80% Pump----- 20% Methanol
#76
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by Pimp Hand
Sure no problem this subject has been reasearched out the yin yang.
This should get ya started. I'll post more links later (got to dig them up) At the end of each study ther are refrance material credits as well. And most of them are on this subject as well. Good stuff to read too.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/downloads/naca_H2O.pdf
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/downloads/NACA_H2O_2.pdf
This should get ya started. I'll post more links later (got to dig them up) At the end of each study ther are refrance material credits as well. And most of them are on this subject as well. Good stuff to read too.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/downloads/naca_H2O.pdf
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/downloads/NACA_H2O_2.pdf
#77
Racing Rotary Since 1983
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
ryan,
"what did i pay".......
i don't specifically recall but alkycontrol's site prices the progressive (only one they sell) without 3 bar GM map sensor at $460. they send you the components. you locate them. measure your hose lengths and they custom make them for you from stainless steel hosing w brass hydraulic fittings. i relocated some of the electronic components to the package compartment behind the pass seat w my battery. since the kit comes w a special very heavy duty heat sink component controller for the pump i wanted it near the battery which is also near the pump. if i would have known this in advance i would have had Julio extend the wiring so i wouldn't have had to splice 9 wires some of which were shielded so if you have your battery relocated let me know and i will give you the specs and save you lots of screwing around.
check out the website.... pricing, components and FAQ. alkycontrol.com
howard coleman
"what did i pay".......
i don't specifically recall but alkycontrol's site prices the progressive (only one they sell) without 3 bar GM map sensor at $460. they send you the components. you locate them. measure your hose lengths and they custom make them for you from stainless steel hosing w brass hydraulic fittings. i relocated some of the electronic components to the package compartment behind the pass seat w my battery. since the kit comes w a special very heavy duty heat sink component controller for the pump i wanted it near the battery which is also near the pump. if i would have known this in advance i would have had Julio extend the wiring so i wouldn't have had to splice 9 wires some of which were shielded so if you have your battery relocated let me know and i will give you the specs and save you lots of screwing around.
check out the website.... pricing, components and FAQ. alkycontrol.com
howard coleman
#78
Full Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BDC
Pimp hand, do you have any literature or other reference on your claims about the decelleration of flame front speed as well as its alleged ability to pull a "large" amount of heat out of the compression stroke? I'd like to read up more on this.
B
B
Here is a real good explaination of Ideal gass law. Drag the temp scale up and down. (release it to see the change) To see how temp efects a reaction. IE the slowing down of the flame front by a reduction of temp.
Its from ohiostate.edu
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/...aw/frb2.2.html
Last edited by Pimp Hand; 09-12-06 at 04:47 PM.
#79
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by Pimp Hand
Here is a real good explaination of Ideal gass law. Drag the temp scale up and down. (release it to see the change) To see how temp efects a reaction. IE the slowing down of the flame front by a reduction of temp.
Its from ohiostate.edu
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/...aw/frb2.2.html
Its from ohiostate.edu
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/...aw/frb2.2.html
B
#80
BDC Motorsports
Also Pimp Hand, have you gotten any practical, real-world data from your setup? Pushed the boost any? Datalogs? Any kind of data? I'd like to check it out.
B
B
#81
Full Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last links
Good historical brief--http://enginehistory.org/Frank%20WalkerWeb1.pdf
A nice reference--http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=222680
THE best science paper search tool!!!!----http://scholar.google.com/
My personal best is 27psi on 93oct. (70deg out) With 23% WI at torque peak. The % was calculated by fuel volume not weight. I’m not going to post afr's since i don’t want some noob reading this and trying it. But I must admit I don’t think any one should push past 24-25 psi, it just gets real hairy up there. With very little room for error. No log i was in the streets. But the "OH ****" meter went way up there.
READ: do not try 27 PSI!! You will go up in smoke!!
