Major C6 News!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PacerX:
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.</font>
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.</font>
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,215
From: Coppell, Texas
Awesome news. I would consider myself a Corvette purist, and the exposed headlamps don't really bother me. C1's had them, and pop up headlamps are just one more thing to break. (I just had to replace one on my T/A 
) C3 influenced styling should be good.
GM's powertrain department never ceases to amaze me.
The cam-less engine sounds great. This type of technology is what will allow the big displacement V8 to continue to survive in the upcoming "green" automotive market. I'm assuming that this cam-less engine will be based on the current LS1/LS6 and upcoming LS2? Or will it be completely new?
Sounds good to me, can't wait to see the final product. Hats off to the Corvette team.
------------------
-Joshua
1997 Bright Red Trans Am WS6 M6
I was thinking dagger. -Steve Nash
) C3 influenced styling should be good.GM's powertrain department never ceases to amaze me.
The cam-less engine sounds great. This type of technology is what will allow the big displacement V8 to continue to survive in the upcoming "green" automotive market. I'm assuming that this cam-less engine will be based on the current LS1/LS6 and upcoming LS2? Or will it be completely new?
Sounds good to me, can't wait to see the final product. Hats off to the Corvette team.
------------------
-Joshua
1997 Bright Red Trans Am WS6 M6
I was thinking dagger. -Steve Nash
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Well, complexity needs to be looked at in a couple of ways.
First, there is the manufacturing complexity, which would probably decreased at the assembly plant - where it matters. See, most stuff that is shipped into an assembly facility now comes in modules. The entire instrument panel, for instance. For the engine, you would most likely have 16 solenoid "packs" that have to be shipped in and assembled to the valve stems on the head. Then the wiring has to be connected up. That's it. Compare that to the work involved with putting together ONE cylinder head and you will see where I am coming from.
Second, there is actual component complexity. I think the electro-mechanical system is more elegant there too. Less moving parts = less things to break. If something breaks, you replace the module - without having to take the heads off or pull a cam.
Then there is electrical complexity - it is more complex electrically than the previous system, but with the advances in control technology and vehicle information systems (SAE J1850 and CAN communication busses, for instance....) and the fact that the PCM's in engine controls are about 10-15 years behind cutting edge electronics technology - this should be no big deal.
Finally, there is service complexity, and this system has it in spades of the current OHV and DOHC systems. The entire valve actuation system can be overhauled without removing the cylinder head. No timing chain to break. No cam to wipe the lobes off. Etc...
Hmmmmm....
I wonder if direct injection fits into the picture anywhere...
First, there is the manufacturing complexity, which would probably decreased at the assembly plant - where it matters. See, most stuff that is shipped into an assembly facility now comes in modules. The entire instrument panel, for instance. For the engine, you would most likely have 16 solenoid "packs" that have to be shipped in and assembled to the valve stems on the head. Then the wiring has to be connected up. That's it. Compare that to the work involved with putting together ONE cylinder head and you will see where I am coming from.
Second, there is actual component complexity. I think the electro-mechanical system is more elegant there too. Less moving parts = less things to break. If something breaks, you replace the module - without having to take the heads off or pull a cam.
Then there is electrical complexity - it is more complex electrically than the previous system, but with the advances in control technology and vehicle information systems (SAE J1850 and CAN communication busses, for instance....) and the fact that the PCM's in engine controls are about 10-15 years behind cutting edge electronics technology - this should be no big deal.
Finally, there is service complexity, and this system has it in spades of the current OHV and DOHC systems. The entire valve actuation system can be overhauled without removing the cylinder head. No timing chain to break. No cam to wipe the lobes off. Etc...
Hmmmmm....
I wonder if direct injection fits into the picture anywhere...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 854
From: neverneverland
All this new "LS2" talk makes you wonder what engine the CTSi was testing over in Germany, doesn't it? They are both set to be 2004 models right? Who needs an LS6 when the LS2 is putting out 400hp!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
It sounds to me that once all the electronic control issues are resolved...this may actually be less expensive to manufacture than even current OHV systems...let alone OHC.
Direct injection could only make it better. Isn't everyone waiting for the oil companies to commit to lower sulfer fuels before DI can be released?
