In the scenario you have described, looking at the process from one angle one would come to the conclusion that adding methanol on top of gas without altering the tune would add heat. I can offer a data example to show what we have measured. You maybe correct, but it would be difficult to confirm.

The test was on a SC car that was not tuned for methanol, so we could turn the kit ON and OFF without damage. When injecting 100% methanol, at 25% to fuel by volume, the net effect was higher power and 150F lower EGT's.

The methanol cooling the IAT's ( a 120F net drop to 40F sub-ambiet) and cooler burn characteristics in the chamber could be attributed to the cooler EGT's. But, one also has to notice that the timing can be advanced due to the increase in octane( and knock sensor activity on this vehicle). On this vehicle, the timing would be advanced as much as 10 degrees by the ECU based on IAT and knock measurements.

So cooler EGT's could also be attributed to the advanced timing, but without measuring the CHT and water temp changes it would be difficult to test. Also, fixing the timing between tests would also help. We did not see any appreciable water temp changes in the tests, and were not measuring CHT.

The stoichiometric ideal of methanol works in favor of us in this scenario. While injecting 25% to fuel, it is the equivalent of 10% of gasoline. So while it affected the AFR about 1 full point, the volume used greatly helped the IAT cooling requirements of the motor.

Sometimes looking at one aspect of the process can be beneficial but can also be deceiving without seeing how all the processes interact. I am certainly not saying 100% methanol is better or worse than water, a blanket statement like that is foolish.

I have to stress, what fluid works best is extremely dependent on the application.