www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI Power Enhancements

TDI Power Enhancements Discussions about increasing the power of your TDI engine. i.e. chips, injectors, powerboxes, clutches, etc. Handling, suspensions, wheels, type discussion should be put into the "Upgrades (non TDI Engine related)" forum. Non TDI vehicle related postings will be moved or removed. Please note the Performance Disclaimer.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 17th, 2010, 18:58   #1
tothemax
Veteran Member
 
tothemax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Coast
Default My No Horse$hit Water Meth Dyno Experiment

In my attempt to validate the claims that water/meth injection provides added power.. I did a little dyno experiment.

Unfortunately, the Left Coast Diesel dyno could not get the torque numbers so this result is based strictly on HP output.

I got these results with my 03 ALH w/ a RC6 tune, Colt stage 2 cam, ported head, 17/22 turbo, 11 mm pump, R520's nozzles and Devil's Own WMI 250 psi set up w/ a progressive boost controller set to start spraying at 15 psi and reach max spray at 25 psi.

I ran 25% methanol solution.

I did four runs

Run No.2 was with a D03 W/M nozzle and produced 216.89 HP and MAX EGT's of 1190

Run No.3 was with the w/m turned off and produced 214.76 HP and MAX EGT's of 1600

Run No.4 was with a D04 W/M nozzle and produced 216.48 HP and MAX EGT's of 1180

Run No.5 was with a no w/m and some ghetto NOS spraying in the airbox and produced 278.18 HP and MAX EGT's of 1400

Based on my no Horse$hit experiment, and with all other things beings equal, my conclusions are:

1- WMI has negligible effects on HP output

2- Significant beneficial effects on EGT's

3- My optimum nozzle size is D03. (why go with a larger nozzle if I get essentially the same cooling effects)

You make your own conclusions...



Last edited by tothemax; September 17th, 2010 at 22:46.
tothemax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 19:01   #2
Farfromovin
Torque Addict
 
Farfromovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Fuel Economy: low: 35 high: 56 avg: 42.0
Default

Beautiful arcing curve!!! I think that speaks of Bill's head porting capabilities (and your Tuner's) for sure. Another benefit of water injection is significantly reduced peak cylinder pressures (and keeping internals a little cleaner hopefully). So, when does the NOS kit get installed LOL?
__________________

[/old setup]212whp/354 ft-lbs14.862@96.677-Way faster than Chris [/new setup] At least 213whp, and way way faster than Chris.
Farfromovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 19:08   #3
tothemax
Veteran Member
 
tothemax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Coast
Default

Wait till I post the video of the guys at LCD ghetto spraying NOS straight in the airbox... I don't think I will go that route ... we did it just for fun.. .He said he could easily get 300 + if he sprayed it closer to the airbox because there was still a bunch of black smoke coming out.

I did not want to F/Up my car by spraying a bunch of NOS into it right now .... because right now it works absolutely perfect... pulls frickin hard... and I have a 2 day track event next weekend at Infineon which I can't wait..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfromovin View Post
Beautiful arcing curve!!! I think that speaks of Bill's head porting capabilities (and your Tuner's) for sure. Another benefit of water injection is significantly reduced peak cylinder pressures (and keeping internals a little cleaner hopefully). So, when does the NOS kit get installed LOL?

Last edited by tothemax; September 17th, 2010 at 22:29.
tothemax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 19:14   #4
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

Above 85mph, the runs 2, 3, 4 have indistinguishable outputs: all lie within the dynometer's resolution limits of one another. Or, put another way, you'd get the same variance running a stock car 3 consecutive times.

However, both the w/m "on" runs had more power than the w/m "off" run below 85mph, and that difference is larger than system resolution: in other words, it's real and it's repeatable.

I think your conclusion is prematurely wrong. I'll print out the graphs and integrate areas under each curve next week.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 19:53   #5
tothemax
Veteran Member
 
tothemax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Coast
Default

Tnx Nick... That's why I put out there .... I knew there was some real brain power and science on this Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicklockard View Post
Above 85mph, the runs 2, 3, 4 have indistinguishable outputs: all lie within the dynometer's resolution limits of one another. Or, put another way, you'd get the same variance running a stock car 3 consecutive times.

However, both the w/m "on" runs had more power than the w/m "off" run below 85mph, and that difference is larger than system resolution: in other words, it's real and it's repeatable.

I think your conclusion is prematurely wrong. I'll print out the graphs and integrate areas under each curve next week.
tothemax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 20:28   #6
Farfromovin
Torque Addict
 
Farfromovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Fuel Economy: low: 35 high: 56 avg: 42.0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicklockard View Post
Above 85mph, the runs 2, 3, 4 have indistinguishable outputs: all lie within the dynometer's resolution limits of one another. Or, put another way, you'd get the same variance running a stock car 3 consecutive times.

However, both the w/m "on" runs had more power than the w/m "off" run below 85mph, and that difference is larger than system resolution: in other words, it's real and it's repeatable.

I think your conclusion is prematurely wrong. I'll print out the graphs and integrate areas under each curve next week.
Naw, I'm gonna wave the bravo sierra (bs in military speak) flag on that one Nick. The distinct differences in the lower regions all come into play because the operator did not start the dyno at the same RPM. Quite obvious really... Any differences in power after they have reached boost levels is simply differences in how the tune responds to "stomping" on the accelerator at different RPM's.
__________________

[/old setup]212whp/354 ft-lbs14.862@96.677-Way faster than Chris [/new setup] At least 213whp, and way way faster than Chris.
Farfromovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:12   #7
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfromovin View Post
Naw, I'm gonna wave the bravo sierra (bs in military speak) flag on that one Nick. The distinct differences in the lower regions all come into play because the operator did not start the dyno at the same RPM. Quite obvious really... Any differences in power after they have reached boost levels is simply differences in how the tune responds to "stomping" on the accelerator at different RPM's.
duhhh, negative, Comanche. That's ex-military science dweeb speak for: "of course I looked at that, I'm not a farcing idiot".

