Looks clean to me. Major Props!

 

oh yeah and that black stuff under the hood isnt dirt..its paint..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RMS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

pussed out on the 2nd stage as you can see by hp dropping off and af waaaay rich. but power was still great and the engine lasted a very long time even as an n2o gutton </TD></TR></TABLE>

What were your fuel values and nitrous jets for the second stage?

 

one 46 jet in the airbox for the first stage (solenoid+purge in the fender where a cold-air filter would usually be ).
four 24 jets dp on the bottom of the mani for second stage.
timing starts off at about 13 and increases to 20 total by 6800rpm.
this is used with a flip chip board i designed several years ago. as n2o solenoids are energized the chip (27xx010) switches to a different memory simultaneously for each stage. also incorportated a programable delay between stages to lighten the shock load on the drivetrain. if crome/john would add some programable outputs this would be the ticket for serious/budget guys. as it is the s300 has improved hondata's way of handling n2o to the point that my board is obsolete (if the new n2o outputs in the s300 work.. i haven't tried them yet personally).

edit: 65# p&h injectors with c16 btw.

 

I have another question specific to the generic zex, nos dry kit.

example the NOS 5122 dry kit with the blue 'fuel manifold' with the 0.042 jet in it to bleed nitrous to the FPR

what's the equation/relation between this jet size and how much psi the FPR reference port sees ... i know it has to be some % of bottle pressure (which is supposedly how these kits 'retune' for varying bottle conditions) so an answer based on bottle pressure is fine too ...

the reason i ask is that if you know that you should be getting x extra psi of fuel pressure, and you have y psi of rail pressure off the nitrous, then you can theoretically calculate the largest dry shot safe for that specific car based on injector size & IDC & pressure ratio

then the other question i have about these dry kits is assume you're fuel pressure doubles when you're spraying, so you have about 42% more fuel available (based on flow being square root of pressure) ...

the problem i have ( i can't wrap my head around this fully) ... is say your car is making 100hp at 3000 rpms and 200 hp at 600 rpm (you have some 200hp all motor car that you want to spray) ...

since your fuel is multiplicative that means you have 142hp worth of fuel at 3000rpm and 282 hp worth of fuel at 6000 rpm (based on that 42% coming from the raised pressure) ... this means that a 42shot is safe at 3000 but at 6000 you can get away with an 82 shot...

using this logic, and knowing that you never really want your fuel pressure much higher than 80 maybe 90psi ... i don't quite see how it is physically possible to spray even a 75 shot using a dry manifold kit of this style on say a 150hp 4 cylinder at low rpms because your a/f shoud start out really lean and as IDC builds up (multiplied by 1.42 for added pressure) you will eventually get a decent a/f and then maybe run rich up top depending on the shot size obviously

am i getting this wrong somewhere ?

 

another factor to add into your equation:
n2o flows at a more or less constant rate through the jet(s) while the engine cycle time decreases with rpm... as it turns out twice the n2o enters the engine per stroke at 3000rpm as opposed to 6000rpm, more or less. so you make far more hp/tq at the lower rpms with n2o than you do at the upper rpms. notice the dyno graph? tune a ture dry shot like you are using as an example to be safe at 3000rpm and you're pig rich at the upper rpm range AND on larger shots you CAN, in theory, run somewhat leaner on top anyway (though i obviously don't). that is the reason that hondata changed the add fuel value from one overall number to a seperate number at each 1000 rpm - way better for tuning big shots.

i have a dyno of a stock b16 with juice that we did that gained 120whp/100wtq at 6400rpm but only 60whp/40wtq at 7700rpm as an example.

that is the fasination with progressive kits (i like the idea, but not the current execution of it). pulse the solenoid (pwm) so that n2o hp/tq delivery is linear or increasing rather than decreasing with rpm.

 

yeah i know what it is you arrogant bastard! your set up might be fast but still looks like **** . you are the type of ******** that expletive this whole sport up by having the attitudes that you have.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cubish &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

</TD></TR></TABLE>

God that looks awfully familiar

 

RMS Nice write up. Its cool to see another nitrous junky on here.

I agree with you on running the ems to run the fuel side of the nitrous system. I really think this is going to be the future of nitrous systems. I set up my car this way and made hudge ground.

