|
|
#11
02-11-2004, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
This is just the pre turbo jet in use, i think i need to move this jet much further back from the turbo and the throttle jet back to just after the IC and move the inlet temp sensor that sits on the exit from the IC (where recorded temps are much higher than at the throttle plate) to just before the throttle plate.
Should have a much better graph next week for temps sampled more than once a second. I will also lower the trigger point to 10 psi so WI comes on earlier. 
|
|
#13
03-11-2004, 01:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Best wait and see what the graph looks like when temps are samples at one or more times per second. Temp spikes could be much higher and vice verser( troughs much lower) At one point 0 degrees Celcius was recorded at the throttle. What is the ideal inlet temp we are looking for :?: What is the effect of air temps reaching the cylinders 10 to 15 degrees C less than the ecu thinks :?:
|
|
#14
03-11-2004, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok, cant sleep for thinkin about this.
Ive got two 2d systems, one pre turbo and one at the manifold (which looks like its not needed). One is wired into cylinder 2 and the other cylinder 3 injection pulse. I propose that i place both jets together before the turbo but another 12 or so inches further back. Use matching jet sizes for each (i.e two 0.5's or two 0.6's), they will inject alernately giving a move even flow into the inlet charge and give a finer spray, both desirable. Finally move the ecu inlet pressure combined temp sensor to just before the throttle to allow maximum temperature reduction to be recognised by the ecu. Added advantage if one pump failed or had a blocked jet, the other would still be injecting reducing the chance of sudden detonation. Did i mention that my ecu uses independant cylinder knock detection  And maybe, like Bill Shurvinton said, remove the IC altogether...........
|
|
#16
03-11-2004, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
hello all I'd like to add my input questions to the discussion.
I run a circuit racing mitsubishi lancer evolution here in Jamaica. The car is pretty much a dedicated race car. The engine is fully built (rods, pistons, headwork, bigger valves, stainless steel exhaust manifold, hybrid Garrett turbo etc, etc etc. This engine has dynoed at 420whp/330 ftlb tq at 1.5 Bar. I've tried experimenting with water injection and water spray and logged via the Haltech datalogger the following results: with 2 aquamist .8 jets; one spraying at about 3" downstream of the intercooler, and the other about 3" ahead of the throttle plate, and another two .8mm jets spraying the intercooler core; the intake temperature fell by about 45deg F. From 140F to 95F. These temps were measured by a sensor on the intake manifold. The ambient air was about 85F and there was a smallish fan blowing on the I/C. With this combination the power fell to 395 whp. There were however no adjustments made to the timing or fuelling. There was a slight bog at high rpm when the water was injected ( I think I may have sprayed too muc water). I tried spraying on the I/C alone and noted no appreciable temperature drop. At the race track, with much more available airfolw on the I/C the water spray alone was tried and the follwing results noted: After about 10 minutes of continuos high boost operation, the intake temperature stabilized at about 155F (90F ambient) Without the I/C spray the temperature would normally be about 170F. I think the water spray helps with the I/C heat soak for prolonged operation, but can't act quickly enough for a 10 second dyno pull.
|
|
#17
03-11-2004, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am planning to experiment next with just one .8 jet into the intake manifold. triggered by an aquamist pressure switch (set at about 15 ps)i. and a haltech GPO set to cycle between 38C and 42C (targetting 40C). I would also like to experiment with a pre turbocharger jet triggered once the engine goes from vacuum to boost. The plan is to increase the compressor efficiency, and reduce the turbo lag. I'm shooting for a constant 40C intake temperature. Once I can maintain that I'll play with the fuel and timing to build more power.
Anyone have comments or suggestions?
|
|
#18
03-11-2004, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
very interesting chart!
Two things stand out in my opinion: 1. the largest nozzle produced post-ic temps the same as no WI! The smallest nozzle had the best results here. 2. as nozzle size goes up, the difference between pre and post-ic temps is squeezed. I believe this to be because we are compromising the ic efficiency (which is max when temp difference is max) I look forward to hearing the comments of others, as we are a bit in unchartered waters here. [Gelf mate, if you have a website, can you give me the address, so I can reference it from my Water Injection page.]
|
|
#19
04-11-2004, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The efficiency of IC drops, seems a bad thing....
But wait, on the other viewpoint, it means IC could be eliminated. (maybe a good thing, eliminating pressure drop & long routing) Moreover, post-IC temp can not explain the efficiency shift of the compressor itself. Averagely, pre-IC (i.e. compressor outlet) temp actually drops as the jets get bigger. So we might roughly say the compressor efficiency benefits somewhat by more water (within the range of this experiment). (However, do we really need the final temp below ambience is another story) As Larry (Hotrod) mentioned in another thread, 2~3% injection rate may be ideal for the pre-compressor injection. Maybe someone can help on this in this experiment. In addition, I'd really like to see MAF info along with the pre-compressor injection, if possible.
|
|
#20
04-11-2004, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I hear that this will result in some big HP figures .... I too want to do some datalogging to find out what my engine is doing, but as stated in anothere post i'll document this at a later stage.
__________________
Keep it real 93 Suzuki Swift Gti Turbo @15psi System 1s Microtech LT-8 ECU Hugh Gordon
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
