Koenigsegg free valve system
 

No camshaft and complete control over each individual valve. They have the ability to hold an individual valve in the given position, close it open it, cylinder deactivation, rapid catalyst warming on cold starts... do whatever. Shaves like 40 lbs they claim. This particular video is really an interesting view. It's a 1.6 liter engine that they're working to modify, and although the engine comes from a Porsche, 1.6 L is the size of many of the engines on this forum.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cFfM3r510

Sadly, I think this technology is too little too late for mass market vehicles. Qoros has yet to deliver a car with this motor from what I understand, and much smaller gas hybrid setups offer similar if not better overall performance as established technologies.

It would be cool if it could be adapted onto existing engines, but I think Koenigsegg will remain the only manufacturer to actually use it. EV tech is evolving past it IMHO.

We've got a minimum 20 years of ICE domination unless a major battery breakthrough occurs. That means ICE efficiency improvements are still relevant. Having precise control of valves would be huge, but that said, it's been worked on for a long time and we don't have such a thing yet. I regard the technology as I do with announcements of groundbreaking battery tech, with a mountain of salt.

I'm betting there are significant reliability concerns with it, or Free Valve wants too much for the licensing to make it worth it for manufacturers vs. their own in-house R&D which is looking 20+ years down the road along with how to get there.

The major break throughs for batteries as we know them has already happened.
Any breakthrough that do happen will likely be too expensive to apply to a multi kwh batteries that weigh hundreds of pounds, they will be for the phone, tablet and laptop market where it makes sense to use a battery that costs say 20% more and gives 10% more power.

I feel like Fiat's MultAir (and II) is a simpler solution that does most of what all this does.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Td9Gz_h7Qpg

What really intrigued me initially is that he also used a Saab with the 2.0T as a development mule... that 2.0T was originally based on the same architecture as the GM Ecotec engines, meaning a copy of that head would, in theory, bolt onto any 2.0/2.2/2.4L Ecotec platform...

I had to mop my drool off the floor after seeing that

I agree, a little. Multiair, like any VVT, does a few of the same things. But it does not do cylinder deactivation, single valve opening/closing, or holding valves open/closed (or in any other position). It still has the camshaft/pulley weight and bulk, but it adds some of the complexity of the Konigsegg system with the pressurized oil pistons, solenoid, and electronic control unit.

Lotus, and I think possibly Honda, had something like this more than 30 years ago. IIRC the Lotus system was a hydraulic system, using fluid under pressure to actuate each valve independently.

I wonder how much fuel savings can be realized with this, and where/how efficiency improves and where it gets worse. I understand a roller rocker valve system has relatively low parasitic losses, actuating the valves returns most of the energy back to the camshaft as the lob passes and the spring pushes back up. This system would use energy to actuate the valves in both directions.

Old news, that video is from 2016. They definitely haven't gotten this to work. I would imagine high power consumption is the main problem.

Multiair is the best system on the market right now. It's basically fully hydraulic valves. The problem is...no other manufacturer has dared to use this. You would think that with the complexity of a hydraulic valve lash adjuster and cylinder deactivation mechanism that someone would've thought putting full hydraulic control would be easier.

If you look at the best new engines (Toyota Dynamic Force and Mazda Skyactiv-X), you'll notice they have very primitive cam phasing VVT, and use high volume cooled EGR to cut pumping losses down. Fancier fuel injection systems allow good fuel-air mixing without the need for different cam profiles. If you want to spend more money, Honda shows us it's not very hard to tack on a second cam profile to squeeze out a little bit more.

I would also make the assumption that high engine speed would be a challenge.

Its probably not reliable or cost effective. I mean they have been using pneumatic valve springs since the 1980s in racing, but Koenigsegg is still using a new casting Ford small block modular engine.

But it does get valve springs for return. The hydraulic is there more for dampening, and the variable amount of oil does limit the valve lift.

Koenigsegg finally released info about the first car to be fitted with the Freevalve setup, the Gemera.

https://www.freevalve.com/events/koe...eva-unveiling/

2.0L 3 Cylinder. Thats wild. Did they ever start it to hear it?

Okay I made a thread in General Efficiency Discussion after seeing the Engineering Explained video of Hyundai CVVD pop up, but I feel like there's basically no advantage to Koenigsegg Freevalve over that. If you have control over duration, you have full control over overlap, scavenging, and volumetric efficiency.

The only thing it can't do is use extremely low lift to produce charge motion, but if you care about that you can also just use lost motion EVIC variable lift like Multiair or Valvetronic, add tumble generator valves, or use multi-point/laser/microwave/jet/SPCCI ignition.

Continuously variable duration adds no reciprocating inertia, and only a small amount of sliding friction when the valve duration is changed (mostly when it's being shortened, aka high load low rpm which is not a common operating condition). You could even run motorcycle engine speeds no problem.

EDIT: Wait a minute, I just watched one of the videos...Christian said it can run as a TWO STROKE sometimes :O Okay that's actually maybe worth the expense and power consumption. Since it's turbocharged, when there's enough boost to scavenge the cylinder it would produce some pretty ridiculous torque.

Makes me wonder how the Freevalve system could work in an engine similar to the old-school Detroit Diesel ones. Or eventually with a twincharger setup in a regular gasser like Volvo uses into its T6 and T8 models.

.

DIY Genius Grafts Koenigsegg-Style Freevalve Tech Onto 6.5-HP Harbor Freight Motor

https://www.thedrive.com/news/38090/...-freight-motor

😎


:turtle:

>

.

