This is all true but there is no theoretical reason that the EMS can not control the injectors to supply the proper pulse to keep the A/F where it needs to be. I personally feel better about trusting the EMS' failure rate vs the controller's. Either scenario can be deemed as risky depending on how you look at it.

 

Aquamist has had great failsafes on their kits for as long as I can remember. I think you need to read up on their products. They offer the most complete kits out there and their high speed valves with 3d mapping works wonders for keeping everything nice and happy.

 

Does it run in closed loop operation at WOT? If so, that would be the first I've heard of it.

 

No it doesn't run in closed loop.

I'm talking about using the nitrous modifier tables in the EMS in a methanol app. So instead of turning on a relay to fire a nitrous solenoid, you would use a relay to control the meth pump. This would give you full control of the fuel and ignition modifer tables just like a nitrous setup.

 

Which is why you would want a setup like we use with failsafes for power loss as well as auto richening AFR tracking for low pressure or clog.

 

Like Dave is saying it has been done. GTVEVO and myself have worked on this a couple months back. Thisi s old news .

 

That's what's needed to tune a meth setup, but that won't help you in the event of a meth injection failure. My point is that with a static setup, activating the injection at low boost pressure creates a greater possiblity of engine damage should the meth injection fail, simply because your fuel tables will be running very lean at that point.


Exactly. And where a non-progressive system is employed, that becomes all-the-more important.

 

It will safeguard an ELECTRICAL failure. If you intercept the signal wire at the pump, run it to a switch input on the EMS, you can then define the fuel and ignition modifiers to be present only when the switch is on. So if the pump dies, the relay craps ETC, then the switch input will turn off and you will revert back to your base, global maps ensuring the proper, non methanol, AF and ignition tables. It just won't safeguard a mechanical clog or failure of that nature.

 

You can spray alcohol progressivly with the AEM, without any kind of aftermarket controller. Solid state relay, wired to an extra injector output, or PWM output..and you have FULLY programmable progressive methanol injection, with meth flow tunable via maps in the AEM. Thats been done about 2-3years ago, along with the failsafes.

If your pump clogs, the most likely thing to happen is it will start to draw too much current and blow a fuse, which will allow the failsafe to kick in.

If your nozzle clogs, in a bad way.. same thing should happen. On a slight clog, you will notice a change in AFR. I don't care what anyone says, if you have a meth kit on your car, its your responsibility to make sure things are in check from time to time. But the types of failsafes employed will cure 99% of the issues.

You can also do a failsafe with nothing more than an EBC, or an extra solenoid on an MBC, without the need for any real fuel controller interrupt. Just a reverse logic wired relay.

This is all old news, like 2yrs+ old, I wish more people would take advantage of it. The information is out there.

 

Which as I indicated initially, is IMO the most desirable strategy, is the one I use, and is the one I'd use if I had an option.

My point was that a fail-safe mechanism is (even) more important for a static system.

 

Vijay,

You are correct as this has been done in the supra world and the DSM world a year or 2 ago, but in the evo realm it is now being done. People are blowing motors left and right because of running methanol and not being on top of it. It is a great power adder but also deadly like a venomous snake. One mistake and if not caught in time will french fry your block . I don't understand how these companies that have been selling kits have not implemented these failsafes in place as options for customers.

BTW you haven't posted since November and you chime in to post to this , i guess that auto crossing has gotcha busy . I am aobut to go try some events myself.

 

Yeah, until recently, alcohol injection wasn't very mainstream, so the amount of failures was a LOT less. You had mostly DIY types using it, so they were aware of the issues, as they kept a close eye on things.

Now they are being marketed as "kits".. and becoming more mainstream, due to more people using it, there are more failures, strictly speaking.

I wish I could say racing was keeping me busy, but its actually been work! I even missed an open track rental (road course) this weekend.

 

EVO8LTW, so what is the status of your kit now? Resolutions?

 

Bjai02,

You are endangering putting this thread back to it original path after it has been hjacked multiple times.

 

I strongly disagree and I hope you won't take offense to it. I can think of three good reasons why progressive alcohol (or water) control is markedly better:

----------------------

1) Effective octane and burn characteristics: especially in the case of alky injection, the ratio of injected fluid to gasoline determines the effective octane rating. When the car is at higher boost, it will have a LOWER effective octane rating than at lower boost, which is a bit backwards. Not only that, but alcohol burns slightly differently, and a water-laden mixture VERY differently, than straight gasoline. As a result, the ideal timing values will change as the ratio of alky/water to gasoline changes. Your peak pressure position might end up all over the place which makes knock-control extremely difficult. (As knock-control has more to do with peak pressure position than absolute ignition advance.)

To make matters worse, if the WI system cannot follow increase in mass-flow with RPM, your effective octane rating will drop dramatically as the RPM increase.

2) A Waste of Methanol/Water: this isn't a big issue with straight water, obviously, but with methanol, you can waste a considerable amount when you're running off only a boost-switch. You'll need to run enough flow for high RPM knock-control, but that's a LOT more fluid than you'll need at mid-range. You'll waste a tremendous amount of fluid in an unnecessary fashion without a progressive controller.

It's true that progressive controllers are more expensive, but the cost of methanol can add up eventually.

3) Cooling: similar problems to effective octane, but in this case you may be cooling too much at low-RPM or too little at high RPM. With water especially, you may get to the point where you are nearly misfiring at low RPM due to excessive cooling before you can inject enough water to work properly at high RPM. A progressive controller can allow you to decide exactly how much cooling you get at all given load points.

-----------------

IMHO, a NON-progressive WI system is worse than just putting the alcohol in your gas tank. At least when you put it in your gas tank, your fuel's effective octane and burn-speed is consistent and linear.

But maybe that's just me.

-Adrian