Buschur/Dynoflash/SMC alky kit problem?
I wonder if anyone could request the forum administrator to create a new dedicated thread for WAI system so all the WAI information can be tidy up in one section, at present, it is scattered amongst many sections.
I have already asked but have not had any response yet, but if more people can post the in the request, it might materialise. After all, there are almost as many WIA makers as the aftermarket FI makers.
I have already asked but have not had any response yet, but if more people can post the in the request, it might materialise. After all, there are almost as many WIA makers as the aftermarket FI makers.
Last edited by Richard L; Jan 9, 2006 at 04:00 PM.
Nice info Adrian! 
Couple of questions, item #1 - was the test done on a forced induction or a NA engine?
Could you briefly go through the steps how to "properly tune" a water/water-R-OH injected car? Many thanks!
Couple of questions, item #1 - was the test done on a forced induction or a NA engine?
Could you briefly go through the steps how to "properly tune" a water/water-R-OH injected car? Many thanks!
Originally Posted by SaabTuner
I know I haven't read the full thread, and my humblest apologies if this information has been covered, but I have some good thoughts on water-injection. Even if this is lengthy, I'll try to make it concise so that it does not waste any more time than it needs. Please feel free to flame if I am just beating a dead horse. 
1) Water injection, without alcohol, has been known for over 50 years to increase power on engines. How much? DEFINITELY NOT as much as alcohol! But the power gain is there. NACA (aka NACA) researched it extensively.
Here are some interesting graphs on BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) for various water and/or meth injections from NASA's research: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ntercooled.jpg
2) Water injection requires more ignition advance. This is because of an increased delay before the rapid burning progresses. It's an extension of the Flame Development Angle and was carefully researched by the folks at Linkoping University using an ionization sensor: http://www.vehicular.isy.liu.se/Publ...PhD_580_LE.pdf
The increase in flame development angle makes it appear as though the combustion process is moving more slowly. However, according to that research, the actual burn rate of the fuel is not affected once the combustion process gets underway. It merely means that you DO have to tune differently for water injection.
3) Water injection CAN be used to substitute excess fuel in boost conditions without LOSS in power. Gaining power is more subjective and depends on many other variables. I am NOT claiming that you will get huge gains by using straight water. I only claim that you can replace SOME, if not most, of the excess fuel under boost. (and water is cheaper than gas) Remember: any fuel beyond 13:1 A/F ratio does NOT burn. Neither does the water. Both are for cooling and it takes a LOT less water to cool the charge than fuel.
4) Part of the advantage of adding meth to the water mixture is that the methanol speeds-up the combustion process and helps to compensate for the slowing Flame Development Angle. I do not, however, have sufficient information to make any claims about the exact differences between a "properly tuned" water-injection setup and a "properly tuned" meth/water injection setup. And, by "properly tuned", I merely mean tuned so that the power cannot be increased without either reaching detonation or an unacceptably high EGT. (Which is what the tuning limit should be anyway, but that's for another thread.)
And sooo ... yeah.
Hopefully that made sense and I don't sound like some crazy idjit without a cause.
-Adrian
1) Water injection, without alcohol, has been known for over 50 years to increase power on engines. How much? DEFINITELY NOT as much as alcohol! But the power gain is there. NACA (aka NACA) researched it extensively.
Here are some interesting graphs on BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) for various water and/or meth injections from NASA's research: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ntercooled.jpg
2) Water injection requires more ignition advance. This is because of an increased delay before the rapid burning progresses. It's an extension of the Flame Development Angle and was carefully researched by the folks at Linkoping University using an ionization sensor: http://www.vehicular.isy.liu.se/Publ...PhD_580_LE.pdf
The increase in flame development angle makes it appear as though the combustion process is moving more slowly. However, according to that research, the actual burn rate of the fuel is not affected once the combustion process gets underway. It merely means that you DO have to tune differently for water injection.
