Yea, uh...um...sorry about that.

I just saw it not long ago. I'm definately interested in doing something like that.

Did you ever use the bottle on the dyno? How did that work out? I think I remember reading on Kennedy's website something about it. Let me look.

Thanks again,
Wes

 

We never ran the nitrous up past 5,400rpm at the track. On the dyno, we were shutting it off at 5,000rpm. But it was adding ~140rwhp across the board, so it would have been in the 850rwhp range if we hadn't shut it off. I have an aversion to blowing it up! Believe it or not, it's mostly because it's such a pain to get the motor in and out of these cars. Once a season is plenty for me.

This year we haven't got any useful dyno numbers due to the loose converter. I don't think they will be comparable to last year even with a tighter converter. So far, anything with a ~4,000rpm stall or above seems to give results the aren't useful in an absolute sense. The dyno is still useful for comaprisons on the same setup and for adjust AF, etc. but I don't think you can readily compare car to car or assume much about flywheel hp with a loose converter.

Rich Krause

 

my statment isn't regarding that water did any damaged. It's the result of having more hp and rpms available on the airplane's motor that would result in a rebuilt. I'm not sure exactly what was the rule, but I've had ex pilot professors that told us you could only use it for so much then maintenance would just replace the motor. In order to get more top end speed, the airplane would inject water to cool off the charge. That extra rpms would yield an increase in speed to either get away or catch up the bad guys. They to probably also used a mix of water and alchool. ... again nothing really related to the car world, but I thought it would be neet to show that this principle has been around for a while now...and it works...no doubts.

I"m not saying either that it would break, but on aircraft you are required by FAA regulation to have your motor rebuilt every so often (in terms of hours). The injection of water would reduce that number of hours due to the fact that it would add in stress to the components. I can find out in greater details if anyone is that interested by it...

 

The alcohol was to prevent freezing at high altitude. I have run straight H2O at times.

Rich Krause

 

from what ive read.........propane leaves the tank at like about -60c..............if injected after your turbo and intercooler, it can further reduce intake temperatures BELOWambient ..........much cooler than alky/water can.

cheaper to fill......you can swap propane tanks almost anywhere for cheap

lasts longer than a fill of alky/water.........you can use it for daily driving and it will last you a few weeks atleast.............and it doesnt degrade like alky does

propane is usually 104-110 octane depending on where you get it........so its like running on race gas all the time

according to the turbo buick community, who has extensivly tested alky/water, and propane..............the propane is much easier to tune with.


the only downside i can see is that propane is explosive, so if you were in a car accident and the tank ruptured, you could kiss your *** goodbye.

im not sure if it can damage O2 sensors......i didnt find much info about that.

 

Some interesting thoughts about propane. Maybe I will look into it further.

Rich Krause

 

i know the turbo buick guys........3000gt guys........and some high hp supra owners.........as well as viper guys..........have all had good experiences with it.

also, turbo deisel guys use it alot to get extra towing power.......but i think it has different reactions with diesel fuel, not sure if it has the same power increase.

 

Vito is running propane/nitrous combo on his GTS (viper) and he is a chemical engineer. might want to ak him these questions. Next time I see him online I shoot him a link.

 

A local guy with a GTS has it with has 200 shot of n2o and loves it. If you look at the viper message boards they swear by this stuff... that doesnt mean its for everone but it does say something...

 

I know, and maybe you may remember I quizzed you on the amount of fuel to water ratio you would use. The ratio of alcohol to water is a distant second. What mirage was referring to, is injecting water to the degree of being 70% of fuel mass. That is alot of water, but doable under WOT. Also, using this much water, allowed a hell of alot of boost. It is probably unfair to lay 100% of the blame of the necessary engine rebuild on the amount of water alone. There were tests conducted that used a water to fuel ratio of 150% by mass. This however, left H2O in the oil pan. However, in the ratio's defense this was with 40's ring technology. To put in perspective, in comparing mass to volume, 70% of mass would be a little over 50% by volume.

