Back home lets build!
07-09-2012, 09:04 PM
#241
haha i actually checked out toulene and cheapest i could find was $20 a gallon, i had several sources lined up but apparently there distributor(im guessing they all got it the same place and just rebrand it) quit shipping anything over a gallon about 6 months ago >.< denatured alcohol is currently the cheapest at $15 a gallon after military discount(apparently you can no longer get pure meth on island either except one place that sells rocketbrand for $90 for 5 gallons.
not sure what it is since racing is actually starting to pick back up with krp here again.(although its all sand drags and ralleycross.)
the only place that still sells the stuff in quantity wont sell it to me without gov't letter head and card.
if for some reason the meth dosnt work though(dont see that happening) ill still use the toulene/xylene and eat the bigger cost.
the shittiest part is a couple of those places told me they could get it no problem within the past 6 months when the distributor supposedly quit shipping it >.<
not sure what it is since racing is actually starting to pick back up with krp here again.(although its all sand drags and ralleycross.)
the only place that still sells the stuff in quantity wont sell it to me without gov't letter head and card.
if for some reason the meth dosnt work though(dont see that happening) ill still use the toulene/xylene and eat the bigger cost.
the shittiest part is a couple of those places told me they could get it no problem within the past 6 months when the distributor supposedly quit shipping it >.<
Last edited by jerryd87; 07-09-2012 at 10:09 PM.
07-10-2012, 06:54 AM
#242
In post #229, Jerry was expecting to see a temp drop from his meth injection.
He also references not temp reduction with the meth in a few other posts.
I was just pointing out that he is not going to see any temp differences with the sensor in the MAF.
He also references not temp reduction with the meth in a few other posts.
I was just pointing out that he is not going to see any temp differences with the sensor in the MAF.
07-10-2012, 07:00 AM
#243
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: terre haute, IN; STL, MO
Posts: 6,457
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
he was spraying in the intake tube then and not the direct port method so back then he should have been seeing an intake temp drop. The direct port setup just happened less than a week ago.
07-10-2012, 10:18 AM
#245
it was a good 10 inchs before the maf, that should give it enough time to atomize and mix with the air, cooling it and it was working a bit since temps would stay pretty steady even in boost i just dont think the single 7 gph nozzle pre maf was big enough.
07-10-2012, 01:03 PM
#246
He is going to add a sensor after the spray. Currently he is going to turn off temp corrections since the oem maf won't be correct.
About the washing cylinders, it shouldn't at only being 20% fuel. Also, myth busters tested out fuel additives that claim to add octane boosters and they barely raised the octane 1 point when used as directed. Most claimed 10 points in octane and didn't come close. Now if you are talking about adding alcohol to the tank or tolulene like jerry then nevermind what i just said.
jerry, depending how hard you push it you will probably be past my 650 currently without effort. I might get froggy and head back to the dyno to push mine to the 30psi i originally wanted to run
. Also, i don't have much correction on my IAT since i'm running e85. My fuel keeps the combustion temps much lower than pump gas so I just did testing and added fuel at intake temps that were high enough to change the AF. It didn't take much fuel to get that to even out.
About the washing cylinders, it shouldn't at only being 20% fuel. Also, myth busters tested out fuel additives that claim to add octane boosters and they barely raised the octane 1 point when used as directed. Most claimed 10 points in octane and didn't come close. Now if you are talking about adding alcohol to the tank or tolulene like jerry then nevermind what i just said.
jerry, depending how hard you push it you will probably be past my 650 currently without effort. I might get froggy and head back to the dyno to push mine to the 30psi i originally wanted to run
. Also, i don't have much correction on my IAT since i'm running e85. My fuel keeps the combustion temps much lower than pump gas so I just did testing and added fuel at intake temps that were high enough to change the AF. It didn't take much fuel to get that to even out.20% fuel? That's pretty high volume percentage don't you think? I thought you should only run like 15%?
I'm looking at about 10% water only. I think that will be plenty combined with the torco. More about detonation suppression for me than anything else. But then again I'm planning on getting a nitrous inter-cooler sprayer to add on lol...
07-10-2012, 02:17 PM
#247
careful with the torco they have 2 different types, leaded which will add anywhere from 10-30 octane from what i hear but you will have trouble with 02's and a unleaded one which is just as shitty as the others.
the recommended nozzle size for me was 15 gph, which would be like 15.5%, unfortinately i have no way to get that with direct port since next step down is 2 gph and only give me 12 gph total.
the recommended nozzle size for me was 15 gph, which would be like 15.5%, unfortinately i have no way to get that with direct port since next step down is 2 gph and only give me 12 gph total.
