|
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
Hey lads, water injection is for turbo and supercharged cars yes? no point placing one on a NA engine?
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
Basically... yes. There are possible benefits for an NA engine but its a suprising amount of time to invest in something with debatable benefits.
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
aahhhh Thank you.
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
debatable benifits on NA?
more like proven benifits for NA. how'd you like to be able to run 13:1 compression with 87 octane feul and never have detonation problems. just imagine for second the feul economy benifits of running that much compression, and the extra power you get. http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/ ... n_Wizardry |
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
I think the benefits are very debatable. First off, unless you build your engine for it (or more likely you’ve got a worked engine with detonation problems) you wont get any gains. If I did water injection on my engine for example it wouldn’t do jack.
In some cases it might be of use, but if you build an engine for water injection what sort of power would you get? For comparison, how much power would you get if you put the same money into the more typical route?
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| mic_77 |
|
||
|
stockstandard wrote: I think the benefits are very debatable. First off, unless you build your engine for it (or more likely you’ve got a worked engine with detonation problems) you wont get any gains. If I did water injection on my engine for example it wouldn’t do jack.
In some cases it might be of use, but if you build an engine for water injection what sort of power would you get? For comparison, how much power would you get if you put the same money into the more typical route? Your engine will run a lot cleaner as the water injection will get rid of all the carbon and other crap that builds up in the combustion chamber aswell as being able to run more aggressive ignition timing hence more power. cheers Mic |
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
mic_77 wrote: Your engine will run a lot cleaner as the water injection will get rid of all the carbon and other crap that builds up in the combustion chamber aswell as being able to run more aggressive ignition timing hence more power.
cheers Mic Chambers are polished so not easy for carbon to cling to it I would be able to run more timing which in it self might mean more power, BUT combustion is slower because of the water in the intake which costs power. On NA engines these pretty much cancel each other out (or so I have read).
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| dcstraight |
|
|||
|
Obviously dependent on application - low pressure and high pressure systems work differently. ie, I plan to plumb a low pressure system into my ambient intake of the turbo to try and keep ambient temperatures as low as I can. A high pressure setup on the other hand can be plumbed into an intake manifold (which is what I think these guys are talking more-so about?) which is obviously the same principle...but to greater effect (AFAIK).
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
tickford_6 wrote: debatable benifits on NA?
Fair call lol. OK, i guess where i'm coming from is having a GOOD W/I setup which is going to act almost like a secondary EFI system. i.e. load calculation to decide how much water to inject - whilst at the same time reducing the pulse width of your petrol injectors to suit.... is a fair bit of effort to go to. Stuff i had been reading when playing around with it on the blower (obviously a simple implementation with a different outcome to N/A but anyways), i'd read about guys who were able to substiute 50% of the fuel being ijected with water. But it's not just a matter of spraying a bit of tap water into the intake to get sound results... (but that'll work fine to cool a compressed intake charge)
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| EBXR8380 |
|
|||
|
Water and metho [Ethonol] is a good combination..It cools inlet charge as well as keeing combustion chambers etc nice and clean!!!
You guys who have been unlucky enough to blow a head gasket, notice how clean the piston and chamber is where its blown????
_________________ As in ZOOM 126 edition |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
4.9 EF Futura wrote: tickford_6 wrote: debatable benifits on NA? Fair call lol. OK, i guess where i'm coming from is having a GOOD W/I setup which is going to act almost like a secondary EFI system. i.e. load calculation to decide how much water to inject - whilst at the same time reducing the pulse width of your petrol injectors to suit.... is a fair bit of effort to go to. Stuff i had been reading when playing around with it on the blower (obviously a simple implementation with a different outcome to N/A but anyways), i'd read about guys who were able to substiute 50% of the fuel being ijected with water. But it's not just a matter of spraying a bit of tap water into the intake to get sound results... (but that'll work fine to cool a compressed intake charge) yeah i know what your saying. it's like every thing with a modified car, it must be setup properly to work properly or it's a waste of time. you can't just spray and pray, |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests |
