They are projecting that the "half cam" version can be mass-produced for around $400 more than the standard cost for a gasoline engine.

Am I the only one who read this article and practically yelled out loud, "Where the hell was this idea 20 years ago???"

I know--getting even a "simple" idea like this to work properly under all conditions is likely quite a challenge. Regardless of the details, this technology could be retrofitted onto existing engine designs with enormous benefit.

Good idea! Wondering, though, what would be the electrical demand from the entire system? Would the gain in fuel saving offset the greatly increase in electrical demand from all these huge electro-magnets that can generate over 100 lbs of force?

In a conventional cam-actuated valve train, the work done required to overcome the valve spring to open the valve will be returned back to the camshaft when the spring forces the valve to close, thus the spring act as an energy storage device. Friction in the valve train is the only source of power loss.

Is there provision here to capture the EMF generated when the armature is returned back to the closed position from the energy stored in the spring, hence reducing the electrical demand on the system? If so, then the resistive loss in the electromagnet winding may be no more than friction in the valve train of a cam-actuated valve system.

Patrick, the 100lbf is required to keep the cam in contact with the roller or rocker arm contact, when the cam goes away most of the forces go with it. The compressive force from the piston serves to seal the valve.

Hotrod Magazine did an article about an experimental magnetic valve actuated Ford Pinto Engine; this was 20 years ago but it only ran on a dyno under controlled conditions.

Fred,
The >100lb-force is required of the spring to keep the valve from floating at high rpm due to the inertia of the valve that increases rapidly with increase in engine rpm.
Smaller DOHC valves have a lot less mass, hence less inertia that would allow higher engine rpm or weaker valve springs, but high-rpm engine will always need strong valve springs.
The situation is not different here because the mass of the valve itself would still be there. Now, we also have to worry about the additional reciprocating mass of the "armature and vane" in additional to the mass of the valve itself! I hope that they can make the armature and vane real light, thereby keeping the electrical current required for valve actuation within reasonable limit!

I dreamed of this 30+ years ago when I was working on a 4 bit microprocessor design. I thought, "why don't people do this?"

[PDF]
Potential long-term impacts of changes in US vehicle fuel
efficiency standards by Roger H. Bezdek and Robert M. Wendling in 33 Energy Policy 407–419 (2005):

Estimates that camless valve actuation technology should produce an efficiency gain of 5%–10% at a cost of $280–$560 per engine.

Up to 20% seems to be a bit of a stretch

I've been reading about this general concept for close to 30 years; the technology to implement it wasn't there until recently. It will be one of the single biggest steps in the on-going development of the IC engine. I take the 20% efficiency gain with a grain of salt, but even a solid 10-15% would be great. The other aspect of this is that it is the final step in decoupling all accessory drives from the engine. Recent developments in electrically driven water pumps, AC, power steering, (all developed for hybrids) means that the impetus to go mild hybrid across the board is very great. With the 42 volt electrics and batteries necessary for both the electric motor as well as all the accessories, and you have a blueprint for the future non-full hybrid standard car, one that could achieve 20% to 30% gains over the current conventional equivalent car.

Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to scrap 15-year-old cars and get something new(er), more efficient and less polluting?

While I'm all for efficiency improvements, 15% is way too small.  We need to aim for PHEV territory, starting at 50% and working towards 80%.

BMW has been using a fully variable mechanical valvetrain (Variomatic) for the inlet valves of its engines for some time now. This allows them to keep the butterfly valve throttle open fully open except in certain very unusual circumstances. Average savings over the NEDC are 7-10%. Other purely mechanical designs exist.

Valeo's claim of 20% may apply to a particular point in the engine map but it is unlikely their electro-magnetic valvetrain is substantially better or cheaper than those developed by Lotus and FEV for research testbeds. Such systems exhibit high electric power demand, in part because unlike cam-based drives they do not recuperate energy as the valves close again.

Cam less IC engine designs have had most of the benefit taken up by variable valve timing and also cylinder deactivation.

Nice try but its no panacea, unfortunately.

Conversion to electric propulsion for the most part through PHEV technology, is the future for allowing all the world to have the lifestyle of the developed West. And that is what the undeveloped world is determined to get.

Only supercilious and ineffectual liberals will proclaim the need for the the "proletartiat masses" to walk, or ride 1800 mass transit technology, and get off the roads so their "betters" can have empty lanes for their speeding limos.

Just like "egalitarian" communist Russia had as a standard policy for the Party bosses.

Its also the only method that will cause the "global warming" phoney scares to be averted. A case where scaring the populace as a way to political power backfires on the anti-technology coacal cavites.

Well it's not exactly "new" technology, considering Formula 1 ditched camshafts years ago, albeit using pneumatic activation instead of electro magnetic. The real news here is the $400 cost. That's a LOT of money for a manufacturer to sink into an engine believe it or not, but it's cheap enough that it will get adoption at least in the high end cars first and hopefully continue to get cheaper over time.

As for the mention of BMW, that's still a conventional engine, conventional valvetrain, and in fact a conventional fixed camshaft. All BMW did was float the camshaft locator so it can move the camshaft up and down relative to the cylinder head instead of bolting it hard to the cylinder head like every other engine.

Lastly, on the topic of people spending $750 for a timing belt and water pump change on a $1000 car, don't laugh but I've known plenty of people who would buy a car for $500 then end up putting $2000 into it in maintenance over the following year. It happens!

I love all the skeptics around here. Why would this claim be so unreal with the following being a fact?

2005 BMW 330i w/ continuously variable timing = 18/25

2006 BMW 330i w/ continuously variable timing & variable lift on INTAKE VALVES ONLY = 21/29

Both had automatics and no type of cylinder deactivation. Granted, the '06 had a 6-speed auto (vs. 5), but it was also 100lbs heavier.

BMW's Valvetronic is admittedly not as responsive as the camless setup, and was only applied to the intake valves. According to my calculations, the combined fuel economy was improved by OVER 20% in this situation.