There is quality reading to aquaint oneself to water injection diminishing the numerous misconceptons that run rampant today. However, one must commit themselves to HOURS of reading to fully acquaint oneself and come up to speed. Most do not want to invest this much dedication/time to fully understand. Good info I could pass on, would be for one to spend much time going thru the archives at http://diy-efi.org/diy-efi/archive/index.html going over the numerous threads pertaining to water injection. This is info one won't obtain from a Buick turbo site unfortunately. Of course this is not to state they (the turbo Buick sites) aren't knowledgeable.

LOL, I posted this B4 reading mirage's second post. I believe we basically agree.

 

Propane is what I will be running on my turbo setup. Its boiling point is -42.1 *C, and average commercial octane is 104.

I see much larger advantages with using propane injection over water/alky injection. It will significatly cool the intake charge by vaporizing at -42 *C thus bringing it below ambient temps. Also since most of us use 92-94 octane gas, the addition of 104 octane helps slow down combustion and prevent detonation. It will also richen up our air/fuel ratio when the injection is used, which must be compensated for when tuning.

All in all, the decreased intake temps, and higher octance of propane will allow either more boost or more ignition timing. My friends Talon was making about 650 awhp at 18 psi of boost without an injection, and he was on the ragged end of detonation. We setup a propane injeciton system, and it allowed his car to take a total of 26 psi, and make a hair of 800 awhp. Now all he has to go is fix all the broken drivline parts and he'll be happy.

Another thing.....propane is a much more cleaner burning hydrocarbon, which will help with keeping the combustion chambers cleaned and less wasted fuel.

Hunter

 

GM engineers came very close to putting water/alcohol injection on the turbo regals from the factory. They did extensive long term durability tests, and determined that it did cause increased wear to the cylinders. Whether or not it was due to the water being there or the increased output is up for debate...but not really relevant. They decided against it not because of longterm durability, but because of the liability of having people not fill up the water/alcohol tank. How close did they get to factory installing it? Look at the dash of a turbo regal. I'm not sure if it's there on the hotair cars, but I know for a fact it is on the intercooled cars, as both my 87 and a friend's 86 had it. There's an "idiot light" in the dash marked "Power Injection" that is of course, just a blank slot now, since the factory never put the injection system into production. Goes to show how close they were to actually making it a reality though.

 

This may be B4 most members here were born, but GM did indeed put water (and alcohol for cold climates) injection on their turbo vehicles. Not only did they suffer from the problem of owners forgetting to refill the reservoir with water, but many were not instructed as to the need to fill same. This turned out to be the demise of the early 60s turbo corvairs. Someone at the late stages of the Buick campaign, apparently got word of the earlier GM experience.

They did extensive long term durability tests, and determined that it did cause increased wear to the cylinders. Whether or not it was due to the water being there or the increased output is up for debate...but not really relevant.

Might you have any leads to the info you you presented here? I'd like to study the test research papers a little more.

 

I am not saying that propane does not work, 'cause I don't know if it does or not. But I just want to point out that the -42degree boiling point is not really the relevant physical property. The temp it boils at is not as important as the heat of vaporization. Don't think that a liquid cannot cool something below the boiling point. Look at methanol, which boils at 65C (149F). Ever see the ice forming on the "hat" of an alcohol car? That's due to cooling effect of all that methanol boiling off at 149 degrees! I have sen this occur on a 90+ degree day. So, it is not correct that alcohol (or water, or water/alcohol) cannot cool below ambient.

Rich Krause

 

Rich your right about water/alky injection, I have seen it cool intake temps below ambient too, and it does its job awesome. Yes heat of vaporization is much more important than boiling point, no doubt.

The only reason I like propane system better is that it will be more durable and reliable that a water/alky injection setup. We all know that alky is corrosive and finding pumps to get it to the engine is hard, or at least hard to make them last. Also, water in the intake charge will do some cylinder wall washing, even if in vapor for, which for me is something I don't want to happen to my engine.

But I am also on both sides....cause my 87 Dodge Daytona Turbo has an water/alky setup on it...and i know it works....4 cylinder turbo makin shy of 400 hp/350 ftlb with only 6 psi of boost....ya it works...

Hunter