I finally take the time to explain why my engine won't blow up from the lack of intercooler. Also why preturbo injection rocks! Here is a link to the NACA studies if you guys want to do homework. www.not2fast.com/NACA/
I have 3 boosted cars. C5z...Lsx turbo Fox coupe....n54 335i. All 3 run WI. Only the 335i has an intercooler. No issues ever with aggressive tuneups. IATs are beautiful.
best video ive seen so far on WI, i used to run it on my 13bt with awesome results and now im runnning it on my 4wd with no intercooler, there is so much info and proof it works i dont know why its not more popular
I agree with some of the details, the bottom line is that running a boosted car with no intercooler certainly has its benefits as long as you can manage cooling that air going into the engine in both wot and tip in throttle
On a standard engine with 10 to 1 compression will it make any difference in power? Like for example driving on a cold night ? Or when i put ice cubrs in my air air box and the car pulls harder?
Lol that’s exactly what I do keep on voiding warranties I had 1 year left on power train and voided by slapping a big turbo on my Sierra 5.3 great video!
It was the Germans who were stuck with 85 octain aviation fuel (with what little fuel they had) that brought about WM injection. Not NACA, as you stated. Incidentally, we had all the fuel we needed with performance ratings of 130 Octane and more throughout all of World War II. We never had a problem with, "bad gas" as you say, other than keeping the U-Boats from sending it and our tankers to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. l do very much admire your inventive spirit, but please, if you can, backup your theories with actual test results, not just theories, after all there has never been a voided warranty by "Theory", that takes action through experimentation. However, I'm very thankful for your thoughtful words.
I've recently increase boost quite significantly and noticed my IAT has rocketed which is overwhelming my IC. Been thinking of pre-turbo injection a while, but never really considered this kinda makes the IC obsolete. Great insight and explanation - thank you!
Nissan Patrol GR 3.0 Di Turbo sounds like you ran off the back (right side)of the compressor efficiency map. An over driven turbo will produce more psi at the same mass due to thermal expansion.
It doesn't make an intercooler obsolete, because pressure and temperate are related. Could be that detonation isn't caused by pressure, which I think is mostly true, but with more temperate you get more pressure.
Pressure and temperature are related but inside the cylinder it's all about pressure. An IC will let you have cooler higher density air, which gives you more power at lower pressure, but it can't fix the threshold where Det happens. WI can, but isn't as reliable, so an Intercooler will never be obsolete but might not be right for every application.
Voiding Warranties as stated in my other coment diesels dont play well with the gas/fuel rules. His IC is being overwhelmed with the extra heat from running off the back of the map for his turbo. The extra diesel to raise exhaust pressure =more spin and at low efficiency ,resulting in heat induced boost gain (+psi) at the cost of MAD manifold air density (-air mass) . --- Not trying to stomp on any toes ,just picking up were you left off in regards to diesel. Yes. You can ditch the IC but you will have to refill your water/meth tank(30-60% the size of your diesel tank) every time you fill the diesel tank If building a kit I would do a 2-8 calibrated nozzle w/m sys depending on how many it took to control. Usinga sequential temperature/ pressure sensors logic controller so that when stage one 2% fuel mass @90°f/5psi gets overwhelmed . stage 2 kicks @150° f pre turbo or 110 post stage 1. Smaller =more stages between cruse and wude open. How many/big lph depends on how hard you're flogging the dog when you're trying to get her out of the mud/ snow and you're getting higher revs you might need that 8th stage to keep it your intake air temperatures down. In the stuck in the mud example the water meth system would destroy any intercoolers attempt to compete you're not moving you don't have any Ram Air. But alass Im not a programmer so the idea doesn't do me any good lol
Opinion on a GDI engine, turbo charged with intercooler, knock sensor equipped hot day running the engine hard, adding a Throttle or manifold secondary water/meth injection nozzle? Mainly to reduce carbon build up on valves and secondary to help reduce knock be it mild or a little more aggressive? Shouldn't require much tuning if the short term and long term fuel trims can keep up.
Been running 100% water injection on my track supercharged car for the last 18 months Without it iat would reach 90+ degrees which causes increased fuel mixture and pull in ignition They now are between 30-42 degrees it's allowed me to run up to 6 degrees more ignition at higher rpms also have a failsafe map with lower ignition incase the water injection fails, I've also seen cool exhaust temps and the car has been a lot more consistant on track
Great I have a Niva 1.7 that i just added turbo without intercooler. Outside air temp can reach 130 deg in summer here. I get Snow water/meth kit. I can't get meth here easily so i planing to inject in intake down throttle body. After seeing your video i am thinking about water injection pre compressor wheel
I had a suck through system with water/methanol post carb injection (before turbo) on my 1330cc Copper S and it worked perfectly. No room for an inter-cooler anyway.
