+- STD (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std)
+-- Forum: Tuning (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Engine (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: water injection vs intercooler? (/showthread.php?tid=3788)
water injection vs intercooler? - ronnie - 07-11-2012
On my 240 turbo (616 engine) I currently do not have either, but it has been suggested once I have larger elements in I should be looking at an intercooler. There is a very good article in Hot Rod magizine about when you should consider one. Basically around 10 psi boost and above there are real gains from having one.
However water injection cools the intake charge a good bit, is this a realistic alternative? My reason for thinking it could be is because boost is really only around 5-6 at highway speed, and higher only for short amounts of time for passing, hills etc. The water injection would be boost controlled. Currently boost reachs about 12 psi. So cooling the intake charge is really only needed for the short duration of higher boost levels.
Am I nuts or is this reasonable?
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - RICHIS - 07-11-2012
(07-11-2012, 05:22 PM)ronnie On my 240 turbo (616 engine) I currently do not have either, but it has been suggested once I have larger elements in I should be looking at an intercooler. There is a very good article in Hot Rod magizine about when you should consider one. Basically around 10 psi boost and above there are real gains from having one.
However water injection cools the intake charge a good bit, is this a realistic alternative? My reason for thinking it could be is because boost is really only around 5-6 at highway speed, and higher only for short amounts of time for passing, hills etc. The water injection would be boost controlled. Currently boost reachs about 12 psi. So cooling the intake charge is really only needed for the short duration of higher boost levels.
Am I nuts or is this reasonable?
id like peoples opnions on this too as my w202 doesnt seem to be the easyest to upgrade to a bigger fmic but was thinkin goin for chemical cooling with a 25% meth mix with the water.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Kozuka - 07-11-2012
I was under the impression, cooling effect from w/m injection was marginal, mostly it was done because it gave abit more power with the extra methanol fuel.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - raysorenson - 07-11-2012
Water injection sucks. Not the helpful insight you're looking for, but I figured I'd get it out of the way first. My personal experience with it is on a gasburner and it was a nice setup with a duty cycle solenoid to regulate the amount injected based on fuel injector pulse width and I had pressure accumulators installed to make sure pressure didn't drop or spike. It was a newer car and I had a great datalogger to check out all sorts of data. Power gains were inconsistent.
Expect a rise in hydrocarbon emissions with W/I, which means unburned fuel. Water doesn't burn, so it's at best an additional inert gas introduced into the combustion chamber diluting the oxygen concentration and reducing the likelihood that all of your diesel fuel droplets will bump up against an O2 molecule and burn. At worst, the water droplets don't vaporize and you don't get the cooling ability of water's latent heat of vaporization. Don't worry if the water doesn't evaporate in time though, it will prevent enough combution to keep your motor cool and maybe even cool your exhaust gasses enough to slow down your turbo.
There is simply no comparison between W/I and an efficient intercooler with minimal restriction. A good intercooler with no pressure drop will not only cool the incoming air, it will increase the mass of air entering the engine with less increase in power (backpressure) required to drive the turbine compared to simply increasing boost to achieve the same mass of airflow. It's like magic.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - sassparilla_kid - 07-11-2012
Well I guess that sums it up. lol
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - larsalan - 07-12-2012
No, that doesn't sum it up. Sounds like disinformation. How does some experience on that gas motor have anything to do with what were talking about with a diesel engine.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - raysorenson - 07-12-2012
(07-12-2012, 06:37 AM)larsalan No, that doesn't sum it up. Sounds like disinformation. How does some experience on that gas motor have anything to do with what were talking about with a diesel engine.
Fair enough. I'm happy to explain myself, this is a technical forum after all. I'm not pleased that you haven't taken the time to debate any single point I made and it leads one to conclude that everything I said might be BS.
I bring up my gasburner experience to illustrate that I'm not the typical W/I "hater".
Aquamist stuff isn't cheap. I had a considerable investment in both time and money in my system. The time to install was one thing, the tweaking and logging to verify results were another. I wasn't worried about engine safety in the gasburner as you would in an old diesel since it's engine control system used feedback from 2 EGT's and 2 knock sensors. It could pull timing, shut the throttle plate, cut boost or dump extra fuel to keep heat and knock under control. I was looking to quiet the knock sensors and drop IAT's to gain extra ignition timing, and therefore power.
