Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
engines without intake valves?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ry_Trapp0" data-source="post: 11755221" data-attributes="member: 27761"><p>yea, i can't stand F1 anymore. just a few decades ago, we had 6 wheeled cars(both 4 in front configuration and 4 in rear configuration), turbine engined cars, 4WD cars, 'sucker' cars that literally had a fan to create a vacuum underneath the car, the tub-in-tub lotus, etc. all banned in due time. pisses me off to no end, they are straight up strangling innovation.</p><p>and, on top of that, the indycar series has provided FAR more entertaining races than F1 of recent times.</p><p></p><p></p><p>here's the excerpt about the coates rotary valve 5.0l...</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>"Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L 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 the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. <strong>Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head <u>at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol</u>, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly</strong>: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>The design of the CSRV, which at first glance resembles an OHC cylinder head, allows for the central placement of the spark plug in the bore. By varying the spark plug location when referenced to the bore centerline, the most desirable position is in the center. This will allow the cylinder pressure build in the minimum amount of crank rotational degrees past TDC. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. <strong>Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm! Though the CSRV removes the valvetrain rpm limitations, <u>the need to have a rotating assembly that can withstand the engine speed becomes the essential element</u>.</strong> Another benefit of this design is the extended oil change intervals, with the lubricating system not being exposed to the rigors and pollution from the poppet valve."</em></p><p>the key info we were missing earlier in the discussion is underlined. should clear it up, lol.</p><p></p><p></p><p>i've been waiting for a racing series to do this for a LONG time! minimal rules - safety regulations + the energy content limit - and let the engineers have at it! though i would like to see ABS and traction control disallowed because it makes for some far more entertaining racing, and it really brings out the best driver.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ry_Trapp0, post: 11755221, member: 27761"] yea, i can't stand F1 anymore. just a few decades ago, we had 6 wheeled cars(both 4 in front configuration and 4 in rear configuration), turbine engined cars, 4WD cars, 'sucker' cars that literally had a fan to create a vacuum underneath the car, the tub-in-tub lotus, etc. all banned in due time. pisses me off to no end, they are straight up strangling innovation. and, on top of that, the indycar series has provided FAR more entertaining races than F1 of recent times. here's the excerpt about the coates rotary valve 5.0l... [indent][i]"Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L 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 the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. [B]Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head [U]at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol[/U], it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly[/B]: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent. The design of the CSRV, which at first glance resembles an OHC cylinder head, allows for the central placement of the spark plug in the bore. By varying the spark plug location when referenced to the bore centerline, the most desirable position is in the center. This will allow the cylinder pressure build in the minimum amount of crank rotational degrees past TDC. Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. [B]Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm! Though the CSRV removes the valvetrain rpm limitations, [U]the need to have a rotating assembly that can withstand the engine speed becomes the essential element[/U].[/B] Another benefit of this design is the extended oil change intervals, with the lubricating system not being exposed to the rigors and pollution from the poppet valve."[/i][/indent] the key info we were missing earlier in the discussion is underlined. should clear it up, lol. i've been waiting for a racing series to do this for a LONG time! minimal rules - safety regulations + the energy content limit - and let the engineers have at it! though i would like to see ABS and traction control disallowed because it makes for some far more entertaining racing, and it really brings out the best driver. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
engines without intake valves?
Top