The biggest thing I noticed was on activation, all nitrous systems will run lean for about .5 to 1.0 seconds (due to the bell curve of nitrous) even after adjusting the nitrous and fuel lines lengths. So when you start running in the 6:1 N/F ratios you are playing with fire at activation. I had one guy that told me I was full of it. So I told him to pull his plugs a second after activation. He was blown away that the plugs were so clean they looked brand new.

But back to your engine cycle verse linear nitrous flow. Another way to look at why nitrous systems make more power at 3000rpm verses 6000rpm.
At 3000rpm your engine has 40m/s until the next cycle. At 6000rpm your engine has only 20m/s until the next cycle.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Harv, I have rarely seen a NOS tune that actually put out the power that it advertised... and even more rarely make more power than advertised. The one application where this does not hold true..... turbo cars.

We all know (or I at least assume we all know) that nitrous creates massive exhaust energy.....and we all know what makes a turbo spin. So follow the math with me... 1+1=2. The other thing that those haridryers love.... excess fuel in the exhaust (hence why two-step rev limiters work great for spooling the turbo on a manual tranny car). So we know nitrous makes massive exhaust enery, we know that excess fuel helps get her spinnin, we know NOS provides garbage tunes to their customers that are massively fuel rich so...... 1+1+1=that turbo is going to spin its guts out even with the gate open.

Damn I love this thread.
</TD></TR></TABLE>


That may sound like a good theory to the people on this thread that don't understand but here's an easy way for you to figure out you're wrong;

Nitrous adds more than advertised power levels to supercharged cars too.

The added power comes from the cooling effect, which according to you is bogus.

No flames, just facts.

 

sorry i didn't explain the engine cycle time very well... you got the gist though, and i hope your explaination cleared it up for everyone

the lean-at-activation is a subject very few people consider. and to be truthful, i don't quite understand the mechanism behind it. since most solenoids will be heat soaked to 180F+ it seems the initial n2o flow should be n2o in a gaseous form for sure. and that should lead to a rich initial condition. but without a doubt every system i've seen shows that lean flaw. with the ecu control you can fix the first engagement AF (like in the dynos i posted), but unless you are at that exact rpm for every shift each gear shift results in a short lean spike.

JimWolf and ClarkSteppler sp? were the first ones to bring it up to me, and i never forgot it. their Nissan systems add n2o at the throttle body(ies)... probably 18-20" before the fuel injectors. so they delayed fuel addition by the intake-mani-vol/engine-displacement/rpm equation to get close to simultaneous delivery of both to the cylinder AND continue to add fuel past when the solenoid closes so that no lonesome n2o reaches the motor
the code for that is beyond me, but with airbox introduction of n2o on a honda at least the hit is rich for sure.... shifting AFTER the upper n2o deactivation limit on the other hand . each shift results in a significant volume of n2o without fuel, but since the engine is in vacuum and decel fuel cut is kicking in it appears to be safe.

with better tech and knowledge i'm sure alot more people would opt for n2o.

 

PCR & Harv - Yes i know as am i humble in most everything i do, but dont sell yourself short saying that your not "smart" concerning nitro. U know what i mean? I gotta give respect to were its due and will! Hats off to both of you!

Coming back to the dry shot... i ment the reg. ol dry shot in the intake BUT am goin to use FPR, gauge, 450s and wideband to keep her under better tabs...

I belive some one else ask a simalar ? as well concerning how much nitro. is safe taking into account you had enough fuel through the injectors...

Yes im in the west as well. Idaho and its freezing. i just left shop and its 15degrees! I had thought bout doing a purge as well. Blanket is just for extra securety on my part...

I all rdy have the nos dry kit and 450s for free... Soo i fig that with bumped up fuel psi and a widband, itll give me a good idea of were im at as far as rich vs lean. And how much more fuel ill need for each jump in jettin


What im wanting is to push the envolope on this LS motor (stock) with what ive got (nos dry kit and 450s) while just investing in a lil extra security (FPR duh, gauge duh, blanket and widband for security and tracking) Going to work from 75 and go up... Just want to keep tabs as best as poss. while going up ya know?

Seems like im missing something tho....... (besides knowaldge haha)

Susgestions from here???

 

RMS: Thank you sir!

