multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

I currently have two nozzles (0.9 and 1.0) mounted in one of these:

http://www.siliconeintakes.com/image...pe_picture.jpg

It is positioned immediately after the intercooler exit. There is about 2 ~ 2.5 feet of intake piping. Here is a picture of what the intake piping looks like:

http://www.primemr2.com/uploads/2/5/...02/9716018.jpg
this is just a generic picture, not of my car specifically. the nozzles on mine would be located at the upper right of this picture, where the curvy intake pipe connects to the intercooler.

Do you think this type of mounting is okay? I've been running this for about a month and it seems okay. But does the fact that the nozzles spray into the same general area cause the droplets to hit each other and condense?

How about if I added the 3rd nozzle (0.8) to that mount? Or would it be better if I located it further along the intake, such as just before the hard bend into the throttle body?

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

In a dynamic environment, it should be OK as the mass of droplet is far smaller than the kgs/min instead of gms/min of water/methanol mix.

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

Just to clarify, you're saying it's ok as I have it (2 nozzles) AND it'd also be okay to put the 3rd nozzle in there too?

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

Yes, provided you are injecting during boosting period.
By all means, out the third nozzle in. There is an upper limit of =1300/min.

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

Thank you.

Yes, I have it coming on lightly around 5psi and reaches full-open at 15psi

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

What system do you have?

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

HFS4 connected to a Link ECU. The Link provides a PWM output to the HFS4. I use a table with RPM and MAP as X and Y axis to control the duty cycle of the output. I have the flow meter output from the HFS4 also connected to the Link. I use the value from the flow meter as an axis on fuel trim and timing advance tables. Thus the greater the flow, the more fuel is pulled and the more timing is advanced (to a limit, of course).

I'm still in the process of tuning the system. It's slow going because I only make small adjustments then do several pulls to verify AFR is safe and no knock, but so far it seems to be working out pretty well. The one thing I notice though is that the longer the meth sprays, the richer the AFR becomes. It does seem to stabilize after a few seconds. I'm assuming that is because the first few seconds some of it wets the intake piping. The upshot is that the tuning has to be a bit of a compromise -- if I don't pull enough fuel out, it gets too rich in the upper gears. Pull too much out and I get lean at first.

Re: multi-nozzle position recommendation
 

depending on boost and usage, i'd go direct port and locate the nozzles a few cm behind the fun injectors. Any turns will cause the bigger droplets to hit the pipe walls. It will still work, but the fluid will be less effective, i.e. you need more flow for the same knock suppression effect.
To make things more complicated, the methanol will still do its thing even as a puddled stream of fluid along the pipe wall as it still will 100% vaporise in the combustion chamber and burn as high octane fuel. The water as the stream will to a large degree be expelled by the exhaust in liquid form. This is IMHO the reason why many folks find that spraying higher methanol concentration mixes ultimately gets them more power. Much of the water is steaming along the wall and does very little for the combustion process.