Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

Are you using Water Methanol Injection?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Are you interested in using WM Injection?

    Votes: 6 50.0%
101 - 120 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
Right. From your description I envisaged a direct front-on spray on the wall surface (no idea how you could have done it though), hence my concern of condensing. A picture tells a thousand words as they say.

So yours is directly at 90 degrees to the airflow, and then the inlet has about a 45 degree angle to the cooler tank. Not too difficult to do something like that. If the angle is important, I could weld in a wedge into the tank to mount the injector in.
 

·
Registered
2005 TD42Ti ute
Joined
·
357 Posts
Why don't you just get bulk airflow through your I/C core so you don't have to hose it with your water which is better off injected in the manifold or before in a mist or atomised if possible where it can absorb any remaining latent heat, offset effective ign timing and alter the pressure temp ratio of combustion (steam engine effect)

I get why it can work, I just wonder if there is gains that could be had in other areas for an overall greater net positive result.
 

·
SUI GENERIS UTE
GQ Ute 1990 Silvertop
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
@GQshayne The idea is to have the spray nozzle as close to the cooler tank as possible, the purpose is to have the spray to disperse and not be concentrated in the centre of the tube which is what happens with tube injection. Their are vids on this on the AEM site injecting in a clear tube you will see what i mean once you watch it, The vid is about their new nozzles. Any way the spray pattern in a tube is not what you want for distribution. The report is specific about having the nozzle facing the back wall but close enough is good enough i think for this. The purpose is to disperse the spray across the tank surface and the cooler fin face this is how the efficiency is created. Tube injection bundles the spray in the centre of the tube due to air flow speed this doesn't distribute very well once it hits the cooler tank and usually pools due to loss in velocity due to tank cooler volume increase.

Give me a ring if you need.
 

·
SUI GENERIS UTE
GQ Ute 1990 Silvertop
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
Why don't you just get bulk airflow through your I/C core so you don't have to hose it with your water which is better off injected in the manifold or before in a mist or atomised if possible where it can absorb any remaining latent heat, offset effective ign timing and alter the pressure temp ratio of combustion (steam engine effect)

I get why it can work, I just wonder if there is gains that could be had in other areas for an overall greater net positive result.
The report is a very in depth and detailed, I am not going to verbatim the report for obvious reasons but the report is about nozzle placement for best efficiency i have alluded to the whys in the above post, its about distribution. Even the manifold placement is about distribution so you get the best steaming effect on all cylinders without pooling.

Bulk airflow can only go so far with a top mount and we assume best possible cool air flow across the cooler core. Which i might add is still very minimal compared to a front mount as you would be aware. This is to add a big kick to the lack luster Top mount. As stated and for you specifically 65% more efficient that pre turbo injection and for petrol to offset ignition timing detonation. there is quite a bit about this timing thing for the Honda engine with its variable cam timing. We are diesel so lost interest on that bit.

To Quote from the report "To distribute the mist to as much of the coolers surfaces as possible to take advantage of absorbing as much latent heat as possible"
 

·
Registered
2005 TD42Ti ute
Joined
·
357 Posts
@GQshayne The idea is to have the spray nozzle as close to the cooler tank as possible, the purpose is to have the spray to disperse and not be concentrated in the centre of the tube which is what happens with tube injection. Their are vids on this on the AEM site injecting in a clear tube you will see what i mean once you watch it, The vid is about their new nozzles. Any way the spray pattern in a tube is not what you want for distribution. The report is specific about having the nozzle facing the back wall but close enough is good enough i think for this. The purpose is to disperse the spray across the tank surface and the cooler fin face this is how the efficiency is created. Tube injection bundles the spray in the centre of the tube due to air flow speed this doesn't distribute very well once it hits the cooler tank and usually pools due to loss in velocity due to tank cooler volume increase.

Give me a ring if you need.
Interesting. Bit like how high frequency a/c voltage does the opposite in a conductor of respectable surface area.

A good intake manifold would help fix this?

Propper atomisation of the water would also help fix this? (Density would be important here)

Multiple injectors perhaps could help here?

I have no means to measure where and how the water is going, I am thinking of putting a pcp logging loom together which could be perhaps used as an indicator.
 

·
Registered
2005 TD42Ti ute
Joined
·
357 Posts
The report is a very in depth and detailed, I am not going to verbatim the report for obvious reasons but the report is about nozzle placement for best efficiency i have alluded to the whys in the above post, its about distribution. Even the manifold placement is about distribution so you get the best steaming effect on all cylinders without pooling.

Bulk airflow can only go so far with a top mount and we assume best possible cool air flow across the cooler core. Which i might add is still very minimal compared to a front mount as you would be aware. This is to add a big kick to the lack luster Top mount. As stated and for you specifically 65% more efficient that pre turbo injection and for petrol to offset ignition timing detonation. there is quite a bit about this timing thing for the Honda engine with its variable cam timing. We are diesel so lost interest on that bit.