Good historical brief--http://enginehistory.org/Frank%20WalkerWeb1.pdf
A nice reference--http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=222680
THE best science paper search tool!!!!----http://scholar.google.com/
My personal best is 27psi on 93oct. (70deg out) With 23% WI at torque peak. The % was calculated by fuel volume not weight. I’m not going to post afr's since i don’t want some noob reading this and trying it. But I must admit I don’t think any one should push past 24-25 psi, it just gets real hairy up there. With very little room for error. No log i was in the streets. But the "OH ****" meter went way up there.
READ: do not try 27 PSI!! You will go up in smoke!!
#82
Rotary Enthusiast
Nitromethane???
OK! GUYS, seeing how everybody is excited about alternative fuels, I have been asking this question for about 10yrs to rotary guys, who has run a load of NITROMETHANE thru one yet??, its time the full alky guys should try it! that is no gasoline, 80% methonal--20% nitro as a starter, nitro burns cooler as you get it fatter, its chamber pressure that kills the engine not heat with nitro. anywho my suppers on the table. kick it around. it may be the next level. RON
#83
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by Pimp Hand
Last links
Good historical brief--http://enginehistory.org/Frank%20WalkerWeb1.pdf
A nice reference--http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=222680
THE best science paper search tool!!!!----http://scholar.google.com/
My personal best is 27psi on 93oct. (70deg out) With 23% WI at torque peak. The % was calculated by fuel volume not weight. I’m not going to post afr's since i don’t want some noob reading this and trying it. But I must admit I don’t think any one should push past 24-25 psi, it just gets real hairy up there. With very little room for error. No log i was in the streets. But the "OH ****" meter went way up there.
READ: do not try 27 PSI!! You will go up in smoke!!
Good historical brief--http://enginehistory.org/Frank%20WalkerWeb1.pdf
A nice reference--http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=222680
THE best science paper search tool!!!!----http://scholar.google.com/
My personal best is 27psi on 93oct. (70deg out) With 23% WI at torque peak. The % was calculated by fuel volume not weight. I’m not going to post afr's since i don’t want some noob reading this and trying it. But I must admit I don’t think any one should push past 24-25 psi, it just gets real hairy up there. With very little room for error. No log i was in the streets. But the "OH ****" meter went way up there.
READ: do not try 27 PSI!! You will go up in smoke!!
B
#84
Just in time to die
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by howard coleman
i want to make a follow up to sean's remark re alcohol washing your combustion clean of any premix. sometimes things are a matter of degree and it is all about where that point is on the scale. yes, alcohol is a solvent but used to the extent it is as an AI injectant it is no biggy. my alcohol fires at 5.5 psi and above so most of the time there is no alcohol present. it is also worth noting that gasoline is a solvent.
while there may be issues w alcohol used as AI in the rotary, additional chamber/seal wear isn't one of them.
howard coleman
-S-
#85
Full Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BDC
Hmmmm, ok. Do you have anything datalog wise during the time you were setting this up and getting things going? I'm curious to see some test data; I thrive off of it.
B
B
There is another study done by a DR. Kuhring in 1932, That did a side by side compare of water and water-alcohol injection in a supercharged Jag v12. I have read it in the library. But for the life of me, I can’t find it on line (with out paying for it) Any how, this study is pretty much the definitive work on this subject. You will notice its been referenced in both of the studies I linked.
If i find it online i will post the link to for ya. I got to warn ya though its difficult to follow. I have read it several times now and I still don’t get some of it.
And I tend to agree with Zero R in that AI and WI are better suited for different tasks. So that the end goal will dictate which route a person takes. The wonderful thing is 99.9999% of all systems are compatible with both. So if you want to switch its easy as pie.
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ENGLAND, UK
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I am not so much into the science of stuff that works on paper or in a lab, I like real world experience.
There is no real argument whether water injection works or not.
To each there own whether they prefer 100% alcohol 50/50 mix or 100% water.
