Water/Meth Injection thread...

[VTuner]

I have been running meth injection like this for many years - not a concern in my opinion. maybe a concern at much higher power and overly aggressive tuning but I have never seen a problem on 4 cylinder engines with similar intake manifolds to this at power levels more than 50% over stock, direct or port injected.

Sponsored

 

[dadoctah]

Vtuner,
how much cc's are you spraying?
does it come on much during normal driving?
patrick

 

[VTuner]

Vtuner,
how much cc's are you spraying?
does it come on much during normal driving?
patrick

I have the injection set to begin at just under 3000 rpm at full throttle - when set this way you will not use any fluid when cruising on the highway or when accelerating moderately. The flow increases with air mass so it starts at ~ 100 ml/min but increases up to ~ 325 ml/min max with the nozzle I have installed now. This is typically good for up to ~ 350hp at the wheels, then you need to either go up to a larger nozzle or use a two stage system with a second nozzle.

 

[VTuner]

Dyno results on 22.5 PSI methanol water tune - 312hp / 331 lb-ft at the wheels

I dialed the peak boost up a little more to 22.5 psi and ran the Mustang on the dyno again this morning - picked up more than 20hp with the extra 2.5 psi. I will work on tweaking it to 24 psi next and dyno it again. It held ~ 22 psi for the entire run - charge air temps only increased from 75F at the start of the run to 95F at the end of the run!

 

[dadoctah]

Brian,
Love the setup. MAF biased?? Brilliant.
As you push up the boost more have you considered 2 nozzles? Add 1 in turbo inlet. maybe use a 175 before tb and a 175 in inlet? It's supposed to work wonders and you already have all the hardware in place.
patrick

 

[VTuner]

Brian,
Love the setup. MAF biased?? Brilliant.
As you push up the boost more have you considered 2 nozzles? Add 1 in turbo inlet. maybe use a 175 before tb and a 175 in inlet? It's supposed to work wonders and you already have all the hardware in place.
patrick

Thanks for the comments Patrick I have not actually played with pre-turbo injection on any applications - my main concerns would be condensation building up in the intercooler and the water droplets eroding the compressor wheel spinning at 200K+ RPM, but I may have to try it sometime to see for myself. There are more advanced controller options to add additional nozzles, but I would only go that route if I felt it was necessary in order to keep the system as simple to install and tune as possible. My main focus for this application is ease of use for individuals to install it that would otherwise be intimidated by the complexity of a methanol/water injection system. It would be very easy for me to add a 1/8" NPT bung to the intake pipe after the MAF sensor to inject methanol/water if you wanted to go that route though ;)

 

[boosted_orange]

so brian what are the cons on running let say a snow performance stage 2 which is activated via boost signal?

 

[VTuner]

so brian what are the cons on running let say a snow performance stage 2 which is activated via boost signal?

In my experience, the best results can be achieved when the volume of methanol/water injected roughly corresponds with the power output. Too much injection results in quenching/misfires, too little injection and you do not have the octane and cooling you desire. Based on this, you typically want to inject much more methanol/water when you are making 400 hp compared to when you only making 200hp. On a turbocharged application with torque/boost management we often see peak boost at low engine speeds and boost that trails off at the highest power output, so if you were injecting following the boost curve your injection volume would be less at peak power at 5800 rpm compared to the point where you have peak boost/torque down at 3000 - 4000 rpm.

Water provides immense cooling, we want to keep the combustion temps under control and by definition the mass of water injected directly correlates with the number of btus of heat we can pull out of the combustion process. Your engine is making much more heat at peak power output based on both the rate of combustion and much higher friction near redline.

Methanol provides some cooling (less than water, but it happens faster due to the lower bp of methanol and we can measure the temperature drop due to methanol at the manifold before the charge air enters the cylinder), and also a huge increase in octane (methanol has an average antiknock value of ~ 120 octane equivalent). To take advantage of the octane boosting capability of the methanol you generally want to maintain a certain ratio of methanol to the volume of fuel injected, so again this roughly follows the peak power curve, and NOT your standard boost curve for the 2.3T Ecoboost.

The issue becomes even worse if you look at how most tuners approach this engine, where they try to push the stock turbo to its limits the relative boost levels at 3000 rpm compared to 6000 rpm are skewed even more with much higher boost at 3000 rpm.

This means that just using boost as a reference is possible, but the results will be much less than ideal. You can use other signal references to achieve similar results to what I am doing with the MAF, but it requires more expensive controllers and splicing into multiple factory wire points as well as more time defining and optimizing 2D reference maps (ie, using both the fuel pressure at the injection rail combined with the injector pulse width).