Direct injection could only make it better. Isn't everyone waiting for the oil companies to commit to lower sulfer fuels before DI can be released?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 393
From: Mobile, Alabama
Man, all of this power to drive valves and electronics etc......
Its sure gonna suck when you leave the interior light on and the batteries dead the next morning.. Can't jump start it or anything?
I bet those alternators are pretty expensive too????
Seriously, i think its cool to eliminate soo much stuff from the block but the added complexity and cost sounds a bit out of most ordinary enthusiasts price range.
Just a thought,
STEW
Its sure gonna suck when you leave the interior light on and the batteries dead the next morning.. Can't jump start it or anything?
I bet those alternators are pretty expensive too????
Seriously, i think its cool to eliminate soo much stuff from the block but the added complexity and cost sounds a bit out of most ordinary enthusiasts price range.
Just a thought,
STEW
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by guionM:
Oh? Really?
</font>
Oh? Really?
</font>
http://www.bonforums.com/comp/camaro_next.htm
Here is a quote from the article. I finished it in July, it took BON almost a month to publish it.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It would seem instructive to keep in mind that that Pontiac has had many GTO concepts over the last few years, including the rear-drive LS1 powered design shown a few years ago. Though the styling of the aforementioned designs drew mixed reviews, they show that Pontiac has very real interest in the nameplate. Further, 2004 marks the 40th anniversary of the GTO, making it almost too sweet an opportunity for Pontiac to not take advantage of. Though Pontiac remains tight-lipped on the subject, a future GTO seems more likely than many people believe.</font>
so yes I did
------------------
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!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 148
From: The Garden State
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Z284ever:
... Direct injection could only make it better. Isn't everyone waiting for the oil companies to commit to lower sulfer fuels before DI can be released?</font>
... Direct injection could only make it better. Isn't everyone waiting for the oil companies to commit to lower sulfer fuels before DI can be released?</font>
[This message has been edited by Jason96T/A (edited August 07, 2002).]
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by formula79:
Yes really...look..
http://www.bonforums.com/comp/camaro_next.htm
Here is a quote from the article. I finished it in July, it took BON almost a month to publish it.
so yes I did
Yes really...look..
http://www.bonforums.com/comp/camaro_next.htm
Here is a quote from the article. I finished it in July, it took BON almost a month to publish it.
It would seem instructive to keep in mind that that Pontiac has had many GTO concepts over the last few years, including the rear-drive LS1 powered design shown a few years ago. Though the styling of the aforementioned designs drew mixed reviews, they show that Pontiac has very real interest in the nameplate. Further, 2004 marks the 40th anniversary of the GTO, making it almost too sweet an opportunity for Pontiac to not take advantage of. Though Pontiac remains tight-lipped on the subject, a future GTO seems more likely than many people believe.</font>
so yes I did
It's all good, cause Redplanet didn't believe Monaro wasn't comming to the US either, and strongly disagreed with me as late as February.
The best, most accurate, unfiltered info & biggest & best scoops don't come from the top guys...it comes from the guys in the trenches.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by guionM:
I remember that article clearly. It said that Pontiac was working on a high performance car to be built at Bowling Green with the Corvette, and you speculated that that car was a GTO. I also responded that I seriously didn't believe it (GM would never spend money that way), and that it was far more likely to bring the Monaro as a Camaro to the US.
It's all good, cause Redplanet didn't believe Monaro wasn't comming to the US either, and strongly disagreed with me as late as February.
The best, most accurate, unfiltered info & biggest & best scoops don't come from the top guys...it comes from the guys in the trenches.
</font>
I remember that article clearly. It said that Pontiac was working on a high performance car to be built at Bowling Green with the Corvette, and you speculated that that car was a GTO. I also responded that I seriously didn't believe it (GM would never spend money that way), and that it was far more likely to bring the Monaro as a Camaro to the US.
It's all good, cause Redplanet didn't believe Monaro wasn't comming to the US either, and strongly disagreed with me as late as February.
The best, most accurate, unfiltered info & biggest & best scoops don't come from the top guys...it comes from the guys in the trenches.
</font>
------------------
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!