This isn't a new thing, neither is it a new thing to rotaries. Anyone who has tuned with methanal knows how well it works. Anyone who has tuned with water also knows how well it works. Most of the people who dispute the benefits of water injection are those who have never tuned with it.
The real benefits of water are not found on internet sites or forums where you can read the science behind it, the real benefits of water injection is found in tuning a car with it, where you can see the results for yourself
I have never heard of someone who tuned a car properly with water injection that was disappointed with the results.
There is no real argument whether water injection works or not.
To each there own whether they prefer 100% alcohol 50/50 mix or 100% water.
This isn't a new thing, neither is it a new thing to rotaries. Anyone who has tuned with methanal knows how well it works. Anyone who has tuned with water also knows how well it works. Most of the people who dispute the benefits of water injection are those who have never tuned with it.
The real benefits of water are not found on internet sites or forums where you can read the science behind it, the real benefits of water injection is found in tuning a car with it, where you can see the results for yourself
I have never heard of someone who tuned a car properly with water injection that was disappointed with the results.
#87
Racing Rotary Since 1983
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
"This isn't a new thing"
MW 50...
was a 50-50 mixture of methanol and water (thus the name) that was sprayed into the supercharger of German aircraft engines primarily for its anti-detonant effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Higher boost was only effective at altitudes below the full throttle height, where the supercharger could still provide additional boost pressure that was otherwise wasted, while the smaller secondary effects were useful even above that altitude.
MW 50 is something of a misnomer, as it is actually a mixture of three fluids; 50% methanol acting primarily to achieve optimum anti-detonant effect, secondarily as an anti-freeze, 49.5% water, and 0.5% Schutzöl 39, an oil-based anti-corrosion additive. The similar MW 30 increased the water to 69.5 and decreased methanol to 30%. This increased the cooling performance but made it easier to freeze, intended to be used for lower-altitude missions.
The effect of MW 50 injection could be dramatic. Simply turning on the system allowed the engine to pull in more air due to the charge cooling effect, boosting performance by about 100 hp on the BMW 801.
However the MW 50 also allowed the supercharger to be run at much higher boost levels as well, for a combined increase of 500hp. At sea level this allowed the 1,600 hp engine to run at over 2,000 hp. MW 50 was fully effective up to about 6,000 m, above which it added only about 4% extra power, due largely to charge cooling.
Aircraft generally carried enough MW 50 for about 10 minutes of use, allowing them to increase their climb rate for interception missions. Fittings for MW 50 first appeared on the BMW 801D in 1942, but it never went into production for this engine because the cylinder heads developed micro-cracks when MW 50 was used. Instead, the DB 605-engined Messerschmitt Bf 109 was fitted with an MW 50 injection system. Later engines designs all included the fittings as well, notably the Junkers Jumo 213, which relied on it in order to reduce non-boosted performance and tune the supercharger for higher altitudes.
MW 50 was not the only charge cooling system to be used by the Germans. Some engines dedicated to high altitude included an intercooler instead, as they would be needing the cooling for longer periods of time. The 801D also included the ability to spray gasoline into the supercharger, in place of the MW 50, and while this was not as effective it did increase boost without the complexity of the additional tanking and plumbing. Additionally many of the late-war engines also included a system for high-altitude boost, GM 1, which was intended to add oxygen instead of improve boost levels.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_50"
thanks: j9fd3s @ nopistons-auxiliary injection section...
MW 50...
was a 50-50 mixture of methanol and water (thus the name) that was sprayed into the supercharger of German aircraft engines primarily for its anti-detonant effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Higher boost was only effective at altitudes below the full throttle height, where the supercharger could still provide additional boost pressure that was otherwise wasted, while the smaller secondary effects were useful even above that altitude.
