Back To Back Testing Of P98 Vs P98+water Injection Vs P98 Vs Water Meth Injection

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

Easiest is to hook up your EBC solenoid to the WMI kit, so it only works when there's WM in the tank.. when it runs dry then your solenoid is deactivated and you only run gate pressure.

Also timing can be advanced only in higher load cells, which can be only achievable when the EBC solenoid is working and you boost over gate pressure.

Hope that makes sense.

[JGB1600]

Your safety measures will have a lot to do with the WI system. Some systems have great integrated safety features which can output to your ecu to reduce boost or switch maps should something go wrong with water supply. Which water injection system are you planning on using? 

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

The guy previously posted has a PowerFC  (dinorawr) will have crap all inputs, thus I recommended cutting his EBC's solenoid when there's no WM.

[JGB1600]

My bad. I miss the PowerFC part. That being the case, like Dose Pipe Sutututu said, cutting the EBC on fail safe activation is the best option.

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

Easiest option really, and only smash in timing into areas of the timing map where boost is ramped for WMI.

Downside to that you could go from no timing to loads of timing with WMI and your torque would ramp up super hard. Some like that, some don't (I personally don't like it for track but for street would bring smiles to driver and passenger when there's a surge in torque and head snaps)

[Dale FZ1]

Depending on water pump control, bring the WI in earlier and give it more ignition sooner.

Each system and engine might like a little more or less, but "arguably" a well calibrated WI can perform as well as an E85 setup.

[JGB1600]

22 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Easiest option really, and only smash in timing into areas of the timing map where boost is ramped for WMI.

Downside to that you could go from no timing to loads of timing with WMI and your torque would ramp up super hard. Some like that, some don't (I personally don't like it for track but for street would bring smiles to driver and passenger when there's a surge in torque and head snaps)

The torque increase mentioned above makes for a very noticeable difference in the aggressiveness and rate of acceleration of the vehicle. Many smiles will indeed be had, provided your drive line is up to the task!!

3 hours ago, Dale FZ1 said:

Depending on water pump control, bring the WI in earlier and give it more ignition sooner.

Each system and engine might like a little more or less, but "arguably" a well calibrated WI can perform as well as an E85 setup.

The debate on whether or not WI can match the performance of e85 is a highly contentious one. I believe that WI is not only capably of matching the performance of e85, it can exceed it. The key to building a WI system that can out perform e85 lies with the combination of pre and post turbo WI.  Properly set up and calibrated post turbo WI provides additional cooling both in the intake track and inside the cylinder (even more so if port injection is used), yielding similar results to using e85. Pre turbo WI cools the air as it is being compressed. As such, the work that would have been wasted as heat, now goes into creating more air flow from the turbo. Therefore a properly set up pre and post turbo WI system has the potential to achieve superior results to e85 due to its ability to provide cooler, denser intake air, inter cylinder cooling and an increased mass air flow from the turbo charger.  

http://www.enginebasics.com/Advanced Engine Tuning/Pre Turbo Injection.html

[fmlycar]

Cheers. I'll set it up to cut solenoid for boost controller.

I like the idea of being able to increase the timing when ramping up. Hoping for some good gains and less issues with knock. I'm in the process of switching to external gate with screamer, so I might see what that yields first before doing the water injection so I have a solid before and after for each mod to see what effect each had.

[JGB1600]

G'day guy,

Just thought I'd post a quick update.  I recently installed a new LINK G4+ extreme ECU and had to have to car retuned. While setting up and testing the testing the WMI system, I realised that two of the direct port nozzles had a non uniform spray pattern. The car hadn’t been used in over 12 months so I decided to pull the jets apart and give them a clean. This did not go as planned and I ended up causing further degradation to the spray pattern, making the jets unserviceable. As this was the morning of the dyno, had to come up with a new plan because I had lost two of the direct port jets. Going through my spare parts pox, I found the jets from my previous HFS3 kit. So I plumbed a 1mm and a 0.8mm jet post intercooler and a 0.4mm jet pre turbo and plugged the direct port holes. Total flow capacity at the 30 psi boost I intended on running was now 830cc. On the dyno, the car made 370hp @ 24psi without WMI and 455hp @ 31psi and 6 degrees extra timing with WMI. That is a peak difference of 85hp but at 5000rpm, the difference is 125hp. It should be noted that the latest dyno tuning was conducted on a hub dyno, while the ones previous were done on a chassis dyno.

