Meth and Water ??
Awesome...Thanks guys...
I am thinking about just buying one of these http://www.webeatprices.com/product_...d0c50c3fc14dd5
I am thinking about just buying one of these http://www.webeatprices.com/product_...d0c50c3fc14dd5
Trending Topics
Well, I have been given contradicting information on which is better for knock and performance. For what it is worth this is what I have discovered:
(1) US and German military planes used water and methanol injection on planes -- 50/50% ratio (I am guessing they experimented a bit...)
(2) Adding 50% water makes the mixture less combustible / more safe
(3) Water is reported to cool the cylinders better than Methanol
(4) Many tuners prefer 100% Methanol (not sure why) and believe it yields more power
(5) SMC (the maker of my kit) recommends 50% water...not for seal issues, but for performance
I figured I would try it for myself and see if it yields better results....
(1) US and German military planes used water and methanol injection on planes -- 50/50% ratio (I am guessing they experimented a bit...)
(2) Adding 50% water makes the mixture less combustible / more safe
(3) Water is reported to cool the cylinders better than Methanol
(4) Many tuners prefer 100% Methanol (not sure why) and believe it yields more power
(5) SMC (the maker of my kit) recommends 50% water...not for seal issues, but for performance
I figured I would try it for myself and see if it yields better results....
(4) Is because most tuners 1. dont know how to extract power from water, 2. meth is easy to tune and make power. Just like race gas.
Water removes more heat allowing for more power than meth, but again you have to know how to tune it.
Evan Smith
Water removes more heat allowing for more power than meth, but again you have to know how to tune it.
Evan Smith
???
Well, from my first round of testing it appears that my car likes 100% meth better than 50/50 -- I was able to run more boost and timing with 100% meth. I have made some more changes to my tune and will log later today, but my guess from the first round of tests are that: (1) I need to decrease timing still, (2) richen my AFRs a tad (in spots I was at 11.5 - 11.7 which I thought would have been great), and (3) play with VVT.
I wonder what that means: (1) my intake charges need the additional cooling, (2) 91 is just too prone to pressure pre-ignition, or (3) my cylinder walls were really not that hot ??
Evan -- Thanks a ton, for helping. The jet is on the bottom side of the UICP, so it is really hard to see in a picture. That said, the jet is ~3.75" from the 90* silicone elbow that connects to the throttle body. So the jet is probably ~7-8" from the throttle body.
I wonder what that means: (1) my intake charges need the additional cooling, (2) 91 is just too prone to pressure pre-ignition, or (3) my cylinder walls were really not that hot ??
Evan -- Thanks a ton, for helping. The jet is on the bottom side of the UICP, so it is really hard to see in a picture. That said, the jet is ~3.75" from the 90* silicone elbow that connects to the throttle body. So the jet is probably ~7-8" from the throttle body.
Last edited by cij911; Feb 21, 2009 at 07:54 AM.
cij - if you don't mind sharing, what kind of timing #'s are you running now. I cant seem to get more than 4* at peak and 14* up top without knocking. My AFR's are fairly safe (considering I'm 50/50) 11.3-.4 at spool up/peak and 11.6-.7 from 5500rpm till redline.
My next approach is to lower boost a little and see if I can get some more timing in there.
My next approach is to lower boost a little and see if I can get some more timing in there.
Just like cij911 I too have my nozzle in the underside of the UICP (in line with the battery)
Any help would be appreciated