My No Horse$hit Water Meth Dyno Experiment

tothemax · September 17th, 2010, 17:58

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...

Farfromovin · September 17th, 2010, 18:01

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?

tothemax · September 17th, 2010, 18:08

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

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?

nicklockard · September 17th, 2010, 18:14

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 · September 17th, 2010, 18:53

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

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.

Farfromovin · September 17th, 2010, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicklockard

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.

nicklockard · September 17th, 2010, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farfromovin

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.

Farfromovin · September 17th, 2010, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicklockard

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.

nicklockard · September 17th, 2010, 20:24

sorry P, edited post above while you were replying.

Farfromovin · September 17th, 2010, 20:33

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 :-)

JasonCzerak · September 17th, 2010, 20:34

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.

tothemax · September 17th, 2010, 20:39

Was using 25% meth solution...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonCzerak

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.

Farfromovin · September 17th, 2010, 20:41

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?

tothemax · September 17th, 2010, 21:19

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

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?

thekidfan · September 17th, 2010, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by tothemax

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