waterinjection.info  

Go Back   waterinjection.info > Injection Applications (making it work) > Gasoline Forced-Induction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 21-06-2015, 08:37 AM
parmas parmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: malta
Posts: 210
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

Sorry guys but unfortunately I couldn't get a good run as an axle broke within seconds during a burnout!

Since the last tune on water/meth the engine gained too much power.

All I can tell for now that with water/meth vs 100% water the engine was happy with a 10 Degree ignition advance on boost with meth.

True performance is in a 50/50 mixture for sure
Attached Images
File Type: jpg AXLE.jpg (45.5 KB, 18 views)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 29-03-2016, 05:11 AM
parmas parmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: malta
Posts: 210
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

I have a question to the experts:

Lets say I am running 12Afr on a turbo engine using gasoline and installed a 100% meth injection setup.

Lets say meth theory is 6:1 ratio, double the ratio of gasoline.

If I reduce gas to 13afr, meth injection afr target is 11afr.

With 50/50 water meth that would be 12afr right?

What if I want the engine working with more meth lets say reducing gas to 14afr , meth target 9afr or 10afr with 50/50. Would I make more power this way ?

What are the limits?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29-03-2016, 09:25 AM
rotrex rotrex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 187
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

The limit is that you run pure methanol at some point, a fuel that can make a lot of power in a turbo application.
I usually measure the AFR with a wideband lambda gauge. You inject your methanol or mix at the rate you want to try and adjust fuel to get to the AFR you want.
I also suggest to get away from AFRs of different fuels. Use lambda or just to for gasoline AFR you need. Thing is that lambda is a more linear scale with lambda 1.1 running 10% less fuel than lambda 1.0. There or no different lambda values for different fuels. The amounts you needs calculate from the ratio of the nerdy densities. In case of methanol about half of that of gasoline. Ethanol has a energy density of roughly 70% of gasoline.
Adding water with identical combustible fuel floe does not change the lambda value.
Substitution does. But again, just run a wideband lambda sensor and fox fueling on the fly.

OTherwise, you are right. For every 1 flow unit of methanol you add, you need to about remove half a unit of flow of gasoline to maintain the same lambda value or gasoline equivalent AFR in the engine.

Recently I had the impression I can extract more power from my engine with more alcohol and less water. Boost is fixed in my car as it is supercharged.,
Going from 50/50 to 75/25 I was able to advance ignition timing and gained feelable power. Was only a quick drive, but still. I can only assume that not all of the water I inject does actually contribute to knock suppression. The water's action is usually indicted though it's flame speed retardation requiring more ignition timing to compensate.
Now, I could also go in the other direction and reduce methanol and inject more water and less methanol......

It seems like those little direct port jets do not produce the fineest mist. Riceracing's air assisted nozzle in the airbox is definitly a better source of very fine droplets helping water being more efficient in the cylinder. The big droplets plains do not evaporate fast enough in the cylinder. The alcohol does. In a recent publication I read they did experiments and simulations on direct vs port injection of fuels with various alcohol content. The author compared the in cylinder knock suppression and cooling effect by adjusting the intake air tempersature of the turbo engine until both injection methods produced the same knock limited power.
The result was that direction injection was always superior to port injection having more knock suppression. Her attributes this, backed by evaporation models, that much of the ethanol droplets evaporate hitting the hot intake valve.

Now for my direct port scenario this could mean adding methanol does two things:
It adds high octane fuel
And it potentially leaves smaller, but effective water droplets behind as the methanol evaporates.

In the past I did experiments with pure water and never found it to be as effective as a mix with methanol. It's knock suppression performance was worse. Mapping both pure water and mix to its knock limit, timing is vastly different with water needing more advance, the mix made more power. This fits rather well with the water not actually doing its thing that well in my setup. It could very well be a in cylinder distribution issue. Here riceracing's system is superior to even a direct port system as he generates a very very fine mist that follows the bends and evenly distributes in the cylinder almost like a gas. My direct port system does not do that.
Bigger droplets plainly do not evaporate even during the critical part of combustion while the flame front still runs across the cylinder. Any droplets that are not evaporated by the time all the fuel has been consumed by the flame do not contribute to knock suppression.

As boost is in my setup is rather low and intake temps are not that high too due to charge cooling, I believe my setup rather likes the alcohol than the water.

