You win the Henry Kissinger award for diplomacy!I'm so not!!! - more like an annoying C3P0 I suspect. Though there is something mystical about the good and dark side of the force with this WMI business isn't there? I agree that if Matt has plans for the car he should bank on fitting an uprated intercooler.
However, for now isn't there some mileage in fitting in fitting a kit to squirt a small quantity of water/methanol to avoid that situation? His ECM will react well before detonation but in doing so some performance edge is lost.
I see Hamish's point about there not being a requirement for engine safety but in terms of retaining power there will be a "gain" - provided we use the less is more rule and don't overdo the volume of W/M.
I'm talking about M:W 50:50 triggering at ~10-12 psi so only active when approaching full load and ~200cc/min. This would be enough to significantly influence intake temperatures and at <10% of WOT fuelling it shouldn't cause rich misfire.
In the event of the latter I would run a smaller jet or a methanol rich mixture eg: M:W 70:30 that taxes the spark less. That's how it worked for me anyway.
We could discuss "necessary" all day long - it depends on the car and what the user wants. If IAT's are not high at WOT then don't bother. If you drive like a granny then don't bother. Matt sounds like he will be driving in a manner that gets gets the car into an "ECM intervenes for safety" situation so perhaps necessary applies if he wants to make the most of his set up.
I'm not saying WMI is a better option than an intercooler - just another choice to consider. If I was Matt and had £1000 lying about I would probably go with the intercooler as it's fit and forget with improved flow - then look at how the car performs. If I was going to track it I would add the intercooler and WMI as a means of taking some heat out of the high load/high rpm equation.
Your competition is Hamish so don't feel too awesome about it
I agree both is better, but definitely FMIC first.
Bookmarks