Runge_Kutta

Well, I hate to open up this can of worms again but it
seems that I must. You all remember the name Alan Hayman
as the leader on the patents of the single cam and double
cam, 3V engines (Patent numbers 6505592, 6505591, 6505589).
You may also remember him from
http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_power/index.htm

Publicly, his name showed up in the press of the XV8 engine.
OK, check out this very recent patent application by Alan Hayman
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20030154711

UTILIZATION OF AIR-ASSISTED DIRECT INJECTION, CYLINDER DEACTIVATION AND
CAMSHAFT PHASING FOR IMPROVED CATALYTIC CONVERTER LIGHT-OFF IN INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINES

The document gets interesting below [0032]

"[0037]The cylinder head 131 is a three-valve-per-cylinder combustion system
design that includes two intake valves 154 and 156 and one exhaust valve
157. The intake valve lifter 124-I is forked to allow one camshaft lobe
to open both valves. Lash adjusters (not shown) are located in the rocker
tips to independently adapt to each valve. The intake and exhaust camshafts
114 and 116 enable dual independent camshaft phasing and optimized valve
train geometry for rigidity. The dynamic bank-to-bank valve timing
variations are subsequently much lower than with four-cam V8s because
the initial timing variation and cam phasing control dithering affects
both banks equally. The pushrods 126 are preferably relatively short and
stiff. The roller cam follower for the intake valve lifter 124-I is larger
in diameter to improve durability due to an increased load caused by the
operation of two valves."

The description is clearly that of a twin-cam, 3V engine. As with all patents:

"[0052] Those skilled in the art can now appreciate from the foregoing description
that the broad teachings of the present invention can be implemented in a variety
of forms. Therefore, while this invention has been described in connection with
particular examples thereof, the true scope of the invention should not be so
limited since other modifications will become apparent to the skilled practitioner
upon a study of the drawings, the specification and the following claims."

This patent application should be read alongside:
http://www.delphi.com/pdf/techpapers/2003-01-0062.pdf (Figure 11)
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/orb...rbitalTech.htm
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...D=2003-01-0545
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...r10fe00-18.pdf ( page 6702, middle column )

So, once again, it appears that the 3V engines have been designed with gasoline
DI in mind. Could there be a non-DI version of the 3V engines? Maybe. Will some
of them be DI?? It certainly looks that way.

Since the words cam phasing appear repeatedly in this patent and the single cam,
3V engine is likely to have a less elaborate cam phasing strategy, I still think
the single cam engine is what is going into production. That is certainly consistent
with all pictures that have appeared so far. Also, Hayman said that the 2V and 3V
engines are built on the same production line with very little differences. That
sounds like nearly identical short blocks. Now what remains to be seen is what this
is all about:
http://www.autotechdaily.com/pdfs/T10-29-02.pdf (bottom of page 1)
http://www.starks-online.com/Home/mclaren1028.htm
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../27/c1200.html




[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 6:17 PM 10/27/2003]

LymanSS

As always, you've brought some excellent information to the table. For a while the rumor mill made it seem that the dual in-block cam engines (demonstrated as the XV8) were going to fall out of favor, leaving the single cam with cam phasing as the only next gen small block design. But this information seems to promote the idea of them running dual cam and single cam engines. They obviously intend to go to DI at some point as well. I would be very curious to know what the differences are in torque curves, brake specific fuel economy and manufacturing cost between the dual cam and single cam engines. That would allow us to do a lot of speculating on where they'll use which technology, once they are both available.

With regards to the McLaren thing....is this the same contract that was announced several months ago? I know it was a contract of roughly this size, but no details were provided. I think most people were speculating that it was for the heads on the upcoming V12. From the third article you posted, it looks like it's a contract with chevrolet racing. Could this be for a GM Performance Parts product? Or perhaps for one of the racing engines they supply to various racing series? The first article says that volumes will be "A few thousand units per year" You have to cut that figure in half because it's two units per engine (assuming it's a V8 as stated in the article). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a GM production vehicle that would merit a specialized part like that in low quantities that low, except the Z06 (even that would have higher demand), and anything with the new V12. I think it has to be either some new halo product, or a racing engine. Most likely the latter.

