mts Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Valeo In Development Contracts for Camless Engine; Projections of Up To 20% Improvement in Fuel Efficiency AutoWeek reports that Valeo SA has several development contracts with automakers for its camless engine. Although Valeo would not confirm the contracts, a spokesperson said the supplier is working with several global automakers on camless engines. Camless technology is projected to deliver as much as 20% better fuel economy over a conventional engine. Valeo presented its camless Smart Valve Actuation (SVA) at the 2005 Frankfurt Motor Show. In a camless engine, each engine valve is operated individually by an actuator that is placed on the upper surface of the cylinder head, directly above the valve guides. Each actuator is linked to an engine-mounted Valve Control Unit (VCU) that ensures the optimal positioning of all valves and performs the power drive function. The SVA system thus replaces the conventional mechanical cam belt, camshaft and hydraulic cam followers. By controlling residual gases, minimizing pumping losses and deactivating cylinders and valves, this technology reduces fuel consumption and pollutant emissions by up to 20%. Consumers will also benefit from enhanced performance and driving comfort, due to an increase in low-end engine torque. Valeo is working on two different camless systems, each one including the actuators, the Valve Control Unit (VCU), the wiring rail and the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) with the specific strategies dedicated to these new concepts. The “full-camless” system manages the valves on both the intake and exhaust side of the engine. The “half-camless” system manages the inlet valves only. Martin Haub, Valeo board member for R&D, told Automotive News Europe that Valeo is focusing on the half-camless system, which delivers 80% of the performance of the full-camless system, but at half the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 That's interesting, however I don't know if I would trust it. More electronics presents a higher chance of electonic failure, and as such, if the engine is interference then that's a lot of potential damage. Not to mention a 6 cylinder with 4 valves per cylinder would require 24 of these electronic clutches, think of how often they fail on A/C systems, and that's only one. Not to mention, these would have to be fairly strong which could also lead to more electronic interference. Not to mention you now have 2 springs per valve instead of just one, further increasing the chance of problems. You've also probably made the engine heavier, though not by much, but still a drawback. I like the idea, just not the design. If they could combine this with sleeve valves they would definitely be onto something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted February 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 It is coming though.... actually the demise of the internal combustion engine is around the corner.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 I have no problems with fossil fuels disappering, but not internal combustion. Rotary, sleeve, or constant combustion engines powered by hydrogen is where I'd like to see things go...though I don't think I'd be smoking while working on them. These engines would be clean yet repairable. A completely electric car is just a whole new world of pain. Not to mention the weight, acceleration and handling would be terms only used in history books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted February 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 I think that a major revolution is needed... we are still stuck on the facts that pistons are needed to convert power to rotary motion.... damn antiquated idealogy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I wonder what rpm's can be attained with this system? I understand it's better in respect to valve timing, but at what point does valve float become an issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troutman Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Wiki reckons the next Fiat 500 will have such an engine. Interesting concept but one must wonder if it will really last hundreds of thousands of kms without major maintenance. As for battery electric vehicles, the first was made in the 1830s and has surely only been held down by the more profitable (for oil/car companies) nature of internal combustion. Keep an eye on the American Tesla. Tesla prototypes accelerate from 0-60 mph (100 km/h) in about 4 seconds, and travel 250 miles (400 km) on a single charge of its lithium ion batteries. The problem with hydrogen is that it requires electricity to make it. In converting electricity to hydrogen and then into fuel, there is considerable losses compared to using electricity directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Trout I understand the problems hydrogen faces, and the benefits to electric cars. Personally however, I can't see myself wanting to learn how to fix electric cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Nope... for all they do is take the owness of pollution off the driver and put it on the shoulders of the power corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 ^^^ Thank you. Most people don't realize that the number one source of global pollution isn't cars or trucks. Household electrical consumption, which increases with these cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troutman Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 This is also an issue with hydrogen production anyway. The difference is, any fool can slap a solar panel on their garage roof, whereas backyard hydrogen production is not realistic for the average punter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.