07-10-2012, 02:45 PM
#248
careful with the torco they have 2 different types, leaded which will add anywhere from 10-30 octane from what i hear but you will have trouble with 02's and a unleaded one which is just as shitty as the others.
the recommended nozzle size for me was 15 gph, which would be like 15.5%, unfortinately i have no way to get that with direct port since next step down is 2 gph and only give me 12 gph total.
the recommended nozzle size for me was 15 gph, which would be like 15.5%, unfortinately i have no way to get that with direct port since next step down is 2 gph and only give me 12 gph total.
Hmm well I'm sure if you tune for it it will be ok. I just wouldn't run 100% meth with that much volume. There's quite a bit of debate on the washing of cylinders, both my local engine guy, and the best tuner in town say the same thing about running 100% meth. I'd rather not be a guinea pig, especially when you can't actually tell if you're washing walls until it's too late.
07-10-2012, 08:18 PM
#250
gotta be careful for sure i know that but i can just add in some food coloring or something like that similar to washer fluid, that way the impurity should cause it to burn a color if god forbid something happens. plus since theres small traces of other crap in the denatured alcohol according to the msds 1-4% MIK which i believe is a petroleum product and should add the red flame by itself.
im using slx(kleen strip) denatured alcohol right now because im having trouble finding pure meth outside of yellow bottle HEET so this will have to do, 45-50% meth, 45-50% ethanol, and 1-4% MIK according to msds.
not sure on the leaded stuff resmarted i just looked it up because the shop that did my engine build has good deals on torco products. honestly though too much of any fuel can wash a cylinder down even gas, i think people probably run into problems trying to dial in the afr since its more touchy and requires alot more(similar to nitro methane its gotta be exactly 1.7:1). so i would say if one isnt careful then sure, but considering theres plenty of cars running 100% meth for fuel i doubt its much concern if done properly and i pull enough fuel from the injectors.
on a side note it should be noted to never use gasket paper for IVT solenoids =P i know it should be common sense but its what i always have laying around, so gotta order those. starting having the misfire problem again on bank 1 and sure enough the paper was leaking and loosing pressure replaced it as a bandaid fix but i need to get the real gaskets.
im using slx(kleen strip) denatured alcohol right now because im having trouble finding pure meth outside of yellow bottle HEET so this will have to do, 45-50% meth, 45-50% ethanol, and 1-4% MIK according to msds.
not sure on the leaded stuff resmarted i just looked it up because the shop that did my engine build has good deals on torco products. honestly though too much of any fuel can wash a cylinder down even gas, i think people probably run into problems trying to dial in the afr since its more touchy and requires alot more(similar to nitro methane its gotta be exactly 1.7:1). so i would say if one isnt careful then sure, but considering theres plenty of cars running 100% meth for fuel i doubt its much concern if done properly and i pull enough fuel from the injectors.
on a side note it should be noted to never use gasket paper for IVT solenoids =P i know it should be common sense but its what i always have laying around, so gotta order those. starting having the misfire problem again on bank 1 and sure enough the paper was leaking and loosing pressure replaced it as a bandaid fix but i need to get the real gaskets.
Last edited by jerryd87; 07-10-2012 at 08:35 PM.
07-13-2012, 09:24 AM
#251
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: terre haute, IN; STL, MO
Posts: 6,457
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
10-20% of total fuel required is what is recommended for meth. Obviously if you use 100% meth injection you will have a lot less volume of spray to get 20% of fuel than if you ran 50/50 mix since the 50/50 mix only has 50% meth (fuel) and 50% h20 (no fuel). So essentially a 50/50 mix will require double the volume to get the same percentage of fuel. If you are still maintaining your proper AF ratio then you aren't injecting too much fuel which would create a cylinder wash. Can't wash the cylinders on a fuel charge that is being properly burned and providing an a/f in the normal range. The a/f tells you that the fuel was properly burned and not flooding the cylinders.
Water injection provides no fuel (as you know) so you don't say "10% water injection" since it provides 0% of the fueling. If you use 10% of volume injected into the cylinders as water you would run lean since you would be only using 90% of what is required for fuel. Not sure if i explained that clear. Basically water injection isn't based on percentage of fuel. 100% of fuel from water injection is from pumpgas and you calculate water injection based on just water volume you want to inject. You don't substitute water for pumpgas like you do with meth. meth is substituted for the pumpgas (you have to pull fuel to keep a/f in the same range).
I think the off the cuff calculation for meth injection is with a 1 point drop in a/f that means roughly 20% of the fuel being burned is methanol and 80% is from your pumpgas. Volume is all based on what percentage of total fuel you need.