I need to try a air assisted nozzle some time, but I only have 0.5 to about 1 bar of air pressure available to drive it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29-03-2016, 06:23 PM
parmas parmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: malta
Posts: 210
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

Quote:
Originally Posted by rotrex View Post
The limit is that you run pure methanol at some point, a fuel that can make a lot of power in a turbo application.
I usually measure the AFR with a wideband lambda gauge. You inject your methanol or mix at the rate you want to try and adjust fuel to get to the AFR you want.
I also suggest to get away from AFRs of different fuels. Use lambda or just to for gasoline AFR you need. Thing is that lambda is a more linear scale with lambda 1.1 running 10% less fuel than lambda 1.0. There or no different lambda values for different fuels. The amounts you needs calculate from the ratio of the nerdy densities. In case of methanol about half of that of gasoline. Ethanol has a energy density of roughly 70% of gasoline.
Adding water with identical combustible fuel floe does not change the lambda value.
Substitution does. But again, just run a wideband lambda sensor and fox fueling on the fly.

I use two widebands one for tuning/datalogging(ecu) and another independent gauge

OTherwise, you are right. For every 1 flow unit of methanol you add, you need to about remove half a unit of flow of gasoline to maintain the same lambda value or gasoline equivalent AFR in the engine.

RIGHT

Recently I had the impression I can extract more power from my engine with more alcohol and less water. Boost is fixed in my car as it is supercharged.,
Going from 50/50 to 75_METH/25_WATER I was able to advance ignition timing and gained feelable power. Was only a quick drive, but still. I can only assume that not all of the water I inject does actually contribute to knock suppression. The water's action is usually indicted though it's flame speed retardation requiring more ignition timing to compensate.

This depends from your engine setup. Mine is without intercooler and it is a must to keep it like that for simplicity - space and instant boost response. Air temps are a major problem especially after a long idle in traffic (reach easily +60C) and a sudden high load run will be inviting pre-ignition. To prevent this to happen I start injection of about 150cc at 1-3psi till 22psi full 700cc (350x2) W.I injection (50/50).

Water is a factor of big safety. One day when I was trying to achieve maximum power by leaning mixture on 100% water injection. Reduced some fueling and began datalogging and ran a quarter mile. On 3rd and 4th the engine showed 16 AFRs on boost. Couldnt believe the gauge but the datalog confirmed it. Checked plugs for engine damage and what !!? there was nothing at all ! Just felt the car slower !


Now, I could also go in the other direction and reduce methanol and inject more water and less methanol......

It seems like those little direct port jets do not produce the fineest mist. Riceracing's air assisted nozzle in the airbox is definitly a better source of very fine droplets helping water being more efficient in the cylinder. The big droplets plains do not evaporate fast enough in the cylinder. The alcohol does.

Agreed but what if you have an setup without intercooler pushing 22psi ? Imagine the heat the compressor produces at that pressure. Do you think that if it 50 or 200micron drops make a difference ?

Also "Big" drops tend to wash the boost/intake tubing and keep there resulting in further air charge cooling without injection! I notice it every time I am in decelaration after a high load run, the temps go down from maximum reach of 40DegC to 15DegC in seconds. I would find a datalog if you want for you


In a recent publication I read they did experiments and simulations on direct vs port injection of fuels with various alcohol content. The author compared the in cylinder knock suppression and cooling effect by adjusting the intake air tempersature of the turbo engine until both injection methods produced the same knock limited power.
The result was that direction injection was always superior to port injection having more knock suppression. Her attributes this, backed by evaporation models, that much of the ethanol droplets evaporate hitting the hot intake valve.

Again depends... I never think of direct injection for my setup. Water injectors near the intake valves would reduce the charge cooling drastically and without intercooler is again another issue. That does not mean detonation suppression would be worse IF not better but having the charge cooled means more air which could yield more power.

Now for my direct port scenario this could mean adding methanol does two things:

It adds high octane fuel
And it potentially leaves smaller, but effective water droplets behind as the methanol evaporates.

AGREED

In the past I did experiments with pure water and never found it to be as effective as a mix with methanol. It's knock suppression performance was worse.

Don't agree from the previous statement I made.

Mapping both pure water and mix to its knock limit, timing is vastly different with water needing more advance, the mix made more power.

AGREED

This fits rather well with the water not actually doing its thing that well in my setup.

Describe your setup ?

It could very well be a in cylinder distribution issue. Here riceracing's system is superior to even a direct port system as he generates a very very fine mist that follows the bends and evenly distributes in the cylinder almost like a gas. My direct port system does not do that.
Bigger droplets plainly do not evaporate even during the critical part of combustion while the flame front still runs across the cylinder. Any droplets that are not evaporated by the time all the fuel has been consumed by the flame do not contribute to knock suppression.

Already discussed by previous statement...

As boost is in my setup is rather low and intake temps are not that high too due to charge cooling, I believe my setup rather likes the alcohol than the water.

Could be.... How much boost and intake vs ambient temps are you seeing?

I need to try a air assisted nozzle some time, but I only have 0.5 to about 1 bar of air pressure available to drive it.