Scott

FAST LS1

To me this sounds like either really bad news or good news.
It could be really bad if it's the plan for the new ZO6 engine seeing how it would make the ZO6 much more expensive and available in only very small numbers.
It could also mean that they are building the heads and block for the C6 supercar Lutz just got done talking about. That may be a very low production vehicle with a V-8 that revs to 8000rpm like the one document suggested about the 3v heads. That might be what Lutz called "a few tricks left".

Runge_Kutta

Well, speaking of Alan Hayman -

His latest patent (second author) application was posted 3 weeks ago.

CYLINDER DEACTIVATION SYSTEM AND NOx TRAP REGENERATION
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20030188527

You'll notice that it is to be applied to DI engines. Also, it is about
variable displacement engines ( I interpret this as DoD ). The trick is
to reduce NOx emissions, a sore spot with GDI engines. The severity of
this problem is going to be linked with sulphur (sulfur) content.


For important sections, see
[0007], [0008], [0009], and [0010]

Let me repeat a relevant blurb from before

**************************************** ***********************************

"There are 3 types of DISI (Direct Injection Spark Ignition) systems:

Homogeneous Charge/Stoichiometric, using early injection. This version uses
a common combustion chamber and fuel delivery system configuration, and
would be tolerant of a 50ppm fuel sulphur level, though would have greatly
improved emissions with sulphur free fuels (5 - 10ppm). Benefits for using
this technology are an improvement over European/U.S cycles of 5 -9% fuel
economy, and reduced CO2 of 5 - 9%.

Homogeneous Charge/Lean burn, using lean 24:1 Air/Fuel early injection.
This requires the addition of NOx aftertreatment and unique calibration,
with desulphurisation purge cycles even with low sulphur fuels. Benefits
for using this technology are an improvement over European/U.S cycles
of 11 - 15% fuel economy, and reduced CO2 of 11 - 15%, with sulphur
free fuels (5 - 10ppm). Purge cycles to remove sulphur as explained
in this section would drop fuel economy by over 5%.


Stratified Charge/Lean burn, using very lean 40 - 50:1 Air/Fuel late
injection. Unique combustion chamber designs together with advanced
NOx aftertreatment and possibly electrically heated catalysts. Very
sensitive to sulphur requiring frequent sulphur purge cycles. Benefits
for using this technology are an improvement over European/U.S cycles
of 17-20% fuel economy, and reduced CO2 of 17 - 20%, with sulphur free
fuels (5 - 10ppm). Purge cycles to remove sulphur as explained in this
section would drop fuel economy by over 10%."

http://www.aeat-env.com/Sulphur_Revi...ds/sr-Ford.pdf (Page 16)

**************************************** ***********************************




[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 1:00 AM 10/28/2003]

Runge_Kutta

Well, it seems that Alan Hayman and company had a new patent
submission posted today (30OCT03). What is interesting is that the topic
is a 2V, gasoline DI engines.

"COMBUSTION CHAMBER FOR SWIRL FLOW TWO VALVE SPARK IGNITION DIRECT INJECTION ENGINE"
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...corporation%22

I think this article will provide some technical background.
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/orb...F/aachen01.pdf

Check out figure 12.

Also, there is a big flurry of GM patent postings on 6- and 7-speed automatic
transmissions. Another talked about using magneto-rheological fluids inside a transmission.



[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 8:30 PM 10/30/2003]

GDP

Too many links, too much to read. Can't you condense some of this? I got to paragraph three and went :crazy:.

Runge_Kutta

Sorry dude!!

Do you have any idea how much crap I sort through to put up some of these posts?