3) Water injection CAN be used to substitute excess fuel in boost conditions without LOSS in power. Gaining power is more subjective and depends on many other variables. I am NOT claiming that you will get huge gains by using straight water. I only claim that you can replace SOME, if not most, of the excess fuel under boost. (and water is cheaper than gas) Remember: any fuel beyond 13:1 A/F ratio does NOT burn. Neither does the water. Both are for cooling and it takes a LOT less water to cool the charge than fuel.
4) Part of the advantage of adding meth to the water mixture is that the methanol speeds-up the combustion process and helps to compensate for the slowing Flame Development Angle. I do not, however, have sufficient information to make any claims about the exact differences between a "properly tuned" water-injection setup and a "properly tuned" meth/water injection setup. And, by "properly tuned", I merely mean tuned so that the power cannot be increased without either reaching detonation or an unacceptably high EGT. (Which is what the tuning limit should be anyway, but that's for another thread.)
And sooo ... yeah.
Hopefully that made sense and I don't sound like some crazy idjit without a cause.
-Adrian
leaner burn + more water = more torque?
Does leaner burn(higher combustion temperature) + more water(more cooling) = more torque produced? Water basically does nothing, but change phase(liquid->gas) when it heats up. And that steam creates more cylinder pressure - something like a steam engine? 
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
From: Davis, California
Originally Posted by SlowCar
Nice info Adrian!
Couple of questions, item #1 - was the test done on a forced induction or a NA engine?
Could you briefly go through the steps how to "properly tune" a water/water-R-OH injected car? Many thanks!
Couple of questions, item #1 - was the test done on a forced induction or a NA engine?
Could you briefly go through the steps how to "properly tune" a water/water-R-OH injected car? Many thanks!
Tuning for a WI car is probably a question better-handled by members more experienced with doing so on the 4g63. However, I would humbly suggest these three different directions in which to go, should you attept to alter any existing tune for water injection, and I hope that no-one minds:
1) Starting from a rich mixture-- this is what I'd assume most Evo owners would be starting from. In this case you'll probably end up just replacing excess fuel with water in a rather straight-forward manner. If you are currently running at 11:1, try leaning it out to anywhere between 12-13:1. The exact A/F ratio best for your car will depend on the octane of your fuel, the WI mixture, etc. But generally anything in that range will work. Just be carefull to avoid knock while tuning, just as you would with any other tuning you'd conduct.
2) Starting from a fairly-lean mixture-- this is probably the direction from which most N/A cars would start. In this case, you should probably leave your A/F ratio around 13:1 or so. To make up for the slower ignition time of the water-laden mixture, try adding a few degrees of ignition advance in whichever load-sites you are injecting water. Again, the exact amount will depend on your engine, climate, compression ratio, WI mixture, etc etc etc. And, as always, be carefull about knock. Don't push your luck.
3) Variable mixtures-- a number of cars have A/F ratios which vary. In this situation I'd suggest a combination of methods 1 and 2. In the load sites which were lean before WI, add a little timing. In the load sites which were rich before WI, subtract some fuel. There is probably some finesse involved with getting perfect results, and every car will be a little different. But that's still basically the gist of it as I understand it.
But, again, that's just my two cents. There are plenty of people who have tuned many 4g63's with WI and, if they've tried any of these techniques to no avail, I would listen to what advice they have to give.
And, Richard, it is definitely a pity Saab didn't go forward with the WI plan. I've got a bit of an inside source on that. They found that it was too expensive to make reliable for the gains it could offer. At the time, most WI systems did not have a very good "failsafe". Almost all WI systems have such a failsafe system NOW ... but this was back in 1999-2000, if not earlier. Also, they were concerned as to whether people would diligently fill their water injection resevoir. Why bother with all the expense if 95% of the market-base won't even use it? And, FYI, they were using the two spare injector drivers in Trionic 7, which would normally be used for the turbo V6, to control the WI system firing them in pairs. That would be a very reliable, widely programmable, and cheap method with the appropriate fail-safe system. It's truly a shame they never went through with it.
-Adrian
Last edited by SaabTuner; Nov 30, 2005 at 06:21 AM.