Hey! Was the experience of injection of water-methanol on a naturally aspirated rotor engine without a turbo? It would be very interesting to hear or read about it. (:
The renesis (or other NA 13B's) are not knock limited. they reach peak torque before knock (not by much) meaning you would gain only if there is very bad fuel quality.
Intercoolers do not increase spool time in any appreciable way. Think of a typical boosted 2L engine and the turbo is shifting about 300L of air per second. How long is it going to take to fill a 5L intercooler. About 2/100 of a second. Intercoolers do cause a pressure drop as does any flow restriction in the inlet so I guess that can affect spool but that's more down to bad design or application.
Interesting but, lots of talk and no personal data, or demonstration. I've run pre & post nozzles successfully for years but never took the time to get into validating the benefit of pre turbo injection because everything worked well together. I have heard yay & nay to intercooler elimination & have found that the water/meth ratio plays an important role as to the overall benefit. Boost level, if all you're running is up to ~8 psi the intercooler benefit will not be as great because outlet temps from the turbo will probably hang around 150 deg before hitting the intercooler. For every 10 deg drop in air temp going into the throttlebody, you can expect ~1% increase in performance. Weigh the IC efficiency loss as an obstruction against the gain from having it at that level of boost to decide if it's worth it. Plumbing is not that big a drag, I once ran 13 ft of plumbing for an intercooler and the datalog registered an insignificantly low level of delay in boost onset per the datalog. The higher the turbo air exit temps, the better water/meth will work, water needs to be close to its boiling point to evaporate significantly BEFORE entering the combustion chamber where most of its work is done, in order to really help reduce inlet air temps. This is where the methanol shines, it has a much lower boiling point and does a lot to cool the intake charge. The Grand National guys reported frost on their intake plenums after track runs from running very high methanol injection ratios bordering on 100%. Running a 60% ratio of methanol I have found my intake cold to the touch following a few brief boost runs. The intercooler is better left in place simply because it offers cooling when the water/meth injection is not activated, usually at any boost level below 7 psi. Large turbos with small nozzles (1 lb/hr) injecting into them are probably not going to have a problem with erosion because of their larger blades relative to the water droplets. I believe installing a nozzle directly into the compressor housing close to the apex (narrow) point of the spiral achieves the same result as injecting directly into the compressor since it is the heat that is acting on the mix, not the pressure, for those concerned about blade damage. Ultimately the arrangement and mix ratio should be centered around what the engine is intended for. I built a high compression daily driven V6, 11:1 in defiance of speculators with no proof it could not be done with today's modern engines and management systems, which are far more efficient than the old carb motors and ran it with pre and post turbo injection on pump 93 octane fuel as high as 22 psi without a spec of engine knock (detonation & knock are two different things). I datalogged the motor frequently. I still saw compressor outlet temps hit 170 deg but never tested it without preturbo injection to note any difference. In the future, I'd like to test a dual system, one injecting near 100% methanol into the compressor and the other 50/50 just ahead of the throttle. This video needs cold, hard before and after data. Although I believe there is a point and water/meth ratio at which you can eliminate the intercooler, I highly doubt this is one of them. I've been doing this stuff personally since 1995 on my own cars. If you remove the intercooler you will have a power loss due to the increase in inlet temps all the way up until the water/meth injection kicks in for sure, until definitively proven otherwise which is not going to happen. Automotive performance is definitely a "Don't tell me, show me" subject. I blew a lot of cash on testimonial driven purchase, with no data proof of claims to figure that out. A simple scan tool capable of reading inlet temps is a cheap means to perform a simple before and after test here as proof. Whatever you do, always be safe. Experimenting with water/meth injection, keep a fire extinguisher on hand. The video is helpful to some no doubt, but don't talk so much, I'm old.
q q water could absorb 4 time heat than methanol, the air should be cool down before into combustion camber to make sure air density , density means the oxygen is more
Iv gotten rid of mine on my volvo its my daily all i have is a small one in my charge pipe near the tb and it goes at 2psi then a rpm switch off the same pressure switch to the sec pump to a big preturbo nozzle. Two tanks one for the tb i just run distilled water on low boost and washer fluid for the preturbo (25%meth) and for track days washer fluid for the tb and meth for the preturbo with dry ice in the tank just make sure your vent is big enough lol. Dont ask why i know lol. But iv never had an issue and did see a huge difference from intercooler to no intercooler and water about 800rpm.
