Water injection

[Barnsley-Bill]

All I know is, it made a big difference to how my car run's with lower AIT.
And I'd say if anyone is thinking about a fitting a WI system look for someone with the same spec engine and ask them for a demo ride, the proof is in the pudding .

[Alan M]

Sorry Huw,

You have really sucked that one up and eaten it. As anyone that worked in F1 during the turbo era will tell you. The cars may have been fitted with Water Injection but it was never connected to the engines ! The water was ballast. The minimum weight was tested before the race so the cars went to the grid with their "water injection" tanks full. The driver would then open the tap and empty the tanks during the formation lap by the the time they got to the first corner in the race there would be no water to inject even if it was connected to the engine. Hence why it was banned in F1 it served no purpose.

It was a similar story in WRC only they were spraying the water onto the brakes and NASCAR ... must have been ballast again as big NA V8's definately don't need it.

Regards,
H.

Formula ! cars did in fact use methanol injection for a short period. The reason teams stopped using methanold injection was part of fuel load reasons, as the methanol was having to be included in the race fuel load as at the time there was no refueling during the race as cars had to finish the race on a predetermined load. I have all the engine design specs for the turbo era F1 engines to hand should anyone want any info. 1988 rules on declared limited boost of2.5bar and 150 litres of fuel whereas previously it was 195litres of fuel when methanol injection was used for knock suppression. Rally teams in the 80's-90's used water injection. for example during the time of Jean Pierre Boudy at Renault and Peugeot water injection featured prominently in the R5 rally car and the Peugeot F1 V6 engines. Firing at 22psi on the F1 V6 engine and at 20psi on the R5 maxi engine. Only very small amounts of water were used for knock suppression with no form of alchohol. Water consumption was in the region of 4litres per 100km. in the maxi R5 engine and this figure dropped to 2-3 litres on tarmac stages.
I also have specs for many rally engines should anyone want any information on those or the early F1 engines.

[hamish]

Formula ! cars did in fact use methanol injection for a short period. The reason teams stopped using methanold injection was part of fuel load reasons, as the methanol was having to be included in the race fuel load as at the time there was no refueling during the race as cars had to finish the race on a predetermined load. I have all the engine design specs for the turbo era F1 engines to hand should anyone want any info. 1988 rules on declared limited boost of2.5bar and 150 litres of fuel whereas previously it was 195litres of fuel when methanol injection was used for knock suppression. Rally teams in the 80's-90's used water injection. for example during the time of Jean Pierre Boudy at Renault and Peugeot water injection featured prominently in the R5 rally car and the Peugeot F1 V6 engines. Firing at 22psi on the F1 V6 engine and at 20psi on the R5 maxi engine. Only very small amounts of water were used for knock suppression with no form of alchohol. Water consumption was in the region of 4litres per 100km. in the maxi R5 engine and this figure dropped to 2-3 litres on tarmac stages.
I also have specs for many rally engines should anyone want any information on those or the early F1 engines.

Sorry Alan,

Your source is confused Methanol wasn't a legal fuel in F1 so they never used methanol. They didn't have to finish the race on a preditermined load as they would often run out. I'm sure you remember Mansell pushing his car over a finish line. The teams used water injection as an excuse to curcumvent the rules. They were hardly going to publicly say " we are cheating by using dispensable ballast".

[hamish]

You are correct Hamish in that if we were running the engine on Methanol due to its lower calorific value we would need to inject far more Methanol to compensate however we are not injecting the Methanol as a fuel it is simply a byproduct of the use in this case.

Gaz,

Sadly you don't get to choose. If you put it in the engine it will have to burn it. And if it is displacing a fuel of a higher calorific value you will need to put more in. Put simply it's taking 2 steps back to take 1 step forward.

As I said at the beginning Water Injection doesn't work...end of.

Methanol injection can work but you need alot of it

[Alan M]

Sorry Alan,

Your source is confused Methanol wasn't a legal fuel in F1 so they never used methanol. They didn't have to finish the race on a preditermined load as they would often run out. I'm sure you remember Mansell pushing his car over a finish line. The teams used water injection as an excuse to curcumvent the rules. They were hardly going to publicly say " we are cheating by using dispensable ballast".

You have your sources so the information I have must be very wrong including all the engine pictures and design specifications so I'll leave it there. And my predetemined load comment was phrased a little wrong sorry for that. I should have said a fuel load of a certain amount was permitted for use within the race.

