SKYMAGGOT
-
Posts
54 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Media Demo
Store
Posts posted by SKYMAGGOT
-
-
16 minutes ago, Ben C34 said:
From snow perdirmance email response.
As far as the volume the pump outputs at the start setting and the voltage supplied from the controller are things you’ll have to get a multimeter and test/ flow as that is the information we don’t offer to give out.
To me normally if information isn't handed out it isn't favourable information......
I'm for water meth injection, and if you choose to use a variable controller that's cool. Just want it to be realised that the control range is likely so narrow it way as well not exist.
I far from know anything but maybe you sort it with injector sizes & it may be a case of you'll probably spray as much as possible in the mid range and end up with proportionately less in the top end whichever way it's controlled?
-
13 hours ago, Ben C34 said:
I meant to get across the water methbflow rate required at 20psi boost and 4000 rpm is much different to 20psi boost at 7000rpm. So basing flow off boost is a poor choice , injector duty cycle makes the most sense.
But keeping in mind the fact you need to 4x the pressure to get double the flow of liquid through the jet, you very likely won't get a wide control window of water meth flow.
Pretty sure I tried to find out that specific info years ago and got no where, maybe I will email a few manufacturers and see what they say
I haven't got much info at this point, I spoke to a tuner that uses the AEM kit who said he usually gets the most gains in the mid range, which would go along with this theory based on psi, say it's starts spraying at 5psi then full at 12, at higher revs & as boost climbs you'd probably need to pull less/add more fuel than in the mid range
-
7 hours ago, Ben C34 said:
Don't get heaps caught up in the control side of things, especially The whole starts at certain boost then all in at next setting.
To get half the flow of a non compressible liquid through an orifice you need 1/4 of the pressure. Not sure about you but I don't think the spray would be very good at a quarter of the pressure, considering how much they go on about high pressure pumps.
No manufacturer has said the flow rate at their minimum setting from what i could find, at a guess it wouldn't be half of full flow, if you are lucky it might be 2/3.
Injector duty cycle is the sensible reference point, but again my comment on the actual workable control range still applies.
Just squirt it in!
Yeah I don't know too much at this point but something like GTSBoy is saying, just spray as much as the spark can handle
-
9 hours ago, tridentt150v said:
Ok, interesting cos Snow Performance don't list it.....and the nitrous express guys have an 'interesting' disclaimer attached the version they are selling.
Does the LCD display control module come with the Stage VI?
Too busy right now, but I need to check all this out. See if apples are apples!!!
Not sure about the controller, haven't been able to find much about it, will do a bit more research over the weekend.
A lot of people seem to be using the AEM...
-
4 hours ago, tridentt150v said:
Interesting, I only see a Stage III kit as their top of the rainge?
https://www.snowperformance.eu/en/water-injection/boost-cooler/turbo-gasoline
Can you show me where the Stage VI kit is hiding?
Cos I wanted to check how the rpm signal you quoted worked and what advantages it had over IDC.
I see it for sale a few places,
https://www.nitrousexpress.com/Snow-Performance-Stg-4-Boost-Cooler-Platinum-Water-Injection-Kit.asp
-
From what I can gather WMI seems pretty reliable, make sure the injector doesn't get clogged & of course make sure it doesn't run out lol
-
11 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:
Probably shouldn't spend so much time reading those papers then.
We've been squirting water-meth into engines with firehoses for 20 years over here. You can quite literally keep adding it until the fire is quenched and nothing goes wrong. The only thing you need to be careful of is running out.
Combustion engineer in the room...
-
6 minutes ago, joshuaho96 said:
I would go for Aquamist if you're going to do this. And integrate the control of the injectors into a standalone ECU. Just from reading SAE journal papers it is scary IMO how much can go wrong with WMI even when you have proper control over the injectors and full integration into the rest of the ECU.
Yeah for sure, can blow the motor pretty easily, I'll have a look at Aquamist
-
15 hours ago, tridentt150v said:
I have a Stage III Snow Perfomance kit installed - it was top of the range then [I think anyway]. Works on IDC and boost and uses a sliding scale. ie say starts injecting WMI at so 65% IDC, all in at say 80% IDC and/or starts at 8psi boost and all in at say 14psi.
No E85 round here so WMI was the next best thing.
Happy with it, does what I want it to, lets me squeeze a bit more out of the lemon.
Only real advice I can give is, get a progressive one, older versions can come up for sale cheap but they are light switch type on/off units.
There is a thread on here somewhere about it. I'll see if i can find it and post a link.
A general topic one:
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/396164-lets-talk-water-meth-injection/
My install:
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/306109-my-wmi-install/#comment-5062125
Cheers man, I'll have a look at those threads, the stage 4 Snow kit looks pretty good, the AEM is progressive also, I'll check if the tuner has any preference.
Looks like the Snow uses rpm & psi where the AEM just psi, I doubt we'll ever get e85 so worth getting a decent one for sure.
-
12 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:
WMI the bastard and call it a day
Yeah been thinking that, what kit you reckon? AEM 30-3300 or Snow, maybe stage 4?