great video! I read about water meth injection as well when I was putting together my $50 pre turbo water meth setup. what I read said they used the water meth more in an "emergency power" situation.. some of them apparently had a breakable stop on the throttle so that when the pilot used it they would know to inspect the engine afterwards! not because the meth is bad for it but because they were just that far over the power they were designed to run at.. pretty cool stuff!
been doing it with great results all year, check out my channel for updated information on this. this is the second time today someone mentioned 1970s studies saying I cant do what I'm doing in 2017 lol. maybe it wasn't financially feasible then, but it is easy to atomize the mixture enough to avoid cavitation in most applications. I dont atomize it at all currently and the wear rate is very acceptable for my program, I'm likely to wear out other parts of this cheap turbo before the water/meth hurts anything.
Meth works by lowering your iats and raising the octane limit of the fuel increasing total cylinder temp before detonation.. the transition of meth from liquid to gas sucks significant heat energy from the air charge temp You're partially right, but the gains if any are not worth not having an intercooler, a multilayered approach is the best strategy for keeping your engine togeather.
You could easily replace an intercooler with this strategy. The engine doesn't care how you reduce detonation conditions. The only advantages of an intercooler are: no moving parts, no electronics, no reservoir to run empty. Intercoolers are idiot proof, that's the only reason they are preferred. If you're not an idiot, and want to reduce spool time and plumbing, water/meth makes a lot of sense.
Vappr pressure of gas is important too. Prevent detonation with less volatile high octanes of acetone or xylene. Even low octane but low vapor pressure kerosene mitigates under high temps. Once gas vapor locks, detonation is more likely. Hence the cooling effect of intercooler can be done withsuch fuels, water heat absorbing and steaming aiding in increase of compression. Water injection by premixing it wity ethanol/acetone and adding it to Xylene in the tank is best imo
Ok, I've gotten a few responses confusing auti-ignition and detonation, as well as attributing detonation to auto-ignition or saying detonation is directly temperature based and not dependent on internal pressure. While auto-ignition can cause detonation, auto-ignition can also be present without detonation if pressures are not high enough. If auto-ignition caused detonation (and was all that was required) then the auto-ignition temperature of a fuel would directly relate to the octane of a fuel. The higher the auto-ignition temperature the higher the octane. While this is true for many fuels, its not always true, as is the case of Ethanol vs Isooctane. Ethanol has an auto-ignition temperature of 689F, while Isooctane has an auto-ignition temperature of 837F. Based on that alone the octane of the Isooctane should be significantly higher. In reality the isooctane has a RON and MON of 100 by definition, while the ethanol has a RON of 108.7 and a MON of 89.7 giving it a (R+M)/2 of 99.15 or just about equal to the isooctane. Yes autoignition temperature is measured at atmo, but that's my point. Detontation is dependent on cylinder pressure in the engine. While hot spots or coolant temperature or air temperature can effect this internal pressure at any given air flow, and cooling the air charge can get you a higher mass of air at the same internal pressure, the line in the sand for a given fuel is based on AFR, Peak cylinder pressure, burn time, and burn pattern. My point is that you can cryo cool intake air using liquid nitrogen, and yes you can get a very dense charge which produces a lot of power, but your max boost pressure will still be limited by the same limit on internal pressure which is limited by the octane of your fuel.
any thoughts on superchargers and water injection? will there be as many benefits? I am thinking of using an edelbrock e-force and there is an integrated water/air intercooler right after the rotors so I can't just eliminate it. My worry is that the water will condense on the cooling fins and be pushing full drops of water into the cylinders. Will they evaporate the moment they touch the valves?
What about water injection in a NA engine? My engine's pretty small and weak lol, a JDM Qg18de, 128bhp according to wikipedia, but i still like fiddling with it. Using an app, Carguage pro I advanced timing by 2 degrees and it's noticeable, just wondering if I could squeeze some more power out using water injection.
NA water injection is a mixed bag. First you need to tune for the highest octane available until you are detonation limited, then slowly add water and timing until you stop gaining power. If you inject water beyond what is needed to stop detonation then you will lose power. For NA this is a very small amount of water.