While messing with the system, I read everything I could about WI that I could that wasn't an outright sales pitch. This isn't easy. Google "water injection" and you'll get 100 pages of sales pitches and guys on forums saying "I bought this and I'm a smart guy, therefore what I invested in has to work". I'm a smart guy at times myself, but I don't have to be, it's not part of my identity. I'm scientific and I welcome the opportunity to be mistaken.
Here's an okay article, with a bibliography, citing power gains with WI.
http://www.turbotuning.net/e_Artikel_Dieseleffects.html
Note that increases in MEP due to the expansion of water droplets into steam during the combustion stroke are only cited with water injected directly into the combustion chamber just before fuel is injected, something nobody here is going to try. Also note that timing must advanced since combustion rate is slowed by either methanol or water, regardless of whether it's manifold or direct injection. There are no cited instances of power gains through cooling by manifold injection in this article and it was written by Matt Snow!
It's a fact that water is inert in respect to the combustion process. It's a fact that steam dilutes the concentration of oxygen by mass of incoming air into an engine. It's also a fact that intercooling will provide denser air for a given level of boost while at the same time cooling combustion and reducing knock and NOx. While it may be my personal opinion that water injection sucks, it should not be up for debate that it can come close to competing with intercooling.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Simpler=Better - 07-12-2012
I ran 5gph, port injected on my 617 and consistently saw temperature rises. I could get a little more seat of the pants power, but the mix of water to methanol was touchy.
Definitely not an alternative to intercooling, but possibly can add power.
When my engine is back in a vehicle again (read:500 years) I'll definitely play with it some more.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - MFSuper90 - 07-12-2012
(07-12-2012, 06:37 AM)larsalan No, that doesn't sum it up. Sounds like disinformation. How does some experience on that gas motor have anything to do with what were talking about with a diesel engine.
We put a W/M injection system on one of our pulling tractors last year, and even though i know its not the same scenario, it might give you a little insight maybe. I don't have egts or intake temps, but you could tell it gave the tractor at least 20 or 30 hp. The reason i can say this is, when pulling, before W/M it would power out in 2nd gear. After W/M it had enough power to spin out, AND almost seemed at we could go up another gear.
Thats a hell of a difference.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - larsalan - 07-12-2012
diesel tractor, right. I am sounding like a bit of a Lancish ass. But that gas motor has about as much to do with a diesel as a baseball card in the spokes of a bmx does.
Water doesn't burn but, when water turns from liquid to gas it expands something like 1600 times in volume.
There's a reason all those power plants are boiling water to spin turbines.
I am certainly not the expert on thermodynamics and engine tuning.
I do however stand by my assertion that whatever in the heck you did with a gas motor has no bearing on what will happen inside a diesel motor.
All that said, I agree the intercooler is the way to go. If anything the water injection maybe a fun project but really the intercooler is the tried and true method and the effects of blowing water through the motor are not a fair substitute.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - MFSuper90 - 07-12-2012
(07-12-2012, 11:13 AM)larsalan diesel tractor, right. I am sounding like a bit of a Lancish ass. But that gas motor has about as much to do with a diesel as a baseball card in the spokes of a bmx does.
All that said, I agree the intercooler is the way to go. If anything the water injection maybe a fun project but really the intercooler is the tried and true method and the effects of blowing water through the motor are not a fair substitute.
yes diesel tractor. and for full throttle, high boost times I believe W/M is better, BUT for a daily driver and for full range effiecency an intercooler would hit the spot
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - ronnie - 07-12-2012
remember I am mostly concerned about lowering intake temps, and gas engine data that would show how much water injection lowers it compared to a good intercooler would be of value. Now of course anything that lowers intake temps would also allow more fuel, and hence more power, assuming fuel is calibrated for it.
I am tempted to put a temp gauge on my intake as it is now just to see what kind of temps I am getting.
Raysorenson, do you have from your data logger intake temps? on both systems?
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - raysorenson - 07-12-2012
(07-12-2012, 11:13 AM)larsalan whatever in the heck you did with a gas motor has no bearing on what will happen inside a diesel motor.
![[Image: someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet-300x300.jpg]](http://1389blog.com/pix/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet-300x300.jpg)
Dammit man, my GF is going to leave me if I get into another intarweb swordfight. You can't hope to defend that obtuse statement.
