First of all, I really want to thank everyone for their help. I realize we're all busy and have lives outside this forum, so I really appreciate the people who took the time to write.

The reason I started this thread was so I can keep my eyes open for deals. Time=money in my experience.

That 20g turbo sounds interesting. Does anyone know about this guy?

http://www.turbosystem.com/auto/Super%2 ... versal.htm

He's been making these things for years and the price is pretty good. My understanding is that they are modified Mitsubishi turbos, not Chinese stuff.

Buddyworm, we have 93 octane here in TX. E85 is also available, but I'm not sure I want to use that since only a few places sell it. And then there is also methanol injection, but I'm not sure about that, either.

Oh, sorry guys. Anyways, I say a ZL1 can't be beat by a CA/SR (unless it's a monster) cause I believe the ZL1 has about 550 hp. Sure it probably weighs like 3500, but even still, the power-to-weight is better. My only reasoning really. I'd never mess with one, lol.

I've got a friend with an SR who at the time had an Isis 3871R (like a GT2871R with a massive exhaust housing) in a semi-stripped S13 hatch run into another friend of mine in his C5 Z06 and they were pretty well even. My buddy in the Vette walks on SRT8's and GT500's all day, along with heavily modified Camaros, so I see no reason a well performing CA couldn't walk on a ZL1 from a roll. Maybe not from a dig, but certainly from a 40 roll or so.

Sounds like the same specs as my CA (3871 and semi-stripped). I'm a valet so I get to drive plenty of cars and my car is certainly faster than most cars I get to drive, but just doesn't seem to compare to these big motors. Maybe it's because I only get to go to 0-30 mph and that low down torque is affecting my idea of how they act after that point, lol.

That is certainly shocking though that a Z06 would get trouble from an SR.

Well, a 366whp Vette that weighs 3100lbs spinning into 3rd compared to a 330whp S13 which weighs about 2400-2500lbs and a shorter gearing, I'd say it sounds about right. Iirc, the Vette pulled on the SR a bit, and the SR's number may have been skewed a little bit and might have made less than 330whp.

Oh wow, I didn't know the numbers were so low for the C5. I thought all Z06 were around 500 bhp.

Nah, after 2002 the LS6 was only rated at 405hp at the crank. Regardless, there's something special about that car in particular with his kill record. Plus he has one hell of a driver mod.

A CA in a 2,000-lb car with a 4.1 diff is very fun. I love the engine in this car.

If I wanted a straight line drag racer I'd get an American car with a V8. Totally different animal with a totally different engineering goal in mind.

ca18 can hold its own imo..... really depends on how u set it up
I posted a thread recently of a ca18 powered full weight street corolla that et'd a 10.4sec et, and I doubt it was even on 20psi
I reckon that's enough to smoke any of those cars mentioned, and that's only a mid-sized turbo, not even 'cranked up'.
On the street, as long as there is traction, such a ca18 would give them fits
Dunno what sorta rides u guys used to but..... 10.4 sec borders on scary street car acceleration

Although no longer up. there was a website featuring a ca18 powered rwd toyota starlet, that stunned the competition....
road racing against heavily moded skylines, evos, rx7s etc
Don't underestimate the puny li'l pos 1.8 (like they did)

A tuner we deal with made this point about water/meth injection:

Most systems place the jet in the intercooler pipe prior to the throttle body. Air changes direction easier than water droplets, which means in the intake manifold you have no control over the distribution of the water/meth charge between cylinders. It's not too hard to imagine the heavier water droplets sailing right past the forward runners and piling up in the rear of the intake manifold.

The positive effects of W/M have been proven, but tuning the engine to exploit those benefits while not being able to accurately control distribution of the W/M charge may be even riskier than running a more conservative tune without the added spray...

That's an interesting point about meth. I hadn't thought about that. Sounds like you really need to know what you're doing to do it right. Still sounds interesting. I read that I good place to inject it is right after the cold side of the intercooler.

