Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2012, 01:01 PM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,315 Times in 968 Posts
How long until we get rid of the camshaft?

How long before we are finally able to get rid of the cam shaft and put the infinite possibilities of computer control into our valve timing with electro magnetic lift? With direct injection and stratified charge, we could then also tend to eliminate the throttle plate.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-28-2012, 02:43 PM   #2 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
...I've wondered about that too, for years.

...if they ever migrate up from 12VDC electrical system to 48VDC as they proposed awhile ago, there's a darn good chance that direct electrical control of valve lift & duration could be 100% under computer control...unfortunately, it takes lots of CURRENT to make inertia "change" positions quickly, hence the need for higher VOLTAGE source.

Last edited by gone-ot; 01-28-2012 at 07:05 PM.. Reason: spelling error corrected
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 03:02 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 161 Times in 107 Posts
You'll never get rid of the cam because it will always be cheaper, more efficient and more reliable than stuffing magnetic coils in a hot vibrating environment. Throttleless gasoline engines have been around for years.




Last edited by tjts1; 01-28-2012 at 03:10 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 04:17 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
In terms of reliability, magnetic properties can be affected by the engine heat, so that is something else to take into consideration.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 05:56 PM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria , Australia.
Posts: 499
Thanks: 20
Thanked 46 Times in 33 Posts
Sendler, sadly it may well take a long long time.

OHC and 4 valve / cylinder were around at the turn of the last century (ie 1900's or so) and look how long they took to become more or less standard.

Will technology drive cars or will the demands of the car makers drive technology?

I personally think car makers will adapt when they have absolutely no other options...and even then it will be a tantrum session to get it all to happen.

Peter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 07:24 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,018

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 37.45 mpg (US)

22 Maverick - '22 Ford Maverick XL
90 day: 39.42 mpg (US)
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 View Post
You'll never get rid of the cam because it will always be cheaper, more efficient and more reliable than stuffing magnetic coils in a hot vibrating environment.
I would not say never, but trying to pull a valve almost a half inch using an electromagnet is a real challenge. Doing it at the speeds necessary is beyond available materials.

I designed an electromagnet once to pull 1600 lbs over a quarter inch air gap. It needed over 200 volts at 50 amps to drive it.
__________________
06 Canyon: The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.

22 Maverick: Summer 2022 burned 62.74 gallons in 3145.1 miles for 50.1 MPG. Winter 2023-2024 - 2416.7 miles, 58.66 gallons for 41 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 07:37 PM   #7 (permalink)
Gen II Prianista
 
Rokeby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ballamer, Merlin
Posts: 453
Thanks: 201
Thanked 146 Times in 89 Posts
I guess hydralics are out of the running... too slow/complicated?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 07:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
I think the biggest problem is that no one wants to put the energy into such a radical change for what is, ultimately, a dying technology.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 08:03 PM   #9 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: saskatoon
Posts: 13
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
As soon as it's cheaper to do it differently.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 08:06 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,018

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 37.45 mpg (US)

22 Maverick - '22 Ford Maverick XL
90 day: 39.42 mpg (US)
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
Electromagnets and hydraulics are much more complex and expensive than some bumps on a shaft. Also camshafts have much higher mechanical efficiency.

Dual cams with dual VVT have much of the theoretical efficiency benefits of fully programmable valve timing.

__________________
06 Canyon: The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.

22 Maverick: Summer 2022 burned 62.74 gallons in 3145.1 miles for 50.1 MPG. Winter 2023-2024 - 2416.7 miles, 58.66 gallons for 41 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com