Turbo Buicks banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is copied from over on the DSM forums. You can go see the original post here. Not sure why the pics don't load automatically on my post. :dunno:

Pre-compressor injection test results - DSM Forums










A view from down the throat of the intake tube:




And here's a shot of the engine on the dyno:



Set-up specifics: The engine on the dyno was a relatively stock 2.3L Ford engine out of a late 80's Thunderbird. The turbo was a Holset HX-35 running at 22-23 psi. The engine was producing roughly 450HP and 389 ft/lb torque. The nozzles were all mounted in the same location throughout the tests - about 4" away from the compressor nut. The pump used was the Devil's Own 250 psi pump.

Here are the results that we gathered:

No injection;
Before IC temp increase - 29 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 4 deg/sec
Peak boost 22.09 PSI
------------------------------------------------------
1GPH 50/50 mix;
Before IC temp increase - 19.1 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3.0 deg/sec
Peak boost 22.88 PSI

1GPH H20;
Before ic temp increase - 24.2 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3.4 deg/sec
Peak boost 23.21 PSI

1GPH Washer Solvent;
Before IC temp increase - 24 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3 deg/sec
Peak boost 22.96 PSI

---------------------------------------------------
7GPH 50/50 mix;
Before IC temp increase - 16.9 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 4.5 deg/sec
Peak boost 22.96 PSI

7GPH Water;
Before IC temp increase - 13 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 4.7 deg/sec <---no IC fan - OOPS!
Peak boost 22.92 PSI

7GPH Methanol;
Before IC temp increase - 19.3 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3.5 deg/sec
Peak boost 23.0 PSI

7GPH Washer Solvent;
Before IC temp increase - 11 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3.8 deg/sec
Peak boost 23.3 PSI
-----------------------------------------------------------
10GPH Methanol;
Before IC temp increase - 14.3 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3.2 deg/sec
Peak boost 23.05 PSI

10GPH Washer Solvent
Before IC temp increase - 11.2 deg/sec
After IC temp increase - 3.4 deg/sec
Peak boost 22.71 PSI


So, surprisingly enough, our best results were using the 7GPH nozzle and injecting the windshield washer solvent. The "after IC" temp measurements are probably not too important as they only show that the intercooler was doing its job. We did remove the intercooler after the testing and found a small puddle of water right after the intercooler. It was pure water, but it was a very small amount (not enough to cause worry).

YouTube - Pre-compressor water injection


And here's a video of one of the pulls:

YouTube - Engine Dyno Pull @ Street & Strip


Anf just because we like having pyro fun, this was using the 10 GPH nozzle with straight methanol. :D

YouTube - Pyro fun with methanol and 250 psi
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Yep, hopefully this will ease more peoples worries about it and the positive affect it has on the turbo.

Surprisingly, 7gph of Washer Fluid showed the best results with a 250psi pump, wow. :eek!::crazy:

I'm 50/50 Water/Meth at 2gph and the data is pretty much showing my results but at 1gph so my eyes saw the same thing on the Boost Gauge. :headbang:

The puddle brings up an interesting find, most likely the 7gph Water, Washer Fluid and the 10gph Washer could all be the culprits there. More data will be needed to see how larger turbos do with larger nozzles and how turn on points could effect the puddle since there is more compressor heat at higher psi levels. I'd bet a 70mm turbo running a 7gph of Washer Fluid at a 15psi turn on wouldn't puddle. :sw:

If puddlings a worry, just run pure Meth or a 50/50 no bigger than 2gph until further data comes through.
 

·
Older than dirt
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
Was there a noticeable difference in HP and TQ w/ the different fluid combos?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Pump used was a 250 PSI pump.. but that doesnt mean it made 250 PSI pressure. So the data is bad becuase no pressure readings where used.
 

·
Older than dirt
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
??

Pump used was a 250 PSI pump.. but that doesnt mean it made 250 PSI pressure. So the data is bad becuase no pressure readings where used.

Given that there were different size nozzles used, I'd agree, to a point, w/ Razor's comment.
However, the "end game" appears to be:
A. Does the compressor inlet spray method work?
B. Were there serious downside effects?
C. What effect do different fluids have?
The GPH flows stated would not be accurate, unless the pressure was controlled at that particular nozzle's rating. I'd think that the nozzle mfgr would state an op psi, if they were to publish a flow number. Did they do so?
As razor stated, psi?? The actual flow could be determined if that was known. This info would be a necessary step to help w/ validation of the test..
I would even venture a guess that the nozzle mfgr has flow charts @ various pressures, sp gr....Y/N??
It would be interesting to see the tests re-run w/ pressure data being gathered.

Another ??
Does the "venturi effect" apply w/ the nozzle facing downstream?:dunno:
Just my $.02..
Back under my inj bench.:D:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
See I use a pump that is larger and has a more agressive cam angle and it can barely make 250 PSI on water.

The flow rates on the nozzles is easy. The M7 flows 7 GPH at 100 PSI. Knowing the pressure you can then interpret the flow. Not having the pressure I dont know how much was flowing. Maybe it only made 80 PSI or 135 PSI. To which we'll never know.

Flow data without pressure is not data. Its a guess.

Next is what happens on a dyno and what happens going down a track. After all the reason we all do this is to increase performance down the track. Guys with Diesels know that water works great, but bogs the **** out of the motor until they can get it over the hump.

I dont say pre-injection doesnt work, just saying that once you do this kind of stuff, make sure you've exhuasted all other means due to the possibility of developing an issue with the turbo.

Not be on the bandwagon "let me start by doing it this way" which is the bandwagon now days. Time will tell as it always has :cheers:

Personally I think its great for very small turbo's to extend their range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The dyno the engine was on had "issues" so they don't have accurate power numbers. As you can tell the setup they were using is pretty "rough".

The original poster has designed a compound system for his car and will be testing on a nice dyno very soon. I requested he get some gauges on the line this time and record power and pressure for us. I'll post the results.

I run a small turbo on my daily driver and as julio said, this is where pre-injection really shines.

Here is the setup on my 16g mitsu turbo. I have since fab'd up a SS 2.75" intake that works much better.

Couple vids too.

1993 Talon TSI :: dual75.flv video by Hybridgnx - Photobucket

1993 Talon TSI :: holding25psi6krpm.flv video by Hybridgnx - Photobucket
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
"So the data is bad becuase no pressure readings where used."

Common Julio, really, bad, like this info says nothing due to lack of a pump pressure reading?

But doesn't it show how one Shureflow 250psi pump with these different nozzle sizes and mixtures will increase psi and decrease outlet temps? This is pretty solid data that Preturbo is doing what those who run it claimed, it increases compressor efficiency. It could've proven spool up increase but he didn't map the boost vs rpm. But he mentions how spool up increased and others have shown it on their tests. This is no longer opinion, more data is coming in to back up these claims.

We already know the pressure is going to change with nozzle size, how much would've been just extra info, but you're saying exact pressure info is the data that really makes this test valid?
Isn't this data more than what customers of Alky kits had in the very beginning, weren't customers buying kits because installer A said, "I'm now able to run 5 more psi with the M15 nozzle and Shureflow 150psi pump". No one asked, "Ya but how much pressure is the Shureflow pump putting out with the M15 nozzle to gain 5psi of boost on pump gas"?

No, customer A is going to buy the test pump, chose one of the test fluids, run one of the test nozzles and get those results on a turbo around that size. If 7gph Washer Fluid is more effective than 2gph Meth, what does knowing it pushes say 225psi through a 7gph nozzle vs 240psi through a 2gph do for the tuner or change the results? It's the same pump used in all the tests and you can't make the pressure stay at a given psi regardless of nozzle size anyways so we're all in the same boat on the test pumps pressure.

Test proves,
Pump A + Nozzle Size + Fluid = This Result

A. Does the compressor inlet spray method work?
If your compressor was pushing 22psi without the Preturbo and then pushing 23psi with a lower outlet temp, wouldn't that be considering working in a positive way? Don't we already say getting the Dutt Neck for the intercooler is good because it increases boost 2psi due to a freeing of backpressure and resulting in a more efficient compressor? The test proves that Preturbo increases compressor efficiency, that's a good start.

B. Were there serious downside effects?
Looks like anyone of the 10gph nozzles could've been causing a puddling in the intercooler. That would be something they could test in the future if they wanted, seeing which one or all of the mixtures that wasn't evaporating.

C. What effect do different fluids have?
Aside from Water, Water/Meth, Washer Fluid and Meth, not sure as those would be the top 4 fluids and blends to test aside from Nitrous and Isopropyl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Point I have is I test pumps. Just like Chuck test's injectors. The small pumps never make it over 150 PSI. When they're on a controller that number may even be less.

If a pump does 250 PSI on an M1 nozzle doesnt mean it will do it on an M15 nozzle.

Nozzles need a certain amount of pressure to atomize. Its just good data to see the pressure applied coupled with the reaction.

I have 2000 PSI pumps on my kits. So for now on everybody who refers to my pump can call it a 2000 PSI pump. :eek:

Just like those 6x9's they sell at the flea market rated at 1000watts. Same deceptive stuff. :sw:

I never argue it doesnt work. Just that when some says we used the 250 PSI pump it assummes the pump makes 250 PSI on the tests. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
I'm not saying the information is great, I was just putting it up there for those interested. If anything the video was fun to watch.

The more I talk to the guy who ran those tests, the more I hear odd variables were thrown in. Now he tells me they were also running 33% methanol in the fuel to start with.

Also, the turbo was not being pushed to the limits where pre-injection would really benefit. Get a GN with the stock turbo up on the rollers at 21-25psi and I bet we'd see some good results!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
"If a pump does 250 PSI on an M1 nozzle doesnt mean it will do it on an M15 nozzle."
Sure I agree if you're testing Postturbo Injection with twins involved too, but it's testing single and smaller Preturbo nozzle sizes and in the end the results are what we have to go by and what should matter.
250 pump, 1gph noz, 50/50 fluid, 1psi gain. Call the pump 250GOD, doesn't matter, that combo produced this positive result. Maybe 2000psi pump does the exact same thing, cool, customers buy results, not model name stickers on pumps so you'd have to test 2000psi pump for this to be valid.

The goal of the Preturbo Injection test wasn't pressure through an M15 so why bring that up again? What alky pump being sold by any of the Alky kit company's can't atomize through 1-7gph nozzles?

"Now he tells me they were also running 33% methanol in the fuel to start with."

Are you implying that info will affect his Preturbo Injection results?

"Get a GN with the stock turbo up on the rollers at 21-25psi and I bet we'd see some good results!"
1) A dyno test before and after is secondary data to the initial test data he supplied. I'd rather have his initial data vs the dyno data.
2) Is dyno data what the GN community needs to make a test valid now? Would that really change anyone's mind around here? It hasn't in the past and I've yet to see dyno data used to sell a product. PTE's turbo session is probably the 1st of it's kind to do so, and it's the year 2010.

I fear no test is good around here unless it's done on a GN, by a GN owner. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,052 Posts
"
I fear no test is good around here unless it's done on a GN, by a GN owner. :(


well with all the BS on the net I want to see track #s to .. same thing goes for taking the intercooler out with alky :yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
"Now he tells me they were also running 33% methanol in the fuel to start with."
Are you implying that info will affect his Preturbo Injection results?
No. I’m just saying the test could have given us more useful information than what it did. While the initial fuel may not change the pre-injection temp results or compressor efficiency, It will determine the total knock threshold of the motor, which IMO is the main reason people run any type of aux injection to start with. If one could eliminate knock without any sort of post injection, that would be good to know as well. Also if your looking at spool-up time, it will be slower with 33% meth mix compared to pump fuel.


"Get a GN with the stock turbo up on the rollers at 21-25psi and I bet we'd see some good results!*"

1) A dyno test before and after is secondary data to the initial test data he supplied. I'd rather have his initial data vs the dyno data.
2) Is dyno data what the GN community needs to make a test valid now? Would that really change anyone's mind around here? It hasn't in the past and I've yet to see dyno data used to sell a product. PTE's turbo session is probably the 1st of it's kind to do so, and it's the year 2010.

Well, yes and no. I see where your coming from. (believe me I’m with you!:cheers:)

Seems everyone wants HP gains, not inlet temps and not total boost increase. Yes, obviously it is improving the efficiency if boost is able to increase. But then one would argue they could simply turn the boost controller up another tic and get an additional pound of boost. So what makes pre-injection worth while? IMO, unless your pushing your current turbo past it's effeciency island on the comp map it's not going to make much of a difference power wise and is not worth the time/effort.

Say you are able to gain 20% compressor efficiency with the pre-injection. People want to know how this relates to total power output. The most common method of doing that these days is with a dyno. Which is ridiculous I’ll agree, because no 2 engines will dyno the same. I was just saying it would show the best results on a turbo currently being maxed out airflow wise. Thats where the real HP gains can bee seen. A setup like tested Isn't going to show stellar results because they weren't pushing the setup to the limit to start with.

I've done it and it works, thats all the "proof" I need.

To me it’s the poor mans 10-20% larger turbo.

well with all the BS on the net I want to see track #s to .. same thing goes for taking the intercooler out with alky :yup:
IMO theres to many variables in track #'s. Thats the point of a dyno, to try and remove some of the variables. (even though there will still be a ton).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,735 Posts
Sounds like global warming to me.:crazy:

Science is verifiable and the data has to be there to support the results.

When one takes the time to read thru the above, one sees there is very little verifiable data available to support the advertising.

This is the reason that the ricer market is so attractive to vendors.....the squeal of the pig is often more important than the quality of the bacon.

Hopefully there will be continued testing with more pertinent data produced to substantiate, or moderate, the claims as well as what actually created any performance gains.

Progress does not come without someone daring to be different. Progress is not real unless one can verify that it is indeed progress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Steve, I take it you don't think that the test PROVED that nozzle A, through pump B nets result C due to lack of a pump pressure reading also or do you need additional info like, multiple test days, a track or dyno before and after etc to help solidify it?