To Quote from the report "To distribute the mist to as much of the coolers surfaces as possible to take advantage of absorbing as much latent heat as possible"
Can still get some real good airflow with a TMIC with some tricks here and there, perhaps not quite what a front mount can in some cases but in the context of heat management and stack arrangement it can come out on top.

It's just not really a case of one being better then the other. (Just my opinion)
 

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
Interesting. Bit like how high frequency a/c voltage does the opposite in a conductor of respectable surface area.

A good intake manifold would help fix this?

Propper atomisation of the water would also help fix this? (Density would be important here)

Multiple injectors perhaps could help here?

I have no means to measure where and how the water is going, I am thinking of putting a pcp logging loom together which could be perhaps used as an indicator.
The other factor to consider is that regardless of altering injector position according to current trends, water/meth injection has always been aimed towards a heat source when it is most effective. Combustion chambers are one of course, but the turbo is the other.

And of course the design and purpose of the system would need to be considered too I think. If you are aiming for maximum gains, then you can only inject so much into the cylinder before you reach quench point. But if you inject some at an earlier heat source, you can increase the efficiency of the intercooler, and potentially increase overall volume as well.
 

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
@GQshayne The idea is to have the spray nozzle as close to the cooler tank as possible, the purpose is to have the spray to disperse and not be concentrated in the centre of the tube which is what happens with tube injection. Their are vids on this on the AEM site injecting in a clear tube you will see what i mean once you watch it, The vid is about their new nozzles. Any way the spray pattern in a tube is not what you want for distribution. The report is specific about having the nozzle facing the back wall but close enough is good enough i think for this. The purpose is to disperse the spray across the tank surface and the cooler fin face this is how the efficiency is created. Tube injection bundles the spray in the centre of the tube due to air flow speed this doesn't distribute very well once it hits the cooler tank and usually pools due to loss in velocity due to tank cooler volume increase.

Give me a ring if you need.
My set up was done a long time ago, and in part for convenience, after removing the pre-turbo injector for the Borg Warner. So it needs re-visiting. Being able to TIG weld now will help to make a few changes.

Once I have a vehicle that moves under it own steam again (see what I did there), I will come and see you one day for a test drive. Assuming it goes well. I am part way through putting it back together now.
 

·
Registered
2005 TD42Ti ute
Joined
·
357 Posts
How much water (storage) do we need to carry to both mist it into the engine post IC and hose the intercooler inside as well.

Just sorta wondering how far we would get. At present I need to top my water injection tank up a few times to a tank of fuel, thinking of making this tank bigger but also perhaps ill go back to water/meth and use that tank for an output increase and fit a separate water only system that uses a bigger tank.

I have another system in a box ready to go that i built using the old 240v coffee machine pump and a boost switch to activate via a 240v power 12v coil relay

I did record what it flows through an AEM V2 and V3 nozzle a while ago but I would have to dig to find what it was.

It works quite well as it has the potential for up to 220psi (can't remember flow)

Sounds like the average household coffee machine when it's on (no where near as loud though, especially with propper mounting) but it makes ya laugh a bit.

Cheap way of getting it done as well for anyone who is interested in dabbling but doesn't want to fork out the big bux and perhaps already has 240v in cab power
 

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
How long is a piece of string?? Hmmmm........ :unsure:

My view on the IC injection is that I would only use it above a certain boost point, which will be determined by what engine it is fitted to, and what turbo it has (my dads Prado boost is 13psi at max, and mine is 32). So in my case that is about 12psi. The manifold injector will switch on at 6spi. That means the IC injector will only switch on for short periods under throttle input, whereas the manifold injector will run at constant throttle, albeit at a low pump duty cycle.

But how long you have them switch on for, and what size they are is going to make a difference to consumption. My manifold injector is a CM2, and I would not go larger than that for my application. Change that switching point to 7psi or more and then consumption would go down a lot, and you could go up to a larger injector without getting sludge in the oil.

But as a rough guide from my own experience with a low boost point system, is that you would need a 40 litre tank or more, if you want to do long trips with it. Otherwise you will find yourself looking to top the tank up along your way, and that can be a problem. I have file dup from a tank that had junk in it (bad), and from a hose that may have been artesian water, which then caused calcium like deposits to block the injectors (bad). I have tried to calculate water usage in the past, but over a long trip there are too many variables to be able to get any meaningful numbers.
 