To first order, my goal is to point out to people what the basic idea is,
where the information is, and give any supporting information that I am
aware of which might offer some context for the post. Anything you get
beyond that is up to my mood and energy level.

Actually, patents are particularly unpleasant reading. What's worse is that my
machine virtually never can show me the images. A picture's worth a 1000 words!!





[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 9:50 PM 10/30/2003]

bigblockbob

verry true...
GDP don't be so lazy, i read spell and tipe on like a 3rd grade level, and i got through it... although some of that tech jargin is pretty :crazy: ...Stoichiometry, sheesh Don't take me back to chemistry, polease...
:thumbs:

I Bin Therbefor

Maybe someone else can help with the downloading and posting of images. I have no problem downloading the images section of any the patents of interest to me. I've never posted any to this forum simply because I haven't gone through the drill of learning how to post images to this forum. Anyone interested in working with Runge Kutta to support his postings with appropriate images? :cool:

adamsocb

I don't think we need to worry. All of this technology is being developed to increase the power and efficiency, while lowering the emissions of light trucks and SUV's. It will not be just for limited production vehicles. Once the technology is developed, it can be adapted to high RPM, high specific output sports cars engines. Just look at the current similarities between GM light truck Gen III Vortec engines and our Corvette/Camaro/Trans Am/GTO/CTSv high performance LS1/6 engines.

This is why the Corvette business/development model works so well. A large portion of the engine R&D is amortized over the millions of light trucks sold each year, not just the 30-50,000 sports cars.

Long live the American sports car formula!

(Big ol' truck motor + Small light car = One cool hot rod)

Just a few historical examples:
Cadillac Allard
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Cheetah
Early Ford T-Bird
Shelby Cobra
Dodge Viper

And even a few offshore examples:
DeTomaso Pantera (Ford)
Bricklin ?
Fasel Vega (sp) (Hemi)
Jensen Healey (Mopar)


[Modified by adamsocb, 10:24 AM 10/31/2003]

Runge_Kutta

Here are two more recent patent applications associated with DI injectors that
rely more on air assist rather than high pressure to get good atomization
of the fuel. The first is worried about making an inexpensive compressor
drive with a minimal number of parts to provide the high-pressure air used
in the fuel injectors. This is related to the orbital link above. The second
appears to be concerned with how all of this air assist stuff fits into the
cylinder head. Neither mentions gasoline or diesel specifically.


"ENGINE AIR-ASSISTED INJECTION COMPRESSOR DRIVE"
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...corporation%22

"ENGINE WITH AIR-ASSISTED FUEL INJECTION AND ENGINE INTERGRATED AIR FEED"
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...%22+AND+engine

All of this should sound familiar to those who have looked over the details of
the XV8.
http://www.acarplace.com/brands/gm/xv8-engine.html
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/inv...F/rep02_01.pdf

Some of the typos in these documents are pretty funny;

...stepped boars in the cylinder head...

...the traction fluid comprising a field responsive fluid capable of changing its
Theological properties in response to a field and an electrical or magnetic field
acting upon the field responsive fluid at the contact... (20030203788)

...calling for different optimal Theological characteristics...(20030203788)

...exhibit dramatic changes in their Theological behavior in response to
an external field...(20030203788)




[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 4:32 PM 10/31/2003]

stingray454

Why do people keep saying the McLaren contract is only for cylinder heads and to cut the production number in half?!?! The second article clearly states its for heads AND blocks! Here's the quote from the article:

$16 million is a lot of engine blocks and heads. They mentioned several thousand per year. That's far too many engines for a racing-only program. GM doesn't participate in any racing venue that consumes several thousand racing engines per year.

So this McLaren engine MUST be for a production car.


[Modified by stingray454, 2:37 PM 11/1/2003]

GDP

It's not laziness. I just can't focus enough on the stuff. ADHD. :crazy:

Honestly, I tried again and still couldn't get past the third paragraph without getting bored.