MW 50 is something of a misnomer, as it is actually a mixture of three fluids; 50% methanol acting primarily to achieve optimum anti-detonant effect, secondarily as an anti-freeze, 49.5% water, and 0.5% Schutzöl 39, an oil-based anti-corrosion additive. The similar MW 30 increased the water to 69.5 and decreased methanol to 30%. This increased the cooling performance but made it easier to freeze, intended to be used for lower-altitude missions.
The effect of MW 50 injection could be dramatic. Simply turning on the system allowed the engine to pull in more air due to the charge cooling effect, boosting performance by about 100 hp on the BMW 801.
However the MW 50 also allowed the supercharger to be run at much higher boost levels as well, for a combined increase of 500hp. At sea level this allowed the 1,600 hp engine to run at over 2,000 hp. MW 50 was fully effective up to about 6,000 m, above which it added only about 4% extra power, due largely to charge cooling.
Aircraft generally carried enough MW 50 for about 10 minutes of use, allowing them to increase their climb rate for interception missions. Fittings for MW 50 first appeared on the BMW 801D in 1942, but it never went into production for this engine because the cylinder heads developed micro-cracks when MW 50 was used. Instead, the DB 605-engined Messerschmitt Bf 109 was fitted with an MW 50 injection system. Later engines designs all included the fittings as well, notably the Junkers Jumo 213, which relied on it in order to reduce non-boosted performance and tune the supercharger for higher altitudes.
MW 50 was not the only charge cooling system to be used by the Germans. Some engines dedicated to high altitude included an intercooler instead, as they would be needing the cooling for longer periods of time. The 801D also included the ability to spray gasoline into the supercharger, in place of the MW 50, and while this was not as effective it did increase boost without the complexity of the additional tanking and plumbing. Additionally many of the late-war engines also included a system for high-altitude boost, GM 1, which was intended to add oxygen instead of improve boost levels.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_50"
thanks: j9fd3s @ nopistons-auxiliary injection section...
#89
Racing Rotary Since 1983
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
fuel octane vs horsepower
dick lambert sent me a hard copy of the following piece in 02. both Dick and I were struck by the eye-popping horsepower numbers obtainable from adding higher octane... of course i elected to upgrade my fuel using AI- methanol. the article deals with a basic piston engine but the engineering directly translates to our rotaries. the article did have a toyotaperformance.com URL and is probably authored by them...
Fuel Octane vs. HP
03/13/98
In turbocharged engines there is a fine balancing act when it comes to making a lot of power on low octane fuel. In most cases, ignition timing must be retarded as the boost pressure rises above a critical point and finally there reaches a further point where the engine simply loses power. If the timing was not retarded with increasing boost, destructive preignition or detonation would occur. Normal combustion is characterized by smooth, even burning of the fuel/air mixture. Detonation is characterized by rapid, uncontrolled temperature and pressure rises more closely akin to an explosion. It's effects are similar to taking a hammer to the top of your pistons.
Most engines make maximum power when peak cylinder pressures are obtained with the crankshaft around 15 degrees after TDC. Experimentation with increasing boost and decreasing timing basically alters where and how much force is produced on the crankshaft. Severely retarded timing causes high exhaust gas temperatures which can lead to preignition and exhaust valve and turbo damage.
We have a hypothetical engine. It's a 2.0L, 4 valve per cylinder, 4 cylinder type with a 9.0 to 1 compression ratio and it's turbocharged. On the dyno, the motor puts out 200hp at 4psi boost with the timing at the stock setting of 35 degrees on 92 octane pump gas with an air/fuel ratio of 14 to 1. We retard the timing to 30 degrees and can now run 7psi and make 225hp before detonation occurs. Now we richen the mixture to 12 to 1 AFR and find we can get 8psi and 235 hp before detonation occurs. The last thing we can consider is to lower the compression ratio to 7 to1. Back on the dyno, we can now run 10psi with 33 degrees of timing with an AFR of 12 to 1 and we get 270 hp on the best pull.