Last edited by binder; 07-13-2012 at 09:26 AM.
07-13-2012, 05:53 PM
#252
The percentage of fuel is not percentage of volume. I think you might have them confused by the reference to water injection.
10-20% of total fuel required is what is recommended for meth. Obviously if you use 100% meth injection you will have a lot less volume of spray to get 20% of fuel than if you ran 50/50 mix since the 50/50 mix only has 50% meth (fuel) and 50% h20 (no fuel). So essentially a 50/50 mix will require double the volume to get the same percentage of fuel. If you are still maintaining your proper AF ratio then you aren't injecting too much fuel which would create a cylinder wash. Can't wash the cylinders on a fuel charge that is being properly burned and providing an a/f in the normal range. The a/f tells you that the fuel was properly burned and not flooding the cylinders.
Water injection provides no fuel (as you know) so you don't say "10% water injection" since it provides 0% of the fueling. If you use 10% of volume injected into the cylinders as water you would run lean since you would be only using 90% of what is required for fuel. Not sure if i explained that clear. Basically water injection isn't based on percentage of fuel. 100% of fuel from water injection is from pumpgas and you calculate water injection based on just water volume you want to inject. You don't substitute water for pumpgas like you do with meth. meth is substituted for the pumpgas (you have to pull fuel to keep a/f in the same range).
I think the off the cuff calculation for meth injection is with a 1 point drop in a/f that means roughly 20% of the fuel being burned is methanol and 80% is from your pumpgas. Volume is all based on what percentage of total fuel you need.
10-20% of total fuel required is what is recommended for meth. Obviously if you use 100% meth injection you will have a lot less volume of spray to get 20% of fuel than if you ran 50/50 mix since the 50/50 mix only has 50% meth (fuel) and 50% h20 (no fuel). So essentially a 50/50 mix will require double the volume to get the same percentage of fuel. If you are still maintaining your proper AF ratio then you aren't injecting too much fuel which would create a cylinder wash. Can't wash the cylinders on a fuel charge that is being properly burned and providing an a/f in the normal range. The a/f tells you that the fuel was properly burned and not flooding the cylinders.
Water injection provides no fuel (as you know) so you don't say "10% water injection" since it provides 0% of the fueling. If you use 10% of volume injected into the cylinders as water you would run lean since you would be only using 90% of what is required for fuel. Not sure if i explained that clear. Basically water injection isn't based on percentage of fuel. 100% of fuel from water injection is from pumpgas and you calculate water injection based on just water volume you want to inject. You don't substitute water for pumpgas like you do with meth. meth is substituted for the pumpgas (you have to pull fuel to keep a/f in the same range).
I think the off the cuff calculation for meth injection is with a 1 point drop in a/f that means roughly 20% of the fuel being burned is methanol and 80% is from your pumpgas. Volume is all based on what percentage of total fuel you need.
And then I'll contribute. I really gotta stop thread jacking people.
07-13-2012, 09:37 PM
#253
whoooo look what i did today..................... to bad i won the dumbass of the week(mayby month?) award by not telling the guy to turn off traction control. i automatically do it so dont think about it, was also still missing ever so slightly up top even after pulling about 15% from those VE cells.
still i think 530 to the wheels with traction control engaging isnt too bad. this is also 26 psi from 5000+ dyno dint register the slight spike to 7k though im guessing because it was only for a second before the misfires brought it back down. i know with traction control off i spin in 4th after pulling more fuel(after i left the dyno) which wasnt happening on the dyno as you can see so i think theres still alot left there. might go back next week with ams there.
sad thing is the dude operating the dyno told me the car dint really wanna rev above 6k too much, i figured it was because of the fueling being too rich dint dawn on me traction control till i got in to leave and hit the button.
can also see compared to binders it hits 491 ft lbs of torque and just kinda flat lines, i imagine thats from the traction control limiting it, since its seeing no wheel speed up front yah win me.
oh also a 4th gear pull.
still i think 530 to the wheels with traction control engaging isnt too bad. this is also 26 psi from 5000+ dyno dint register the slight spike to 7k though im guessing because it was only for a second before the misfires brought it back down. i know with traction control off i spin in 4th after pulling more fuel(after i left the dyno) which wasnt happening on the dyno as you can see so i think theres still alot left there. might go back next week with ams there.
sad thing is the dude operating the dyno told me the car dint really wanna rev above 6k too much, i figured it was because of the fueling being too rich dint dawn on me traction control till i got in to leave and hit the button.
can also see compared to binders it hits 491 ft lbs of torque and just kinda flat lines, i imagine thats from the traction control limiting it, since its seeing no wheel speed up front yah win me.
oh also a 4th gear pull.
