Tapping plenum for meth?
Tapping plenum for meth?
I was reading a post by Mike@AWDmotorsports the other day and he was talking about how people that run meth tend to crack piston #1 because the meth never makes it that far without being sucked up by the other cylinders. I respect his knowledge as he has led me in the right direction numerous times, and I was trying to think of a new way of doing things to make this safer...
Option 1: Tap 2 holes in the intake plenum right between cylinder 1&2 and cylinders 3&4. I assume you would have to use 2 of the same sized nozzles to make the results safe and consistent.
Option 2: tap each intake runner with its own nozzle. I know this is a common thing to do with nitrous, so I figured it might work for meth (?).
The reason for my post I use meth on my setup, and I think its a nice way of making power, but I'm going to ditch it if it cannot be done safely. As soon as I get the car back from tuning this week, I'm ripping it apart and painting it and I see this as being a good opportunity to fix what could be a potentially fatal flaw in the meth community.
Any input would be great!
-James
Option 1: Tap 2 holes in the intake plenum right between cylinder 1&2 and cylinders 3&4. I assume you would have to use 2 of the same sized nozzles to make the results safe and consistent.
Option 2: tap each intake runner with its own nozzle. I know this is a common thing to do with nitrous, so I figured it might work for meth (?).
The reason for my post I use meth on my setup, and I think its a nice way of making power, but I'm going to ditch it if it cannot be done safely. As soon as I get the car back from tuning this week, I'm ripping it apart and painting it and I see this as being a good opportunity to fix what could be a potentially fatal flaw in the meth community.
Any input would be great!
-James
I was reading a post by Mike@AWDmotorsports the other day and he was talking about how people that run meth tend to crack piston #1 because the meth never makes it that far without being sucked up by the other cylinders. I respect his knowledge as he has led me in the right direction numerous times, and I was trying to think of a new way of doing things to make this safer...
Option 1: Tap 2 holes in the intake plenum right between cylinder 1&2 and cylinders 3&4. I assume you would have to use 2 of the same sized nozzles to make the results safe and consistent.
Option 2: tap each intake runner with its own nozzle. I know this is a common thing to do with nitrous, so I figured it might work for meth (?).
The reason for my post I use meth on my setup, and I think its a nice way of making power, but I'm going to ditch it if it cannot be done safely. As soon as I get the car back from tuning this week, I'm ripping it apart and painting it and I see this as being a good opportunity to fix what could be a potentially fatal flaw in the meth community.
Any input would be great!
-James
Option 1: Tap 2 holes in the intake plenum right between cylinder 1&2 and cylinders 3&4. I assume you would have to use 2 of the same sized nozzles to make the results safe and consistent.
Option 2: tap each intake runner with its own nozzle. I know this is a common thing to do with nitrous, so I figured it might work for meth (?).
The reason for my post I use meth on my setup, and I think its a nice way of making power, but I'm going to ditch it if it cannot be done safely. As soon as I get the car back from tuning this week, I'm ripping it apart and painting it and I see this as being a good opportunity to fix what could be a potentially fatal flaw in the meth community.
Any input would be great!
-James
Account Disabled
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
From: with idiots
That thread has good and bad info. I wouldn't take the number 1 piston failure as gospel just yet. If I were to tap into the manifold, I would use 4 small individual nozzles in each individual runner. That way you would have more of a guarantee that each combustion chamber would see a similar amount of water/alcohol. BTW I've been running multi-nozzles with my water/alcohol injection system using the uicp on two turbo cars for many years without any damage to my engine. You might want to re-read some of that other thread again and see posts made by Richard@Aquamist,dubbleugly01, and scheides. They pretty much explain what it takes to do water/alcohol the right way.
I agree two nozzels is fine I would place One 3 inches from the throttle body for octane effecfts and the other one 6 inches away for cooling the intake temps.As far as tuning goes I would run 11.0 to 11.3 max with a decent amount of * up top no more then 15*
Last edited by 4doorstreetbike; Aug 17, 2010 at 10:13 PM.
The biggest problem we are facing as a manufacturer is the vast range of WMI products offered in the wmi community. We started this product since the early 90s where the only people who used it was on the rally cars. Lack of road speed limits the intercooler's ability to work effectively. Remember those cars engine worked overtime in keeping all the four wheels spinning whilst the car negotiates its way around those twisty gravel surfaces.
