[robc1976]

Originally Posted by cn555ic

I would suppose it would effect it based upon what Jeff and others stated changing over to smaller nozzle caused ignition to be better on the onset of boost. This would lead me to think that better atomization of the meth/water is indeed measurable...

then I am shaving te meth bung, I believe you did this to didnt you? I recall a piston you doing this I think?

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

You still have the auto ignite octane benefits as a gas, but the cooling is best in the cylinder. I think as a gas is best for distribution though. Actually I would think no matter where injected downstream it won't reach the cyl as a liquid... more downstream cooler the cyl of course. More upstream better for distribution.

I am getting cooling effects from E85 also.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by robc1976

I am getting cooling effects from E85 also.

E85 has the ability to provide lower cylinder temperatures, which is why IMO water is not as necessary in a methanol mixture on E85 as it would be on straight pump gas. I still splash 10% water in my mixture because pure methanol is extremely flammable.

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by themyst

E85 has the ability to provide lower cylinder temperatures, which is why IMO water is not as necessary in a methanol mixture on E85 as it would be on straight pump gas. I still splash 10% water in my mixture because pure methanol is extremely flammable.

That is why I run 100% meth....."would the 10% water really make it less flammable?

[akotten]

Originally Posted by themyst

E85 has the ability to provide lower cylinder temperatures, which is why IMO water is not as necessary in a methanol mixture on E85 as it would be on straight pump gas. I still splash 10% water in my mixture because pure methanol is extremely flammable.

Which yields more power, denser air or more octane? The answer is denser air. More octane just suppresses pre-ignition/knock by increasing the combustion temperature of the fuel. Water has more than twice as much latent heat than methanol, which means it removes twice as much energy when it evaporates. Running E85 should provide plenty of octane to keep knock at bay. As long as the water is actually evaporating, a stronger water mixture is probably going to help make more power in your situation since you've got your octane needs taken care of with the ethanol. However, 100% water may not fully evaporate to take advantage of the greater latent heat value. Finding the right mixture is key. The 105 octane rating of E85 may not be enough either, but I doubt that's the case if you're using stock turbos.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by robc1976

So Jeff, do you think my DO10 & DO7 is still to much? making another vid in a second.

Do you really need that much meth to combat your intake air temps and keep ignition happy? Sounds pretty excessive to me.

Most people need a D010 at most. I would run twin DO5's unless you need more based on logs.

Originally Posted by themyst

Shrug, run a CM10 nozzle in sub-freezing temps with 90/10 meth and my trims were fine. My car was actually unhappy when I switched to a dual CM7 setup on RBs.

Yes but comparing a 10 nozzle to two nozzles equating to 14 would be more methanol.

***

My theory on flammability is, either run 50/50 or count on anything more then 50/50 being flammable.

There was some WW kits with 50/50 mix that caught on fire too. Seeing how 50/50 still has a risk, the real answer is either run no methanol, or plan on running an inherent risk of fire with any methanol setup and mixtures.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by robc1976

That is why I run 100% meth....."would the 10% water really make it less flammable?

Have you seen the flash and boiling point of methanol? You can reach that easily in warmer temps.

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Do you really need that much meth to combat your intake air temps and keep ignition happy? Sounds pretty excessive to me.

Most people need a D010 at most. I would run twin DO5's unless you need more based on logs.



Yes but comparing a 10 nozzle to two nozzles equating to 14 would be more methanol.

***

My theory on flammability is, either run 50/50 or count on anything more then 50/50 being flammable.

There was some WW kits with 50/50 mix that caught on fire too. Seeing how 50/50 still has a risk, the real answer is either run no methanol, or plan on running an inherent risk of fire with any methanol setup and mixtures.

When running really high boost numbers...I like to be above 20 psi if I hammer it, I have the over boost at 23...usualy hit 21-22. I had a CM10 and needed a bit more meth so I went to a CM14, then Terry advised on a CM10 & CM7 if I went dual nozzle so I then went to a Devils own kit, went dual line and have not got to test it yet LOL!! Putting in subframe, wavetrac, lockdown differential kit Ect....so I will test it out monday! I shaved the meth bung down to flush and I am making a DIY on it...it is not hard but I have not found a DIY and there needs to be one. Agreed, I run 100% meth but that is the main reason I went stainless steel with 4-AN fitting....I think this is a must with any mixture.

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by themyst

Have you seen the flash and boiling point of methanol? You can reach that easily in warmer temps.

Very true, do you use this 90% mix in warmer temps?

[themyst]

Originally Posted by akotten

Which yields more power, denser air or more octane? The answer is denser air. More octane just suppresses pre-ignition/knock by increasing the combustion temperature of the fuel. Water has more than twice as much latent heat than methanol, which means it removes twice as much energy when it evaporates. Running E85 should provide plenty of octane to keep knock at bay. As long as the water is actually evaporating, a stronger water mixture is probably going to help make more power in your situation since you've got your octane needs taken care of with the ethanol. However, 100% water may not fully evaporate to take advantage of the greater latent heat value. Finding the right mixture is key. The 105 octane rating of E85 may not be enough either, but I doubt that's the case if you're using stock turbos.

You are forgetting one point though, those of us on stock fuel systems will start leaning out due to system limitations, essentially using methanol as a "ghetto" fueling band-aid. The application of methanol for almost every other platform out there does not always apply to the N54 which in almost all instances require more meth flow than what is recommended for the "book" power output.