Very wel put to gether. diesels don't play well with the gas/fuel rules 60°f IAT is were power loss due to reduced burn efficiency. 1% increased fuel consumption per hp per10°f rise above 60°f. (This is due to like you said less mass of O2) The example Cummins , manufacturer gave was a 250 horsepower engine will only produce 240 horsepower at an IAT of 90° but it will still burn 250 horsepower worth of fuel. When ambant is above 60° the only thing that can be done is improve IC thermal efficiency. +20-30°F above ambant is considerd a fair to good cooler +50° is consiterd poor. Eg.. 2 factory 5.9l cummins both 160hp 400tq 1 Ic (91.5-93 late) 1 after cooled using engen coolent180° thermostat (89-91 early) Early +4psi @21 , biger injectors , min IAT 180° Late 17psi 20° above ambant (testing standerd is 25°c)
Re volume of intercooler. If you have a 2.6 litre engine (or a 13b) it breathes 1.3l of air per revolution. This means at 3000 rpm it's breathing around 65 litres a second. Your 5-10l of extra intake volume is inconsequential compared to this number. If, like me, you have a 4L engine that either operates or flashes to 3500 rpm whenever you put your boot down it becomes even less important. Also, my 993cc 170hp Daihatsu Charade (it had a big turbo) didn't have response problems over 4000rpm either, despite the much lower airflow. I'm putting this down to the engine and turbo being really really big pumps in comparison to the smaller intercooler
The effect of IC and intake volume (as well as exhaust volume before turbo) is not intuitive. Yes the actual volume is quickly filled by the turbo and engine, and if the turbo instantly went from discharging 0psig to 15psig then the difference of intake volume would be negligible. BUT that's not how it works, the turbo increases pressure incrementally, so let say intake pressure goes from 0 to .01 psig when the throttle is opened and the turbo begins to spool. This translates into exhaust pressure going up by a similar amount, and more energy feeding the turbo, so the next cycle the turbo goes from .01 to .02psig, and rinse repeat. What changes with intake volume is how fast this cycle happens between the turbo producing a higher pressure and it seeing it on the exhaust side. Since people are so confused about this, I'll change intake size drastically and get the data, maybe that will clear things up.
That would be a *fantastic* experiment! I'll put my chips on the table and say that what you are describing will only have a noticeable effect at or around the boost threshold of the engine where lag is greatest, and it won't be that much of a change even if you, say, quadruple your plumbing volume. Actually that still wouldn't be much on your engine, so let's say if you had a volume equivalent to the largest FMIC installations. At higher rpm (say 2000 above boost threshold, assuming typical sized car engine) I think the response difference will be negligible. (Also assuming that you increase volume through diameter increase or an empty volume plumbed in rather than having 15ft of looped 2" piping, because the latter introduces much more restriction into the system and I'd have to call foul play)
None yet. I tried with a china charger first and it ran for quite a while and even had an accident with excessive water (the compressor housing was half filled with the engine running) and no blade damage. So I'm not particularly worried.
I don't think you took the windchill factor into account concerning the intercooler. Air moving across a surface can cool it much more than ambient air temperature.
Good review of what I forgot from 1985. Thanks from old guy in Georgia. Now I got some tubing to bend...👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻😇😇😇Thank and yes I sub. My last Hot rod and been 33 yrs.
+Makan Tahi yes some people do this, but the effects are limited by the dew point of the outside air and the temperature of the intercooler. Injecting the water is much more effective, because it also acts as an anti detonation additive.
Might car mods did a video on it, you can use your wiper fluid tubes and reroute them in front of your intercooler. I have the ones that spray my headlights spray my intercooler. Not a huge improvement but it can lower temps slightly.
They are but they are also related, which is why most people get them confused. I also tried hard to avoid saying knock because the term is ambiguous and confusing.
I agree , I am always seeing people mixing the 2. But you know the industry is kinda special when it comes to labels. Shit it's not even O.E only its regional also. Standardization is kinda a joke, you can see it in the I think 109 electrical a.s.e test. I actually got a 98% on that one last time lol
They did at the end of the war, but at the beginning and through most of WW2 high octane fuel was very limited and so was the infrastructure to deliver it. This is what led to the development of water injection, and the later availability of high octane fuel caused WI to fall out of favor.