I never got in detail about air assisted nozzles but my logic says 10-15 Bar is better than 0.5 to 1 Bar of pressure misting!
........................
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 31-03-2016, 04:06 PM
rotrex rotrex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 187
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

My setup uses a 8 bar membrane pump, otherwise it is a Aquamist 2c system. The race pump at some pointed started to lose flow.
Metering is done with a HSV controlled by a ECU map (boost control map, PWM % as function of TPS and rpm) of my ECU, a Emerald K3.
4 Aquamist 0.4mm type C jets are placed a few cm in front of the injection valves with a 5th 0.3mm jet being mounted about 10cm in front of the Rotrex C30-94 supercharger. Total flow at max fuel flow is about 500 ml/min or about 30% of fuel flow. Injectors are 470cc/min Bosch EV14 units of a Corsa OPC operated at 4 bar.
The charge is cooled by a PWR racing 4"x6" barrel charge cooler. Water is provided through 19mm coolant lines and cooled by Pro Alloy radiator sized pre rad. Coolant pumped by a Bosch PCA and a Pierburg CWA50 pump resulting in a total measured flow of 17 litres per minute. I have a second Pierburg pump here that should get flow to about 25 litres per minute. That corresponds to 100W of CC coolant pumping power!
IATs on track are about 40-50C above ambient.
Durning no boost cruising IATs are typically 10C above ambient.
Running bigger than a 0.3mm pre compressor jet I can log IAT fluctuations from fluid droplets evaporating on the IAT sensor. During very hot days, I can go a tad bigger.
A 0.9mm pre-compressor jet caused IATs to stay flat after the charge cooler.

The engine is a DIY build Rover K-series with 1800cc mated to a B4BP close ratio gearbox and Torsen Type B limited slip diff in a 1999 Lotus Elise S1.
Head is a VVC160 head with a banking kit, heavier valves springs and Newman ph2 cams. Running a larger pulley I used a rev limit of 7800 rpm.
Bottom end has steel con rods, Mahle Motorsport bearings, Wössner forged pistons and Westwood nodular iron liners. Head gasket is a Rover MLS gasket.
All bottom end bits are weight matched and balanced all the way to the clutch cover. It runs super smooth.
It currently runs 0.83 bar of boost at 7000 rpm with a rev limiter at 7300 rpm.
It has never seen a dyno since I own it (2004). It should have about 250HP.
Straight line speed in Spa is a tad faster that a S2 Elise with a NA Honda K20A2 unit (≈230Hp) and a tad slower than a S1 Elise with a JRSC supercharged Honda K20A2 with about 280HP.

Next step is to measure why my boost is as low as it is. It should be above 1 bar and bring to engine closer to 280HP. Suspicion is the charge cooler. I need to wait for better weather.

Last edited by rotrex; 31-03-2016 at 04:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 31-03-2016, 11:14 PM
parmas parmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: malta
Posts: 210
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

IATs on track are about 40-50C above HOW much ambient?

Regarding boost, you should check for boost leaks from the piping/gaskets...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-04-2016, 01:07 PM
rotrex rotrex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 187
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

Whatever the outside ambient temperature is?
10C on a cold day or 35C on a hot day. The max IATs are then about 30 to 50C higher once everything is equilibrated.

Last edited by rotrex; 01-04-2016 at 01:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-04-2016, 02:21 PM
parmas parmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: malta
Posts: 210
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

Quote:
Originally Posted by rotrex View Post
Whatever the outside ambient temperature is?
10C on a cold day or 35C on a hot day. The max IATs are then about 30 to 50C higher once everything is equilibrated.
Sounds exactly like the weather in Malta.... where you live ? (just for curiosity)

Decided to take some screenshots from the last datalog I made.

Beginning of first datalog is ZeroThrottle ending GearChange. The second begins from EGT_10PSI till EGT_MAXload

Please remember NO intercooler used. Injecting (60/40 Water/Meth) Post 350cc / Pre-Turbo 350cc.

Enjoy
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ZERO THROTTLE_1.jpg (114.5 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg 10PSI.jpg (115.2 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg 20PSI.jpg (115.1 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg MAX LOAD.jpg (114.7 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg GEAR CHANGE.jpg (102.6 KB, 6 views)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-04-2016, 02:24 PM
parmas parmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: malta
Posts: 210
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

EGT DATALOGING
Attached Images
File Type: jpg EGT_10PSI.jpg (111.6 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg EGT_MAX LOAD.jpg (111.5 KB, 5 views)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-04-2016, 07:53 PM
rotrex rotrex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 187
Default Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning

Germany. In winter it can get much colder, though. My Elise is in storage between December and February.

I did experiments without any intercooling a long time ago still running the C30-74.
I never got as good results as with charge cooling. Both with water methanol injection of course.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.