Water Injection
18 December 2002, 04:46 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merc_Cosworth,
I think that Richard is better at water injection than Weight Watchers, so perhaps deity rather the diety status may be more appropriate ?
As for the water injection stuff, I was one of the very first scooby owners to buy it, and I'm still running it today, because, quite simply, it works, it does what it says on the tin...
Cheers,
Pat.
I think that Richard is better at water injection than Weight Watchers, so perhaps deity rather the diety status may be more appropriate ?
As for the water injection stuff, I was one of the very first scooby owners to buy it, and I'm still running it today, because, quite simply, it works, it does what it says on the tin...
Cheers,
Pat.
18 December 2002, 07:03 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
water injection in my eyes is a nice safeguard although quote a few people look at it as a "i can't tune my car right so i use this to stop the det" fix. I know living in chicago that seasons change, fuels change, and even the fuel dillution changes in between there. The problem is that with our constantly changing weather you can never be "det free" on a programmable engine management system. This is where the water injection comes in handy, it offers a nice safeguard against det incase of an oopsie. It also when cominbed with the right timing advance and fuel curve unlocks an interesting world of power. I would run it just to help cool down the combustion chamber on those days where you are just going to flog the car.
jeremy
jeremy
Trending Topics
19 December 2002, 12:37 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"water injection in my eyes is a nice safeguard although quote a few people look at it as a "i can't tune my car right so i use this to stop the det" fix. "
True in a sense. There are no aftermarket "100% replacement plug and play" ECUs available for the STI7 (JDM or EURO) as yet, so the user doesn't even have the option of tuning. ECUTEK is just coming on line, and Link offers only a piggyback system. So unless you have 100RON fuel in your country, WI may be your only option to combat the aggressive advance these cars have.
"water injection in my eyes is a nice safeguard although quote a few people look at it as a "i can't tune my car right so i use this to stop the det" fix. "
True in a sense. There are no aftermarket "100% replacement plug and play" ECUs available for the STI7 (JDM or EURO) as yet, so the user doesn't even have the option of tuning. ECUTEK is just coming on line, and Link offers only a piggyback system. So unless you have 100RON fuel in your country, WI may be your only option to combat the aggressive advance these cars have.
19 December 2002, 02:01 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat,
First to buy it, last to fit it
I like it too
This is my old setup, used with my STi engine. There's a new setup being fitted for the new engine
[Edited by R19KET - 12/19/2002 2:04:26 AM]
First to buy it, last to fit it
I like it too
This is my old setup, used with my STi engine. There's a new setup being fitted for the new engine
[Edited by R19KET - 12/19/2002 2:04:26 AM]
19 December 2002, 07:58 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT our higest grade fuel is IIRC about 92 RON(i forget the conversion) and we run MUCH less timing advance then the JDM/EURO cars. Max timing advance on the stock USDM ECU is 31 degree IIRC @ WOT. Here in the states our ECU's can't advance they can only retard due to poo quality fuels. Has anyone tried to contact Turbo XS about their UTEC and possible compatibility??
jeremy
jeremy
19 December 2002, 09:40 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looking back at my logs 25 degrees seems to be the max timing on boost(near 3700RPM) seen in USDM cars(i was thinking what i set it to on the car i tuned) and the max boost is 14psi and that tapers badly towards redline.
Seems to pull back near 23 as the boost begins to taper further and further
jeremy
[Edited by Hndatch627 - 12/19/2002 9:41:46 AM]
Seems to pull back near 23 as the boost begins to taper further and further
jeremy
[Edited by Hndatch627 - 12/19/2002 9:41:46 AM]
21 December 2002, 02:36 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R19KET,
May I know how you have set up your 2 pumps? Do they supply 2 separate nozzles? Where did you position the nozzles?
If you have more detailed pics, they would be much appreciated. I just got a 1s kit and am planning the install now.
Cheers.
May I know how you have set up your 2 pumps? Do they supply 2 separate nozzles? Where did you position the nozzles?
