Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I would also like some opinions on this same kit as I am just about to buy one! Can't decide between this or the Coolingmist GS PRO.

They both have plusses and minuses, but the Snow Performance controller just looks so much better :P

Is anyone else using one?

I've got my settings at 30-65 IDC and 8-14 psi and was wondering what others were using?

Also has anyone tried passing emissions with a WMI kit fitted?

I would imagine that it would actually give you a better result with an emissions test??

mine is an older kit but its set to start at 8 and flat out at 20. it was also fully operational when i passed the nsw emissions testing.

you will likely find the car never sees 8 Psi while they are testing.

Guys what size tanks are you running and how long do they last?

I'm about to order a stage 3 kit and you can get a option for a bigger tank just dunno wether it's necessary.

Sorry for the hijack.

i am running the large snow performance tank, 9.5L capacity.

How long a tank lasts? months, too long to remember fill dates.

I have the 2.8 Ltre tank and for normal highway miles I can do 2000km on a long weekend and am lucky to use 1/2 a litre.

I am usually sitting on 100-120km/h with overtaking and accelerating etc, the normal stuff. So unless you are racing all the time the small tank is heaps. I didn't need 10 litres sloshing around when I couldn't use it.

but the Snow Performance controller just looks so much better :P

Have a look at how I mounted mine in the ash tray recess:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/306109-my-wmi-install/

No cutting or anything, pretty much a straight fit with some small brackets to hold it there.

Pretty good read which covers installation and results.

It's for a BMW but still worth looking over

http://www.e90post.c...ad.php?t=297336

the last snow WMI kit we had through was on a late model BMW M5.... 304rwkw without 348rwkw with it turned on and setup via injector duty (no ecu tune changes) cant complain.

Trent would it still be considered "unsafe" on an unopened engine (25) over 300+ kw using WMI? From my limited understanding it has similar effect in regards to knock and temps etc to e85.

I have just installed a 2835 pro s which as we all know will net me around 280 but I'm a little worried about pushing much more out of the stock bottom end.

the last snow WMI kit we had through was on a late model BMW M5.... 304rwkw without 348rwkw with it turned on and setup via injector duty (no ecu tune changes) cant complain.

What sort of gains would you expect on an rb25 with a ~250kw turbo that has maxed its capabilities out (eg hot intake air), would it let you run much more ignition timing to make a difference?

Rolls I'd think that you would get an extra 30rwkw out of it.

On the forums they say that 93 octane with 50/50 wmi is 116 octane. Its not what I say, but is quoted on the forums again and again.

So what would your motor do with a cooler combustion chamber and 116 octane fuel?

I remember seeing a really good graphical plot on the differences between no wmi, 50/50 wmi and 100% meth. I'll see if I can find it, but it was a while ago.

In the meantime is you look at:

http://www.snowperformance.net/forum/

and

http://www.aquamist.co.uk/vbulletin/index.php

you will get a good idea of the benefits. There are others as well, but these pretty much cover it all.

Do you get the same benefits combining water/meth with E85 as you do with 98 octane? Or is there sort of an octane limit where the increased knock resistance doesn't help you extract any more power?

Thanks for the answers anyway, I might look into it in the future.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...