[jardon]

Sorry Alan,

Your source is confused Methanol wasn't a legal fuel in F1 so they never used methanol. They didn't have to finish the race on a preditermined load as they would often run out. I'm sure you remember Mansell pushing his car over a finish line. The teams used water injection as an excuse to curcumvent the rules. They were hardly going to publicly say " we are cheating by using dispensable ballast".

I'm sure there is an abundance of rule bending in Motorsport Hamish but WI was used in all the series I quoted - it may suit your insubstantial argument to conjour up conspiracy theories but it won't wash.

I have offered my own evidence and so have a few others. You can be sure I will be along with more and more and more as the good folk of VPC need to realise that owning a business doesn't give you any credibilty on this subject. You have attempted to make us look silly by scoffing at any references we post - when are we going to see the proof of your opinions? It can only help to strengthen your position if they carry any weight - making snide remarks will not.

[jardon]

Gaz,

Sadly you don't get to choose. If you put it in the engine it will have to burn it. And if it is displacing a fuel of a higher calorific value you will need to put more in. Put simply it's taking 2 steps back to take 1 step forward.

As I said at the beginning Water Injection doesn't work...end of.

Methanol injection can work but you need alot of it

No. Listen again. We are not using it as a main fuel. It is used to cool the intake charge - even before it has reached the manifold. If some vapour imakes it as far as the cylinder it will burn but if the car is running < lambda 1 then whatever the fuel some will pass through unburnt. My car runs richer than Lambda 1 so unburnt petrol and methanol and water in whatever ration will pass through. Alan has posted some numbers for specific heat - methanol and water hugely reduce incylinder temperatures as they pass through. There is your gain. Some of the methanol will burn - again increasing octane. Fag packet maths says that even if I was only adding methanol as a fuel in with the petrol at say 10% by volume that 0.9*99 octane and 0.1*130 octane = 102 octane fuel. Again, there would be a nice increase in knock threshold. My injectors would only have to run slightly harder as I'm only doubling the volume on 10% of the fuel. Again, remember this is ME7 so my car won't run lean to get the benefit - it will actually run more fuel in with the air. The benefit is in the octane "enhancement" be it water or methanol that is sprayed by a WAI kit.

[Niles]

[t5_monkey]

Gaz,

Sadly you don't get to choose. If you put it in the engine it will have to burn it. And if it is displacing a fuel of a higher calorific value you will need to put more in. Put simply it's taking 2 steps back to take 1 step forward.

As I said at the beginning Water Injection doesn't work...end of.

Methanol injection can work but you need alot of it

Doesn't work for what? more power... or are you saying that WI won't suppress knock and detonation?

I'm not sure you're actually having the same conversation as everyone else

[jardon]

Yep you heard right. It Ethanol and Methanol are very corrosive to your fuel system.

Indeed - that's why we are putting into a seperate wai tank and running it through hardware designed to handle methanol. It does not pool in your intake as it flashes off immeadiately under load/high IAT's.

On a seperate note - running a small quantity of methanol in my fuel tank over the years has caused no detectable harm. I am open to the suggestion that there is a risk of long term damage to certain seals and metals but Vpower and Tesco 99 have a significant alcohol quantity anyway. Risk yes, high risk? Not in my experience or that of others I know who have tried it.

[jardon]

It was a similar story in WRC only they were spraying the water onto the brakes and NASCAR ... must have been ballast again as big NA V8's definately don't need it.

Regards,
H.

No. WRC cars did use WI and they would again if the rules allowed - this is from a Subaru tech.

NASCAR - there is no "must" about it. NA high compression engines do use WI Hamish - in nowhere near the same numbers as forced induction but the truth is out there.

[jardon]

Having mapped similar engines on both petrol and methanol I can tell you that you will need more than 15% methanol to make gains. Injecting these small amounts you are is pointless.
Have any of you ever considered what your ME7 map might do if the IAT became "too" cold ? It will go to a fuel enrichment map. I see this often when live mapping bikes on the dyno we have to turn the fans off until the engine temp has got back into its sweet spot. Otherwise we could end up mapping a cold start map. Engines are not happy running cold as well as hot.

Have I already commented on this? Yes I have - you are wrong on the huge amounts required.

I will add that our ECU's take temperatures from the coolant sensor so it could be -30 in the charge pipe and if the engine is hot it WILL NOT run an enrichment map. I can't speak for bikes but if you are mapping a Volvo of my vintage you can select which map you adjust ie: the correct one or the enrichment map, etc. Are you admitting that you don't know that or ignoring it so as to again support your unfounded claims?

[jardon]

Huw,

Fantastic the mountain of evidence is yet another cut and paste of Aquamists Web site, some kids rally car web site, a couple of links that do not work and a Mitsubishi Evo Forum. Hardly even a Mole Hill.