If you have more detailed pics, they would be much appreciated. I just got a 1s kit and am planning the install now.
Cheers.
21 December 2002, 04:10 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT,
That particular setup was running the IC water spray, with the 2nd pump.
I had the WI jet fitted into the exit of the IC. I drilled, and tapped from below. I'm sorry, but I don't have any other pic's. Even this one was taken by someone else, and sent to me.
Best I get a camera !!!
Mark.
That particular setup was running the IC water spray, with the 2nd pump.
I had the WI jet fitted into the exit of the IC. I drilled, and tapped from below. I'm sorry, but I don't have any other pic's. Even this one was taken by someone else, and sent to me.
Best I get a camera !!!
Mark.
21 December 2002, 08:06 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry,just seen this thread! I've posted a similar question,perhaps ignore mine and concentrate answers on this one.I'm thinking of WI also,mainly as a safeguard but also hoping Pat will do some more 'trimming' if I have this in place!
22 December 2002, 02:21 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mark. I was thinking of doing the same thing too.
Currently, I have a temp sensor tapped at the outlet of the IC. I could just pull that out and plug the nozzle in there. The other option would be to use the Samco hose that replaces the bit between the intercooler and throttle body. I prefer the former, as the latter is quite hard to fit with the enlarged STI TMIC. The former also potentially gives a better mix, as the mist is injected earlier.
Cheers mate - I had thought, seeing the pic with 2 pumps, that you perhaps were running multiple-nozzle WI.
Currently, I have a temp sensor tapped at the outlet of the IC. I could just pull that out and plug the nozzle in there. The other option would be to use the Samco hose that replaces the bit between the intercooler and throttle body. I prefer the former, as the latter is quite hard to fit with the enlarged STI TMIC. The former also potentially gives a better mix, as the mist is injected earlier.
Cheers mate - I had thought, seeing the pic with 2 pumps, that you perhaps were running multiple-nozzle WI.
22 December 2002, 02:41 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tapped the injector into the intercooler itself - you can get a tap from ERL.
The intercooler is easily thick enough to take it. You put it in just below the exit. The Samco does not work so well.
Trout
The intercooler is easily thick enough to take it. You put it in just below the exit. The Samco does not work so well.
Trout
22 December 2002, 03:29 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trout,are you using the washer bottle or auxillary tank.How long would the washer bottle last? Also did you remap(?Link) after installing WI and if so what extra could you do,ie advance ignition,increase AFR etc
22 December 2002, 04:55 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David,
am I right in thinking you have water injected directly into your intercooler?
If so, I would change it personally.
Their is massive cool surface area and tiny volume, perfect conditions for the water vapour to condense on the inside walls of your interooler and drip down to the bottom where it will remain for some time I would think.
This will mean your mapping to ac**** for water will be off as the condensation/evaporation process is not perfectly repeatable, it will aos effectively reduce the volume of your intercooler and decrease its efficiency.
In short, not an ideal way to do it. According to theory at least, of course.
am I right in thinking you have water injected directly into your intercooler?
If so, I would change it personally.
Their is massive cool surface area and tiny volume, perfect conditions for the water vapour to condense on the inside walls of your interooler and drip down to the bottom where it will remain for some time I would think.
This will mean your mapping to ac**** for water will be off as the condensation/evaporation process is not perfectly repeatable, it will aos effectively reduce the volume of your intercooler and decrease its efficiency.
In short, not an ideal way to do it. According to theory at least, of course
.
22 December 2002, 08:12 PM
#22
Which david?
DW has the water going in just before the throttle body
Trout has his on the EXIT of the I/C.
Back when I did some numbers on this, I did come to conclusion that close to the inlet port is best, as you want to get the water in as a mist, but not have evapourated until the inlet valve is more or less closed. If the water evapourates before, it will indeed cool the air nicely, but the vapour will take up space that cold have been filled by more, combustable, inlet charge (partial pressure effect).
Paul
DW has the water going in just before the throttle body
Trout has his on the EXIT of the I/C.
