I've been waiting for a long time for someone to come out with a camless valvetrain.

It would be great if Chevy came out with it first!

 

Very cool.

------------------
Steve · FormulaV8.com · 1994 Formula · A4 · 3.23
13.45 @ 102.5 MPH w/ 1.9 60' | 267 rwhp | 307 tq/lbs | 3535 lbs
"I know for a fact he is NOT an Easter bunny"

 

Id also like to add that I love the idea of using a totally different motor for the Z06. Something that would really set it off from the base C5, I love it!

 

Based on the C6 test mule sighting from the Corvette Forum, I'd be more inclined to believe it is not a digital/analog gauge cluster, but rather a tinted/backlit gauge cluster, as seen on current model Cadillacs (sit in a Deville with the key off, for example).

 

 

So let me get this straight?

The 2003 Viper is about what, 3300lbs and had 500hp?
The C6 will weigh in between 2650 and 2850lbs based on a 3150 lb 2003 Z06 weight and the supposed 300-500 pound weight savings. THEN on top of it, have 500+ hp???

Weight to power ratio of the Viper would be 6.6 lb/hp and the C6 would be between 5.3 and 5.7 lb/hp.



Can you smell that? I can. It was the Viper team. They just crapped their pants. This Corvette will kill anything on the road. Viper, GT40, BMW, Ferrari, you name it. This is incredible news. I still can't believe it!

I can't even imagine this engine tuned. Watch a tuned LS2 rev to 8000+ rpm's. That will scare the hell out of the S2000 sitting next to you.

Lutz and Corvette team have done it again!

 

guys, lets not all crap our pants about the electronic valve actuation. its not proven tech. if those valves start singing to different tunes, its all over. i can think of countless times when tech fails especially when mechanicals are closely mated to electronics. I imagine a lifespan of no more than 10 years for such an engine.

on the other hand advancing the timing and lift duration might be a 'clean' job for once done by interphasing with a laptop, etc.

 

hmm.. that quote keeps resonating in my mind as I read all these posts. Are you talking about the camless engine or the cosmetic stuff? At this point I'm more excited about the engine, and cosmetic updates are a lower priority. Now that this has leaked, if it's true, they *must* keep the engine alive. It's brilliant and overdue.. for GM to have it first would be a good shot in the arm to revitalize them, especially if they can later on trickle down some of this technology to cheaper bread&butter cars and force others to follow suit. Between rumors & final products, things always change so much, so I'm not getting my hopes up for those amazing weight numbers and 500+HP but if they manage to do it, it'll be a jaw-dropper. whiplash-on-demand. and a great side effect is that it would leave plenty of room for the GTO to conquer its own market. I'm rooting for GM, at least for now
gt

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am (Y84), LU5/WS6/CC1/G80/J65/etc. 3,082 orig. miles (7/24/2002) - http://ohok.com/82recaro
1985 Base Firebird, F41/LB8/GU5/etc. CB radio, 142kmiles. http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsfb.jpg
1984 Firebird S/E, WS6/LL1/MD8/etc. All original, 102kmiles. Sold 5/02 http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsse.jpg

 

There have been rumors flying of a mythical high-tech engine swirling for about a year now...but no one knew what it was. I was told by someone that the timeframe for "high-tech" engine was 07-08, so don't expect the C6 to debut with this engine! Remember how long it took us to get the C5 based Z06!

------------------
Branden-Founder-www.GMInsidenews.com-The #1 GM News Site on the Net!
1995 Firebird A4 White with red leather! SOLD 1979 Firbird Formula 400HO!
Visit my homepage!

 

Actually it is. Read my above post-
its been used in AIRCRAFT for years. And if there's one place where you want to only use proven and reliable tech, wouldn't Aircraft be on the top of your list?

 

Technology has been around and many people have been working on it for the auto industry for awhile now. I believe there are several SAE papers on the topic if you are really interested.


[This message has been edited by 78montecarlo (edited August 07, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by 78montecarlo (edited August 07, 2002).]

 

"Awesome, I thought the displacement on demand thing was just more non-sense to clutter the engine."

Displacement on demand in an electronically actuated valve engine is a piece of cake. It can actually be incorporated less expensively in a camless engine than it can in an OHV design because the associated mechanisms for disabling the valves is unnecessary in the camless one.