Last edited by jerryd87; 07-13-2012 at 10:00 PM.
07-13-2012, 09:59 PM
#254
Something strange going on there...seems like there is a lot of tuning left to do. What cams do you have in there?
For comparison sakes, here is a 6765 T4 .81 a/r dyno:
That was about 18psi, and you can add 13% to those numbers to get the DJ power output (so about 580whp). This was also on 93 pump gas.
This was just a simple short block build, stock heads, cams, intake manifold (no spacer).
It does look like you would hit the 600whp mark though if you were to rev it out to 7k.
For comparison sakes, here is a 6765 T4 .81 a/r dyno:
That was about 18psi, and you can add 13% to those numbers to get the DJ power output (so about 580whp). This was also on 93 pump gas.
This was just a simple short block build, stock heads, cams, intake manifold (no spacer).
It does look like you would hit the 600whp mark though if you were to rev it out to 7k.
07-13-2012, 10:00 PM
#255
07-13-2012, 10:16 PM
#256
the cams are stock, like i said im fairly confident that the only reason it is so low is because of the traction control thing. i have 285/30/18 in all four corners and i get power cut all the time without wheel spin if i dont turn it off
looking at the log its only 8 psi at 4200 rpms, my logs from the other day im at 13 psi at the same point and also thats what i saw with traction control off right after i left. and only 18 at 5k, which again after i left with traction control off i hit 25 at the same point. pretty sure traction control is the culprit and highly considering going again next week.
at that same 5k with 18 psi boost the afr is still slightly low but not too bad 11.2:1 so needs some fuel pulled still. 105 counts of knock with 17 degrees base timing with knock control disabled so again i think im good there.
honestly it dint even hit 25 psi boost until 5450 and dropped back down to 20 in less 1/10th of a second just barely see it with data logger set at .1 replay speed. also from 5800-7100 recorded in my log it shows a pegged rich afr.
i honestly think a little bit more fuel pulled out and traction control off it will make a *** ton more power. when rod edits the videos will probably be able to see me spinning em in 4th. which wasnt happening before the dyno, definitly much much faster way more difference then the 40 hp the dyno suggest.
mere fact that it hit a flat spot in torque and held till the end tells me that it was trying to make more. it spins em in 4th as easy as it did in 3rd in my youtube video.
looking at the log its only 8 psi at 4200 rpms, my logs from the other day im at 13 psi at the same point and also thats what i saw with traction control off right after i left. and only 18 at 5k, which again after i left with traction control off i hit 25 at the same point. pretty sure traction control is the culprit and highly considering going again next week.
at that same 5k with 18 psi boost the afr is still slightly low but not too bad 11.2:1 so needs some fuel pulled still. 105 counts of knock with 17 degrees base timing with knock control disabled so again i think im good there.
honestly it dint even hit 25 psi boost until 5450 and dropped back down to 20 in less 1/10th of a second just barely see it with data logger set at .1 replay speed. also from 5800-7100 recorded in my log it shows a pegged rich afr.
i honestly think a little bit more fuel pulled out and traction control off it will make a *** ton more power. when rod edits the videos will probably be able to see me spinning em in 4th. which wasnt happening before the dyno, definitly much much faster way more difference then the 40 hp the dyno suggest.
mere fact that it hit a flat spot in torque and held till the end tells me that it was trying to make more. it spins em in 4th as easy as it did in 3rd in my youtube video.
Something strange going on there...seems like there is a lot of tuning left to do. What cams do you have in there?
For comparison sakes, here is a 6765 T4 .81 a/r dyno:
That was about 18psi, and you can add 13% to those numbers to get the DJ power output (so about 580whp). This was also on 93 pump gas.
This was just a simple short block build, stock heads, cams, intake manifold (no spacer).
It does look like you would hit the 600whp mark though if you were to rev it out to 7k.
For comparison sakes, here is a 6765 T4 .81 a/r dyno:
That was about 18psi, and you can add 13% to those numbers to get the DJ power output (so about 580whp). This was also on 93 pump gas.
This was just a simple short block build, stock heads, cams, intake manifold (no spacer).
It does look like you would hit the 600whp mark though if you were to rev it out to 7k.
Last edited by jerryd87; 07-13-2012 at 10:19 PM.
07-13-2012, 11:12 PM
#259
lol your videos are much better then mine. where you accelerating to try and keep up with me? that run was 3k in 4th when right next to you. i will say of all the vehicles that ive owned this is the only one that dosnt try and kick the rear out when spinning, might just be because it is still the stock vlsd, only the slight shift that you can see correct when i shift.