Look from 66mph to 86mph for comparison between run3 and run4. He's on the juice (go pedal), the ECU has caught up and w/m has more power.

Look from 67-86mph for the comparison between run 2 and run3. Less clear though because it appeared to bog down with water/meth?

If you have that raw data tothemax, I can numerically analyze it and determine system resolution (aka: detection limits).

At any rate, Phillip, I think that you can reasonably argue about the ECU's response behaviors at early rpm's; it's valid to bring it up, but do you really think from 73 mph to 86 mph is due to ECU phantoms? In each case, it's had plenty of time to spool the turbo, respond, get on the juice, and figure things out. Yet the w/m runs produced more power. Hard to argue that ECU ghosts are responsible there, I think.

Last edited by nicklockard; September 17th, 2010 at 21:23.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:24   #8
Farfromovin
Torque Addict
 
Farfromovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Fuel Economy: low: 35 high: 56 avg: 42.0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicklockard View Post
duhhh, negative, Comanche. That's ex-military science dweeb speak for: "of course I looked at that, I'm not a farcing idiot".

Look from 66mph to 86mph. In every case, he's on the juice (go pedal), the ECU has caught up and w/m has more powa.

And it's greater than system resolution.

If you have that raw data tothemax, I can numerically analyze it and determine system resolution (aka: detection limits) and tell you statistically to what confidence level percent the differences are good for.

They're real. I know data.
You know data and I know tuning and dynos ;-) That is boost response from varying rpms.
__________________

[/old setup]212whp/354 ft-lbs14.862@96.677-Way faster than Chris [/new setup] At least 213whp, and way way faster than Chris.
Farfromovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:24   #9
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

sorry P, edited post above while you were replying.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:33   #10
Farfromovin
Torque Addict
 
Farfromovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Fuel Economy: low: 35 high: 56 avg: 42.0
Default

I see the edit. I'm gonna say w/m has NOTHING to do with it and stand firm. Agree to disagree then. So many little things could cause that minor percentage there. Stuff as minor as getting on it roughly 14mph earlier generates more heat quicker. More heat quicker will lead to more power from the turbine earlier. And then just the general boost response characteristics of everything under his hood. W/M had NOTHING to do with the increases/decreases in power. No measurable amount outside of the dynomometer resolution limits :-)
__________________

[/old setup]212whp/354 ft-lbs14.862@96.677-Way faster than Chris [/new setup] At least 213whp, and way way faster than Chris.
Farfromovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:34   #11
JasonCzerak
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Minneapolis, mn
TDI(s): 2001 Golf
Default

What Is your water/meth ratio?

Remember, meth is a fuel. If your over fueled the meth does nothing. If anything premature combustion and higher cylinder pressures. Run straight distilled water to keep piston temps Down


The obvious proff of a lack of air is the gain on nitrous.
__________________
2012 Jetta SportWagon TDI - Stock
2006 Golf TDI - Malone Stage 1.5
2006 Corvette - 805whp - KL Tunes
JasonCzerak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:39   #12
tothemax
Veteran Member
 
tothemax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Coast
Default

Was using 25% meth solution...

.... Hurry up TDIinTexas.... daddy needs more air

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonCzerak View Post
What Is your water/meth ratio?

Remember, meth is a fuel. If your over fueled the meth does nothing. If anything premature combustion and higher cylinder pressures. Run straight distilled water to keep piston temps Down


The obvious proof of a lack of air is the gain on nitrous.
tothemax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 21:41   #13
Farfromovin
Torque Addict
 
Farfromovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Fuel Economy: low: 35 high: 56 avg: 42.0
Default

It's quite obvious how a little "haze" at WOT can turn into 50whp with NOS on these diesels. I wouldn't have thought it was worth that much power. So, I suppose if you had a huge turbo or two, you could get 278whp on your current injection system right?
__________________

[/old setup]212whp/354 ft-lbs14.862@96.677-Way faster than Chris [/new setup] At least 213whp, and way way faster than Chris.
Farfromovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 22:19   #14
tothemax
Veteran Member
 
tothemax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Coast
Default

This is what these numbers are telling me too...

According Adam from LCD... (he's the king of NOS).. said that he could easily have gotten over 300 if I let him spray a little more NOS in the air box.

This makes me think I need a bigger turbo more than I need a 12 mm pump!

Hey ... BTW are you gonna let me round that 216.89 HP off to 217HP?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfromovin View Post
It's quite obvious how a little "haze" at WOT can turn into 50whp with NOS on these diesels. I wouldn't have thought it was worth that much power. So, I suppose if you had a huge turbo or two, you could get 278whp on your current injection system right?

Last edited by tothemax; September 17th, 2010 at 22:40.
tothemax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 22:39   #15
thekidfan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dixon, Ca.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tothemax View Post
This is what these numbers are telling me too...

According Adam from LCD... (he's the king of NOS).. said that he could easily have gotten over 300 if I let him spray a little more NOS in the air box.

This makes me think I need a bigger turbo more than I need a 12 mm pump!

I was wondering which one of those guys it was Stay away from Adam that guy is dangerous with the giggle gas
Good points on the gains to be had with more air meaning you already have plenty of fuel. Have a buddy with a VE pump that gets an easy 100 rwhp off W/M and I could barely get better then 30 rwhp on my P-pumped truck.
Either way nice numbers, Congrats
thekidfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.15060 seconds with 9 queries
[Output: 147.13 Kb. compressed to 124.41 Kb. by saving 22.71 Kb. (15.44%)]