Meth is atomized through the nozzle, so there isn't any "droplets". It's closer to vapor if anything. While you are correct that it should be mounted near the throttle body, there's nothing difficult about w/m injection or installation.

Oh they're definitely droplets coming out of the jet. They're very fine, but they're still droplets and they still have greater mass (and therefore inertia) than air molecules. Every turn the air is forced to make, every abrupt change in velocity, more and more droplets, miniscule as they may be, fall out of suspension. Are they condensing on the inside of the manifold and runners? I don't know, probably not terribly much, but you have zero control over the mixture once it hits the plenum. I'd be willing to bet most of them take the path of least resistance straight to the rear of the plenum.

Think of the an RB26 with stock intake manifold as an example. They're notorious for burning out cylinders 4, 5, and 6 because of a ramming effect that sees the rear 3 cylinders get the most air, causing them to run lean. Now if the air in that intake manifold is having a hard time making the turns into 1, 2, and 3 what hope do any liquid droplets have of doing the same?

Buddyworm wrote: Think of the an RB26 with stock intake manifold as an example. They're notorious for burning out cylinders 4, 5, and 6 because of a ramming effect that sees the rear 3 cylinders get the most air, causing them to run lean. Now if the air in that intake manifold is having a hard time making the turns into 1, 2, and 3 what hope do any liquid droplets have of doing the same?

f*** brilliant! I had no clue about that nor the logic behind it all. That's something I've never thought of.

thing is, u have no control over the air getting to any particular cylinder, nor over the exact cc of any injector, so....
Countless setups run pump + w/m and last for years. Are we expecting more from them ?
Pretty much a way of life for buick grand nationals, DSMs, etc.... who didn't wanna go the hassle of swapping to race fuel/changing the tune, or a full tilt conversion to higher consumption e85 crap

Most impressive 1.8L I can recall was a full street miata (ringing out t3/t4 50-trim) that hit 585wp atw and a mind-boggling 505 ft-lbs tq atw. Incredible grunt from such a tiny package. Call w/m a bandaid, crutch or whatever.... but it simply works

Well, the whole point of w/m injection is to cool the air temperature, inside the intake, so really though, I don't see a problem with all the mist going towards the rear. In fact, that would be beneficial since it goes through ALL the air inside the intake, therefore cooling all air temperature for the cylinders.

Why aren't you considering Toulene?
It's a cheap octane booster.

If you have E85 available you should consider it.
There are a minimal increase in consumption but the power and safety gains are awesome. It's also cheaper.

I run E85 in my daily driver, it puts down 472whp and 640nm at the wheels on a little GT2871.

Toluene isn't a bad Idea. It's what kept my 10:1 compression CA alive until I could convert it to E85.

As for W/M injection, the latent heat of vaporization of methanols is REALLY low. This means it evaporates easily, and I doubt there is any methanol left in the mixture once it reaches the plenum, and so will behave as a gas. Water is MUCH higher and so if there isn't enough heat in the intake charge, it may remain in a liquid state. It could then be possible for the water to have the inertial effect you mentioned. My response to that would be that you're injecting too much water though, and the issue is not in the injection method, but the volume being injected.

Also, it's worth noting that you need to remember that from a cooling standpoint, water yields the most cooling capacity, while methanol increases the effective octane of the mixture.

exactly....meant to add, if u seeing droplets, you're injecting too much.
The intent is to sap heat from the charge, and the 'mist' flashes off while doing so

Lotsa buicks and dsms were once hooked on toluene, but for many it may become a pita keeping up with an additive at every fuel up and maintaining mixture consistency.... change the tune if you have no booster.... forgetting to add.... toting a container... etc

float_6969 wrote:Toluene isn't a bad Idea. It's what kept my 10:1 compression CA alive until I could convert it to E85.