Adrian,
Thanks for the inside information regarding SAAB. I can't even find some of the main test engineers from 2001.
Traditionally, water inejction is normally accompanied with methanol, freezing is a big problem on aircrafts and on land in cold winters.
I have little information on cars running pure alcohol except I think Nascars - some nitro is added.
Richard
Thanks for the inside information regarding SAAB. I can't even find some of the main test engineers from 2001.
Traditionally, water inejction is normally accompanied with methanol, freezing is a big problem on aircrafts and on land in cold winters.
I have little information on cars running pure alcohol except I think Nascars - some nitro is added.
Richard
Originally Posted by Richard L
Almost all shurflo-based progressive WAI systems uses either a variable linear 12V voltage controller or chopped DC controller to vary the pump speed to control flow.
Linear controller requires a big heat sink to keep things cool due to some unwanted energy is dissipated onto the controller components. It works well because the energy supply to the pump is absolutely smooth.
Chopped DC controller works very similar to a PWM signal normally feeding to the fuel injectors. It is basically a "train of voltage pulses" feedng the pump winding. The duration and the frequency of the pulse varies accordingly to control the pump speed. The energy supply to the pump is normally quite abrupt compared to the linear controller but in return, the control components dissipate less heat and requires a small or no heat sink so a neater, smaller housing can be used.
Other chopped DC techniques are available with better performance but often requires more expensive components and intensive electronic circuit designs involving many feedback loops- bad designs often works worse than the simple chopped DC method.
All progressive controller has a control voltage input, depending on the design, the control voltage is linked up to either to the MAP sensor voltage, MAF sensor or any analogue sensors. It will be up to the designer to use this voltage-controlled link to interface with the sensors.
Commonly, a 0-5V control voltage for the pump speed can be connected directly to the MAP sensor's 0-5V output to give 0-100% pump speed change. In reality, the MAP sensor voltage (load) goes pass a few control stages so that the users can vary the starting point % and finishing point %.
It all sounds quite logical and simple in theory but in practice, a few drawback occurs. First of all, the pump'as rotationg mass cannot response to the fast control signal accurately due to the inertia of the motor winding assembly. As a result, delivery rate will not follow the boost spikes especially during a gear change. A partial shutting of the throttle during shifting results in partial flooding of the inlet tract. Other issues such as "flow" against "motor speed" is not strickly proportional due to the choking effect of a restrictor (nozzle).
We do supply custom Shurflo based system but based on a the conventional technique simlar to a fuel injection controller, Shurflo pump just provides a constant pressurised source. It will require a flow sensor to monitor the delivery so "plan B" option is available when needed.
Richard
Linear controller requires a big heat sink to keep things cool due to some unwanted energy is dissipated onto the controller components. It works well because the energy supply to the pump is absolutely smooth.
Chopped DC controller works very similar to a PWM signal normally feeding to the fuel injectors. It is basically a "train of voltage pulses" feedng the pump winding. The duration and the frequency of the pulse varies accordingly to control the pump speed. The energy supply to the pump is normally quite abrupt compared to the linear controller but in return, the control components dissipate less heat and requires a small or no heat sink so a neater, smaller housing can be used.
Other chopped DC techniques are available with better performance but often requires more expensive components and intensive electronic circuit designs involving many feedback loops- bad designs often works worse than the simple chopped DC method.
All progressive controller has a control voltage input, depending on the design, the control voltage is linked up to either to the MAP sensor voltage, MAF sensor or any analogue sensors. It will be up to the designer to use this voltage-controlled link to interface with the sensors.
Commonly, a 0-5V control voltage for the pump speed can be connected directly to the MAP sensor's 0-5V output to give 0-100% pump speed change. In reality, the MAP sensor voltage (load) goes pass a few control stages so that the users can vary the starting point % and finishing point %.