If E85 were more readily available in my area, and there is some long-term data to support the reliability of 100% E85 on this platform, I'd go get the LPFP upgrade as needed.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by robc1976

Very true, do you use this 90% mix in warmer temps?

Yep.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Do you really need that much meth to combat your intake air temps and keep ignition happy? Sounds pretty excessive to me.

Most people need a D010 at most. I would run twin DO5's unless you need more based on logs.



Yes but comparing a 10 nozzle to two nozzles equating to 14 would be more methanol.

***

My theory on flammability is, either run 50/50 or count on anything more then 50/50 being flammable.

There was some WW kits with 50/50 mix that caught on fire too. Seeing how 50/50 still has a risk, the real answer is either run no methanol, or plan on running an inherent risk of fire with any methanol setup and mixtures.

Well, the risk is virtually nil if the methanol line is underneath the car coming up towards the cold side of the engine bay, with the trunk in the tank. Any leakage point on a proper trunk mount install should be on the cold side and virtually no risk of igniting. I've been saying this since BMS and Vishnu went touting these WW tank setups.

Unfortunately, a few with the WW tank setup learned the hard way that methanol splashes on the exhaust manifolds for the turbos leads to insurance claims

edit-My car was unhappy for other reasons unrelated to fuel trims when I went with dual nozzles. Sorry, missed that point.

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by themyst

Yep.

So the 10% water makes that much difference? This should honestly be a sticky somwhere

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by themyst

Well, the risk is virtually nil if the methanol line is underneath the car coming up towards the cold side of the engine bay, with the trunk in the tank. Any leakage point on a proper trunk mount install should be on the cold side and virtually no risk of igniting.

Eaxactly why I routed minev this way.

Question: I once used denatured alcohol (100%) and my car seemed to be way more powerfull than with M1 (100%)....any opinions on this?

[themyst]

Originally Posted by robc1976

Eaxactly why I routed minev this way.

Question: I once used denatured alcohol (100%) and my car seemed to be way more powerfull than with M1 (100%)....any opinions on this?

placebo unless you have a dyno sheet to back it up.

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by themyst

placebo unless you have a dyno sheet to back it up.

Maybe so, all I know omne night I was spinning out like crazy, could hardly log....next day with M1 wasnt spinning nearly as bad, same road but temps may have been a degree or tpo different....I was just wondering if this was noticed by anyone else.

[Dr. G]

The centrifugal motion of the fluid pre-nozzle will cause a film build up along the walls and you can actually calculate film thickness as it exits the injector if you want to get crazy haha. You'll have the same effect inside of the chargepipe, but the laminar flow (aerodynamic instabilites) will cause the sheet to break up (atomize)... you can then use the film thicknes along with it's velocity to calculate amplitude. Point being, it's too nitty gritty for an enthusiast.

Best way to go about it is, log it, change it up, re-log it and see what you like better.

If you really want you can calculate spray angle using a funny little equation, but the equation doesn't take cavitation into account.

Originally Posted by akotten

More or less, yes. Its more about volumetric flow and turbulence. The elbow is going to provide turbulent air to aid in the mixing process.

Yup, elbows a good spot for the injector, exactly where I have mine.

Originally Posted by Ilma

Agreed......but then if pooling is not a factor, then why do fuel trims vary between banks

I can see this being true......once the meth evaporates, the octane benefit is gone and all you have done is cool the incoming air.

So having some droplets that make their way into the combustion chamber as fuel should improve the overall octane effect.

Pooling probably is a slight factor, but it's one of those things that always will be a factor, you can probably make it less of a factor with better atomization. I think getting perfectly even fuel trims will always be hard ESPECIALLY when it's being used as a fueling solution.

Originally Posted by robc1976

then I am shaving te meth bung, I believe you did this to didnt you? I recall a piston you doing this I think?

I know a saw a post on someone doing it on Terry's forums way back. The user MIGHT have been M3eater, but I'm not 100% on that.

Originally Posted by akotten

Which yields more power, denser air or more octane? The answer is denser air. More octane just suppresses pre-ignition/knock by increasing the combustion temperature of the fuel. Water has more than twice as much latent heat than methanol, which means it removes twice as much energy when it evaporates. Running E85 should provide plenty of octane to keep knock at bay. As long as the water is actually evaporating, a stronger water mixture is probably going to help make more power in your situation since you've got your octane needs taken care of with the ethanol. However, 100% water may not fully evaporate to take advantage of the greater latent heat value. Finding the right mixture is key. The 105 octane rating of E85 may not be enough either, but I doubt that's the case if you're using stock turbos.

Everything said here is accurate, but I think the issue is with our platform we always needed the higher meth concentrations for fueling purposes and since the "results" always appeared better on 100% meth, the higher meth concentrations became the norm.

Originally Posted by themyst

Well, the risk is virtually nil if the methanol line is underneath the car coming up towards the cold side of the engine bay, with the trunk in the tank. Any leakage point on a proper trunk mount install should be on the cold side and virtually no risk of igniting. I've been saying this since BMS and Vishnu went touting these WW tank setups.

What if the meth leaks and begins to pool up, or a fitting goes byebye and you're spraying meth everywhere?

[robc1976]

Made a DIY here for meth bung shaving:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=804819

Here is the finished product: