LOOK MOM, NO CAMSHAFT!

Revolutionary Spherical Rotary Valve Reinvents the Engine? By Ray T. Bohacz POPULAR HOT RODDING October 1999 For an engine to produce power, it needs to breathe, plain and simple. The more air that it can pump with the proper amount of fuel, the greater the specific output will be. The quest for airflow is not a singular pursuit by the performance industry though: Detroit shares the same goal. This has been represented by four-valve cylinder heads, forced induction, and variable-runner intake manifolds in OEM applications. It's common with most things when you set out to improve them, a gain in one area is usually offset by a restriction in another. A efficient cylinder head can be diminished to poor flowing status by the installation of a low-capacity intake manifold, whereas an intake that is too large will not work with a restrictive cylinder head. It has been universally accepted that the current valve design is the largest offender in the quest for airflow in an engine. Identified as a poppet valve, this tulip shaped devise has been used in some form from the first engine up to the latest marvels from the Motor City. Earning its name from the reciprocating motion it travels in, it has been the standard bearer of airflow until now. Like many others before him, engineer George Coates recognized that the efficiency of an engine would always be limited if the mindset of valve designed is not expanded. The idea of using a rotating motion to operate a reciprocating valve adds complexity, cost, and friction to an engine. The ideal arrangement would have the valves share the same motion as the crankshaft, eliminating all of the downfalls of the poppet valve. Over the years, this technology never developed due to a problem that until recently could not be solved: How to seal the valve when it was closed. Coates is the brainchild of a spinning valve, and he is the father of sealing one and making it work, a four-year labor of love. Using a spherical assembly that rotated in a timed sequence to expose the intake and exhaust ports, his design allows for an approximate 18-percent gain in fuel efficiency along with a corresponding increase in power, while eliminating the camshaft and its ancillary mechanisms. Inherent Deficiencies Before the benefits of the Coates Spherical Rotary Valve (CSRV) can be established, the deficiencies of the poppet valve need to be represented. By nature of its design, the necessary use of a camshaft to open and close a poppet valve requires that the clearance between the cam, tappet, and valve must be taken up slowly, and the valve lifted slowly at first, to avoid unacceptable levels of noise and wear. Additionally, the valve can not be closed abruptly or it will bounce on its seat. Another concern is the shrouding of the poppet valve at low lifts and the undesirable effect it imparts to the port's flow capabilities. Valve of this design, even with aggressive cam profiles, spend more time traversing their lift ranges than dwelling at full lift. Herein lies the importance of examining low-lift flow numbers for a cylinder head. The slow response time when measured in degrees of the crankshaft's arc of rotation creates pumping losses, since the intake valve is not open far enough to take full advantage of the low pressure created in the bore as the piston sweeps downward toward bottom dead center. To compensate for this, it is customary to open the intake valve prior to the piston reaching TDC and the beginning of the intake stroke. Exhaust port concerns are aided by the high pressure in relation to the exhaust manifold during blow down, share the same obstacles, and require early opening and late closing along with a period of overlap, when both valves are open. During this time, it is critical to have a defined amount of overlap to exhaust the bore while not overscavening and pulling any fresh charge out of the tailpipe. If there were a