Ronnie, those logs are on a dead laptop and I placed my injector about 3" upstream of the IAT sensor which didn't give much time for the water to evaporate. Regardless, done right, water injection will take away tons of heat. While this place is a great resource, Aquamist's forum will answer all of your W/I theory questions best http://www.aquamist.co.uk/vbulletin/index.php?s=d9093cd05c13a738ec3f58f8b5237360
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - larsalan - 07-12-2012
you did know that gasoline is not the same as diesel and that the gasoline motors and diesel motor operate on totally different principals, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
If your GF leaves you you can cuddle up with that interweb cat
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - sassparilla_kid - 07-12-2012
If only I had unlimited access to the neat stuff at school, like the chassis dyno, I would hook my stuff up and be able to get some real info on horsepower/torque/thatkindofstuff.
(07-12-2012, 10:09 PM)larsalan If your GF leaves you you can cuddle up with that interweb cat
Lolol
That looks like one smart cat
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Captain America - 07-13-2012
![[Image: Not-a-Single-Fuck-Was-Given-592x600.jpg]](http://www.owned.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Not-a-Single-Fuck-Was-Given-592x600.jpg)
I wouldnt chase which one is better. I would ask yourself how much money you want to spend.
W/M:
Cools
Cleans
Additional fuel supply
Can make a turbo act bigger
Needs to be refilled (Bad)
Cost a lot of $$ (Bad)
Complex setup (Bad)
Front Mount I/C:
Cools
Easy Setup
Fairly cheap
No maintenance
Very efficient
Increased turbo lag (Bad)
If recirculation crankcase gases, oil can collect in I/C (Bad)
Mounting (Bad)
^^^ That is just a few pros and cons
I vote Air/Water Intercooler
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Simpler=Better - 07-13-2012
(07-12-2012, 10:20 PM)sassparilla_kid If only I had unlimited access to the neat stuff at school, like the chassis dyno, I would hook my stuff up and be able to get some real info on horsepower/torque/thatkindofstuff.
When your independent study REQUIRES that you have access to that equipment then they have no choice but to give you access.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Greazzer - 07-13-2012
Here's my .02 cents.
Water "absorbs" or assumes heat better than air. That is a scientific fact. For example, if you splashed water on a radiator, it will dissapate heat a lot faster than air. A radiator submerged in water will cool faster than air. Water is superior to air when it comes to getting rid of heat. As for air, you cannot compete with ram air after 20 mph. That is, no matter how big your fan, going 20+ mph will beat any fan and shroud out there. Those are the forces of physics and I am pretty sure all of the internet Wiki's will support this. A mist of water will absorb heat a lot more than air, and a mist of ice cold water will absorb even more. So, I have to side with the water advocates. Before I totaled my MB, I ran straight water mist and it did improve HP and the only likely solution is that the water cooled the air. Drivng any car 20+ per hour will produce more air, and whatever the ambient tempature is is sure to have an impact, but water will still beat that air. I am also sure that if one has an I/C in conjuction with M+W (or just straight H20) it is probably the best bet. BUT, as indicated, water is still a superior agent, even for the I/C, that is, a A-W I/C.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - sassparilla_kid - 07-14-2012
(07-13-2012, 09:50 AM)Simpler=Better(07-12-2012, 10:20 PM)sassparilla_kid If only I had unlimited access to the neat stuff at school, like the chassis dyno, I would hook my stuff up and be able to get some real info on horsepower/torque/thatkindofstuff.
When your independent study REQUIRES that you have access to that equipment then they have no choice but to give you access.
That gives me an idea, I know there is an engine dyno in the shop too that supposedly works. Perhaps I will use it for a study, using a turbo 616 (after I build it of course, before it makes its way into a car) and test W/M vs. IC??
Does this sound like it would be an experiment worthy of them letting me use it??
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - JTY - 07-15-2012
Been running W/M injection on several cars for several years, few petrol cars and few diesel.
On all of them W/M made a difference, i logged EGT and IAT temperatures. There was noticeable drop in EGT's when W/M went on. W/M gave better torque and i could take longer pulls in extreme temperature without roofing EGT's.
I run 40/60 mix of methanol, have tried with ethanol mix but did not works so well as methanol mix.
I'm usin W/M only at WOT, i tried mid throttle injection with my S350TD and it made big difference in mpg.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - dust - 07-16-2012
Devil's Own has a lot of dynos and smogs from Malaysia of different older diesels.
http://www.tdocuk.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=7816&hilit=methanol+dvldoc&start=165
I will say from what I have read over 10 years or so, that water meth, especially in a diesel (can't use 100% meth), the WMI will not be a replacement for a good IC. That said, you will see gains with either, and it's up to you to decide if you want the hassle of an IC install, in comparison to a WMI install. Depending on how much time you spend in higher boost, a WMI kit may be more beneficial for you. From what you are saying, it will be simpler.