What's the bottom line? There's a patent for the 3v engine by someone whose name no one knows. Isn't that really all that needs to be said? :confused:


[Modified by GDP, 3:38 PM 11/1/2003]

vette-freak

Here is a couple of pics.

stingray454

:cool:

That dual runner intake manifold on the top pic looks a lot like the intake manifold on the Ford Duratec 2.5L V-6 that my 1996 Contour had. I always liked the look of dual runner intakes ever since the SHO came out. They work well too, boosting low end torque while giving plenty of breathing for the high RPM's. I hope this motor works its way into the C6!


[Modified by stingray454, 8:13 PM 11/1/2003]


[Modified by stingray454, 8:13 PM 11/1/2003]

Runge_Kutta

A few more thoughts. The first two are about a 5.3L, 2V, DI engine
from GM. This means 8 cylinders with a bore and stroke of (96mmx92mm).
The primary article is
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...D=2002-01-2658

but you can look at an abbreviated version for free (except on the
weekend when someone shuts down their computer)
http://www.erc.wisc.edu/modeling/mul...Lippert_GM.pdf

It's not clear to me if the configuration that they present is their "best"
configuration but I'll describe it anyway. If you look at figure 1a), imagine
the fuel injector sitting to the left, and inbetween, the two intake valves.
The fuel shoots out from left to right like a rock skipping over the piston
surface, i.e. a very shallow angle. The piston has a bowl with a very uneven
wall height. Effectively, when the spray hits the right side of the piston,
the bowl has a protruding wall that acts like a backboard and stops the
fuel from hitting the right cylinder wall. Hydrodynamically, the fuel spray
is deflected upwards by this protruding portion of the piston bowl and is
directed towards the spark plug. To get this engine to work well, they needed
to get a lot of swirl. That means if you were an ant on the piston that you
would be running circular laps around the piston but remaining attached to it
because of the wind at your back. On page 6, you can see the piston, the fuel
and the airflow. Let's look at Figure 4. Take the two top rows of pictures, i.e.
a). First, CA means crank angle. At CA=-50, we are 50 degrees before top dead
center. Therefore as we move from left to right, the piston is rising. The blue
lines indicate the air flow direction. They clearly indicate swirl in the top
row. The orange blobs are the fuel. From the CA=38 deg. picture, you can imagine
from the conical nature of the fuel spray where the injector was. By a CA of
30 deg., the fuel is plowing into the protruding wall of the piston bowl. By the
way, it looks like the upper row looks directly down on the piston but the
second row is more parallel to the piston surface, looking out and seeing what the
injector sees. The preferred configuration was a swirl index (SI=4.0) and
end of injection by (EOI=42 deg. BTDC)

In a later study, also lead by A.C. Alkidas,
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...D=2003-01-3101

tries to understand the potential fuel economy advantage of a DI version
of this 5.3L, 2V, V8 over the standard port-fuel injected version. Without
further development, the DI engine would give about 14.5%-15% gain. If further
development were to be done, this number could rise to as high as 26%. Also,
it is remarked that in this optimization process that DoD could actually
be helpful.

In regard to both of these studies, one should not assume that this is necessarily
the preferred configuration. Rather than injecting the fuel from the intake side
at a grazing angle to the piston, one could inject from the top of the cylinder
head. The former configuration is shown in Fig 1. (swirl controlled) in
the link below. The latter configuration is given in Fig. 12.
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/orb...pers/oct01.htm

However, the swirl controlled configuration is the one patented (notice
the names Alkidas and Hayman).
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20030200953

OK, enough about 2V, DI engines from GM. Since this thread started with
the name Alan Hayman, I'll include another of his patent applications
regarding the XV8.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...557&RS=6601557

I guess I'd summarize all of this by saying that I think GM has got a
bunch of DI engines in the pipeline. When the sulfur in the gasoline
gets low enough (30 ppm by Jan. 2006 except a few western states) and
the cost can be justified, I think we'll start seeing GM DI V8's.

stingray454

I know its not quite the same application, but two stroke outboard boat engines have been successfully using direct injection technology recently. In particular, Evinrude initially with their Ficht RAM injection, and now with their new E-Tec motors. http://www.evinrude.com/e-tec/background.htm

Bottom line is, I think the technology can be applied today to car motors. Anyone see any hints that the C6 might have it???