We decide to do a test with our 9 to 1 compression ratio using some 118 octane leaded race gas. The best pull is 490 hp with 35 degrees of timing at 21 psi. On the 7 to 1 engine, we manage 560 hp with 35 degrees of timing at 25psi. To get totally stupid, we fit some larger injectors and remap the EFI system for126 octane methanol. At 30psi we get 700hp with 35 degrees of timing!
While all of these figures are hypothetical, they are very representative of the gains to be had using high octane fuel. Simply by changing fuel we took the 7 to 1 engine from 270 to 700 hp.
From all of the changes made, we can deduce the effect certain changes on hp;
Retarding the ignition timing allows slightly more boost to be run and gain of 12.5%.
Richening the mixture allows slightly more boost to be run for a small hp gain however, past about 11.5 to 1 AFR most engines will start to lose power and even encounter rich misfire.
Lowering the compression ratio allows more boost to be run with less retard for a substantial hp gain.
Increasing the octane rating of the fuel has a massive effect on maximum obtainable hp.
We have seen that there are limits on what can be done running pump gas on an engine with a relatively high compression ratio. High compression engines are therefore poor candidates for high boost pressures on pump fuel. On high octane fuels, the compression ratio becomes relatively unimportant. Ultimate hp levels on high octane fuel are mainly determined by the physical strength of the engine. This was clearly demonstrated in the turbo Formula 1 era of a decade ago where 1.5L engines were producing up to 1100 hp at 60psi on a witches brew of aromatics. Most fully prepared street engines of this displacement would have trouble producing half of this power for a short time, even with many racing parts fitted.
Most factory turbocharged engines rely on a mix of relatively low compression ratios, mild boost and a dose of ignition retard under boost to avoid detonation. Power outputs on these engines are not stellar but these motors can usually be seriously thrashed without damage. Trying to exceed the factory outputs by any appreciable margins without higher octane fuel usually results in some type of engine failure. Remember, the factory spent many millions engineering a reasonable compromise in power, emissions, fuel economy and reliability for the readily available pump fuel. Despite what many people think, they probably don't know as much about this topic as the engineers do.
One last method of increasing power on turbo engines running on low octane fuel is water injection. This method was evaluated scientifically by H. Ricardo in the 1930s on a dyno and showed considerable promise. He was able to double power output on the same fuel with the aid of water injection.
First widespread use of water injection was in WW2 on supercharged and turbocharged aircraft engines for takeoff and emergency power increases. The water was usually mixed with 50% methanol and enough was on hand for 10-20 minutes use. Water/methanol injection was widely used on the mighty turbocompound engines of the '50s and '60s before the advent of the jet engine. In the automotive world, it was used in the '70s and '80s when turbos suddenly became cool again and where EFI and computer controlled ignitions were still a bit crude. Some Formula 1 teams experimented with water injection for qualifying with success until banned.
My personal experience with water injection is considerable. I had several turbo cars fitted with it. One 2.2 liter Celica with a Rajay turbo, Weber carb and no intercooler or internal engine mods ran 13.3 at 103 on street rubber on pump gas back in 1987. This was accomplished at 15psi. With the water injection switched off, I could only run about 5 psi before the engine started to ping. I think you might see water injection controlled by microchips, catch on again in the coming years on aftermarket street turbo installations. It works.
R.F.
Fuel Octane vs. HP
03/13/98
In turbocharged engines there is a fine balancing act when it comes to making a lot of power on low octane fuel. In most cases, ignition timing must be retarded as the boost pressure rises above a critical point and finally there reaches a further point where the engine simply loses power. If the timing was not retarded with increasing boost, destructive preignition or detonation would occur. Normal combustion is characterized by smooth, even burning of the fuel/air mixture. Detonation is characterized by rapid, uncontrolled temperature and pressure rises more closely akin to an explosion. It's effects are similar to taking a hammer to the top of your pistons.