It all sounds quite logical and simple in theory but in practice, a few drawback occurs. First of all, the pump'as rotationg mass cannot response to the fast control signal accurately due to the inertia of the motor winding assembly. As a result, delivery rate will not follow the boost spikes especially during a gear change. A partial shutting of the throttle during shifting results in partial flooding of the inlet tract. Other issues such as "flow" against "motor speed" is not strickly proportional due to the choking effect of a restrictor (nozzle).
We do supply custom Shurflo based system but based on a the conventional technique simlar to a fuel injection controller, Shurflo pump just provides a constant pressurised source. It will require a flow sensor to monitor the delivery so "plan B" option is available when needed.
Richard
We also have an important feature spoken about frequently.
FAILSAFES: Was finally able to put a video together of the TTP-Engineering meth kit in action. The video was a demonstration of how our system reacts in the case of power failure. There is a lot of talk about failsafes and meth injection. I have not "seen" any documentation or proof that anyone else has actually made it work. Here is ours...
http://www.zippyvideos.com/867373673...th.fail.video/
Here is a log of the a/f and boost and reaction to these parameters as we shut off the meth pump at 29psi. :dist: This is the point where most motors go "pop".
Originally Posted by TTP Engineering
Progressive control is over rated and provides no performance gains over boost switch activation.
The progressive controller works much better than a normal full on boost activated kit.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Care to elaborate Dave? Works better? How?
You are a man who highly believes in concrete data. Have you dynoed a progressive kit versus a switch activated back to back?
Progressive seemed like a great idea and yes, we sell a progressive module, but with that said our advice is to save your money if you have a fuel controller, whether it me a SAFC, MaftPro, AEM, Motec or anything else.
The only application that progressive is beneficial in our book is when utilizing the stock ECU + meth with no ability to self tune the car. It is not recommended by us according to our upgrades path, but some people want meth injection earlier in their upgrade path than is advised by us.
You are a man who highly believes in concrete data. Have you dynoed a progressive kit versus a switch activated back to back?
Progressive seemed like a great idea and yes, we sell a progressive module, but with that said our advice is to save your money if you have a fuel controller, whether it me a SAFC, MaftPro, AEM, Motec or anything else.
The only application that progressive is beneficial in our book is when utilizing the stock ECU + meth with no ability to self tune the car. It is not recommended by us according to our upgrades path, but some people want meth injection earlier in their upgrade path than is advised by us.
Last edited by TTP Engineering; Dec 12, 2005 at 09:46 AM.
I agree, if you have some type of fuel controller you can dial out all the extra alky you don't need at lower boost/rpm levels. The progressive controller saves you having to do that and I feel the tune is more linear tuning it out.
Yes, of course I have tried it back-to-back, if I didn't I wouldn't bother commenting on it.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Yes, of course I have tried it back-to-back, if I didn't I wouldn't bother commenting on it.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TTP Engineering
Care to elaborate Dave? Works better? How?
Progressive seemed like a great idea and yes, we sell a progressive module, but with that said our advice is to save your money if you have a fuel controller, whether it me a SAFC, MaftPro, AEM, Motec or anything else.
.
Progressive seemed like a great idea and yes, we sell a progressive module, but with that said our advice is to save your money if you have a fuel controller, whether it me a SAFC, MaftPro, AEM, Motec or anything else.
.
We've already done it Mike. That's how we tune all the alky kits if we are using an EMS on them. It has been done.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
We've already done it Mike. That's how we tune all the alky kits if we are using an EMS on them. It has been done.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
I assume this has been done but I'm looking to just control the pump directly via a LS driver with conditionals and would eliminate the controller. This approach may not best in a street car but I don't see a benefit to the controller in a drag car. Obviously, this scenario wouldn't make sense for the consesnus I guess.
With a static flow unit, the initial percentage of methanol of the total fuel charge will be very high, and will decrease as the hp (fuel demand) rises. What this means is that at the onset of methanol flow, a significantly greater amount of gasoline will need to be removed to maintain the desired AFR as opposed to a progressive flow unit. This translates into a greater chance of engine damage as a result of a very lean mixture should the onset of methanol flow be interrupted. FWIW, this potential concern is alleviated with a progressive controller.