Coates has run the SBF-based engine in a number of different configurations.
This was posted elsewhere (edits in italics):
Quote:
Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve (head):
When tested at 28 inches of H2O, the intake port of a stock Ford head casting taken from a 5.0-L engine originally installed in a Lincoln flowed approximately 180 cfm. By contrast, the rotary valve for the same engine 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 lbs-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lbs-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:
A conventional poppet valve can take 34-or-more degrees of crankshaft rotation to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. The CSRV exposes a comparable port area 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....
Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm!
|
I do not know whether Coates will further develop the head for Ford applications. An employee from the Coates facility is credibly rumored to have operated and "street tested" a Mustang powered by a 351-W shortblock having CSRV heads and making 962 hp on the dyno.
Ostensibly, the engine exhibited no driveability problems; however, Coates seemed uninterested in motorsports when I contacted them quite a long time ago. The CSRV, it seems, would make for some serious ground pounding if applied to a mountain motor
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder whether the dyno figures are both accurate and precise. In the Chevy world, Lingenfelter is associated with absurdly high horsepower and torque figures (and "dyno queen" cars) that in comparable vehicles underperformed engines having only a fraction of the "legendary Lingenfelter power."
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Coates was apparently focused on capitalization issues and seemed to think the safest bet was in the power-generation aftermarket; towards that end, development seemed to be with the 855-CID Cummins inline-6.
Another quote has surfaced:
Quote:
COATES INTERNATIONAL, LTD. COMPLETES 351 V8 RACING ENGINE.
WALL TOWNSHIP, N.J. – (BUSINESS WIRE) – May 2, 2007 –
Another lucrative application for the Coates CSRV engine.
Coates International, Ltd. has completed a high performance racing engine. The engine was tested, and was then brought up to 10,500 RPM; throttle response is incredible. The low-maintenance engine achieves high volumetric efficiency from its 14:1 compression ratio.
A racing team has expressed interest and the company recognizes this is another lucrative niche market for Coates International, Ltd. CSRV technology.
|
It seems to me incredible that Coates didn't realize the potential for the CSRV in the automotive, aviation and marine reciprocating-engine aftermarkets -- especially since I had inquired first about the availability of the heads for purchase and then asked about investment opportunities.
I seem to recall having made my inquiries significantly before 1999; however, the Popular Hot Rodding magazine article about the CSRV appeared in the October 1999 issue and I can't prove that I had earlier knowledge of the CSRV. Anyway, the PHR article ended thusly:
Quote:
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.
|
That was, ostensibly, $15k for a complete, turn-key engine. I was unable to find anyone serious about selling me such an engine, even if it was just a junkyard 5.0-L Lincoln shortblock atop which had been mounted the CSRV heads and associated induction apparatus.
My guess is that Coates feared a host of issues arising from the purchase and attempted use of his product by terminally stupid people:
Some wouldn't have enough sense to get the timing close enough for the engine to run; others having succeeded at that, wouldn't get it right for making "real" power.
There would be non-stop calls for technical assistance, ranging from timing recommendations for various forced-induction technologies, plus naturally aspirated -- multiplied by the queries concerning the ideal connecting-rod-length-to-stroke ratio and the ideal ring stack.
Customers would be asking about octane compatibility as affected by displacement, compression ratio and timing -- and what would be the net result, when those issues were solved. And those are just the relevant calls:
Others would inquire why national or local sanctioning bodies either had not approved the CSRV for use in a particular class, or had approved it for only one or certain classes, or why such organization had (or had not) imposed handicaps on competitors using the CSRV, etc.
People would want their money back after the CSRV "caused" their stock-shortblock engines to disintegrate after a few spins to 10,000-or-so rpm, or after a sustained 5800-rpm cross-country jaunt -- or because they experienced the same or worse fuel economy.
And none of that accounts for the "protect me from myself" crowd famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) for anti-gun legislation and lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and dealers for the misuse or abuse of firearms. I can see it now:
Embarrassed for having lost a street race, little Johnny Richboy feels compelled to obtain a competitive edge in the power department. He buys and installs the CSRV kit, doubling his engine's power -- but not his competence as a driver.
He crashes his car at 140 mph, into a busload of children returning from an "away" football game: 8 are killed instantly, 12 more die from wounds sustained in the resulting inferno (some, after weeks in the ICU);
Six are permanently disabled, 4 suffer injuries from which they will eventually recover; all the survivors are "traumatized" and require ongoing psychiatric care in their effort to lead normal lives.
Survivors of the decedents sue little Johnny Richboy's estate, but recover little; meanwhile, the matter is spun, so that the survivors are persuaded their efforts to recover something meaningful should be directed against the awful people that put the weapon into Richboy's hands.
The PR campaign begins in earnest when the first of the surviving victims' families joins the suit against Coates. Even if Coates eventually wins the case, defending against such a frivolous action will cost at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and time lost from work.
Regrettably, "tort reform" did not protect anyone from such abuses; rather, it rewarded those wrongdoers for whom torts were by the law originally contemplated -- for instance: doctors that, for malice or gross negligence, maim or kill their respective patients.
Coates simply needed some company already in the performance aftermarket business to license the production of the CSRV, and to thereby indemnify and hold harmless Coates and his company for any injury arising from, or associated with, any use or misuse of the CSRV product.
Coates also needed for that company to assume all liability for technical support -- understanding that such an agreement would necessitate at least some training on the part of Coates (the CSRV patent holder) of the licensee's support personnel.
Any such license would necessarily include good faith assurances on the part of the licensee concerning aggressiveness of marketing; production and development; quality assurance and quality control policies, methods and practices; adequacy of distribution and support; branding, etc.
The ideal licensee would be a company having experience in the manufacture of cylinder heads, having also experience in the manufacture of related components -- for instance: intake and exhaust manifolds and/or headers.
Holley and Edelbrock come immediately to mind, but I am confident that others have the sophistication to handle such a program.
OEM-brand neutrality is, in the long run, a plus: if the SBC guys are eager to scarf these up, and the SBF guys resist buying, then the licensee should skew production schedules in favor of the SBC variety. My guess is that, for an item with this much promise, the mix is going to be fairly even.
Therefore, Dart (for instance) would probably be better as a CSRV-licensee than Blue Thunder. However, the market is likely to either collapse or explode after the first few months of production, as feedback from purchasers gets posted.
If experiences are generally good, sales will skyrocket; if the units are unreliable or otherwise perform poorly, sales will tank.
There is a caveat: even if performance is eventually great, but the results are deemed not worth the time and/or hassle associated with such achievement, feedback will be generally negative and sales will suffer.
All of that, it seems, is just so much theory.
My guess is that automakers avoided the CSRV because of issues related to exhaust emissions -- which is fairly scary, when you consider how much lower the BSFC should be with the CSRV. If the CSRV needs an exhaust reactor (cf: Mazda RX-7, et al) ....
Consider the size and mass of the reactor used to clean up the exhaust of the little 12A rotary; then extrapolate what you'd need to tidy-up a "5.0," or a 14-liter mountain motor.
Without more info, though, it's anybody's guess.
