madrotor

I wouldn't really do that if I were you, peroxide produces its own heat as it decomposes in fact it tends to explode and this will add to the shock and induce wear on the engine also if the peroxide is decomposed before going into the engine the water vapor and oxygen will be very hot and thus take up a lot of space and not very much could get into the chamber at a time and the amount it heats up upon reacting with the fuel wont be as dramatic and so the power would be low.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Think I'll give it a miss ...lol

AAaF

Good to hear you are enjoying your setup. Must be the definition of well deserved! Would really like to join for a ride, but 17624km says no.....

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Cheers ! That's only 1/2 way around ... do eet !

olddragger

iTrader: (3)

Idea? Have you thought about cooling the fuel?
cool cans are old school and not very practical for dd, but the special run or track day it has possibilities..

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Thanks OD . The idea has been suggested before and I'm sure it has merit in certain situations.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

hmmmmmmm

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Trying to figure out how these two go together .... something like this ?

Maybe this will work better ?

JimmyBlack

Nice carpet, is that wool or synthetic?

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

It's a snail resistant mat

JimmyBlack

Brettus, it's fair to say you have a snail problem.

Is this the mother of all bolt-on upgrades, or are you looking at a new turbo manifold?

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

I think you are right ...I need help !

Just another 'upgrade'. Thinking about how all the other 'upgrades' did stuff all I realised one thing that really did make a difference (in a bad way) was the smaller AR housing ..... so why not go bigger !?

jcbrx8

Brett,

So, is the whip down for upgrades...the turbine upgrade If so, how's it going? Curious what was the negative result of earlier swapping to the smaller AR housing. Obviously you're looking for improvements from a larger AR...what target objectives do you have in mind in terms of boost threshold, spool dynamics, top end

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Haven't been able to get motivated to do it yet .
The dynamics of my manifold design work in mysterious ways and it took me a long time to understand it . When I tried the smaller AR the minimal effect on spoolup was offset by lower torque , so I got less power per psi at both low rpm and high rpm.
With the larger AR I'm hoping for a small reduction in spoolup (14psi by 4000rpm vs current 3800) without a corresponding drop in torque. Up top I'm hoping to see the maf peak rpm go up 200-300 rpm which should give me an extra 20-30whp. All the other 'upgrades' I've done have had the effect of putting more air through the wastegate and moving the maf peak rpm down (producing the same whp but at a lower rpm) . Getting more air through the turbine SHOULD have the opposite effect . Fingers crossed.

As to why that happens ..... my theory is that the path through the manifold tubes that feed the turbine is way less restrictive/turbulent than that through the wastegate , so more air through the turbine is always going to be more efficient and make more power than more through the wastegate.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Just gunna park this here for future reference . Good info on Intercooler core design !

http://www.treadstoneperformance.com...install-84.pdf

jcbrx8

Brett - I saw your graph of no HP increase while injecting W/M vs without.

But per Stroker's comment... did you experiment w/ increasing boost &/or timing while running W/M? If so, what were the results of your experimentation w/ W/M injection combined w/ increased boost &/or timing?

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

I was really looking for some majic ....more power with same mass air flow . When I didn't see any I didn't try more boost or timing ...... If you believe my theory on the Renesis power 'cieling' you will understand why.

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

Except you didn’t try shoving more mass through, which is the only reason to employ that method. It’s not intended as a power enhancer in and of itself. It’s to safely allow more mass flow to achieve the power gain. Thus, your theory remains a theory.

jcbrx8

Ah yes, your theory postulates that the Renesis power potential is limited by mass air flow correlating to ~400HP d/t the design of the exhaust ports. And since your engine is already near that threshold you didn't experiment with increasing timing or boost.

Then your testing did not rule out power gains d/t increased timing or boost while injecting W/M for those with MAF headroom under the 400 HP level.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

I was trying w/m into the APV runners only . Thought It might do some majic as there is no fuel injected into them and maybe that was an issue at high power ...... . It didn't do anything special so I gave up on it.

If you are referring to my 'ceiling' theory ....then yes of course it's still a theory . That test was never trying to prove or disprove it so not sure why you would say that .....

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

True ....but then again , I've already been down that track years ago and ended up ditching w/m . I never really trusted it on my setup. Then again what I had wasn't very sophisticated so .......

jcbrx8

I'm investigating W/M injection vs. Ethanol mixing. W/M is attractive..., the thermodynamic theory is sound, but haven't found anyone to successfully run it on a Renesis. I'm wondering if the labyrinth of long and winding passage ways in our UIM/LIMs prohibit successful application.

Know of anyone who has successfully run it?

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

I came to that exact conclusion. I'm sure there will be a way to do it that works but I had some bad experiences with mine and just ended up not trusting that it was going to save an engine. Ethanol ...on the other hand........ I'm pretty sure it has prevented detonations, that would have happened otherwise ,on several occasions.


Lot's of people run it ........... whether it is actually saving their engines ...I don't know.

RotaryMachineRx

iTrader: (1)

Corrected ^

If we want to be completely technical/scientific, it is not a scientific theory until it is proven and can be repeatedly tested and confirmed, until then it is just a hypothesis...

No I have nothing productive to add to this conversation.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

It's actually closer to a theory by that definition RMRx . It has been repeatedly tested by quite a few people that have tried to make big power on a Renesis and failed. I would venture to say ......it's been tried more times than we all think it has. But no-one likes to admit failure so we never find out about most of them.