valves. They do run some high RPMs.

 

[Thad]

IIRC the two stroke rotary valve is actually a disc.

The duration and timing is limited by the diameter of the valving element.
The shaft would be turning 1/4 engine speed rather than 1/2 as a normal cam. Can one of our math wizzes pls calulate the diameter of a valving shaft and port equal to a 1.90" valve at say 0.550" lift 254 duration. With percent of opening equal to the example cam.

And sealing? if they can seal a wankel's rotary element then sealing the Coates system should be a piece of cake.

I'm not against new technology and often think outside the box but if in a 100 yrs with military and industrail support and still present day OEM lacking interest then I got to have serious doubts.

 

[Platinum_Racing]

And if the system is so fantastic, why is it not used by any OEM?

Rotary valves have been around in one form or another from the beginning. Some aero engines WW-I and WW-II used but aero engines operate at a much slower rpm than an auto engine. If it were a system that was better than the poppet valve, the military and war time would have perfected. Then the aero racers would have polished. Why not?[/quote

They probably won't sell them the rights to the design. They can make more money producing the design themselves. They patented it and probably still have rights to the design. Plus, their licensing page says htat they only license the patent to certain companies, probably companies smaller than Coates. (IE not Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, ect...)

the military doesn't even use reciprocating engines at all in heavy equipment anymore. The tanks all use gas turbines because those are even more efficient. Why put a blower on a flathead to get 180 HP when you can use an OHV engine and get 275? Same principal.

 

[Platinum_Racing]

The duration and timing is limited by the diameter of the valving element.
The shaft would be turning 1/4 engine speed rather than 1/2 as a normal cam. Can one of our math wizzes pls calulate the diameter of a valving shaft and port equal to a 1.90" valve at say 0.550" lift 254 duration. With percent of opening equal to the example cam.

How do you figure, you can probably hack the VTEC system out of a DOHC Honda and stick it on those cam gears with some engineering.....

 

[Anlushac11]

8)

IMHO one of the reason Coates heads are not more common...

A few years back before the Esslinger Aluminum heads came out for the Ford 2.3L 4cyl Some of the guys contacted Coates about possibly doing a run of spherical valve 2.3L aluminum heads.

I want to say the estimated costs for a batch of heads figured out to be well over $6000 each when all was said and done.

Needless to say we didnt order any.

 

[Thad]

CSRV and VTEC are not the same thing

As far as patents and military developement. Patents are not forever. Military and wartime tend to ignore patents. Yes the military has gotten away from recip engine BUT that is now, still there was 90 to 100 year for developement WWI to now.

As far as the major auto manufactors, if CSRV was for real one of they would buy, surely FoMoCo, GMC or one of the Jap could afford. If for no other reason than to keep it from the others. Coates is silent about the offers they have turned down, WHY, no offers. WHY, there is an unstated problem or it is not all it is said to be.