Most engines make maximum power when peak cylinder pressures are obtained with the crankshaft around 15 degrees after TDC. Experimentation with increasing boost and decreasing timing basically alters where and how much force is produced on the crankshaft. Severely retarded timing causes high exhaust gas temperatures which can lead to preignition and exhaust valve and turbo damage.
We have a hypothetical engine. It's a 2.0L, 4 valve per cylinder, 4 cylinder type with a 9.0 to 1 compression ratio and it's turbocharged. On the dyno, the motor puts out 200hp at 4psi boost with the timing at the stock setting of 35 degrees on 92 octane pump gas with an air/fuel ratio of 14 to 1. We retard the timing to 30 degrees and can now run 7psi and make 225hp before detonation occurs. Now we richen the mixture to 12 to 1 AFR and find we can get 8psi and 235 hp before detonation occurs. The last thing we can consider is to lower the compression ratio to 7 to1. Back on the dyno, we can now run 10psi with 33 degrees of timing with an AFR of 12 to 1 and we get 270 hp on the best pull.
We decide to do a test with our 9 to 1 compression ratio using some 118 octane leaded race gas. The best pull is 490 hp with 35 degrees of timing at 21 psi. On the 7 to 1 engine, we manage 560 hp with 35 degrees of timing at 25psi. To get totally stupid, we fit some larger injectors and remap the EFI system for126 octane methanol. At 30psi we get 700hp with 35 degrees of timing!
While all of these figures are hypothetical, they are very representative of the gains to be had using high octane fuel. Simply by changing fuel we took the 7 to 1 engine from 270 to 700 hp.
From all of the changes made, we can deduce the effect certain changes on hp;
Retarding the ignition timing allows slightly more boost to be run and gain of 12.5%.
Richening the mixture allows slightly more boost to be run for a small hp gain however, past about 11.5 to 1 AFR most engines will start to lose power and even encounter rich misfire.
Lowering the compression ratio allows more boost to be run with less retard for a substantial hp gain.
Increasing the octane rating of the fuel has a massive effect on maximum obtainable hp.
We have seen that there are limits on what can be done running pump gas on an engine with a relatively high compression ratio. High compression engines are therefore poor candidates for high boost pressures on pump fuel. On high octane fuels, the compression ratio becomes relatively unimportant. Ultimate hp levels on high octane fuel are mainly determined by the physical strength of the engine. This was clearly demonstrated in the turbo Formula 1 era of a decade ago where 1.5L engines were producing up to 1100 hp at 60psi on a witches brew of aromatics. Most fully prepared street engines of this displacement would have trouble producing half of this power for a short time, even with many racing parts fitted.
Most factory turbocharged engines rely on a mix of relatively low compression ratios, mild boost and a dose of ignition retard under boost to avoid detonation. Power outputs on these engines are not stellar but these motors can usually be seriously thrashed without damage. Trying to exceed the factory outputs by any appreciable margins without higher octane fuel usually results in some type of engine failure. Remember, the factory spent many millions engineering a reasonable compromise in power, emissions, fuel economy and reliability for the readily available pump fuel. Despite what many people think, they probably don't know as much about this topic as the engineers do.
One last method of increasing power on turbo engines running on low octane fuel is water injection. This method was evaluated scientifically by H. Ricardo in the 1930s on a dyno and showed considerable promise. He was able to double power output on the same fuel with the aid of water injection.
First widespread use of water injection was in WW2 on supercharged and turbocharged aircraft engines for takeoff and emergency power increases. The water was usually mixed with 50% methanol and enough was on hand for 10-20 minutes use. Water/methanol injection was widely used on the mighty turbocompound engines of the '50s and '60s before the advent of the jet engine. In the automotive world, it was used in the '70s and '80s when turbos suddenly became cool again and where EFI and computer controlled ignitions were still a bit crude. Some Formula 1 teams experimented with water injection for qualifying with success until banned.