Makes me wonder when we would see similar retrofits for engines pointed out to be prone to valvetrain-related failures, such as some Fiat engines which used to be vulnerable to damage once the timing belt broke. I still remember when I was 5, and the Fiat Uno my parents used to own by then had a broken belt and there was some serious damage to that engine. Not to mention engines which are often pointed out to be harder to overhaul due to having a sealed timing chain such as Ford's Zetec-Rocam (which AFAIK used to be available in the USA as an industrial engine only).

.

I love the DIY aspect. :thumbup:

Other “Do it yourselfers” and small businesses will retrofit the technology to vast array of other engines.

The increase in performance and efficiency is nothing to sneeze at.

Reliability will be dealt with and overcome.

Free valve is the future.

>

.

I wonder at which cost it would happen, but maybe having a software catering to each application will be the most critical part than the hardware itself which eventually may be interchangeable between different engines.

Has anyone else posted the Miata build?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ljwk-ByvjI

In the second video he posted all his documented work for free. This makes me want to try this,

Me too. I'd be curious to see how far it could increase performance and fuel economy on a turbocharged 1.0L 3-cyl engine that GM released with port-injection in Brazil and direct injection elsewhere.

The fact that this guy got a Mazda Miata to run and drive without a cam is impressive in and of itself.

I guess the real question would be: could it be worth it?

There are costs associated with fabricating a camless head. It didn't seem too much though as it can be done with a lot of off the shelf parts and simple machined pieces.

But then there's longevity and the chance of destroying a good engine.

But then there's the chance of greatly improving fuel efficiency and power at the same time.

Most likely it would be worth.


I'd be more concerned about the electronic control and how it would integrate to the ignition and injection.


A cam belt slap is also quite expensive to fix.


Considering it would also eventually not require some components such as a throttle-body, and keeping port-injection would allow avoiding the OPF which is now required in Europe and the USA for gassers fitted with direct injection, it seems worth a try.

The engine of this beauty has an electro-hydraulic intake valvetrain, while the exhaust valvetrain still resorts to a camshaft. Makes me wonder to which extent would be better to use an electro-pneumatic system for the exhaust instead of going electro-hydraulic like the intake.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UJKBDPBPI...25282%2529.jpg

I didn't think about this much earlier today when you posted #27, but I was looking at Donut Media videos on Youtube, then Wesley Kagan's February video, and now I'm thinking about doing this to a flat four boxer. I'd always liked the idea of a flathead flat-four; maybe this would be the way.

One could do a real tight dual cannon exhaust and not have to worry about valve adjustments. :thumbup:

Remember that D-Motor aeronautical engine? It's a flathead available either as a flat-4 or a flat-6.
https://d-motor-usa.com/index.php/lf26/

Interesting.

Wouldn't the overhead valve problem only apply if it has valve/piston interference? If there's no interference then the engine should technically still be able to run on the other cylinders. My dad once had a V8 with a valve stuck open and he kept driving on seven cylinders.

Unless the intake allows the spark to reach the manifold with a stuck intake valve. I remember my dad disconnected that one cylinder's sparkplug wire because he was afraid it would backfire up through the carb. Or maybe it was backfiring and wouldn't start as a result. I can't quite remember.

What I do remember is that it ran pretty well on seven cylinders, at least after he disconnected the sparkplug wire to that one cylinder with the stuck valve.

Partially correct. If the valve failure doesn't affect the combustion chamber (typical because it's usually the exhaust valve that fails open) and If you have an appropriate altitude you could make the airport engine off, but 75% power should be what you're cruising at. If you're mantaining 75% power, and no other issues you continue the flight if you haven't soiled your pants. Except for the soiled issue BTDT. You can maintain level flight all the way down to 50% power, but you're flying really slow.

Iirc, the reason we don't have slide valves on aircraft is they tend to get stuck often or they stop sealing due to the extreme rich mixtures fouling the guides.

Drove a dodge van like that for a long while as a 7 cylinder with the plug wire removed on a non computer distributor. Doubt the new stuff would allow that, might run until you turn it off but wouldn't restart.. Dont have anything that uses sparkplugs anymore to try it.

That's why I labelled it 'interesting'.

AFAIK nowadays most engines have interference.

True. But it seems kind of silly to make it a flathead engine just to make sure it won't be an interference engine.

That would be like making it have points just to make sure it's not a wasted spark system.

When an intake valve sticks you still have a massive internal vacuum leak and huge loss of power. Side valve or not. An engine does not happily run on the other cylinders

Freevalve is default closed. With no camshaft in the mix a valve will be closed unless valve retention is lost. Interference isn't even a concept that applies unless you can somehow fall electronically out of sync

If I would ever make a flathead engine, or fit an off-the-shelf one into a vehicle, I would do it because they look cool to me, even though some OHV could serve me eventually better.


Odd enough, IIRC some old motorcycle ignition systems which had points were actually wasted-spark too.

Figured it was DOA.
https://youtu.be/XV4NavUIznc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XV4Nav...ature=youtu.be

Watched that video, wasn't impressed -- comparing 1.6L engines in various states of tune with 211/230/300 didn't prove much. VVT made the least difference.

I'd consider the boxer four from the 1930s with 25-60HP. A newly designed engine case[s halves] with the freevalve technology built into it and oil-cooled flat heads producing 230-300HP would be acceptable. Especially if it would weigh less. No throttle body and improved emissions just the gravy with a cherry on top.

edit: Almost forgot

https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-f...icle38to39.jpg

Maybe a VR-12 flat motor?

I didn't really expect it to become mainstream so soon, but there might be some applications to which Freevalve is eventually reasonable to say the least.

Now that newer direct-injection gassers (and flexfuels too) are plagued by the particulate filters, just like Diesels have been for a while, a claim that Freevalve would keep port-injection competitive still sounds interesting, as port-injection fares better when it comes to PM and NOx, so it would allow for a much simpler aftertreatment.