 So what does the future hold? Well my plan is to get some new, larger direct port and post intercooler jets to increase to the water meth to 50% of fuel. I am currently running 750cc injectors with a max duty cycle of 80%, 2400cc. So I’ll be looking at 1200cc of water meth in hope of squeezing another 30+hp from this set up. I'll also be setting up closed loop boost control as it is very lazy coming on boost with the current open loop set up. Thanks for reading and please feel free to add any advice or criticism.

 Kind regards, Orlando

[Shoota_77]

Wow, awesome gains! Well worth the effort. 

I've got the HFS3 kit and if I get gains anywhere near that once it's up and running I'll be stoked!

[JGB1600]

Cheers Shoota_77. What sort of power figures are you after? 

[sucram]

I have also noticed nozzles getting clogged over time. It seems that the brass is reacting and corroding with meth/alcohol. It doesnt seem to be as much of a problem with just water, unless you are using an alloy water reservoir

I have considered mixing a lube in with the meth or using glycerin with the water before mixing them together. 

[Shoota_77]

1 hour ago, JGB1600 said:

Cheers Shoota_77. What sort of power figures are you after? 

Hopefully 400-425kw atw on the twins to start with then I'll  see where I end up when I go a single. 

I'm hoping to run E85 and water/meth which doesn't seem to have been done too often. Won't be as big a difference as running it with pump fuel but I have no doubt there's still gains to be had. 

[JGB1600]

1 hour ago, sucram said:

I have also noticed nozzles getting clogged over time. It seems that the brass is reacting and corroding with meth/alcohol. It doesnt seem to be as much of a problem with just water, unless you are using an alloy water reservoir

I have considered mixing a lube in with the meth or using glycerin with the water before mixing them together. 

Thats interesting. I will keep a closer eye on this from now on. Cheers mate

57 minutes ago, Shoota_77 said:

Hopefully 400-425kw atw on the twins to start with then I'll  see where I end up when I go a single. 

I'm hoping to run E85 and water/meth which doesn't seem to have been done too often. Won't be as big a difference as running it with pump fuel but I have no doubt there's still gains to be had. 

I haven't heard of anyone using both e85 and water injection. I think the best scenario for this would be one where no intercooler is used (for whatever reason) and pre and/or post turbo water injection is used instead. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your results. Nothing like real world testing to put the myths to bed.

[Dale FZ1]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:31 PM, JGB1600 said:

On the dyno, the car made 370hp @ 24psi without WMI and 455hp @ 31psi and 6 degrees extra timing with WMI. That is a peak difference of 85hp but at 5000rpm, the difference is 125hp. It should be noted that the latest dyno tuning was conducted on a hub dyno, while the ones previous were done on a chassis dyno.

 I'll also be setting up closed loop boost control as it is very lazy coming on boost with the current open loop set up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple of questions/comments:

A good proportion of the gain has to be attributed to boost and mass-air flow increases.

Did much happen when keeping the boost at 24psi and tuning ignition timing to a higher knock ceiling because of WI?

How sensitive to ignition timing was the engine?  (similar to above question)

Did this setup allow you to advance timing beyond MBT, or did you strike knock as a limiting factor?

How's the ignition system coping? and what sort of coils are you running?

Common theme emerging is that these systems do require basic preventative maintenance (cleaning) to remain properly functioning.  Otherwise there's very little negative to be said.  E85 runners (some at least) have commented about the importance of system cleanliness, or regular use being associated with no failures.  Sounds the same here, different means to a similar end point.

[STATUS]

On 04/12/2016 at 0:31 AM, JGB1600 said:

 

 

 

Im at a loss why a shop is still using DIN (1976 rating) that dyno should be set to SAE J1349 which is the latest correction method.

Using DIN is one if the reasons hub dynos get hit with a higher reading stigma.