As for W/M injection, the latent heat of vaporization of methanols is REALLY low. This means it evaporates easily, and I doubt there is any methanol left in the mixture once it reaches the plenum, and so will behave as a gas. Water is MUCH higher and so if there isn't enough heat in the intake charge, it may remain in a liquid state. It could then be possible for the water to have the inertial effect you mentioned. My response to that would be that you're injecting too much water though, and the issue is not in the injection method, but the volume being injected.

Also, it's worth noting that you need to remember that from a cooling standpoint, water yields the most cooling capacity, while methanol increases the effective octane of the mixture.

I think I see your point float, but lemme throw a bit of a monkey wrench in there. First, the latent heat of vaporization for gasoline is even lower than methanol and yet head porters pay extremely close attention to what they call the wet flow characteristics of the port. They worry constantly about the fuel falling out of suspension because of abrupt changes in direction and/or velocity. So far as I can tell, fuel condensing on the inside of the runners is something porters spend a lot of time trying to remedy. This seems to be even more relevant in carbureted setups.

So, if gasoline, with it's lower LHV, condenses inside ports/runners for a variety of reasons (to do with airflow) what makes methanol immune to identical effects? Keeping in mind that it's changes in direction and velocity that knocks the fuel out of suspension, two things that absolutely characterize airflow in most intake manifolds.

Second, I was under the impression that the majority of vaporization occured inside the combustion chamber where pressure and temperature are the highest. Which lines up with the porter's focus on wet flow...

Third, my use of W/M is deliberate as most of these setups recommend water be mixed with the methanol. In fact aquamist specifically recommends against running 100% meth for extended periods. We can easily be dealing with droplets in that case as the LVH of water is considerably higher than both gasoline and methanol.




dash, W/M isn't a crutch or a bandaid, like I said, it's effects are proven. But as a tuner I crave consistency and predictability, and a single injection point pre-throttle body just can't provide either of those IMO. You can't know what the individual cylinders are doing unless you've intelligently spent a small fortune on data acquisition so I tend to err on the side of caution and stick to things I can control to a very fine degree, such as ignition timing and the air/fuel ratio.

Unfortunately the fact that many cars can put down fast lap times running water meth doesn't prove much besides they made that pass. We don't know how healthy those engines are, we don't know how often they're being inspected and rebuilt, and we can be certain that they won't trumpet it far and wide when they do experience a failure. How many people who've installed a W/M kit are even capable of properly diagnosing a failure when they do experience one?

Not saying it can't be done successfully, but I don't like selling a customer something I can't be 100% confident in.

Me, if I were doing it I'd be looking at jetting individual runners.

u have ALOT higher percentage of fuel in suspension compared to w/m, so why would they behave alike ?
Every car mentioned ran for years on pump + w/m inj. Hence became "a way of life". Lets see.... producing exceptional power and

even outstanding mileage when driven conservatively = incredible results. What else would we like them to do ? Move the nozzle ?
If we get to the point where we're wiping off our intake manifold runners with kleenex... why bother say, running intercoolers if

you're gonna get hung up on the downsides, ie.; lag from additional pipe route, pressure drop accross the core, etc.
How did you equalize and confirm the quantity of airflow thru each runner.... redesign the intake ?
A dying fuel pump, trash in the filter, shoddy injector clip, hose clamp..... can wipe out a motor. No control over any of that

I hear what you're saying tho

The first issue with the condensate concern is concentration. Per lb of air, we're injecting WAY less water or methanol, than we are fuel. Secondly, is distance from the port. Even with a carburettor, the fuel source is MAYBE 8" from the valve. Fuel injection is maybe an inch. Thirdly is stagnation. inside the ports, there are times where the air isn't moving very much. It's much more likely for our liquids to fall out of suspension when that happens. Water injections usually places the injector FEET away from the valve. There is simply more time for the fluids to exchange heat and change states. That being said, if you inject too much, you do have issues with condensation and it COULD yield uneven distribution... of the EXCESS fluids. The gaseous state fluids are going to behave as a gas, and travel the same path as a gas.

