[Deftronix]

Have been playing with the idea of modifying a set of swirl flap blanks with bungs to thread nozzles into. Would probably be a tight fit and have to run a rail. Maybe split between two rails with 3 nozzles each to keep consistency more even between nozzles? This seems like a lot more effort than just using an availble bung on the egr race pipe.

Could anyone see an advantage going with direct port over a single nozzle right before intake manifold? Running nothing crazy, just a stage 1 for now but dont plan on stopping anytime soon. The idea behind it is not because there would be flow issues, just to get the most even distribution possible to all cylinders.

Does anyone know when Bosch will be releasing their water injectors on the consumer side so we can begin to move away from the nozzle/solenoid setups??

[335dlci]

I thought about it also. I have a feeling it may be a little much if the nozzle isn't small enough and cause quenching

[Deftronix]

To minimize chances of that I was going to use aquamist .4mmA (85cc) jets with built in check valves and run a solenoid at the end of each rail.

Problem is, the crack pressures on the check valves would probably not be the exact same between them resulting in uneven distribution negating the major reason I would want to do this!

[BB_cuda]

I recall seeing a picture of individual meth bungs in each plastic runner. This was in the smaller round port runners though. Your idea would have injection just before plastic manifold to aluminum head transition.

Explain more about the check valves please. Would you be using 2 (for 2 rails) or 6 (each inj)?

[Deftronix]

quick mock-up attached. The check valves built into each jet would have a crack pressure of 15psi. So ideally no water could get into the manifold unless injected.

Since the aquamist system keeps the hoses primed at pressure up to the solenoid and the check valves keep the water in the lines between the solenoid and jet it should make for a pretty responsive system.

[BB_cuda]

Different engine platform but same principle. I like your idea in that you don't permanently drill the manifold if you change your mind. If you revert to charge pipe injection, worst case is you buy new blanking plates but likely just plug the holes with NPT plugs.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=947629

[Deftronix]

Originally Posted by BB_cuda

Different engine platform but same principle. I like your idea in that you don't permanently drill the manifold if you change your mind. If you revert to charge pipe injection, worst case is you buy new blanking plates but likely just plug the holes with NPT plugs.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=947629

Thanks for posting the link, I had run across that thread previously.

Instead of having to thread into the thin manifold abs or plastic weld something together makes sense, right?! Perfect flat surface for welding bungs in with no chance of cracking/leaking plastic welds. Will make for a super stealthy install with everything being on the backside of the manifold as well. Although would be a pia during a troubleshoot.

Got the idea from this bosch video, seeing how low they placed the h2o injectors in the intake tract gives merit to trying it here. Difference being I would feel much more confident using an injector system like bosch's concept over a solenoid/nozzle setup like we are currently stuck with running.

Hopefully they will release their corrosion resistant injectors soon. Wonder if they will have a nice hi pressure pump offering to go with it!

[335dlci]

Cuda..not sure if you remember the one we don't speak of and someone else posted a manifold setup on the m57 in these boards...I may be wrong. I do remember the photo.

[BB_cuda]

Yep, I have that picture and texted with banned one today. It's in sleeper's build thread.

[AiM]

Swirl flaps are in swirl port that flows much less than feed port. I would use feed port for w/m injectors because of much higher air flow.

[Deftronix]

Originally Posted by AiM

Swirl flaps are in swirl port that flows much less than feed port. I would use feed port for w/m injectors because of much higher air flow.

Thanks for your input. Why would this be the case with swirl flaps removed no longer causing restriction of flow through the tangential ports? They look to be physically bigger than the feed ports also. Wouldn't flow even out between them?

[shnaggs]

I think he is referring to the tangential ports being bigger and shorter, which would slow down air speed at low engine speeds. I would think you would want as much air speed/velocity as possible to make this setup work properly.

[Deftronix]

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in this situation as far as atomization, distribution, etc. is concerned? The goal is to hit a target % for proper mixture with as even distribution in the cylinder as possible right? Since we would be aiming for a 10-20% depending on alc mix I would think it'd be okay with the flow a bit uneven, might even help by causing turbulence in cylinder for better mixture.

With an optimal mounting surface available that would be serviceable/removable it seemed like a worthy option to explore but hydro-locking would be a very real concern come install time. If we had water injectors, it would be a very different story.

[BB_cuda]

Originally Posted by BB_cuda

Yep, I have that picture and texted with banned one today. It's in sleeper's build thread.

Clarification in order here. It was explained to me that banned one didn't do this work on sleeper's car. He only posted the picture. Sleeper did this on his own. Giving credit to proper party.

[335dlci]

Originally Posted by BB_cuda

Clarification in order here. It was explained to me that banned one didn't do this work on sleeper's car. He only posted the picture. Sleeper did this on his own. Giving credit to proper party.

sorry my memory is a little vague haha,. awesome work sleeper.

[shnaggs]

Originally Posted by Deftronix

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in this situation as far as atomization, distribution, etc. is concerned? The goal is to hit a target % for proper mixture with as even distribution in the cylinder as possible right? Since we would be aiming for a 10-20% depending on alc mix I would think it'd be okay with the flow a bit uneven, might even help by causing turbulence in cylinder for better mixture.

With an optimal mounting surface available that would be serviceable/removable it seemed like a worthy option to explore but hydro-locking would be a very real concern come install time. If we had water injectors, it would be a very different story.

Yes you are correct but that is pretty much what the swirl port is for, also high air speed/velocity is what helps homogeneous mixture. Using a bigger port and low rpm lends to lazy air movement which would cause the particles to more likely drop out of suspension.

[shnaggs]

Not trying to be Debby downer, I think this idea has merit, just I personally think the high speed swirl port would be more effective.

[DWR]

Originally Posted by shnaggs

I think he is referring to the tangential ports being bigger and shorter, which would slow down air speed at low engine speeds. I would think you would want as much air speed/velocity as possible to make this setup work properly.

Remember the swirl flaps are gone. Pressure differential between the plenum and cylinder are the same for both runners. At low engine speed, both runners are going to have low velocity. Which one has the higher velocity will vary with rpm, due to tuning effects versus flow restriction, but there will be no clear winner.

Doesn't anyone have an interest in maximizing the inter cooling effect of alcohol? It is not going to help cylinder filling in that location. No time for evaporation. That also means ignition timing is going to retard. The only reason to do this is to improve flow distribution. Unfortunately, the manifold does only OK for distribution of air, and not any better for wet flow. Another reason to try to get as much evaporation as possible.