FWIW, the Devils Own Shureflow 250 pumps are set to 200psi, internally regulated with a pulse free flow, so the 1gph nozzle @ 12v is 1.41gph and around 1.6 at 13.4v. These pumps have a more predictable pressure vs the 150's due to the info above which makes the results more universal from tuner A to B.

So these post lead me to ask, what data was in the GN market in say, 2005, that proved any of the GN vendors alky kits supported (with the test data everyone in here is saying is missing in the Preturbo test) the results customers were claiming?

This Import Tuners data is WAY more than what we all had when we bought an alky kit 4-5 years ago and no one said those kits weren't proven.:yup:

"same thing goes for taking the intercooler out with alky"

This one is more cut and dry, if you can get the inlet temps to equal what the intercooler was doing, then you gain back the piping volume and core backpressure while saving a butt load of $$ to convert to E85. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
FWIW, the Devils Own Shureflow 250 pumps are set to 200psi, internally regulated with a pulse free flow, so the 1gph nozzle @ 12v is 1.41gph and around 1.6 at 13.4v. These pumps have a more predictable pressure vs the 150's due to the info above which makes the results more universal from tuner A to B.
Un if its a 250 pump that makes 200 then shouldnt it be called a 200 pump :dunno:

And how does a diaphram style pump have pulse free flow. All 2/3/4 piston pumps inherently by design pulse the liquid.

lastly.. there are demand pumps and bypass pumps. Demand pumps have switches on top of their heads to cycle power when a pressure point set by the spring in the switch is met.. once that pressure is met the power to the pump is cut off by the switch. The bypass pumps make a pressure setup up by springs mounted to the valve assemblies. Once that pressure is met the pump doesnt make any more pressure.

If the pump you have has no switch on the top its a bypass pump. If it has a switch its a demand pump. If the switch is wired to cycle power it will "PULSE" when it hits its pressure point.

I would suggest "T" a guage into the line feeding the nozzle and look at the data and tell me if the needle "pulses" and see what pressure you have. Simple test with less than 20 dollars in parts.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,052 Posts
"same thing goes for taking the intercooler out with alky"

This one is more cut and dry, if you can get the inlet temps to equal what the intercooler was doing, then you gain back the piping volume and core backpressure while saving a butt load of $$ to convert to E85. :cheers:
thats a BIG "IF" ... Id like to see the inlet temps after the burnout as your driving up to the line:yup:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,735 Posts
Mike, what I do not believe is that anything worthwhile has been yet proven. Neither the science, nor, the practical application has yet been verified from the links provided above.

Years ago, when Jay Carter first introduced a crude alky system for the GN's, we could see the performance aspect even tho the implementation was lacking.

Jay did not invent the system as Holley in the '60s had an even cruder system for NA cars.

Today, the bar is a lot higher. We have two aspects.....science and performance improvements that are measureable beyond the current norm.

I used to have an R&D department with some 20 PhD's that reported to me. I learned the difference between theory that looks great on paper and theory that translates to real performance....

I await controlled/verifiable tests that demonstrate actual gain. I am always up for incremental progress. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
thats a BIG "IF" ... Id like to see the inlet temps after the burnout as your driving up to the line:yup:
Do you really think an air-to-air IC is doing a good job of cooling the charge in the burnout box? I suppose if you have a stock location IC with fan it would. Most do not.

All of these tests have been done. Many guys have logged very similar intake charge temps eliminating the IC all together through the entire ¼ pass. The tests I am aware of were done with post injection only. So pre-injection would help them out that much more. Look at all the SB carb’d blow through guys. Most of them aren’t running an IC either. Depending on how much power you want to make it’s just not necessary in some cases, esp with all the e85 cars.

IMO it’s a hassle to rely totally on aux injection of any kind when installing an IC is so easy and relatively cheap. I say size your IC properly and run both. I see a lot of guys out there with 2000+cfm IC’s running a TE-44. :dunno:

But back on track….

If it’s proven proper pre-injection isn’t doing any damage and you already have post injection installed… why not spend the extra few dollars and plumb in pre-injection as well?

I don’t see how it could hurt performance? The big turbo guys will benefit mostly from the “wet compression” and the small turbo guys will gain back a little compressor map. Also will keep your blades nice and clean… ;)

I’ll dig around a little and post up some other tests with data logging through the runs with pre injection.

Mike, what I do not believe is that anything worthwhile has been yet proven. Neither the science, nor, the practical application has yet been verified from the links provided above.
On that note....

All the scientific data has already been done. First back in wwII turbo aircraft era. Then later with the increased adiabatic effeciency and "wet compression" tests done with pre-compressor turbine engine water injection? Why wouldn't the same physics apply. :dunno:
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top