More boost wont do much unless you add more fuel or more oxygen. If your fuel pressure is already maxed out, making more boost is not doing anything but add a lot more air with not enough fuel to make use of all that excessive boost. All that extra air could even blow out the spark, send all that unburned fuel out of the exhaust and still cause detonation.
man, i red "The Background of Detonation (21 pages)" that is in link you gave somebody below to read. it is from about 1920-1930 and they have problem with detonation at 4.8 compression ratio. in that engines they used raw petrol with 40-60 octane number and fixed spark advance. that literature are older than me and you together, please read recent literature not older 1985. and on the end ,when will occure self combustion/detonation it depends on temperature resistence of fuel, not pressure
+Makan Tahi Don't have time at the moment to find a non paywalled modern study, but you are more than welcome to provide proof of your opinion. Also the NACA studies go far beyond fixed timing on low compression engines.
Can tell you now that air intake temp has nothing to do with detonation,,, I have a blown 427 in a Camaro with 7:1 comp ratio and hit it with 16lbs from a Dyers 8/71 and turn it 6K rpm's with locked out 30deg timing,,, Do the math,, This is a street car,, only times i have heard any rattling from engine when sending it,, is during winter time where air temp would be from 27 to 35 deg F,
Wrong.. gas gets hot when compressed, pre ignition occurs in the cylinder when the temperature raises above the self ignite level of the fuel. You had cool air going in, but it was dense af, gaining heat from the compressor then gaining heat again when its compressed in the cylinder.. more gas = more heat... boom.
Water injection in proper amount does little to effect ignition, and there is already plenty of water produced as combustion products to cause rust on internals, if that were a problem.
I totally disagree for one reason: Generalization. You can't say intercoolers with WMI are pointless. Remember you are injecting before the turbo, so the listeners would have to remember that before they ditch their intercooler on their system. Secondly, you are not running enough boost / airflow to put your car at the same risk as say a guy with an EVO running 26 psi on a 20G turbo. If your WMI fails on that car, having no intercooler will only make it harder for the engine to pull timing or go to a failsafe boost level. And believe me, they all fail if not serviced frequently (from aquamist to the least of them). Also, if you have a MAF based system doing pre-turbo is a pain not worth the gains. The easiest thing to see some 20% gain in torque is to do a post intercooler injection with a good PWM valved system. I build and tune WMI systems (not kit, systems).
Pre intercooler Water injection lowers the efficiency of the intercooler drastically, and vice versa if you inject after the intercooler. It's basic thermo, harder to cool something that is already near ambient (or in the case of WI closer to saturation). Don't ditch the intercooler unless your WI system is bulletproof, but if it is, you can and probably should.
Yea bud, and it gets more interesting! That's the general consensus but let's introduce some more variables and think on this again. Let's consider 100% meth, 50/50 and pure water. With an outlet from the turbo at 130C, pure water flashes easily and cools the best as it has a greater specific heat capacity. The water phase changes much easier at that temperature (and pressure!) than it would at around 45C exiting the IC. (Note: The charge pressure makes injected liquids harder to phase change). This location maximizes the cooling potential of the water while limiting the cooling potential of the IC. Injecting pure water at the exit of the intercooler may result in the water failing to flash and not really cooling the charge temps as much. Then there is distribution problem: those (relatively large compared to steam) water droplets are stubborn at taking corners. The problem with injecting water before the intercooler is two-fold. First, we have a minor issue with a heat soaked intercooler, as you mentioned above, but that only lasts a few seconds as once the vehicle is moving the core temp drop extremely fast. The other problem (my hypothesis now) is that the water will turn steam and expand to 1600 times its volume taking up space in that intercooler. Effectively, this feels like a partially closed throttle. In my tests I found that while the car didn't knock it felt stifled running the nozzle at this location. This 1600x expansion is better off occurring in the combustion chamber, and it's believed that this adds to the power output of the engine. I don't remember if this was covered in your video. This is why 100% water shines brightest when doing direct port injection. No distribution problems and the combustion chamber gets all the cooling benefit of water. So while the IC can reheat the charge when its above ambient, it's only for a while. The real problem is the stifling effect as the IC become a battleground where air is fighting steam over volume.