H

How many mole hills before they constitute a mountain? Are you suggesting that ALL contributions on forums are just tosh (some clearly are but one has to be sensible) - why do you bother to even post on this one? WI is a fundamental fact like the combustion engine itself- it just is. Another one for you with pics:

http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/dyno...o-results.html

[GregE102]

LOL at Hamish!

You are with out a doubt the most belligerent person i have ever come across!

Even when loads of people have presented Evidence, and you have still not?
You still keep telling them they are wrong and WI dose not work!

If you had used it on Chris's car you may well of never had a problem and you could have continued your amazing partnership with Adam

You keep asking people to go and do back to back rolling roads with it switched on and off!

Well your the guy who owns a Rolling road!

So why don't you go and prove everybody else wrong? Instead of very one trying to convince you!

And then publish your findings for the hole world to see that your right? when we all know you are in fact wrong!

Lets have some proof from you Hamish! Go and get the random number generator warmed up and show us otherwise if your so confident?

Other wise we are now sick of you arguing with a guy who post up his finding's for the benefit of every one!

As all you have done is ruin a good thread

Greg

[cornclose]

Any chance you could accurately datalog a with and without over a few 3rd or 4th gear runs?

I will at some point, probably not before Combe though as I won't have time.

[jardon]

LOL at Hamish!
So why don't you go and prove everybody else wrong? Instead of very one trying to convince you!

And then publish your findings for the hole world to see that your right? when we all know you are in fact wrong!

Lets have some proof from you Hamish! Go and get the random number generator warmed up and show us otherwise if your so confident?
Greg

Based on his claims it is certain that Hamish has before and after dyno plots showing wai doesn't work - but thats like me taking the bulbs out of my headlights and saying they don't work. If set up correctly - just like mapping a car well or badly - it will work. If you bolt on a kit and throw an inappropriate amount of water through an engine that is not near it's knock threshold or running hot due to high boost then it will be a big fail - as I have been open about from the very beginning. It will work if you tune the car for reliable high performance - which I'm assuming is the goal for us all. My target audience here in particular are the likes of Wobbly Dave - he is running hardware near identical to mine and I KNOW he can extract more from that car with wai. This is where it gets uncomfortable because Hamish maps his car.

I am not on an anti Hamish crusade here (it come across that way because the only person making "prat" and jokes about Wales, etc is Hamish) - I have to be firm with Marco when tuning my car to establish what exactly I want and he involves me in all datalogging/changes to the map. There was an element of doubt in my mind and his when I said lets try more advance - my ignition curve is not far off a race fuel curve (with no knock retard and you feel it take off from 3000 rpm - measurably quicker).

There for the taking.

[wegal]

Few questions for the knowledgable :

1) if you inject W/M into the intake, post intercooler ( im assuming thats where it goes, as there would be no point pre intercooler) is the additional volume measured by anything before it enters the cylinders ?

If its not measured by anything then injecting it does not displace fuel, ergo you get the same amount of fuel added with or without ( ignoring fuel dumping to cool the cylinders)

2) Does injecting post intercooler displace the amount of air taken into the cylinder ?

3) Hamish mentioned wind chill effect on sensors coated in water.. this is valid, but it works both ways, the turbulance in the intake will cause windchill on the air as well. The question is, how much measured cooling vs actual cooling. There is a difference. ( example... electic heaters used to heat a space.. the heater is at 600 degrees c but the air in the room isnt. )

4) In order for water to cool, it needs to change its state, from liquid to vapour, this reaction uses energy. How much of the energy is from the retained heat of the air / intake components / cylinder, and how much is taken from the fuel itself. If the heat is taken from the fuel then in effect you are reducing the power of your fuel. Just a thought.

5) Intercoolers are not radiators, they are heat exchangers, they store heat and release it slowly, the amount of heat one can absorb before it starts to pass that heat back to the air depends on its size and construction. If you run hard for a while the intercooler will heat up. If you then stop I bet you can watch intake temps rise. Right or wrong ?

6) Does the water enter the engine as water or water vapour ? If it enters as water then it cannot be compressed if it enters as steam then it can. If it enters as water then it will remove heat from the bore, if it enters as steam it will not.

7) The calorific value of methanol is not relevent, its boiling point is. Methanol has quite a low boiling point, as it starts to boil it absorbs heat, just like water. Methanol also burns, but doesnt produce the same bang as petrol. This comes back to the issue of does injecting it reduce the amount of fuel added ? If it doesnt, well then you have an extra tiny little bit more fuel per stroke.