means of exposing the intake and exhaust ports quicker to full flow, the efficiency of the engine would be increased. The poppet valve is a greater liability to the engine beyond its flow limitations. The energy that is used to expand against the piston and turn the crankshaft is wasted during overlap and the prerequisite time that is required to open the valves prematurely and delay their closing. With the CSRV, this energy loss is eliminated. If opening the poppet valve is a problem, closing it is an even greater concern. Keeping the lifter in contact with the camshaft lobe mandates the use of valvesprings to close the valve and ensure the lifter stays on the lobe, especially when it rides over the nose of the cam and lifter changes direction. This is known as the inflection point. The pressure requires energy to overcome and is identified as a frictional loss to the engine. The power consumed internally by the engine accounts for frictional losses, and the poppet valvetrain is a major offender. Additional internal friction is created by the water and oil pumps along with the crankshaft traveling through the oil pan. Friction is usually established by a motoring dyno test, where the engine is run by a large electric motor without any combustion, measuring the power required to turn it. In a test performed by Coates Engineering, an early Ford Escort engine consumed over 20 lb.-ft of torque just to operate its valvetrain. Imagine the losses in a small-block Chevy with a solid-roller cam and high valvespring pressures! Pumping losses can be defined as the difference in the value of the work delivered to the piston during the compression and power strokes only; when subtracted from the total work delivered to the engine over the entire four strokes. The first internal combustion engine was approximately 20-percent thermally efficient, with the best designs today approaching only 24 percent. This means that 76 percent of the energy from the fuel consumed is going either out the tailpipe or into the cooling system and is being wasted. Poppet valves also dictate the design of the combustion chamber by virtue of their placement in relation to the bore. Moving only up and down means that the valve heads themselves are sources of retained heat and the stem needs to be lubricates as it slides through the guide in the head. This poses a distinct problem. The retained heat creates a propensity for detonation, limiting the compression ratio of the engine. The first and second laws of thermodynamics dictate that any increase in compression ratio will yield a disproportionate gain in fuel efficiency over power generation. Raising the compression ratio from 8:0:1 to 11:0:1 will add just over 5 percent to the engine's power but decrease fuel consumption by 20 percent, if all other factors of the engine remain constant. This is the reason the cars of the mid-'70 were so fuel thirsty, the mind set then was to lower the compression ratio to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. The oil that is required to lubricate the valvetrain, even with the latest in valve seal design, allows some losses into the combustion event. When oil is introduced into combustion, the likelihood for detonation is increased. NOx is always present in all forms of combustion and requires pressure, heat, and exposure time to be produced. When the engine detonates, or the leading edge flame front temperatures reach 2,500 degrees F or greater, NOx production goes sky high. The poppet valve's retained head and necessary lubrication contributes to this and requires other areas of engine design to be compromised. What is often overlooked is the heat transfer from the poppet valve to the intake port and the heating of the incoming charge. A law of physics states the for every 10 degrees F the air-charge temperature is raised, a corresponding drop in engine power of one percent is experienced. Inefficient exhaust ports designed for poppet valves transfer exhaust heat into the water jacket of the cylinder head, lowering engine efficiency and reducing the effectiveness of blow down. In summation, the poppet valve has been the bane of the internal combustion engine, but the lack of a suitable replacement meant that it was deemed a necessary evil to be worked around. The Coates Advantage Not limited to working within the confines of a poppet valve, the CSRV design required a complete rethinking of the cylinder head and port designs. Coming from a long line of inventors, George Coates' years of experience as an engineer for Rolls Royce, General Motors, Ford, and Mercedes-Benz afforded him the skills to develop this new valve system. A conceptual mock-up of this design was first handmade by Coates in 1961 and was attached to a European Ford four-cylinder engine. It took nearly fifteen more

years for the first running prototype to power a vehicle, and another five years to fully develop the sealing mechanism. When PHR arrived at the New Jersey based engineering and manufacturing facility, the ease of adaptability of the CSRV system was quite apparent, with myriad of engines up and running with this technology. We witnessed four-cylinder helicopter engines, Harley-Davidson, Ford, Mercedes Benz along with a number of industrial engines, all functional. The elimination of the camshaft and its companion valvetrain components not only drastically reduce the manufacturing costs, but would allow for an application-specific engine block to be designed, eliminating the space required to house the camshaft. This would allow for less total engine height and lower hood lines for better visibility and aerodynamics. This system is very simple, consisting of the Coates' cylinder head and intake and exhaust spherical rotary valves for each bore. The valves are attached to a machined shaft that is supported on each end by a sealed roller bearing and utilize patented Coates' ceramic graphite bearings as center supports. The use of this material in conjunction with the end roller bearings allows for the elimination of any oil in the top of the head. The only moving parts are the two shafts with the spherical rotary valves attached to them. The floating ceramic-carbon seals are two-piece units that respond to cylinder pressure to form a leak-free fit, containing the combustion gases. The shaft is driving from the crankshaft and counter rotates at the same ratio as a camshaft would, being one-half the crankshaft speed. As the shaft turns, the appropriate rotary valve will expose the intake port, allowing the cylinder to fill with charge. For the compression stroke, the valve that is constantly turning will be rotated, closing off the combustion chamber to the intake port. During the exhaust stroke, the spent gases will travel through the passage in the rotary valve and exit the cylinder head. With this technology; the incoming charge assumes a tumbling motion that creates a quicker burn and increased octane tolerance while limiting heat transfer to the charge and the need for excessive spark lead. 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. 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 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: 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. 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, the need to have a rotating assembly that can withstand the engine speed becomes the essential element. 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. The End Result The CSRV represents a technological breakthrough that has the potential to impact the internal combustion engine in a manner not seen since its discovery. All of the engines we witnessed offered exceptionally smooth performance with low levels of noise, vibration, and harshness. This was an extraordinary accomplishment since all of the test engines were based about production poppet valve

designs; one can only wonder the level of refinement that the CSRV will offer when integrated with a block that is designed for it. To date, Coates offers complete engines based on a block of your choice for racing, street/strip, and industrial applications. The pricing starts at $ 15,000, and by the time you read this, retrofit kits should be available for the popular Ford and Chevy V-8. So far, Detroit has shown the least interest in further developing the CSRV technology, and disappointingly, Coates feels that the first engines to use this will most likely be from foreign companies. Popular Hot Rodding: October 1999