That's the internet & bookwork consensus. In the real world there is more to it. Spraying before IC makes water do the job while the IC becomes less efficient (differential temps, as u mentioned). Spraying after the IC makes the IC do most of the cooling and the water (being under heat and pressure) is harder to flash, and has much less to do, making water less effective. If running a mixture of pure water injection Pre turbo or direct port is the way to go. Otherwise, some methanol is needed to flash and equally distribute to the runners (large water droplets don't distribute well) At 130C the water enjoys flashing to vapour, pulling out most of the heat, but the IC if it was heatsoaked will heat it up above ambient - so not ideal for drag racing setup. On a circuit car it matters much less. Pre IC breeds less power though. The only thing that keeps me from pre intercooler injection is that the water expands to 1600X in volume, taking up space in the intercooler and creating a situation that basically feels like you are at partial throttle. It won't resist knock any more/less than post IC setup, but the suffocation can surely been seen in the logs. And this was only with a 150cc of pre IC with a 300cc post IC nozzle.
You will eventually ruin your turbo. Sorry but it's true. Unless you are running ridiculously low boost, 2-3 psi. I'm running over 50 psi and water/meth pre turbo ruins it in minutes. My turbo is spoiling at around 120-160k rpm. Pre turbo does have advantages, but the cost to advantage analysis isn't worth it. So, therefore, you run water post turbo and post intercooler, basically at the intake manifold. This increases durability, does not ruin your parts, and you get hp/torque gains. Also you failed to mention that most vehicles can't run 20% let alone 40% water by weight due to quenching. Which is the real reason that detonation doesn't occur. You are running so much water you actually kill the fire during ignition. Which is why at sea level the old planes blow a lot of white smoke..... Do better research please. Don't spread false information because you failed to bring all current data to the table. Contact a real mater/meth company and they will happily give you real data.
Ok, you are giving me quite a lot to respond to. First cost analysis is fine if you actually analyze, but you don't. The only examples of preturbo water injection damage to a turbocharger I've seen (not due to unfiltered air and dirt tracks) has been due to pooling and slinging of large droplets in the intake. I have found no examples of atomized water doing more significant damage than unfiltered air or just regular wear and tear, but I'm open to proof of well setup preturbo injection damaging turbo blade at a rate fast enough to be expensive. I've run well over 100% water to fuel by accident, and still had the car running albeit roughly and a rotary engine is extremely susceptible to spark quench. The 20-40% I run is a relatively small amount. Also, old planes at sea level?! Planes don't use continuous water injection, it was only ever designed for high power situations at low altitude. If you lose power with quench then the system has failed. A plane being old does not mean it uses or doesn't use water injection, several jets use water injection, and lots of WWII planes didn't have it at all. The reason detonation doesn't occur is chemical, and it's well documented. It's also the reason EGR can prevent detonation. It is not due to quench. There are plenty of research papers available, here is a link to get you started. www.not2fast.com/NACA/ Look, I appreciate the ability of any anonymous person on the internet to claim to be an expert, but please at least bring some information to the table if you want to disagree.
I back Voiding Warranties 100% here. Do more research so you'll know the reasons WHY. If you are running 50 psi of boost you need a better engine. It's only 50 psi because your head flow, and/or, your cam selection, sucks. Not to mention that the turbo is NOT matched to the application. Put a higher flowing set of heads on it with an appropriate cam, and your boost will drop in HALF. (and your crankshaft will be laying on the track in a puddle of smoldering, smoking oil ) I wouldn't mention this to anybody if I were you. You're running 160k rpm, and you're talking about "cost advantages", BWAHH HA HA HA how many turbos have you exploded ??? Do you run an air cleaner ? What do you think ONE spec of sand would do to a compressor wheel at that speed. That rpm puts the tip speed at WAY, WAY, over supersonic, so you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're full of shit, or both. I spent years arguing in the MegaSquirt forums for water injection instead of inter-coolers, but 90% of the fools get their education from other fools rather than scientific research and books. I also will argue for throttle-body before the turbo compressor. When done correctly no system will spool faster, and there's no need for a blow-off valve, and the turbo runs cooler, along with any other intake tract plumbing, It does require special attention to the exhaust bypass side, but this is another bonus in reducing heat build-up. The dump valve must be capable of at least bypassing ~50% of the exhaust around the turbo, and it is manifold vacuum/pressure controlled, no electronics, no special regulators needed. This is nothing special or unusual, and it's more simple, cheap, and reliable than all the monkey-motion gizmos hanging all over most turbo set-ups. If water, or water/meth injection is done with a completely separate set of proper fuel injectors, (with a 9th injector at the turbo inlet), the engine will run perfectly under load with 80% water to fuel ratios, ( one to one ratio with water/meth 50/50 mix ), ( 9 more injectors, the same size as the gasoline fuel injectors, controlled by the same computer ), (assuming an 8cyl engine), AND a 14:1 compression ratio, (but only with excellent head/piston design and tight quench clearances), (this is not something that you can just "bolt-on"). This also cools the exhaust temps significantly, (although not as much as you would expect). Which brings me to another item not mentioned here...... Any