8) I have seen a LOT of information on the pro's of water/methanol injection, but none to say its a myth, why ?

9) is a drop in EGT more valid in this argument than a drop in intake temps ? If the EGT is lower the combustion must be lower meaning less latent heat ?

10) injecting water will put the car into cold cycle, I doubt this on a car as the thermostat will open and close to control the engine temps ?

11) Are we trying to determine if W/M is a performance enhancement or a safety feature ? I believe it would work as a safety feature, but I am dubious of its effects over say a decent intercooler for performance.

12) Does a Dyno run replicate the effects of a fast road run or is a dyno a system of measurement, to try and create an "even" playing field to compare power output ?

13) Most imprtant of all. Can W/M damage your engine ?

If the answer to 13 is no, then the whole arguement becomes a mute point. If you fit it and are happy with it.. good, if you fit it and cant tell the difference, well no harm done.

At the end of the day, people earn their money and get to spend it on what makes them happy. There is NO right or wrong with this. One persons waste of money makes another person very happy, thats just life.

Interesting thread, with the exception of the bickering. I said i would fit it if my new intercooler didnt do what I hoped it would... well it did, so I have no need or W/M as my intake temps are very low anyway, and hamish / Tim have both seen the effect of the intercooler upgrade.

For my money..an W/M kits cost circa £400, a good FMIC cost twice that, but I can gaurentee that an good FMIC will reduce your intake temps all the time, whereas the W/M system needs me to constantly buy and store methanol. I wonder over the life time of the system if the FMIC isnt actually a better cheaper investment.

Just my thoughts. No one can rubbish the results of the 60 -100 runs done, as no one can rubbish the results seen off Hamish's dyno. Two diffent ways of testing, like comparing apples and banana's im afraid.

[jardon]

Few questions for the knowledgable :

1) if you inject W/M into the intake, post intercooler ( im assuming thats where it goes, as there would be no point pre intercooler) is the additional volume measured by anything before it enters the cylinders ?

If you mean the ECU then no.

If its not measured by anything then injecting it does not displace fuel, ergo you get the same amount of fuel added with or without ( ignoring fuel dumping to cool the cylinders)

Not followed that so ask me again later

2) Does injecting post intercooler displace the amount of air taken into the cylinder ?

No, because the air is cooler and denser.

3) Hamish mentioned wind chill effect on sensors coated in water.. this is valid, but it works both ways, the turbulance in the intake will cause windchill on the air as well. The question is, how much measured cooling vs actual cooling. There is a difference. ( example... electic heaters used to heat a space.. the heater is at 600 degrees c but the air in the room isnt. )

Don't know but cooler.

4) In order for water to cool, it needs to change its state, from liquid to vapour, this reaction uses energy. How much of the energy is from the retained heat of the air / intake components / cylinder, and how much is taken from the fuel itself. If the heat is taken from the fuel then in effect you are reducing the power of your fuel. Just a thought.

Heat is taken from anything in the cylinder and the water may get involved in combustion but no burn. It does slow the burn - that is how you obtain the higher boost/more advance that improves performance.

5) Intercoolers are not radiators, they are heat exchangers, they store heat and release it slowly, the amount of heat one can absorb before it starts to pass that heat back to the air depends on its size and construction. If you run hard for a while the intercooler will heat up. If you then stop I bet you can watch intake temps rise. Right or wrong ?

My IATS are higher off boost than on in hot weather - is that what you're asking?

6) Does the water enter the engine as water or water vapour ? If it enters as water then it cannot be compressed if it enters as steam then it can. If it enters as water then it will remove heat from the bore, if it enters as steam it will not.

The water mist is very fine but will vapourise to some extent in the heat of the intake pipe. Some will enter the cylinder as water mist that can vapourise to remove heat (a lot). Methanol will remove more heat in the intake pipe than water but less in cylinder as it vapourises quickly. Hence using a mixture and certain applications requiring more water than meth, etc.

7) The calorific value of methanol is not relevent, its boiling point is. Methanol has quite a low boiling point, as it starts to boil it absorbs heat, just like water. Methanol also burns, but doesnt produce the same bang as petrol. This comes back to the issue of does injecting it reduce the amount of fuel added ? If it doesnt, well then you have an extra tiny little bit more fuel per stroke.

More fuel if closed loop - less fuel if open loop.

8) I have seen a LOT of information on the pro's of water/methanol injection, but none to say its a myth, why ?

Because it isn't a myth - lol.

9) is a drop in EGT more valid in this argument than a drop in intake temps ? If the EGT is lower the combustion must be lower meaning less latent heat ?