Furthermore, we might just find out that variable valve timing on a DOHC engine is MORE EXPENSIVE than it is to install electronically actuated valves. Especially since the motor will most likely be 2V per cylinder.


"guys, lets not all crap our pants about the electronic valve actuation. its not proven tech."

It's pretty well proven. Camless engines have been used in racing for years, and are common tech in aerospace.

The 42V electrical system is a concurrent driver of the technology.

 

Yup, I think you nailed. it. The existing displacement on demand system is rendered irrelevant, especially since the special lifters won't even exist in a camless engine. The PCM will be able to shut cylinders off electronically...or simply adjust valve timing to an economy mode.

Think about it guys, this provides near limitless cam profiles without ever turning a wrench. As soon as the LT1 Edit boys crack the PCM code 600HP might be possible with a simple reprogramming. (But who knows how complex the code is..that's a huge question mark).

500 lbs lighter and camless (vastly reduced frictional losses and variable timing)...I would not be suprised to see the Z06 hit 35+ MPG...standard C6s would probably get 32-33 as well....take that gas guzzler tax!

And as somebody said above, most if not all this stuff will trickle down into the 5th gen.


------------------
Owner, Nashville Speed & Performance

1996 Trans Am WS6

 

I'm still thinking about the weight reduction. 300-500 lbs is HUGE, especially when coming off a lightweight C5. I'm guessing most of it is coming from the aluminum spaceframe and new hydroforming manufacturing, but still! Then again, maybe they're taking it all out of it's a**, lord knows it was big enough !

 

I'm gonna go NUTTY-technical here, so if you want to talk about the headlights, skip over this post entirely...

Let's tear this electronically actuated valve idea apart and see what happens...

First, what do I get to eliminate in the motor?

Timing chain and gear.
Timing chain cover.
Timing chain cover gasket.
Timing chain cover fasteners.
Timing chain cover machining operations.
Cam.
Cam bearings.
Rifle-drilling the cam bearing installation surfaces.
16 lifters.
16 pushrods.
Machining operation for the lifters in the block.
16 valvesprings (I think... I'll drop into this subject in a second...).
Elimination of spring pocket machining.
16 retainers.
32 locks.

OK, now that that stuff is history, what problems with current engine packaging will we have?

Well, we need a way to drive the water pump. Probably do that off a belt from a crank pully.

42V electrical system? Most likely. See, in all electric motors or coils, voltage is the equivalent of speed, while current governs force or torque. A valve has to move VERY quickly, but doesn't need a whole lot of force to open... this would be a solenoid type field coil with a LOT of voltage behind it.

One problem with that theory is that while ACCELERATING the valve is easy, getting it to reverse direction isn't... and there is the crux of the design issue. Might need a valvespring ANYWAY. This would make holding the valve open for displacement on demand problematic (sustained current to a field coil costs TONS of current).

Now - while the rotating mass of the cam and much of the mass of the valvetrain is eliminated, actuating the valve still requires energy. This would be energy supplied by the electrical system, and as many folks who tried the electric water pump found out - the energy required to mechanically drive the pump is LESS than that to drive the pump electrically (alternators and electric motors are never 100% efficient, so the efficiency losses due to changing from mechanical to electrical and back to mechanical energy are greater than that required to mechanically drive the water pump - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH IN ENGINEERING).

Now, with all that being said, the efficiency loss of the multiple conversions of energy in this case are probably COMPLETELY offset by the loss of friction, inertial losses, and timing limitations set by the OHV (or DOHC) arrangements.

Now, for another nifty trick - think of how much more elegant the intake and exhaust runner routing can be without the pushrods in the way... Maybe we could even get a fifth head bolt out it so we can run some SERIOUS BOOST on LS1 type motors.

Compared to what this system can offer, DOHC arrangements SUCK ***. Hell, DOHC small motors can't even outperform OHV motors on a weight/power or cost/power basis.

One more fearless prediction... Since all of the valvetrain has been eliminated, variable valve timing is included, AND we get displacement on demand nearly for free - GM can make a BIG motor with incredible fuel economy. As in +7.0 liters....

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! 500hp would be NOTHING.