My personal experience with water injection is considerable. I had several turbo cars fitted with it. One 2.2 liter Celica with a Rajay turbo, Weber carb and no intercooler or internal engine mods ran 13.3 at 103 on street rubber on pump gas back in 1987. This was accomplished at 15psi. With the water injection switched off, I could only run about 5 psi before the engine started to ping. I think you might see water injection controlled by microchips, catch on again in the coming years on aftermarket street turbo installations. It works.
R.F.
#92
Racing Rotary Since 1983
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
after being off the road (rain & repairs) since sept 7, i am back testing alcohol.
being as i have a 10.5 to 1 AFR target and on the 7th i was in the low 9s, after removing as much as 15% pump initially, i removed another 5% and went out for a drive.
still a bit rich with afrs in the 9.8-10 range... with 23% of the pump out of the boosted portion of my map since initiating the alcohol.
i will be taking another 5% out tomorrow.
my egts, measured 1.5 inches from the motor seem unchanged so far at approx 1200 to 1250. knock is virtually non-existent at 1.
i will be raising my boost from 15.5 psi to higher levels tomorrow.
it is interesting that both BDC and i have so far found the Alkycontrol system to be very friendly to our rotaries. the fuel delivery curve that keys off a 3 bar map sensor seems to parallel our pump curves so there is surprisingly less tuning required than i would have thought.
i do need to get my egts up into the 1500-1550 area and will continue trimming the fuel, raising the boost and eventually advancing the timing from the 13 igl, 11 split setting.
stay tuned,
howard coleman
being as i have a 10.5 to 1 AFR target and on the 7th i was in the low 9s, after removing as much as 15% pump initially, i removed another 5% and went out for a drive.
still a bit rich with afrs in the 9.8-10 range... with 23% of the pump out of the boosted portion of my map since initiating the alcohol.
i will be taking another 5% out tomorrow.
my egts, measured 1.5 inches from the motor seem unchanged so far at approx 1200 to 1250. knock is virtually non-existent at 1.
i will be raising my boost from 15.5 psi to higher levels tomorrow.
it is interesting that both BDC and i have so far found the Alkycontrol system to be very friendly to our rotaries. the fuel delivery curve that keys off a 3 bar map sensor seems to parallel our pump curves so there is surprisingly less tuning required than i would have thought.
i do need to get my egts up into the 1500-1550 area and will continue trimming the fuel, raising the boost and eventually advancing the timing from the 13 igl, 11 split setting.
stay tuned,
howard coleman
#93
BDC Motorsports
I'm taking the FC on a road trip tomorrow from DFW to Birmingham, AL. I'll have two gallons of methanol at my disposal in the event I want to try going from my ~80/20 ratio to something a bit richer on the alcohol side. More to come.
#94
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 31,125
Received 2,790 Likes
on
1,976 Posts
Originally Posted by howard coleman
after being off the road (rain & repairs) since sept 7, i am back testing alcohol.
being as i have a 10.5 to 1 AFR target and on the 7th i was in the low 9s, after removing as much as 15% pump initially, i removed another 5% and went out for a drive.
still a bit rich with afrs in the 9.8-10 range... with 23% of the pump out of the boosted portion of my map since initiating the alcohol.
i will be taking another 5% out tomorrow.
my egts, measured 1.5 inches from the motor seem unchanged so far at approx 1200 to 1250. knock is virtually non-existent at 1.
i will be raising my boost from 15.5 psi to higher levels tomorrow.
it is interesting that both BDC and i have so far found the Alkycontrol system to be very friendly to our rotaries. the fuel delivery curve that keys off a 3 bar map sensor seems to parallel our pump curves so there is surprisingly less tuning required than i would have thought.
i do need to get my egts up into the 1500-1550 area and will continue trimming the fuel, raising the boost and eventually advancing the timing from the 13 igl, 11 split setting.
