Why it's WATER injection
12-23-2006, 01:49 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Posts: 2,743
12-26-2006, 12:34 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: kitchener/Ontario
Posts: 1,942
That's great, you are one circumstance. As Mark pointed out, water injection isn't simply for auto 6 and 8 cylinder engines. Arguing an entire concept and theory on such a small set of circumstances is questionable. It might very well be that these engines operate behind or beyond the practical purposes of water injection, but that still does not invalidate water injection as it relates to internal combustion engines.
The system that has been outlined by most of you all is merely a supplemental fuel injection. This would be nearly the same as injecting or running 100% race gas. If I put water in my gas tank and said, "man it sure runs better on straight pump gas," you would call me an idiot. I passed similar judgement on your post.
The system that has been outlined by most of you all is merely a supplemental fuel injection. This would be nearly the same as injecting or running 100% race gas. If I put water in my gas tank and said, "man it sure runs better on straight pump gas," you would call me an idiot. I passed similar judgement on your post.
Just putting out there what works for me
I love my alkycontrol kit and Juilo has been nothing but great help, Like allot of people pushing big numbers there is allot of money in these set up's and i want it to last a long time...if Juilo can get a Turbo T/A to last @30lbs of boost on stock block on 100% alky ..that's all i need to here....
12-26-2006, 01:14 PM
#54
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 10,745
That's great, you are one circumstance. As Mark pointed out, water injection isn't simply for auto 6 and 8 cylinder engines. Arguing an entire concept and theory on such a small set of circumstances is questionable. It might very well be that these engines operate behind or beyond the practical purposes of water injection, but that still does not invalidate water injection as it relates to internal combustion engines.
The system that has been outlined by most of you all is merely a supplemental fuel injection. This would be nearly the same as injecting or running 100% race gas. If I put water in my gas tank and said, "man it sure runs better on straight pump gas," you would call me an idiot. I passed similar judgement on your post.
The system that has been outlined by most of you all is merely a supplemental fuel injection. This would be nearly the same as injecting or running 100% race gas. If I put water in my gas tank and said, "man it sure runs better on straight pump gas," you would call me an idiot. I passed similar judgement on your post.
Yep, I bet any of our cars would run better on straight methanol than on any combination of gasoline and water, water/methanol, or straight methanol injection. Unfortunately, that isn't practical and doesn't shed any light on the subject anyway. The principles of the IC engine have not changed since WWII. I advise those of you who are sincerely interested in this topic to go back and look at the original research on boost fluids. They decided on a water/methanol mixture. Go figure?
Rich
12-26-2006, 01:44 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Shawnee Kansas
Posts: 849
I have downloaded probably close to 60 papers that pertain to performance and forced induction with the bulk of the research done in the 40's. When I was is my teens and early 20's I would have probably ignored this stuff because after all its 60 plus years old. Now with more experience I realize that what used to work still does. Water is still water, methanol is still methanol and boost is still boost. About the only thing that is different about some of these airplane engines is that they run lower compression and rpm than we do, but they're also operated at max or near max load for extended periods of time and many are aircooled.
These engineering studies were done with the utmost seriousness as our air superiority was at stake. Most of these at one time were restricted access at minumum as the government realized the importance of the information. Nearly all studies you'll read mention detonation-limited performance as that is the stumbling block.
In an area where every pound counts if straight methanol was appropriate they would have used it because its 25% lighter than water. They of course found that methanol is prone to pre-ignition (where if you were to remove spark the engine would continue to run) and pre-ignition is particularly bad in a boosted engine as an intake "backfire" can have serious consequences.
I should mention outright that I never emailed Julio for the FAST logger files because I know their limitations and they won't include temp data other than a single IAT, there just isn't a way to hook up auxilliary thermistors to a FAST.
I doubt many here already running straight methanol will change their setup due to a post, but my hope is that people new to water injection will understand why a 50% mixture is both safer and more effective at controlling detonation than straight methanol. Don't run methanol because it sounds cool. When you do something, do it for an informed reason.
These engineering studies were done with the utmost seriousness as our air superiority was at stake. Most of these at one time were restricted access at minumum as the government realized the importance of the information. Nearly all studies you'll read mention detonation-limited performance as that is the stumbling block.
In an area where every pound counts if straight methanol was appropriate they would have used it because its 25% lighter than water. They of course found that methanol is prone to pre-ignition (where if you were to remove spark the engine would continue to run) and pre-ignition is particularly bad in a boosted engine as an intake "backfire" can have serious consequences.
I should mention outright that I never emailed Julio for the FAST logger files because I know their limitations and they won't include temp data other than a single IAT, there just isn't a way to hook up auxilliary thermistors to a FAST.
I doubt many here already running straight methanol will change their setup due to a post, but my hope is that people new to water injection will understand why a 50% mixture is both safer and more effective at controlling detonation than straight methanol. Don't run methanol because it sounds cool. When you do something, do it for an informed reason.
12-26-2006, 05:19 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: St.Petersburg,Fl,USA
Posts: 65
I think the engineers in this thread are bench racing with injection.
Vs guys like myself and Schurters LT1 have used it with positive track and dyno results.
So do you believe papers.. or do you believe real world results. Argue what you will.. 1,000's of cars running 100% straight methanol injection with positive results. For what ever the reason.. Is what it is. When you tune something with some ***** on it once.. you never go back to water anything. Never.
I have never had a shop tell me ya know we tried this(straight methanol) and found water worked better. Lidio from Alternative was so in dislike from the water systems he had done, it was like getting a crowbar to get him to try 100% methanol or any other injection system.. why becuase of the issues this thread is about. And the information contained wherein. Once he tuned his first car on straight meth injection... he never looked back. www.alternativeauto.com he actually made an article on the fact.
Its really simple.. put you car on some rollers.. a few hours latter you will know the truth. This is assumming you can tune your ecu and have the facilities/resources to do so.
If not.. stop with the poison.
Until you have the raw data.
Vs guys like myself and Schurters LT1 have used it with positive track and dyno results.
So do you believe papers.. or do you believe real world results. Argue what you will.. 1,000's of cars running 100% straight methanol injection with positive results. For what ever the reason.. Is what it is. When you tune something with some ***** on it once.. you never go back to water anything. Never.
I have never had a shop tell me ya know we tried this(straight methanol) and found water worked better. Lidio from Alternative was so in dislike from the water systems he had done, it was like getting a crowbar to get him to try 100% methanol or any other injection system.. why becuase of the issues this thread is about. And the information contained wherein. Once he tuned his first car on straight meth injection... he never looked back. www.alternativeauto.com he actually made an article on the fact.
Its really simple.. put you car on some rollers.. a few hours latter you will know the truth. This is assumming you can tune your ecu and have the facilities/resources to do so.
If not.. stop with the poison.
Until you have the raw data.
12-26-2006, 05:33 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Western NY
Posts: 106
actually alcohol in most would be much more associated with ethanol than methanol, but both are alcohols. I don't know if people use ethanol injection or not.
Last edited by BMWKillR; 12-26-2006 at 06:05 PM.
12-26-2006, 05:59 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Posts: 2,743
HEY! I take offense to that!
Isn't one DSM guy running 45 psi boost with alky/pump gas? I think that should be the benchmark/poster child for 100% Meth. To anyone advocating the use of 50/50, that is your challenge. Get 45 psi boost safely with 50/50+pump gas, then I'll change my mind.
Mike
Mike