-
6 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:
Pls allow the combustion engineer in the room to correct this.
Ethanol does in fact have a bit more exhaust gas volume than petrol, but it is nowhere near 25-30% extra. The only difference is that ethanol has a higher H:C ratio, so makes more water vapour. For each O2 molecule you use to oxidise a hydrogen, you will create 2x molecules of water. With carbon, each O2 only makes 1 CO2.
While you might use 25-30% more fuel on E85, you use almost exactly the same amount of air to make the same power. Therefore you use almost exactly the same amount of O2, and hence N2 (from the air).
The reality is that the extra water vapour and smaller qty of CO2 really just increases the exhaust gas volume by a few %. Maybe 5. I'm not about to go do the stoichiometry calculations. But, I have recently been doing exactly that for H2 replacement of natural gas in industrial applications and even then, when you're talking about only making water vapour and no CO2, the increase is not as fat as 30%.
3 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:fking love the explanation, my nipples are hard.
OK, yep lol
-
31 minutes ago, BK said:
Broscience be incorrect there. E85 has superior spool because of the much increased exhaust gas volume from of how much extra fuel has to be added over 98. The extra 25 - 30% exhaust gas volume on E85 has a far bigger effect on the turbine than the higher egts on 98.
We don't really have e85, can get a 200l for about $900f you can pick it up, but then can't store a 200 easily with insurance etc, I don't really notice anything with spool, just feels a bit flat with less timing but I've only run 1/3 & 50/50 with e100
-
5 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:
Theoretically a turbo "should" nearly spool the same on either E85 or 98RON, in some regard broscience and brolyticals would say the EGTs are hotter on 98RON thus spool theoretically "should" be better on 98RON.
Yeah it does, just feels a bit flat with less timing, we have 100+ which is 101.5 but the tune is for 98 so could probably pick up a bit with that
-
10 hours ago, R33 GTS25t NZ said:
Dunno what's up here? lol
-
25 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:
Patiently waits for that turbo to blow up so you can modernise it haha...
But being a genuine Garrett, I'll be waiting for a while.
This is pretty much me, the whole setup is outdated & needs a do over but thought the cams might make it a bit less depressing in the meantime haha
-
15 hours ago, robbo_rb180 said:
I have the old 256 poncams ,old gt3076r on factory manifold externally gated. Around 16-17psi on e85 is around 320kw. Very responsive on the street and track. Revs to about 7000rpm. Its more of a 2008-2010 spec era setup only benefit I have is drive by wire.
These days I'd wouldn't even bother with cams unless going for big power(400+kw).
Yeah it's a bit of a band aid until I can sort out a new setup which will be a few months
-
16 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:
Yep.... and when they yield poor results, Garrett turbos then cop a bad reputation.
FWIW, I have Kelford 244-B (264/272 9.6mm) and a real Garrett GTX3576R Gen 2 with a 1.01 T3 Garrett divided turbine housing. 0.8bar by 4000rpm, makes 437kW at about 7200rpm, rev limiter at 8600rpm. Boost target was 1.8bar but it bled down to about 1.5bar by the redline (turbo is out of puff).
In some shape or form if you have a real Garrett GTX3076 (hopefully Gen 2?) then our compressor maps are identical.
Every part of your setup is better than mine, I'm doing a new setup on the side but will be early next year sometime before can finish it off, I'm just trying to band aid until then as it feels crap without the E mix
-
Ok, have you run them before? Might be better to get new if they're worn which is unusual?
GT3582r usually means roller bearing-I don't think there's a Garrett version that's JB so could be something else? A lot of people in NZ seem to have the TA3410 JB Garrett.
You just running 98?
-
Anyone have any experience between the poncam 256 8.5 & the Kelford 246-A 262 9.3? For a basic street setup 25 around 350kw with gtx3076. (back to pump gas now as ethanol is getting too expensive @ about $5.50/l & a hassle for mixing).
Doesn't seem to be a lot of results around for the Kelford?
I don't know a lot about cams with regards to overlap & ramp angles etc but seems like the Kelford is probably better or maybe not much difference?
-
Thanks, pretty close between the s2 & neo, better to spend on the bottom end & just springs in the head for most probably.
-
With all the rb25 testing can you please give an idea of what you think are rough limits of the stock r33 type head & the neo head, assuming they're in good condition? Roughly what the stock springs & cams will do, thanks
-
Sounds good, how's the 335 been for reliability?
-
Yeah it'll flatten out to somewhere around where people can afford or are willing to pay that price, 50k isn't bad.
Any regrets? What did you replace it with?
-
Any recent comments on values & guesses at future values? With the theft, cost of insurance & parts etc it's getting pretty tempting to move on.
In NZ a half decent manual turbo rwd car usually sells between 30-40k, they can range up to 70 80k but not really selling at those prices.
Thoughts on acceptable street tyre wear rates
in General Automotive Discussion
Posted
Anyone notice much grip difference between 235 & 265 with same sort of compound?
Also running 235 front 265 rear compared to 235 or 265 all round?