We were very lucky to be in at the right place at the right time when the wrc (world rally championship) cars were born. Whilst totally over-subscribed and working in the most stressed environment as all works rally teams wanted our product yesterday. That was the time when we have really learnt and tasted what the word "reliability" is all about, in minutes rather months. We have to invest on a bunch of CNC machineries to shorten the product development time. CAD/CAM has enabled us to keep the tolerance tight and the reliability high.
It took several years to filter this WMI technology down to the Joe public in the US. That period was from 1997 until 2001 where all US tuners was very negative and named it as band-aid. Little did they know that this technology was employed so successfully in WRC car in Europe. Despite all the positive signs from those brave individual who took this on. Like any new ideas, the demands suddenly took off. We were there to embrace the fruit of our long campaign.
Like all good ideas that captured the market, copycat band wagons started to roll. By 2004, wmi makers has grown at a breakneck speed until it peak around 2006, I counted about 30! For tin-pot systems to pump-speed controlled systems, they are all over the magazines and forums, hypes on big power and a fraction of the cost of an Aquamist system. Luckily for us, as the market grew we did not suffer any loss of market share. The new found power over pump fuel continued.
As the WMI market grew, so did the attitude of the tuners. This further fuelled the power hungry end users demand on results and soon dyno charts became the main selling tool. Engine was tuned dangerously to the limit. Having a proper Fail-safe is vital under those power levels. We have seen this in the past in Europe and learnt our lessons so we introduce a flow sensor based failsafe system in 2003 to the US market but not many has taken this onboard due to the extra cost on top on an already high-price tag of an aquamist system.
I can see the E85, M85 or N85 (nitro) will fuel the future power tuning market. Methanol is a simple fuel that is easy to product in high volumes and doesn’t have to be grown. I believe the process is passing stream over simmering charcoal. Method has high latent heat of evaporation than ethanol so as it will run cooler than ethanol in the same application.
Mike at AWD is a proponent of E85. He too has to make his mark on his product. Tapping into an already wmi converted users is much easier to start from scratch. By posting some broken pistons and associated them with wmi is an easy way to gain market share. I have no problem with it. In fact any sane people will do the same. This is most unfortunate for us because mike has put us into the same category as all the other wmi systems that do have adequate inbuild failsafe. Other factor such as flow linearity and response time has a great deal to do with the safe running of an engine in highly stressed conditions.
As EvoTio has pointed out, which I totally agreed. Mike’s post has good and bad points but it is a good wake up call for those wmi manufacturers that do not provide effective fail-safes and consistent and predictable flow. It will certainly drag us down the cliff sooner than you think.
We were very lucky to be in at the right place at the right time when the wrc (world rally championship) cars were born. Whilst totally over-subscribed and working in the most stressed environment as all works rally teams wanted our product yesterday. That was the time when we have really learnt and tasted what the word "reliability" is all about, in minutes rather months. We have to invest on a bunch of CNC machineries to shorten the product development time. CAD/CAM has enabled us to keep the tolerance tight and the reliability high.
It took several years to filter this WMI technology down to the Joe public in the US. That period was from 1997 until 2001 where all US tuners was very negative and named it as band-aid. Little did they know that this technology was employed so successfully in WRC car in Europe. Despite all the positive signs from those brave individual who took this on. Like any new ideas, the demands suddenly took off. We were there to embrace the fruit of our long campaign.
Like all good ideas that captured the market, copycat band wagons started to roll. By 2004, wmi makers has grown at a breakneck speed until it peak around 2006, I counted about 30! For tin-pot systems to pump-speed controlled systems, they are all over the magazines and forums, hypes on big power and a fraction of the cost of an Aquamist system. Luckily for us, as the market grew we did not suffer any loss of market share. The new found power over pump fuel continued.
As the WMI market grew, so did the attitude of the tuners. This further fuelled the power hungry end users demand on results and soon dyno charts became the main selling tool. Engine was tuned dangerously to the limit. Having a proper Fail-safe is vital under those power levels. We have seen this in the past in Europe and learnt our lessons so we introduce a flow sensor based failsafe system in 2003 to the US market but not many has taken this onboard due to the extra cost on top on an already high-price tag of an aquamist system.