Diesel can use much more fluid than a gasser engine. LIke a 2.5 diesel using 34 gallons per hour on top of an IC alot.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Simpler=Better - 07-16-2012
(07-14-2012, 06:21 PM)sassparilla_kid(07-13-2012, 09:50 AM)Simpler=Better(07-12-2012, 10:20 PM)sassparilla_kid If only I had unlimited access to the neat stuff at school, like the chassis dyno, I would hook my stuff up and be able to get some real info on horsepower/torque/thatkindofstuff.
When your independent study REQUIRES that you have access to that equipment then they have no choice but to give you access.
That gives me an idea, I know there is an engine dyno in the shop too that supposedly works. Perhaps I will use it for a study, using a turbo 616 (after I build it of course, before it makes its way into a car) and test W/M vs. IC??
Does this sound like it would be an experiment worthy of them letting me use it??
I ran out of time & money at school, so I gave up on it, but here's the secret:
Ethanol. Write up your independant study with the target of "writing a paper to share your results of your research, such as a sustainable fuels convention, etc." If you write up your ind study ass something that delivers results, you will probably fail-one semester isn't enough time and things ALWAYS get out of hand. Your topic: The effects of ethanol injection on antique indirect injected diesels to research the effects on power output and efficiency (mileage). If you have the equiptment throw in something about emissions just for fun. All the stuff online goes around methanol-a dangerous substance. You want to use good ol' drinkin' alkerhol, a potentially sustainable fuel.
Hell, I'd be willing to loan you my injection manifolds if you asked nicely.
Also, I forgot to mention-the big difference between a turbo gas car and a turbo diesel car-the gas car has a static CR of what, 8:1? add 14psi of boost and you're at a static of 16:1. The 617 has a static of 21.5:1, add 14psi and you're at a CR of 43:1.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - sassparilla_kid - 07-17-2012
(07-16-2012, 07:47 AM)Simpler=Better(07-14-2012, 06:21 PM)sassparilla_kid(07-13-2012, 09:50 AM)Simpler=Better When your independent study REQUIRES that you have access to that equipment then they have no choice but to give you access.
That gives me an idea, I know there is an engine dyno in the shop too that supposedly works. Perhaps I will use it for a study, using a turbo 616 (after I build it of course, before it makes its way into a car) and test W/M vs. IC??
Does this sound like it would be an experiment worthy of them letting me use it??
I ran out of time & money at school, so I gave up on it, but here's the secret:
Ethanol. Write up your independant study with the target of "writing a paper to share your results of your research, such as a sustainable fuels convention, etc." If you write up your ind study ass something that delivers results, you will probably fail-one semester isn't enough time and things ALWAYS get out of hand. Your topic: The effects of ethanol injection on antique indirect injected diesels to research the effects on power output and efficiency (mileage). If you have the equiptment throw in something about emissions just for fun. All the stuff online goes around methanol-a dangerous substance. You want to use good ol' drinkin' alkerhol, a potentially sustainable fuel.
Hell, I'd be willing to loan you my injection manifolds if you asked nicely.
Also, I forgot to mention-the big difference between a turbo gas car and a turbo diesel car-the gas car has a static CR of what, 8:1? add 14psi of boost and you're at a static of 16:1. The 617 has a static of 21.5:1, add 14psi and you're at a CR of 43:1.
They have all kinds of crap in there, chassis dyno, engine dyno, and I think they might have smog testing stuff, but I'm not too sure. Maybe in the fall after I'm done being a farmer I might be able to do some testing, right now I'm too busy, and I have other projects piling up.
RE: water injection vs intercooler? - Gearbound - 07-23-2012
biggest thing i can vote for is cost. the intercooler is an investment. look at the new benz and vw. they have intercoolers. my jetta came stock with an intercooler and on the hwy at stock levels its only 5-7 psi
the w/m system does work too. i have data proving that it works on my 2500 ram cummins. and also proof that it works on my toyota supra. but its a pain to setup and tweak everytime i change something like boost ,timing or type of fuel(wvo,off road,low sulfer,b10,e85,q16,93octane)
I would go with intercooler. its cost effective. increased engine life, increase in power,increase in economy. CHEAP! SIMPLE! RELIABLE! make it fit ONCE and forget it! so what if blow by oil collects in the intercooler, its going to get picked up by massive amount of air flow taking it into the motor. it will never clog it from flowing enough to hurt the performance in a way you will notice.