As for the LHV, that only describes the amount of heat absorbed during state changes and describes the fluids ability to absorb energy and maintain temperature. It does NOT take into account the vaporization point. Methanol is much easier to get to turn into a gas than water or gasoline, so it's the MOST likely to be in a gaseous state when it enters the plenum and more likely to remain in a gaseous state entering the combustion chamber.

Another thing to remember is that state changes require the movement of energy. It takes a lot more energy to heat water 10°across it's vaporization point (ie; from 5° in side it's liquid state to 5 °inside it gaseous state), than it does to heat it up 10°inside it's liquid state (ie from 190°F-200°F) The same holds true for going from a gas to a liquid. A lot of energy has to be given up. If water/methanol is in a gaseous state when it enters the plenum, only a cold metal surface is going to be able to remove enough energy from the charge to cause a change in state, not turbulence or port restrictions. Now is it's NOT in a gaseous state, then that is a different story.

Well I've argued my point as far as I'm able, think I dun got schooled! Thanks for the informative posts dash, and especially your last post float! This bears further investigation on my part.

What's your background there float? You seem pretty comfortable with the subject.

dash wrote: How did you equalize and confirm the quantity of airflow thru each runner.... redesign the intake ?

One last thing: You are of course correct in your implication that most people aren't going to have the resources, financial or otherwise, to equalize each runner. Practically speaking all you can do is trim fuel/ignition for each cylinder using some kind of EMS. A master engine builder could definitely argue THAT'S bandaid but, done right with O2 sensors in each exhaust runner, it's a pretty simple and effective solution IMO.

That's basically what I meant as far as things you can control to a very fine degree, paying special attention to the needs of each individual hole simply because it isn't practical to balance them all to perfection. The variation between cylinders on some engines can be immense!

A master engine builder could definitely argue THAT'S bandaid but, done right with O2 sensors in each exhaust runner, it's a pretty simple and effective solution IMO.

I was gonna ask if u ran wideband sensors for each runner..... if not, it's only 'averaging' your a/f ratio, and that is a far more critical component that a w/m nozzle

cool debate. U always bring an interesting angle.
What it boils down to is, you are more meticulous than most and set higher standards... and that is a good thing. U go deep
Dash is merely a 'results-oriented' cowboy. Single out what works > look for patterns > run wit it

Gosh we jacked this dudes thread..... but his answer is buried in there, Somewhere. Sorry dhen - lol

I have some basic college level education in physics (including thermodynamics) and chemistry. No degree and not a professional by any means, but I have a good understanding of the basic principals. I'm also a nerd and like to educate myself, so I've read a lot about the subject.

dash wrote:
Gosh we jacked this dudes thread..... but his answer is buried in there, Somewhere. Sorry dhen - lol

No worries at all. I'm enjoying reading this.

Float, you broke the rules...

Back on the subject, are those old Garret T3 turbos total crap? I see them for sale for $100 so I think it's safe to say that no one wants them. I imagine it would lag a lot, but the price is right.

If you get a small one, it may not be terrible, but its not gonna be great. You have to keep in mind that even well into the late 90's, most turbo technology was based on diesels from the 80's. The advancements made on gasoline based turbochargers in the last 10 years is mind boggling. The spool up speeds, transient response, and flow rates today make the old turbos' look like model T's. Just comparing flow rates, and old tech T3 turbo compared to a turbo capable of the same flow rates today is amazing. The modern turbo will only need to be a small frame, T2 flanged turbo, it will likely spool 1000rpm faster and the transient response will be negligible compared to the old T3. Honestly, if you're going to do it, do it once, and do it right. Wait a year. Save your money. With a budget of $200/mo, you will have enough money saved to buy a brand new EFR and have a manifold made to suit plus cover any other expenses. Just an idea...