I can see the E85, M85 or N85 (nitro) will fuel the future power tuning market. Methanol is a simple fuel that is easy to product in high volumes and doesn’t have to be grown. I believe the process is passing stream over simmering charcoal. Method has high latent heat of evaporation than ethanol so as it will run cooler than ethanol in the same application.
Mike at AWD is a proponent of E85. He too has to make his mark on his product. Tapping into an already wmi converted users is much easier to start from scratch. By posting some broken pistons and associated them with wmi is an easy way to gain market share. I have no problem with it. In fact any sane people will do the same. This is most unfortunate for us because mike has put us into the same category as all the other wmi systems that do have adequate inbuild failsafe. Other factor such as flow linearity and response time has a great deal to do with the safe running of an engine in highly stressed conditions.
As EvoTio has pointed out, which I totally agreed. Mike’s post has good and bad points but it is a good wake up call for those wmi manufacturers that do not provide effective fail-safes and consistent and predictable flow. It will certainly drag us down the cliff sooner than you think.
Last edited by Richard L; Aug 18, 2010 at 05:23 AM.
That thread has good and bad info. I wouldn't take the number 1 piston failure as gospel just yet. If I were to tap into the manifold, I would use 4 small individual nozzles in each individual runner. That way you would have more of a guarantee that each combustion chamber would see a similar amount of water/alcohol. BTW I've been running multi-nozzles with my water/alcohol injection system using the uicp on two turbo cars for many years without any damage to my engine. You might want to re-read some of that other thread again and see posts made by Richard@Aquamist,dubbleugly01, and scheides. They pretty much explain what it takes to do water/alcohol the right way.
The biggest problem we are facing as a manufacturer is the vast range of WMI products offered in the wmi community. We started this product since the early 90s where the only people who used it was on the rally cars. Lack of road speed limits the intercooler's ability to work effectively. Remember those cars engine worked overtime in keeping all the four wheels spinning whilst the car negotiates its way around those twisty gravel surfaces.
We were very lucky to be in at the right place at the right time when the wrc (world rally championship) cars were born. Whilst totally over-subscribed and working in the most stressed environment as all works rally teams wanted our product yesterday. That was the time when we have really learnt and tasted what the word "reliability" is all about, in minutes rather months. We have to invest on a bunch of CNC machineries to shorten the product development time. CAD/CAM has enabled us to keep the tolerance tight and the reliability high.
It took several years to filter this WMI technology down to the Joe public in the US. That period was from 1997 until 2001 where all US tuners was very negative and named it as band-aid. Little did they know that this technology was employed so successfully in WRC car in Europe. Despite all the positive signs from those brave individual who took this on. Like any new ideas, the demands suddenly took off. We were there to embrace the fruit of our long campaign.
Like all good ideas that captured the market, copycat band wagons started to roll. By 2004, wmi makers has grown at a breakneck speed until it peak around 2006, I counted about 30! For tin-pot systems to pump-speed controlled systems, they are all over the magazines and forums, hypes on big power and a fraction of the cost of an Aquamist system. Luckily for us, as the market grew we did not suffer any loss of market share. The new found power over pump fuel continued.
As the WMI market grew, so did the attitude of the tuners. This further fuelled the power hungry end users demand on results and soon dyno charts became the main selling tool. Engine was tuned dangerously to the limit. Having a proper Fail-safe is vital under those power levels. We have seen this in the past in Europe and learnt our lessons so we introduce a flow sensor based failsafe system in 2003 to the US market but not many has taken this onboard due to the extra cost on top on an already high-price tag of an aquamist system.
I can see the E85, M85 or N85 (nitro) will fuel the future power tuning market. Methanol is a simple fuel that is easy to product in high volumes and doesn’t have to be grown. I believe the process is passing stream over simmering charcoal. Method has high latent heat of evaporation than ethanol so as it will run cooler than ethanol in the same application.