Anyone interested in methanol/water should watch this excellent presentation on horsepower tv: http://www.powerblocktv.com/episode/HP2011-17/horsepower-explores-the-chemical-intercooler#.VQVmZI54qSo

Cheers,
Brian

 

[boosted_orange]

This means that just using boost as a reference is possible, but the results will be much less than ideal. You can use other signal references to achieve similar results to what I am doing with the MAF, but it requires more expensive controllers and splicing into multiple factory wire points as well as more time defining and optimizing 2D reference maps (ie, using both the fuel pressure at the injection rail combined with the injector pulse width).

Sorry Brian the stage 1 kit runs off boost, the stage 2 controller can be hooked up via MAF/MAP so this would be more ideal then as you explained? I understand if your gonna do something to do it right so you won't have any unneeded problems but I just can't see myself purchasing a whole other new intake when I already spent $$$ on the one that's on my car. Please don't take this wrong I'm just trying to get as informed as possible

 

[VTuner]

This means that just using boost as a reference is possible, but the results will be much less than ideal. You can use other signal references to achieve similar results to what I am doing with the MAF, but it requires more expensive controllers and splicing into multiple factory wire points as well as more time defining and optimizing 2D reference maps (ie, using both the fuel pressure at the injection rail combined with the injector pulse width).

Sorry Brian the stage 1 kit runs off boost, the stage 2 controller can be hooked up via MAF/MAP so this would be more ideal then as you explained? I understand if your gonna do something to do it right so you won't have any unneeded problems but I just can't see myself purchasing a whole other new intake when I already spent $$$ on the one that's on my car. Please don't take this wrong I'm just trying to get as informed as possible

I am using a Stage 2 controller - these can be configured to use either a 0-5V output reference or a frequency output reference. MAF and MAP are entirely different - MAP is manifold pressure, MAF is mass airflow. Your 2.3T does not come with a MAF and using the MAP (manifold pressure) has similar limitations to using boost pressure. The only difference is MAP is measured after the throttle body. There are different types of MAF sensors - some have 0-5V output and some use frequency output. The Stage 2 controller can be configured to use either.

I am not sure if I answered your question though - let me know if you are still not certain about the differences. Mass airflow approximately follows peak power output. MAP x engine speed would provide a similar result, so if you had a controller with a 2D map for both MAP and engine speed you could also tune it about as well as using just the MAF. To be more clear, you would actually need to measure and process the MAP, engine speed, charge air temperature and volumetric efficiency values to calculate the methanol/water injection rate to tune it as well as what I can do with just the MAF signal. This would be exceedingly complicated.

 

[boosted_orange]

I am using a Stage 2 controller - these can be configured to use either a 0-5V output reference or a frequency output reference. MAF and MAP are entirely different - MAP is manifold pressure, MAF is mass airflow. Your 2.3T does not come with a MAF and using the MAP (manifold pressure) has similar limitations to using boost pressure. The only difference is MAP is measured after the throttle body. There are different types of MAF sensors - some have 0-5V output and some use frequency output. The Stage 2 controller can be configured to use either.

I am not sure if I answered your question though - let me know if you are still not certain about the differences. Mass aiflow approximately follows peak power output. MAP x engine speed would provide a similar result, so if you had a controller with a 2D map for both MAP and engine speed you could also tune it about as well as using just the MAF. To be more clear, you would actually need to measure and process the MAP, engine speed, charge air temperature and volumetric efficiency values to calculate the methanol/water injection rate to tune it as well as what I can do with just the MAF signal. This would be exceedingly complicated.

Yes & no...:shrug: I think I just need to call to get better informed

 

[mtpavelka]

Is it possible to get IAT's at or slightly below ambient temperature with a good IC and water/meth injection?

 

[dragonacc]

Is it possible to get IAT below ambient temperature with a good IC and water/meth injection?

I've done a bit of reading up on it lately and yes you can go below ambient. Higher percentages of meth should lower it more but I haven't found an absolute consensus on the ratio that should be used. Most people still agree 50/50 is best overall.

 

[Frogger]

I've done a bit of reading up on it lately and yes you can go below ambient. Higher percentages of meth should lower it more but I haven't found an absolute consensus on the ratio that should be used. Most people still agree 50/50 is best overall.

Good question. Since I'm about to run preturbo water/meth AND have a FR IC I'm betting on the double cooling measures having a compound impact for the better. Plus less flow constriction from the stock IC

 

[Frogger]

If I'm adding a 50/50 mix preturbo, can I expect the vaporized meth to make it to the engine for a measurable "octane" related power increase?

Sponsored