The engine potection aspect of lower EGTS is valid. EGTS are complex and slowing down the burn to much will make them higher - as would too quick a burn and det.

10) injecting water will put the car into cold cycle, I doubt this on a car as the thermostat will open and close to control the engine temps ?

Yes that's balls.

11) Are we trying to determine if W/M is a performance enhancement or a safety feature ? I believe it would work as a safety feature, but I am dubious of its effects over say a decent intercooler for performance.

Both - see every post I have made.

12) Does a Dyno run replicate the effects of a fast road run or is a dyno a system of measurement, to try and create an "even" playing field to compare power output ?

A dyno measures how a car performs on a dyno. So very important to understand this - it can be a useful comparison tool but you CANNOT replicate the cold air full load scenario of road runs.

13) Most imprtant of all. Can W/M damage your engine ?

Probably eg: switch fails and lets water inject into a static intake. Name soemthing that doesn't have a risk attached to inappropriate use.

If the answer to 13 is no, then the whole arguement becomes a mute point. If you fit it and are happy with it.. good, if you fit it and cant tell the difference, well no harm done.

At the end of the day, people earn their money and get to spend it on what makes them happy. There is NO right or wrong with this. One persons waste of money makes another person very happy, thats just life.

Interesting thread, with the exception of the bickering. I said i would fit it if my new intercooler didnt do what I hoped it would... well it did, so I have no need or W/M as my intake temps are very low anyway, and hamish / Tim have both seen the effect of the intercooler upgrade.

For my money..an W/M kits cost circa £400, a good FMIC cost twice that, but I can gaurentee that an good FMIC will reduce your intake temps all the time, whereas the W/M system needs me to constantly buy and store methanol. I wonder over the life time of the system if the FMIC isnt actually a better cheaper investment.

+1 less hassle for sure. But there is still peformance to be had over and above that obtained with a decent intercooler - but lower gains for sure.

Just my thoughts. No one can rubbish the results of the 60 -100 runs done, as no one can rubbish the results seen off Hamish's dyno. Two diffent ways of testing, like comparing apples and banana's im afraid.

If you can't get wai to make a difference on a nasty hot dyno run then there is an issue with mapping/installation etc.

Huw

[Wobbly Dave]

Based on his claims it is certain that Hamish has before and after dyno plots showing wai doesn't work - but thats like me taking the bulbs out of my headlights and saying they don't work. If set up correctly - just like mapping a car well or badly - it will work. If you bolt on a kit and throw an inappropriate amount of water through an engine that is not near it's knock threshold or running hot due to high boost then it will be a big fail - as I have been open about from the very beginning. It will work if you tune the car for reliable high performance - which I'm assuming is the goal for us all. My target audience here in particular are the likes of Wobbly Dave - he is running hardware near identical to mine and I KNOW he can extract more from that car with wai. This is where it gets uncomfortable because Hamish maps his car.

I am not on an anti Hamish crusade here (it come across that way because the only person making "prat" and jokes about Wales, etc is Hamish) - I have to be firm with Marco when tuning my car to establish what exactly I want and he involves me in all datalogging/changes to the map. There was an element of doubt in my mind and his when I said lets try more advance - my ignition curve is not far off a race fuel curve (with no knock retard and you feel it take off from 3000 rpm - measurably quicker).

There for the taking.

I would fit it to mine to settle the arguement - but would I have to map it in? The cost for a trial is quite prohibitive. I can see both sides of the arguement but remain still unswayed. I still have some way to go on this tuning journey & will endeavour to annoy Hamish & Jardon alike. Good discussion though. About the most interesting thing I read in a while.

[GregE102]

I would fit it to mine to settle the arguement - but would I have to map it in? The cost for a trial is quite prohibitive. I can see both sides of the arguement but remain still unswayed. I still have some way to go on this tuning journey & will endeavour to annoy Hamish & Jardon alike. Good discussion though. About the most interesting thing I read in a while.

Hi Wobbly

Well it seems to be Hamish who wants to prove very one wrong!

Even the great tuning God Russell Thompson uses WI on his Peril!

I have had it fitted and it was like another car.

So why not treat your self to the kit for a couple of hundred quid and then as it's Hamish who wants to prove every one wrong he can give the rolling road and mapping time for free and you will be able to see if it works or not?
It should be the least he can do for a loyal customer who is willing to help him

And if it dose not you can sell the kit on with little loss, but i can tell you now you will be keeping it!

If Hamish is so adamant that it will not work why dose he not show us?

Thanks Greg