Koenigsegg - Doing what the big guys are afraid to do.

[John Ranalletta]

engine

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Very cool. However, it has the potential to take away some wrenching time not having to check shim heights!

Solenoids would adjust to that within their range.

[James L.]

You do know, that Koenigsegg figured out how to control a electronic valve with respect to opening and closing speed. This isn't about someone being afraid to do it. It was no one had figured out how to do it. If it works, it will revolutionize engines, for the valve overlap and duration will change on the fly as needed, being controlled directly by a computer. But don't expect many engines to use it. Formula engines have been using air springs on their valves for years to prevent float, but common engines do not use the technology.

 

James L.

 

[LJR]

From a company that only has 130 cars on the road!

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

My point (though not expressed well) is that the big 3 have more to gain from this type of innovative research and engineering than a company with 130 cars on the road (thanks, Larry).

 

Of course, when EVs take over, R&D will be limited to which of the big 3 can made the most comfortable Laz-E-Boy seats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUw_DMaQ264

 

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by John Ranalletta

[James L.]

Unfortunately that may be the case, but the big three do not care about technology that helps the consumer. They are only interested in technology which helps their capital gains.

 

The electronic valve is way more productive for a performance based car. It would help with everyday driving, but wouldn't be cost effective for an everyday car.

 

James L

 

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

The electronic valve is way more productive for a performance based car. It would help with everyday driving, but wouldn't be cost effective for an everyday car.

One has to wonder about economies of scale in that regard. No camshafts to be forged and ground. No bearings to hone, etc.

The replacement is software / firmware, electronics, each of which is virtually to the point of being self-replicating, and the solenoid system for actuation. After a couple of years of production, where the performance and whiz-bang games are played to no end to create sales, I would expect a savings to be realized.

Now that I've written this, it is clear that Detroit won't do it first. They're afraid. It'll be Asia. Pick a country, but I'd bet the Koreans will go all-in if it can be mass produced. The Chinese are already playing as mentioned in the vid.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The electronic valve is way more productive for a performance based car. It would help with everyday driving, but wouldn't be cost effective for an everyday car.

 

Why not? From the description in the video, it has a lot of advantages that seem like they would translate very well to typical passenger cars:

 

-the ability to quickly warm up the main cat, thus eliminated the need for a pre-cat, is big. Take out the pre-cat, and you gain packaging/cost advantages.

 

-chopping 2 inches of height from the engine has big packaging advantages, giving you a lot more freedom on what to do with the hood line.

 

-Getting rid of 20 kg of weight is a big deal; everything else can be made that much lighter.

 

-No need for a throttle body = more packaging freedom under the hood.

 

-Valve timing can be totally rearranged to provide enhanced engine braking, which would be useful for tow vehicles on hilly roads (as it is already for big-rigs).

 

With so many advantages, why wouldn't it be cost effective for an everyday car?

[Sonor]

It's funny to hear y'all talk about the big three. That is a term I haven't heard in years. Largely because two of them are not in the top five companies any longer (from the last poll I saw). What with imports having such a strong impact and many companies with plants in the USA, the big three are not the leading edge any longer (for the most part). So I encourage you to think not about capitalism as the demon in this argument, rather the choice of balancing research against keeping the company alive coupled with the pressures from the investors. Think about the investors this way, if they don't think they will make money on something, they will not invest. Would you?

[John Ranalletta]

I'm sure GM & Ford stockholders will be happy to see the camless engine in thousands of Japanese, Korean or Chinese cars offloading at the docks. It'd be a kick to see Chinese the beat everybody to the punch.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/21/koenigsegg-freevalve-engine-qoros-qamfree/

 

[Guest Kakugo]

I am quoting from memory here, but Koenigsegg is a late comer to the party. Several companies have built working prototypes of camless engines, both Otto and Diesel cycle, including (but not limited to) Renault, Ricardo, IVECO and Ford.

While getting the engine to work with modern electronics is not particularly daunting, there are several practical problems that make it at best a headache and at worst a nightmare to run as well as a regular engine.

 

Where the camless design has worked well so far is in the big two stroke diesel engines which are the prime movers of maritime traffic worldwide. All three major manufacturers (Wartsila, MAN and Mitsubishi) offer several camless engines, the advantages being slightly lower fuel consumption and lower NOx emissions.

 

 

[steve.foote]

A couple of years ago I had an interesting conversation with a venture capital guy about why cutting edge tech grows in the startup market then is eventually bought up by the big boys instead of the big boys simply developing it themselves. His answer was a little unexpected. He said big companies would like very much to develop in house, but the size of their bureaucracy prevents the risk taking necessary to innovate. Therefore, it is more efficient to scout for the right startup which is pioneering the tech they want and to simply buy them out.

Edited November 23, 2016 by RightSpin