Mike at AWD is a proponent of E85. He too has to make his mark on his product. Tapping into an already wmi converted users is much easier to start from scratch. By posting some broken pistons and associated them with wmi is an easy way to gain market share. I have no problem with it. In fact any sane people will do the same. This is most unfortunate for us because mike has put us into the same category as all the other wmi systems that do have adequate inbuild failsafe. Other factor such as flow linearity and response time has a great deal to do with the safe running of an engine in highly stressed conditions.
As EvoTio has pointed out, which I totally agreed. Mike’s post has good and bad points but it is a good wake up call for those wmi manufacturers that do not provide effective fail-safes and consistent and predictable flow. It will certainly drag us down the cliff sooner than you think.
We were very lucky to be in at the right place at the right time when the wrc (world rally championship) cars were born. Whilst totally over-subscribed and working in the most stressed environment as all works rally teams wanted our product yesterday. That was the time when we have really learnt and tasted what the word "reliability" is all about, in minutes rather months. We have to invest on a bunch of CNC machineries to shorten the product development time. CAD/CAM has enabled us to keep the tolerance tight and the reliability high.
It took several years to filter this WMI technology down to the Joe public in the US. That period was from 1997 until 2001 where all US tuners was very negative and named it as band-aid. Little did they know that this technology was employed so successfully in WRC car in Europe. Despite all the positive signs from those brave individual who took this on. Like any new ideas, the demands suddenly took off. We were there to embrace the fruit of our long campaign.
Like all good ideas that captured the market, copycat band wagons started to roll. By 2004, wmi makers has grown at a breakneck speed until it peak around 2006, I counted about 30! For tin-pot systems to pump-speed controlled systems, they are all over the magazines and forums, hypes on big power and a fraction of the cost of an Aquamist system. Luckily for us, as the market grew we did not suffer any loss of market share. The new found power over pump fuel continued.
As the WMI market grew, so did the attitude of the tuners. This further fuelled the power hungry end users demand on results and soon dyno charts became the main selling tool. Engine was tuned dangerously to the limit. Having a proper Fail-safe is vital under those power levels. We have seen this in the past in Europe and learnt our lessons so we introduce a flow sensor based failsafe system in 2003 to the US market but not many has taken this onboard due to the extra cost on top on an already high-price tag of an aquamist system.
I can see the E85, M85 or N85 (nitro) will fuel the future power tuning market. Methanol is a simple fuel that is easy to product in high volumes and doesn’t have to be grown. I believe the process is passing stream over simmering charcoal. Method has high latent heat of evaporation than ethanol so as it will run cooler than ethanol in the same application.
Mike at AWD is a proponent of E85. He too has to make his mark on his product. Tapping into an already wmi converted users is much easier to start from scratch. By posting some broken pistons and associated them with wmi is an easy way to gain market share. I have no problem with it. In fact any sane people will do the same. This is most unfortunate for us because mike has put us into the same category as all the other wmi systems that do have adequate inbuild failsafe. Other factor such as flow linearity and response time has a great deal to do with the safe running of an engine in highly stressed conditions.
As EvoTio has pointed out, which I totally agreed. Mike’s post has good and bad points but it is a good wake up call for those wmi manufacturers that do not provide effective fail-safes and consistent and predictable flow. It will certainly drag us down the cliff sooner than you think.
As far as the nozzle placement is concerned, do you see any kind of benefit to placing the nozzles in the intake runners? I don't see this being a problem, or being a hard task at all. My only concern would be, do you make nozzles that are around 200cc/min? or smaller?
Last edited by 05ah8james; Aug 18, 2010 at 07:33 AM. Reason: spelling
I honestly don't think that putting the nozzles in the plenum is necessary. Here's my mega debunk of Mike's thread:
It was a SMC kit pictured, progressive pump. Low pump speed = bad atomization of alky/water mixture.
If you place the nozzle (if you're only using one) to close to the TB, you'll get bad mixture of the air/water with the air going into the plenum.
Add those two elements together, and you get a case of badness. Use a properly setup kit like Aquamist, pull it back from TB a little ways and you'll get great atomization and great mixing with the air charge. Better yet, run one a little closer and one a little further away from the TB! I had two on my car and I'll do that on any other car I do from now on I think!
Just my $.02
Hope you are enjoying that kit! Contemplating a kit for my X whenever I get the BBX setup sorted out.