 

[Dale FZ1]

Does the number matter, or the difference between the two runs?

[Lithium]

17 hours ago, STATUS said:

Im at a loss why a shop is still using DIN (1976 rating) that dyno should be set to SAE J1349 which is the latest correction method.

Using DIN is one if the reasons hub dynos get hit with a higher reading stigma.

DIN is just a different standard, SAEJ1349 was first put together in 1980 and is slightly more conservative but ultimately it doesn't seem like there is any good argument that I know of to use it instead of DIN - especially if you have been using DIN numbers since Dynapacks have been used?   They are happier when set to DIN (hell, they're happier when set to SAEJ1349 so makes it seem all pretty academic) than Dyno Dynamics still, which doesn't bother me as Dyno Dynamics read so low that comparing them with almost any popular dyno around the world is broken.   The dyno is just for tuning, who cares if there is a dyno somewhere which reads higher or lower if you're just comparing to the same configuration?

Straight "SAE" I can understand the argument against, the corrections seem to go a bit weird at higher ambient temps and the results come out excessively inflated whereas DIN vs SAEJ1349 seems like a 2% or so difference from memory, versus 10+% between a Dynapack and Dyno Dynamics.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Lithium

[JGB1600]

On 5 December 2016 at 11:18 AM, Dale FZ1 said:

Couple of questions/comments:

A good proportion of the gain has to be attributed to boost and mass-air flow increases.

Definitely in my case.

Did much happen when keeping the boost at 24psi and tuning ignition timing to a higher knock ceiling because of WI?

This was not observed as we increased the boost  before adjusting the timing.

 

On 5 December 2016 at 11:18 AM, Dale FZ1 said:

How sensitive to ignition timing was the engine?  (similar to above question)

The 7 psi increase took power from 366hp to 420hp. The 6 degrees of ignition timing took power from 420hp to 455hp with the last degree adding 6hp.

Did this setup allow you to advance timing beyond MBT, or did you strike knock as a limiting factor?

Neither MBT or knock limit were reached. Tune was completed purely based on the fact that we were running out of time and we had reached a figure we were happy with.

How's the ignition system coping? and what sort of coils are you running?

The ignition system seems to be up to the task, Currently using ls2 coils, magnecore leads and dense iridium spark plugs which factory gaps.

Common theme emerging is that these systems do require basic preventative maintenance (cleaning) to remain properly functioning.  Otherwise there's very little negative to be said.  E85 runners (some at least) have commented about the importance of system cleanliness, or regular use being associated with no failures.  Sounds the same here, different means to a similar end point.

The Aquamist unit is set up to monitor flow. Any discrepancies in flow will be picked up and the fail safe triggered. I'll be keeping a close eye on this.

 

[STATUS]

On 06/12/2016 at 0:35 PM, Lithium said:

DIN is just a different standard, SAEJ1349 was first put together in 1980 and is slightly more conservative but ultimately it doesn't seem like there is any good argument that I know of to use it instead of DIN - especially if you have been using DIN numbers since Dynapacks have been used?   They are happier when set to DIN (hell, they're happier when set to SAEJ1349 so makes it seem all pretty academic) than Dyno Dynamics still, which doesn't bother me as Dyno Dynamics read so low that comparing them with almost any popular dyno around the world is broken.   The dyno is just for tuning, who cares if there is a dyno somewhere which reads higher or lower if you're just comparing to the same configuration?

Straight "SAE" I can understand the argument against, the corrections seem to go a bit weird at higher ambient temps and the results come out excessively inflated whereas DIN vs SAEJ1349 seems like a 2% or so difference from memory, versus 10+% between a Dynapack and Dyno Dynamics.

its closer to 10% difference between din and SAEJ1349, a 9 sec pull on a dynapack in the correct setting should put you within 5% of a new DD (or dynotech in shootout) and MAINLINE. It starts to deviate when we use longer pulls as this long hard slow ramp rate (16-18 sec) usually results in wheelspin on the DD we used.

 

either way as long as the same rating was used for each visit its fine.

 

Back on topic i love WMI but love E85 more  and on top of that again i like bp98 on primaries and methanol on secondaries... all the economy with all the power