Back when I did some numbers on this, I did come to conclusion that close to the inlet port is best, as you want to get the water in as a mist, but not have evapourated until the inlet valve is more or less closed. If the water evapourates before, it will indeed cool the air nicely, but the vapour will take up space that cold have been filled by more, combustable, inlet charge (partial pressure effect).
Paul
23 December 2002, 02:01 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that injecting into the exit of the IC is fine as the spray only activates at high boost (0.8bar?). With the amount of airflow going thru the IC and throttle body, I would think that all of the water mist would be carried thru into the cylinders, and none would remain to collect at the bottom of the IC.
I may be wrong tho. Thoughts?
EDIT:
Palvo's inlet theory makes a lot of sense. A fixed mass of water in liquid form takes up much less space than water in gaseous form, hence ideally you want your liquid mist of water to only vapourise in the combustion chamber. However, the practical issues of getting the water injected near the inlet valve are hard to overcome. It would certainly be much more complicated and expensive than a sub-1000quid kit.
[Edited by RT - 12/23/2002 2:07:04 AM]
I may be wrong tho. Thoughts?
EDIT:
Palvo's inlet theory makes a lot of sense. A fixed mass of water in liquid form takes up much less space than water in gaseous form, hence ideally you want your liquid mist of water to only vapourise in the combustion chamber. However, the practical issues of getting the water injected near the inlet valve are hard to overcome. It would certainly be much more complicated and expensive than a sub-1000quid kit.
[Edited by RT - 12/23/2002 2:07:04 AM]
23 December 2002, 08:46 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have WI on my Version 5 Type R.
It is also a twin pump system that is controlled by the Unichip.
I also have the nozzle tapped into the exit of the intercooler and all seems to be OK.
The most important issue is to make sure you use the correct size nozzle and have the correct flow rate.
I am currently using the reservoir for my Intercooler water spray as it has a dashboard illumination when low etc.
Recently dyno'd with water injection mapped at 310bhp/310lbft. (245 at the wheels)
Very happy with the WI so far.............
It is also a twin pump system that is controlled by the Unichip.
I also have the nozzle tapped into the exit of the intercooler and all seems to be OK.
The most important issue is to make sure you use the correct size nozzle and have the correct flow rate.
I am currently using the reservoir for my Intercooler water spray as it has a dashboard illumination when low etc.
Recently dyno'd with water injection mapped at 310bhp/310lbft. (245 at the wheels)
Very happy with the WI so far.............
23 December 2002, 10:34 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have one major concern with fitting the jet in the TB.
Whether you fit it from above, or below, you will only be spraying water into the air on one side of the butterfly.
IMO, it's more important to make sure ALL of the air/water entering the plenum is mixed, and I would rather fit the jet a few inches earlier, at the cost of a few deg's.
Something else I've noticed (unrelated). I'm guessing 5 Type R's figures are from Powerstation ?. Interestingly, there are a couple of RR's that are ether new, or running new software, that are giving lower drivetrain losses, than elsewhere !!
For as long as I can remember, RR's would give circa 100BHP losses, now we seem to be getting losses closer to 60BHP, with ATW's figures being far higher, relative to the flywheel power.
I'm not suggesting which is right, just wish we could get some consistancy !!!
Mark.
Whether you fit it from above, or below, you will only be spraying water into the air on one side of the butterfly.
IMO, it's more important to make sure ALL of the air/water entering the plenum is mixed, and I would rather fit the jet a few inches earlier, at the cost of a few deg's.
Something else I've noticed (unrelated). I'm guessing 5 Type R's figures are from Powerstation ?. Interestingly, there are a couple of RR's that are ether new, or running new software, that are giving lower drivetrain losses, than elsewhere !!
For as long as I can remember, RR's would give circa 100BHP losses, now we seem to be getting losses closer to 60BHP, with ATW's figures being far higher, relative to the flywheel power.
I'm not suggesting which is right, just wish we could get some consistancy !!!
Mark.