 

well the way the NOS kit i'm asking about works fuel pressure is raised first, then the fpss grounds the 2nd solonoid (in series with the first) and that allows the n2o to flow to the motor...

i believe that by doing this NOS were looking to take care of the initial lean in because the fuel (at least the pressure) is present before the n2o starts injecting.

what you're saying about cycle time make what i was worried about even worse...

can the emanage handle nitrous enrichment ?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RMS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> if crome/john would add some programable outputs this would be the ticket for serious/budget guys. </TD></TR></TABLE>

It's in the works... should be fully tested and public sometime in the next few weeks...

 

now that's a good thing

 

Chimpo. I just have never experienced any dramatic power difference on a supercharged car, hence why I stick to my theory. If you really delve into the "cooling" effect you will find that it is more than bogus, its backwards as far as total power gain is concerned.

This theory says that the cooling effect causes a more dense intake charge and thus more power due to a denser concentration of oxygen. And it is correct in a static enviornment. Cooler=denser=more oxygen=ability to burn more fuel. I think few would disagree with this statement. Incorrect assumption #1 = do the math on the density changes with air and how much you have to cool an intake charge to provide 30% more oxygen. This is just how much TOTAL density change that must occur to change the power level by 30%.


The part that you (and virtually everyone else) overlook is why the nitrous is causing the "cooling" effect in the first place. We have a combination of liquid nitrous oxide in a gaseous substrate being injected into the intake runner at some given percentage of gas and liquid nitrous. As the liquid nitrous sucks in heat (and provides your precious cooling effect) it begins to boil and phase change into a gaseous form. As this happens the nitrous increases in volume by over 300x which is 30,000%.

So taking this new (and conservatively rounded) information, please feel free to form a logical a scientific explanation as to why this precious cooling effect is anything other than a simple and incorrect answer to a rather complex question.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Chimpo. I just have never experienced any dramatic power difference on a supercharged car, hence why I stick to my theory. If you really delve into the "cooling" effect you will find that it is more than bogus, its backwards as far as total power gain is concerned.

This theory says that the cooling effect causes a more dense intake charge and thus more power due to a denser concentration of oxygen. And it is correct in a static enviornment. Cooler=denser=more oxygen=ability to burn more fuel. I think few would disagree with this statement. Incorrect assumption #1 = do the math on the density changes with air and how much you have to cool an intake charge to provide 30% more oxygen. This is just how much TOTAL density change that must occur to change the power level by 30%.


The part that you (and virtually everyone else) overlook is why the nitrous is causing the "cooling" effect in the first place. We have a combination of liquid nitrous oxide in a gaseous substrate being injected into the intake runner at some given percentage of gas and liquid nitrous. As the liquid nitrous sucks in heat (and provides your precious cooling effect) it begins to boil and phase change into a gaseous form. As this happens the nitrous increases in volume by over 300x which is 30,000%.

So taking this new (and conservatively rounded) information, please feel free to form a logical a scientific explanation as to why this precious cooling effect is anything other than a simple and incorrect answer to a rather complex question.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i don't play tennis.but i do know the ball has been served on this one.

 

^^^^ ROFL!

Harv. I reexplain it to you in a PM

 

the real question iS.does pop corn really POP or does it EXPLODE.

harv

 

My nitrous jets have holes in em the size of popcorn kernels.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Chimpo. I just have never experienced any dramatic power difference on a supercharged car, hence why I stick to my theory. If you really delve into the "cooling" effect you will find that it is more than bogus, its backwards as far as total power gain is concerned.

This theory says that the cooling effect causes a more dense intake charge and thus more power due to a denser concentration of oxygen. And it is correct in a static enviornment. Cooler=denser=more oxygen=ability to burn more fuel. I think few would disagree with this statement. Incorrect assumption #1 = do the math on the density changes with air and how much you have to cool an intake charge to provide 30% more oxygen. This is just how much TOTAL density change that must occur to change the power level by 30%.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Let's assume a 200hp boosted engine has a 50hp nitrous kit hooked to it. Using your math, a 30% gain would be 60hp+the 50 shot= 310hp. I would have to say your expectations are a little optimistic and it's easy to see how you get your feelings hurt by nitrous added to boost.

It's more realistic to gain 5-7% by cooling the boosted air. 7% of a 200hp engine is 14hp+50shot = 264hp.

The change in air density may seem hard to believe but don't forget to factor in that boosted engine intake air temps are 180- 220F and because they are pressurized, they have more dencity. The cooling effect of nitrous can lower intake temps up to 75 degrees, which is getting close to the 30% number you were tossing around, of 220F.