It was a SMC kit pictured, progressive pump. Low pump speed = bad atomization of alky/water mixture.
If you place the nozzle (if you're only using one) to close to the TB, you'll get bad mixture of the air/water with the air going into the plenum.
Add those two elements together, and you get a case of badness. Use a properly setup kit like Aquamist, pull it back from TB a little ways and you'll get great atomization and great mixing with the air charge. Better yet, run one a little closer and one a little further away from the TB! I had two on my car and I'll do that on any other car I do from now on I think!
Just my $.02
Hope you are enjoying that kit! Contemplating a kit for my X whenever I get the BBX setup sorted out.
I honestly don't think that putting the nozzles in the plenum is necessary. Here's my mega debunk of Mike's thread:
It was a SMC kit pictured, progressive pump. Low pump speed = bad atomization of alky/water mixture.
If you place the nozzle (if you're only using one) to close to the TB, you'll get bad mixture of the air/water with the air going into the plenum.
Add those two elements together, and you get a case of badness. Use a properly setup kit like Aquamist, pull it back from TB a little ways and you'll get great atomization and great mixing with the air charge. Better yet, run one a little closer and one a little further away from the TB! I had two on my car and I'll do that on any other car I do from now on I think!
Just my $.02 Hope you are enjoying that kit! Contemplating a kit for my X whenever I get the BBX setup sorted out.
It was a SMC kit pictured, progressive pump. Low pump speed = bad atomization of alky/water mixture.
If you place the nozzle (if you're only using one) to close to the TB, you'll get bad mixture of the air/water with the air going into the plenum.
Add those two elements together, and you get a case of badness. Use a properly setup kit like Aquamist, pull it back from TB a little ways and you'll get great atomization and great mixing with the air charge. Better yet, run one a little closer and one a little further away from the TB! I had two on my car and I'll do that on any other car I do from now on I think!
Just my $.02
Hope you are enjoying that kit! Contemplating a kit for my X whenever I get the BBX setup sorted out.Trending Topics
I honestly don't think that putting the nozzles in the plenum is necessary. Here's my mega debunk of Mike's thread:
It was a SMC kit pictured, progressive pump. Low pump speed = bad atomization of alky/water mixture.
If you place the nozzle (if you're only using one) to close to the TB, you'll get bad mixture of the air/water with the air going into the plenum.
Add those two elements together, and you get a case of badness. Use a properly setup kit like Aquamist, pull it back from TB a little ways and you'll get great atomization and great mixing with the air charge. Better yet, run one a little closer and one a little further away from the TB! I had two on my car and I'll do that on any other car I do from now on I think!
Just my $.02 Hope you are enjoying that kit! Contemplating a kit for my X whenever I get the BBX setup sorted out.
It was a SMC kit pictured, progressive pump. Low pump speed = bad atomization of alky/water mixture.
If you place the nozzle (if you're only using one) to close to the TB, you'll get bad mixture of the air/water with the air going into the plenum.
Add those two elements together, and you get a case of badness. Use a properly setup kit like Aquamist, pull it back from TB a little ways and you'll get great atomization and great mixing with the air charge. Better yet, run one a little closer and one a little further away from the TB! I had two on my car and I'll do that on any other car I do from now on I think!
Just my $.02
Hope you are enjoying that kit! Contemplating a kit for my X whenever I get the BBX setup sorted out.I've said it before and I'll say it again, Aquamist FTW.
I definitely need to move my jets then. They're both close to the TB. The reason I did that is my AIT sensor for AEM is positioned 10-12" from the throttle body. I was afraid that the water/meth would get on the sensor and hinder the readings and make the car run poorly. Is this false?
The minute you slam shut the throttle on boost during gear change, meth will be everywhere. It is like blowing into a wide neck bottle with a spoonful of flour inside. Air temperature sensor will be affected no matter what. Can you remap the air temp compensation map?
Thanks
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DecBro
General Engine Management / Tuning Forum
2
Feb 17, 2017 07:51 AM
tscompusa
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results
17
Nov 19, 2015 02:36 PM
tlsole
Evo X Engine Management / Tuning Forums
11
Apr 15, 2011 09:17 AM