engine's exhaust is mostly STEAM, so your turbo is driven by STEAM. When you add water injection, you are creating more steam to drive the turbo !!! So, you should also study the use of steam as a means to store, convert, and transport energy. Steam has been used for centuries in heavy industry and large commercial buildings, and is still very valuable, and in use, today. The main reason why I DON'T like inter-coolers...... Simple, varying, unpredictable, performance. Another thing not mentioned here is that there is a VERY big second method that an inter-cooler works by, which is, it's function as a "heat-sink". All that aluminum absorbs heat when it's cool and hasn't been "used" for a while (out of boost). It's capacity for transferring heat heat goes down every second that boost is applied, so you never really know what kind of cooling performance you're going to get. This doesn't matter as much on a drag only car, but a road-race, or street car, is a totally different story. This is why virtually all factory designed inter-coolers are "air-to-water", and then, "water-to-air". Piston engines are a stupid, 200 year old, design. They will never get over 24% efficiency. The engine I invented has no reciprocating/oscillating parts, and is over 80% efficient. No Cooling System, Not loud/no muffler needed, Makes torque similar to an electric motor, no transmission needed, Combustion temps under 400F degrees, Made out of plastic, (except for the combustion chamber), Makes 4X the power, and, 4X the gas mileage. Burns Diesel and water, (but can be set-up to burn anything), Ask yourself why we are still using a 200 year old design, and why I'm scared to produce this engine. It's one step towards "the red pill".......
Nope, properly setup pre turbo injection will have no detrimental affects. Doing it wrong? Sure, thatll fuck it up. Also, I read your name as gay parent, just wanted to let you know.
Andrew, First look at the "problem areas" of a piston engine, as far as what you are trying to accomplish with it. (1), An "Air Pump" to provide Oxygen and heat concentration for combustion, piston air pumps are only used because it's the cheapest design, and it is only the most "cost effective" because so many manufacturers are still tooled-up to mass produce them. A Rotary-Vane Pump is way more efficient, and, it doesn't vibrate, and, usually, doesn't require lubrication. Vane Pumps also make a very efficient Steam-Engine when run in reverse, especially when they are "Compounded", ( a small one feeding a bigger one, which is feeding an even bigger one ), ( Google compound steam ship engine ). (2), In a piston engine you have milli-seconds to extract useful power from the combustion process, that's NEVER enough time, and requires precision ignition and fuel injection timing. There are 3 basic stages to a combustion event, the entire third stage of that event is comparatively slow compared to the first 2 stages, and it goes straight out the tailpipe, completely wasting 40 to 50% of the heat and expansion of combustion, and, the stupid-high peak temperatures will start to melt parts without a cooling system. The cooling system throws-away around ~30% of the power generated by the fuel, ALL THE TIME. Just to heat-up the air outside. So, you now are blatantly wasting ~70 to ~80% of the potential power of the fuel, BEFORE you get ANY power at the crank. ( and, the whole Piston-Connecting-Rod-Crank setup, is not very efficient either ) I found a super efficient combustion chamber design that was developed for jet engines, it runs comparatively, at very cool temperatures, and with very high efficiency, and with extremely low emissions production. (Google- SPRF Combustion) It is designed to run continuously, and likes water injection, so....... basically, it is an instant, continuously running, steam generator, which can be easily, and instantaneously, regulated as far as output volume goes. The exhaust of this combustion chamber is used to generate additional steam by injecting water directly in to the exhaust gases in a fine mist, which cools the exhaust, (mostly steam), to levels easily manageable by high temperature plastics, like Teflon. (around ~4 to ~500F ). Now, put it all together, Create a three, or more, staged, compound, vane compressor out of Teflon, to supply ~500psi of compressed air to the combustion chamber, (very high pressure, but very, very, low volume), inject fuel and water, (similar to a modern Diesel piston engine injection system), start combustion with a Diesel engine "Glow-Plug", ( the SPRF combustion chamber design has VERY stable combustion, and is very hard to "blow-out" once combustion has started ), inject a fine mist of regulated water into the exhaust to cool it and create additional steam at the same time, run the steam into a compounded vane motor, made out of Teflon. This motor is sized to run the compressor, plus additional power to accelerate the compressor to higher rpms when there is an increased demand for steam, ( maybe 2 to 3X more displacement than the compressor ), then you have a stupid amount of left-over steam at ~450F and 450psi, to run a main output motor, or multiple output motors. The exhaust from all of the motors is mostly warm, liquid water which is condensed, collected, filtered, and then recirculated back into the engine, for conversion back in to hot, high pressure, steam. This is the only approximation to a "cooling system" in this design, and, it is not strictly necessary. Although it does cut down on the overall water consumption of the engine. The exhaust gases, which are the by-products of the combustion process, and which were combined with the steam previously, are vented to the atmosphere. The exhaust gases are roughly one quarter the volume, (for a given power level), of a modern Diesel engine, and is far lower, percentage wise, in undesirable gases and particulates. Like I've said before, If I can figure this out, I'm sure there are thousands of other far more qualified engineers that can figure this out as well. But YOU will NEVER see it. So, like everything else in life, reality is ALL a Big FAT MIND FUCK. Don't believe anything you hear or read, and only 10% of what you see.