stay tuned,
howard coleman
being as i have a 10.5 to 1 AFR target and on the 7th i was in the low 9s, after removing as much as 15% pump initially, i removed another 5% and went out for a drive.
still a bit rich with afrs in the 9.8-10 range... with 23% of the pump out of the boosted portion of my map since initiating the alcohol.
i will be taking another 5% out tomorrow.
my egts, measured 1.5 inches from the motor seem unchanged so far at approx 1200 to 1250. knock is virtually non-existent at 1.
i will be raising my boost from 15.5 psi to higher levels tomorrow.
it is interesting that both BDC and i have so far found the Alkycontrol system to be very friendly to our rotaries. the fuel delivery curve that keys off a 3 bar map sensor seems to parallel our pump curves so there is surprisingly less tuning required than i would have thought.
i do need to get my egts up into the 1500-1550 area and will continue trimming the fuel, raising the boost and eventually advancing the timing from the 13 igl, 11 split setting.
stay tuned,
howard coleman
#95
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PDViper77
Ok, I am willing to get rid of my current coolingmist kit because the pump "pulses" too. Does anyone know what the best kit out right now is? Alkycontrol, or some other kit? I just want to be able to run more than 22psi on pump gas (AKA make big power, more than I do right now using C16) without retarding the ignition to the extreme/ having an unreliable system.
Controller kits tend not to pulse as much, but with any kit if you have a shurflo pump that is not running in bypass mode it will shut off once it hits the full pressure on the pressure switch.
Thanks.
#96
Originally Posted by Pimp Hand
15 Psi with a carb and no IC sounds a little fishy to me.
How about 25psi on 93 octane with no I/C due to it being a 'draw through' carb kit on a 13B with 9.5:1 rotors injecting methanol between the carb and turbo.
#98
Full Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crispeed
How about 25psi on 93 octane with no I/C due to it being a 'draw through' carb kit on a 13B with 9.5:1 rotors injecting methanol between the carb and turbo.
Ok, I never said it couldn’t be done. Nor did I state it was "impossible". Only that it seemed a little fishy. I’m not calling bull ****. But I also don’t know if I believe it.
I don’t have much experience with "draw through" carbs on a turbo app. I would like to see the set up. I would assume it had to be a pretty large CFM carb to support 25 psi. (Assuming a healthy HP) And what % of meth was used? I would also be interested the booster design. Was it an annular discharge design? Or a multy step venturi setup? Tuning a carb for this application would be a SUPREAM pain in the ***. Each circuit would have to be spot on during the transition from circuit to circuit, unless it ran pig rich every where. Other wise you would get holes in the afr’s all over the place.
#100
Originally Posted by Pimp Hand
Ok, I never said it couldn’t be done. Nor did I state it was "impossible". Only that it seemed a little fishy. I’m not calling bull ****. But I also don’t know if I believe it.
I don’t have much experience with "draw through" carbs on a turbo app. I would like to see the set up. I would assume it had to be a pretty large CFM carb to support 25 psi. (Assuming a healthy HP) And what % of meth was used? I would also be interested the booster design. Was it an annular discharge design? Or a multy step venturi setup? Tuning a carb for this application would be a SUPREAM pain in the ***. Each circuit would have to be spot on during the transition from circuit to circuit, unless it ran pig rich every where. Other wise you would get holes in the afr’s all over the place.
I don’t have much experience with "draw through" carbs on a turbo app. I would like to see the set up. I would assume it had to be a pretty large CFM carb to support 25 psi. (Assuming a healthy HP) And what % of meth was used? I would also be interested the booster design. Was it an annular discharge design? Or a multy step venturi setup? Tuning a carb for this application would be a SUPREAM pain in the ***. Each circuit would have to be spot on during the transition from circuit to circuit, unless it ran pig rich every where. Other wise you would get holes in the afr’s all over the place.
Can't really remember the exact jetting but it was trial and error by simply increasing jet sizes. Also the Methanol was injected using a NOS plate under the carb.