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
I would also like to make a comment on switching methods, and points. I have done a test of spray pattern with my CM2 injector and my 200psi pump, and the spray pattern is not the best until you get to approx 25% duty cycle. For an injector into the manifold inlet, this has not caused any issues for me over the years, but I was careful to avoid low duty cycle injection for the pre-turbo injector, and I will do the same for the IC injector when that gets looked at.

So by operating the second injector via a boost switch set at a higher boost point than the controller, the manifold injector will start when the pump does, and then the second injector will only switch on when the secondary boost switch opens the solenoid (both my injectors have solenoids on them). So by the time the second injector opens, the pump duty cycle is risen above its starting point, and providing a better spray pattern for the injector.

So I would be hesitant to have any extra switching control for a second injector that was not linked to boost pressure to avoid this.
 

·
Administrator
Y2KGUII ZD Wgn
Joined
·
54,696 Posts
Discussion Starter · #112 ·
My IC inj comes in at 15psi, manifold comes in at around 30%TPS, so mine is reverse to yours, IC comes on just a couple of psi over cruise speed, manifold injection only when load is applied. Currently using 1.3L/100, great for my tank size.
 

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
My IC inj comes in at 15psi, manifold comes in at around 30%TPS, so mine is reverse to yours, IC comes on just a couple of psi over cruise speed, manifold injection only when load is applied. Currently using 1.3L/100, great for my tank size.
For an important injector control I do not think that TPS is as good as boost, because there is no direct link to pump duty cycle, and therefor injector efficiency. In your case, with a manifold injector, I would not be worried though, as mine has operated at low duty cycle for a long time. But for an injector that I wanted a good pattern from, I would want it to be referenced to pump duty cycle, and that means boost pressure.
 

·
Administrator
Y2KGUII ZD Wgn
Joined
·
54,696 Posts
Discussion Starter · #114 ·
For an important injector control I do not think that TPS is as good as boost, because there is no direct link to pump duty cycle, and therefor injector efficiency. In your case, with a manifold injector, I would not be worried though, as mine has operated at low duty cycle for a long time. But for an injector that I wanted a good pattern from, I would want it to be referenced to pump duty cycle, and that means boost pressure.
Just to clarify, my TPS controlled manifold injection cannot start until the the main controller, which is currently set at 15psi, fires up the pump. Meaning the TPS can hit 30% but if boost isn't at 15psi nothing happens, once there the solenoid opens, basically the manifold injection is on under 50% of the time the IC inj is.
 

·
Registered
GQ Dual Cab. TD42Ti with fruit.
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
Yep, so you can theoretically have the second injector operated by TPS when pump duty cycle is at its minimum. A second boost switch set at a higher point than your 15 psi would ensure it only operated at a higher duty cycle.

Most of the time this will not matter. But if I wanted a bit more control over the duty cycle, then boost reference is needed I think.
 

·
Registered
1998 Nissan Patrol DX Wagon TD42+T
Joined
·
103 Posts
Hi guys, I've read the whole thread and I find this super interesting.. I'm curious though are you guys injecting water just so you can punch more fuel in without melting pistons.. or are you seeking ultimate cooling/efficiency based on reduced loads on a motor and turbo attributed to cooler, higher density air🤔

Or is it a combination 🤔

New to the concept of spraying a non combustible into an engine
 

·
Administrator
Y2KGUII ZD Wgn
Joined
·
54,696 Posts
Discussion Starter · #119 ·
Hi guys, I've read the whole thread and I find this super interesting.. I'm curious though are you guys injecting water just so you can punch more fuel in without melting pistons.. or are you seeking ultimate cooling/efficiency based on reduced loads on a motor and turbo attributed to cooler, higher density air🤔

Or is it a combination 🤔

New to the concept of spraying a non combustible into an engine
My initial reasons for doing it many years ago was purely for a project. Then I got to appreciate the benefits, ie, lower EGT improved performance under load and improvement in ECO. I have modified my system many times over the years for improvements (not a backward step so far). The latest setup is by far better than my previous and indeed much safer than the pre turbo it replaced, which is safe as long as specific rules are adhered to.
Some small mods are what is called 1%ers, but, do 10 of them and your on a winner.
I have followed strict rules in my latest setup and extremely happy with result. I will repeat, 2 particular hills that would see my EGT hit 400 now only hit 350c, understandably there is no change in cruising EGT
 

·
Registered
1998 Nissan Patrol DX Wagon TD42+T
Joined
·
103 Posts
Yea I totally get the 1% mod thing.. I've been fixing some poor setup issues caused buy a generic turbo kit.. needless to say just a bit of careful and methodical changes can make a big difference.

I've got a td with the weakest pistons and no oil squirters 😅

So everything I look at is what's the most mechanically sympathetic or efficient way to achieve what I want it to do..

Cooler intake air charge =cooler pistons and egts.. always a winner
 
101 - 120 of 142 Posts
Top