Chris Padgett unleaded fuel has been much higher octane in the 50s through the 70s untill they started added gums and stuff in the gas to keep the surface tension up to destroy the original propertys of it
you are wrong, temperature matters, pressure not, on the end of comppresion stroke is only important the temperature- it determines fuel resistance to detonation or octane number, it could be any pressure and no detonation if temperature is lower than detonation temperature of fuel,
+Makan Tahi I appreciate your opinion, but it is not supported by actual research. Internal cylinder pressure is what causes detonation. Higher temperatures can effect required timing and in turn raise the internal pressure or they can cause pre-ignition, but temperature alone cannot cause detonation. If you don't believe me, try making gasoline explode at atmospheric pressure using the hottest heat source you can find. It will just burn, possibly very quickly, but won't detonate.
check octane number definition and how is determined -( temperature breaks conections between c and h in petrol and h is instable so it start to burn in very high speed-detonation) ... in engines with forced induction intake air have to be cooled down to temperature below det. temp. but boost pressure can be raised almost to infinite, thats why engine power can be raised if put bigger turbo charger must put bigger intercooler-more air is cooled on same/lower temperature but pressure is raised so engines get more air and engine can make more power with same fuel/octane number. teoreticaly if intercooler could cool down , air would be in liquid state
+Makan Tahi octane numbers are measured with variable compression engines. It is a measurement of compression vs a standard fuel, so yes it does all come down to pressure. Boost pressure can only be higher with lower temperature air when timing is constant, such as in an aircraft engine, because colder temperatures have the same effect as retarding timing. Even with the coldest charge temperature possible you will still be limited on the ultimate power you can produce by octane and cylinder pressure.
yes that is right and conclusion should be that the moment of detonation is in direct relation with temperatureof air/fuel mixture on the end of compression stroke.
Intake volume between the turbo and throttle body does make turbo lag worse. Intake diameter can help with throttle response depending on the other restrictions, but only to a point. Try a 12" and 20' long intake and see how long it takes a tiny snail to pressurize it. Yeah it will flow better, but it will take forever to pressurize.
+ThatGuyKappa Thanks for the feedback. I certainly don't want to risk my life or the lives of others just for a few clicks. But I do think your comment is a bit misguided. Vloging while driving can be slightly distracting, but is much less than texting and about equal to driving while talking on a hands free cell phone. What you don't see however is all the times I stop what I'm saying for a minute to respond to traffic or road conditions. All the concern I have for other motorists gets edited out in post. If you pay attention you will see multiple edits from multiple days instead of a continuous shot, this is because I am more concerned with driving then having a quality product first take.
You all understand that its just not water injection theres a chemical you mix with it, forgot the name of it, but it has something to do with combustion.
Do more research before following this advise. First off, meth will bump your octane up there for less chance for knock. Also greater cooling. The other considerations are what kind of vehicle and use... Do more research???
+Paul Cook Thanks for the feedback. Meth does boost octane, but as proven water does too. The biggest benefit of meth injection is the partial pressures in air which allows more methanol to evaporate by weight at a given temperature because there is no methanol vapor already in the air. This means cooler temperatures with meth/ water mixes than with water, or methanol (depending on humidity), alone. It's not as easy to calculate the benefits as most people think.
7 years later this was the dumbest thing ever you can run higher amounts of boost with and intercooler and wastegates compared to if you didn't. If you're going for 500hp+ and you care about the engine I'm assuming you'd get an intercooler like everyone else