In fact where are you getting 30% from? Nitrous by weight is 36% oxygen. Nitrous has 2.3 time more oxxygen than ambient air at the same pressure. 30%?!


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The part that you (and virtually everyone else) overlook is why the nitrous is causing the "cooling" effect in the first place. We have a combination of liquid nitrous oxide in a gaseous substrate being injected into the intake runner at some given percentage of gas and liquid nitrous. As the liquid nitrous sucks in heat (and provides your precious cooling effect) it begins to boil and phase change into a gaseous form. As this happens the nitrous increases in volume by over 300x which is 30,000%.

So taking this new (and conservatively rounded) information, please feel free to form a logical a scientific explanation as to why this precious cooling effect is anything other than a simple and incorrect answer to a rather complex question.</TD></TR></TABLE>

In your first sentence you understand that liquid nitrous boils at -127* and is sucking in intake charge's heat, which would cool the air, to make it a gas but somehow you still maintain that there is no intercooler effect. Bring a pan of water to a boil. Now add a cup of cold water. The boiling stops. The small amount of cool water brought the entire pan's temp down even though the heat is still being added.


Your turbo engine theory is flawed because you are saying nitrous pushes harder on the turbo which causes more power and off boost you'd be correct. Nitrous is a great way to bring an oversized turbo up to speed at low exhaust velocity situations but once boost is made the wastegate would do away with any added boost being caused by your extra exhaust energy theory. If a wastegate is set for 12 PSI, nitrous oxide isn't going to get it past 12psi but it will get the boost up to that number sooner. The fact remains the intercooler effect is real, everyone who adds nitrous to a boosted engine has seen it. You're the only one saying it is bogus. There's no need for me to defend myself here you're the one with the outrageous claims. You prove everyone else wrong.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My nitrous jets have holes in em the size of popcorn kernels. </TD></TR></TABLE>


hell mine does to,especially when i was spraying the big 4 0 0 on
the b20 .people would **** a brick if they saw those jets.


merry xmas pcr and to everyone else.

 

Chimpo,

The 30% number I used was in relationship to the added gain in HP. i.e. a 100HP tune making 130hp because it was on a forced induction application. That is roughly what I see claimed by you guys talking about the cooling effect. 5-7% isn't even worth debating, I can get more gain out of a system by changing distribution blocks.

Do you understand the concept that as the nitrous "cools" your intake charge it is increasing in volume by 300 fold? How can you possibly think that a volume change in that magnitude cannot negatively offset the minor change in the naturally aspirated. C'mon man, this is 5th grade math here. There is no magic, there is no voodoo, there is just math and science.

Oh and for the record im not saying that there is no intercooling effect, i'm saying that it is completely negated by the fact the nitrous expanding 300x in volume completely negates it.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with the pan of water example? Please elaborate. Of course the water will quit boiling.


My turbo theory is flawed? LOL. I'll give you a great example. My little 88 Shelby Daytona makes 270fwhp on 16psi with a MBC. If you hook the wastegate actuator straight to the manifold without the MBC it only makes around 8psi of boost. With my little 80HP hit of nitrous and the wastegate still hooked up straight to intake vac with no MBC produces 18psi and around 370fwhp (never did it at the dyno, only at the track). The wastegate was wide open the entire way down the track with that poor little turbo spinning its guts out.

You are correct on one thing: Almost everyone has seen this gain in power with nitrous on a turbo engine. What almost nobody has seen is someone taking that same system off the turbo car, putting it on a NA car and seeing if there is actually a power difference. That would actually be a little bit of a scientific experiment (aside from the two engines having different BSFC's which pretty much dicks up any scientific value).

But, again, you are right, people have seen this. What you are wrong about is your uneducated assumption that this gain in power is because of this cooling effect. Using your line of thought a nitrous system that was capable of delivering pure liquid nitrous that didn't phase change in the intake (and thus provided little cooling) would make less power than a standard system. And that little statement is soooo wrong it makes every nitrous researchers head hurt. That is, in fact, exactly what all of us are trying to achieve.. a nitrous system that decreases phase change.

Thanks for the good debate though, this is what keeps threads like these packed full of good info.

If you still don't belive me, i'll bust out the calculator in the next thread and we'll have some fun with numbers.

 

i just dynoed my turbo car and the same jets i had in my all nitrous car at one time that were making 110hp made 165-170hp on the turbo motor