Runge_Kutta

One last bunch of things. If you look at the Global V6 Press kit,
http://media.gm.com/division/powertr...obal_index.htm

you can see (about 1/3 of the way down) that the family was designed to have
some DI gasoline members of the engine family in the future. I suspect that
the Gen IV small-block was also designed to accomodate DI at some point in the
future. I'm not sure what this implies for C6 but the new BMW M5 will
have a DI V-10 with 500-550 hp (latest Motor Trend review). So, DI and
performance aren't mutually exclusive.

From ( http://www.auto-report.net/index.html?gmpt05.html ),
"The 3900 is estimated to develop 240 hp at 5900 rpm and 245 lb-ft of
torque at just 2800 rpm. Moreover, thanks to the 3900's torque-enhancing
technologies, 90% of peak torque is available from 1800 rpm to 5800 rpm,
enhancing the engine's driveability and performance "feel." According to
Alan Hayman, manager-advanced concept group in GM Powertrain's Advanced
Powertrain unit, a new 3-valve cylinder-head developed for GM's OHV engines
could boost output to 270 hp."

It's interesting to do a patent application search (2001-2003) for both GM and
Ford. I believe that once the patents are accepted that they get yanked
from this database and moved to another. I also think that these listings have
passed more tests than simply an application. For the "General Motors" Corporation,
I find 744 applications
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...FIELD2=&d=PG01

while for the "Ford Motor" Company I find 197.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...FIELD2=&d=PG01

If you glance through them, the GM ones seem much more technically weighty. Search
the GM and Ford patents for stuff on engines and transmissions. There's almost
none from Ford.



[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 4:29 PM 11/5/2003]

Runge_Kutta

The monologue never ends ...

Some interesting links:
http://gmcrl.engin.umich.edu/research/area1.html
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/me/newslett...e04_gmerc.html


Also, after all the discussion of a 5.3L, 2V, DI, V8, how
is one supposed to interpret this?? From:
http://www.auto-report.net/index.html?gmpt05.html

'The LH6 Vortec 5300 with DOD is rated at an estimated 290 hp and
325 lb-ft of torque in V-8 mode, and supports tow capacities
comparable to the current LM4 5.3-liter aluminum small-block. GM
is promising increased power from the small-block V8 in (the) future,
AND NOT JUST FROM THE NEW 3-VALVE CYLINDER HEADS.

"The 3-valve is a way in the future," Hayman told Wards Auto World.
"THERE ARE SOME SURPRISES IN STORE FOR THE 2-VALVE (SMALL-BLOCK V-8).
And we're not talking about 10 or 15 hp. Our goal is to remain the
leader in truck powertrains." '

Also from this article is the line:

"The 3900 is estimated to develop 240 hp at 5900 rpm and 245 lb-ft of
torque at just 2800 rpm... ...According to Alan Hayman, manager-advanced
concept group in GM Powertrain's Advanced Powertrain unit, a new 3-valve
cylinder-head developed for GM's OHV engines could boost output to 270 hp."

I take this as meaning the strategy is to take a 2V engine and swap
heads on it in a few years. This may explain what is looking like a
6.4L 2V engine and a 6.3L 3V engine.



[Modified by Runge_Kutta, 4:23 PM 11/6/2003]

FAST LS1

In the last link there the quote,
"The 3-valve is a way in the future," Hayman told Wards Auto World. "There are some surprises in store for the 2-valve (small-block V-8). And we're not talking about 10 or 15 hp. Our goal is to remain the leader in truck powertrains."

The first thing that hits me is a supercharger. Maybe he's talking about vaiable cam timing though. This is getting very interesting.