engineermike

They weren't exactly running 45 psi boost, either, were they? Perhaps the water/methanol mix was adequate to achieve the desired safety factor at boost levels much lower than this.

This is actually a good point. I believe the 45 psi boost DSM more closely matches what we're working with than a 1942 airplane engine.

JakeRobb

Hmmm, gonna have to read the rest of this thread later.

Why? My Grand National has a straight methanol injection setup, no water involved. Why would I call it water injection?

rskrause

SCREAM!!!

Julio

Ohh just throwing some ants on the cake

YES.. locally there is a 240Z with a GT42 turbo upwards of 40 PSI on 93 octane +(injection ) .. The DSM guys.. 40 PSI is old news..

Everything has a place, including non-alcoholic beer

Maybe its the AEM's these cars are tuning with and 5 bar MAP sensors

JakeRobb.. Good Kill

Jeff 96 SS

Rich you set yourself up for this when you started the thread I tell you what when I get my car back together I will do a little experiment with water and let you all know how it goes. I currently run C16 and straight meth works for me. My car made north of 800RWHP with the old set up the new one should make at least a 100 more. My car was one of the fasteset lt1 s around last year, this year it will be well into the 8s. So this will be a good test on a very aggresive LT1 setup. I r an Injuneer to if that matters to anybody

Julio

Yeah but on a Powerdyne SC LT1 boosting to 5 PSI that water injection works great

Depends on means, situations not being extreme.. vs extreme situations(40 PSI). If the engine in question barely needs injection.. water and mixes thereof can be used to suppress detonation effectively including straight methanol. If the situation is extreme(40PSI) then the use of water is a no-no.

Show me different Dyno sheets, datalogs, track performance, etc.

No Data=no proof

rskrause

Jeff: I'm sure it's obvious to you. But in case it isn't to others reading the thread: If you simply simply switch from methanol to water/methanol you will not see any gain unless it is already detonating with the methanol. And obviously, you will need to add fuel to replace the methanol to avoid a lean condition. Where the water might show gains is if using it allows you to raise the boost even further. This assumes you are not already maxing the blower out, the parts are mechanically strong enough to handle the boost, etc. No one is saying water is a panacea, just that a water/methanol mixture has more potential as a boost fluid under the right circumstances.

Rich

Julio

Well there varying degree's.. on the internet.. you have to watch out

I B an Injuneer as well.. not a train one either

rskrause

The test procedure would be simple enough in concept, just expensive and time consuming to implement. You would need a variable compression engine with the ability to vary boost over a wide range. A variety of different fuels would be needed. You would need a knock sensor and a dyno. For a given fuel you could easily establish a tune (including varying the boost level, CR, timing, AF ratio, etc.) that would produce max hp without knock. Then do the same with straight methanol and the water/methanol mix.

Of course, why bother since it's already been done?

Rich

Jeff 96 SS

I was planning on trying a little water anyway because I'm planning to run the standing mile at a hot rod event this spring. I'm hoping to keep the engine together for a whole mile and shooting for over 200mph. I have a built T56 ready to slap in and give her hell. My hope is the water will help keep intake and combustion temps down. I'm also very curious about how much power my TH400 sucks out vs the T56 so I will have a bunch of dyno testing to do should be fun!

Julio I have never driven a train but that does sound cool

Jeff 96 SS

Because I R and Injuneer and don't beleive the tests! I do similar things for a living and have thrown many tests done by respected sceintist in the garbage. Many of the tests that are performed are in labs in an ideal environment. I try to repoduce these results in real world environments and never get the same results. In many cases I completly turn there recommendations upside-down.

markinkc69z

It must all be BS then. I give up. Shame on an engineer for wanting to control his environment so he can demonstrate repeatable results. I suppose the same can be said for engine development on dynos that feature an environmentally controlled room so results before and after lunch can be comparable or even weeks later.

Jeff 96 SS

You said it all thank you! The problem is these tests are in ideal conditions I never doubt the data I get. I apply tests in a real world environment most labs do not! I don't race my car in a lab or on a dyno. I race at the track in varying environmental conditions. The final tweaking on a tune is always done at the track it never comes off the dyno perfect.

markinkc69z

The dyno is a development tool and if properly applied it will allow you to isolate a particular area of interest and present you with the results. Its a given that most of us are interested in the vehicle's performance at the track. The track being the "chassis" dyno where its proven out and you work on the suspension, fine tune and deal with the variables that are presented every trip down the strip or around the road coarse etc.

I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with poopooing research that is done in a uniform way, isolating the variables that may change an engine's propensity to detonation.

I think the point is that most of the hard work has already been done years ago. If you find that drowning the engine in methanol gives you the best results then by all means do what you feel most comfortable doing. I'm not going to shake my finger at anyone. Know this though, the research is real and it pertains to us whether its age or methology agrees with you or not. The database of engineering studies is only worth what one is willing to do with it.

Thanks for the topic Rich!

Jeff 96 SS

Direct from the procharger site "Before any ProCharger system is made available, it must pass a rigorous series of performance testing hurdles. All of our applications are proven on the dyno, in the lab and on the track before we will bring it to market."

This is what I'm trying to say many tests are performed in labs but that is only one part of testing. The problem I have is so many of these tests are qouted as gospel but do not work well in a real world environment.

The qoute I used from Procharger is exactly the reason I use their product they test it. Now go ask your engineers if they have devoloped a product that was impressive in the lab but never made it to market because it didn't perform as expected in the other testing. The answer is YES!