Water Injection Tuned
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

This is a discussion on Water Injection Tuned within the Engine Modifications forums, part of the Tech & Modifying & General Repairs category; Here are my dyno sheets from yesterdays tuning. I must say that I have mixed feelings on the results. Last ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213

    Water Injection Tuned

    Here are my dyno sheets from yesterdays tuning. I must say that I have mixed feelings on the results.

    Last time I was dyno'd I hit 250whp on Vishnus dyno. After putting in WI the car dyno'd at 205whp. I lost 45whp from using WI with no tuning. It was 90+ degrees in the shop vs my old dyno day that was in the 60s. But it is also on totally different days so the comparision isnt exactly correct.

    Shiv then went about adding timing, adding boost and leaning out the a/f. He was able to get my car back up to 242whp but had to run leaner/more boost(18.5psi) and more timing. Still trying to decide if it was worth all the effort. The car hit a point where it didnt matter if he added more boost/timing, it would still hit the same hp. He even tried 11.5 a/f but it pinged at that point.
    I think I am at the max for a VF30.

    Here are my mods:
    VF30
    M2 Turboback
    M2 Uppipe
    Vishnu UD pulley
    Vishnu TMIC
    STi injectors
    Aquamist 2D
    STi Ver 5 tranny
    Exedy Flywheel

    The tranny ratio skewed the results a little bit to the right due to the gearing.

    current dyno sheet
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails picture002.jpg  

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213
    current dyno vs old dyno sheet
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails picture001.jpg  

  4. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    23
    Interesting.

    I do think the temperature variation could play a large factor here. I wish you had tried a dyno run without turning on WI that 90 degree day. That way you could have a true comparison of what WI does for you.

    I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel right that you've maxed out the vf30.

    Maybe the WI needed to be adjusted a bit? Maybe you were spraying too much water?

    Thats really too bad. I'm seriously about to get a 2D system myself. Admittedly, most of the positive WI results I read were butt based, not true dyno, although I thought I read 1 post with significant dyno proven gains.

  5. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213
    Originally posted by HairyWRX
    Interesting.

    I do think the temperature variation could play a large factor here. I wish you had tried a dyno run without turning on WI that 90 degree day. That way you could have a true comparison of what WI does for you.

    I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel right that you've maxed out the vf30.

    Maybe the WI needed to be adjusted a bit? Maybe you were spraying too much water?

    Thats really too bad. I'm seriously about to get a 2D system myself. Admittedly, most of the positive WI results I read were butt based, not true dyno, although I thought I read 1 post with significant dyno proven gains.
    We did a few pulls with no WI and it resulted in 245whp. I was also using the smallest nozzle that comes with the 2D kit, .7mm.

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    23
    Originally posted by WRX-Hellfire
    We did a few pulls with no WI and it resulted in 245whp. I was also using the smallest nozzle that comes with the 2D kit, .7mm.
    Hmm. That does suck. Something doesn't seem quite right. Here are some confirmed HP gains using WI:

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...50#post4462650

    About a third of the way down, Phil at turboXS and Jorge report about 20-25 HP gain. Of course, this is on 93 octane pump, versus CA 91. But WI is supposed to increase octaneness in general.

    How much additional boost and timing were added? It seems weird that adding boost and timing would net no HP gains.

    I'm going to send off an email to aquamist (erl@aquamist.co.uk)and see if they have any ideas...

  7. #6
    Registered User Hot_Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    1,329
    It makes sense that Shiv had to lean out the AF ratio. Water displaces air and doesn't burn, so the AFR becomes rich. I've heard that WI is only useful when you're running a small IC that heatsoaks easily.
    2003 WRB Sedan. Mods & Pics

    Quote Originally Posted by scooby-x
    OMG!!! Do you want me on my knees or bent over? I love you

  8. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213
    Originally posted by HairyWRX
    Hmm. That does suck. Something doesn't seem quite right. Here are some confirmed HP gains using WI:

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...50#post4462650

    About a third of the way down, Phil at turboXS and Jorge report about 20-25 HP gain. Of course, this is on 93 octane pump, versus CA 91. But WI is supposed to increase octaneness in general.

    How much additional boost and timing were added? It seems weird that adding boost and timing would net no HP gains.

    I'm going to send off an email to aquamist (erl@aquamist.co.uk)and see if they have any ideas...
    Boost was modified from 17psi all the way up to 22psi. The gains stopped after 19psi, meaning same hp for the extra boost. I am not sure on the timing but I know he did try various values and I witnessed where it would stop gaining and just start detonating.

    Basically what I got from talking to Shiv is that with my setup the car was running great already and was pretty much maxed out for our 91 octane gas. WI would benefit the ppl that are running smaller intercoolers and on the edge of detonation due to the amounts of heat. I was expecting to be able to run race gas like timing from reading all the threads on WI but MY car was not able to do it. Every car does run differently so YMMV... The advantages I will have is more consistant hp even on hot days. Heat soak wont make much of a different anymore.

    The reason I did get WI was to allow me to run a larger turbo(18G or 20G) with the high boost that the east coasters can run on the crappy cali gas. So that will be my next experiment.

  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    23

    Re: Water Injection Tuned

    Originally posted by WRX-Hellfire

    After putting in WI the car dyno'd at 205whp. I lost 45whp from using WI with no tuning.
    Thats a huge initial loss, btw. I'm almost inclined to think maybe you're spraying too much water, or maybe something else is messed up with your 2D system.

    I've probably read as many threads on WI as you and even the infamous butt dyno should be able to detect a 45 whp loss and no such loss has been reported.

    I was planning the same thing as you - run race gas like timing/boost on a big turbo, so if you're wondering why I seem so eager to solve your problem, thats why.

  10. #9
    MisterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    2,971
    I wish Shiv would weigh in on this. Frankly, the results surprise me. I run the FP Hybrid turbo which maps REALLY close to the VF 30. I'm wondering if a monster turbo is needed for the WI to be really effective.

    X

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213

    Re: Re: Water Injection Tuned

    Originally posted by HairyWRX
    Thats a huge initial loss, btw. I'm almost inclined to think maybe you're spraying too much water, or maybe something else is messed up with your 2D system.

    I've probably read as many threads on WI as you and even the infamous butt dyno should be able to detect a 45 whp loss and no such loss has been reported.

    I was planning the same thing as you - run race gas like timing/boost on a big turbo, so if you're wondering why I seem so eager to solve your problem, thats why.
    The butt dyno felt like I was flat on the top end which was definately confirmed by the dyno. I just didnt think I lost that much hp.
    I wonder if maybe I should buy a smaller jet, maybe try out a .5mm or so and see what happens. Ill shoot Richard Lamb my results and see if he can come up with anything.

  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213
    Wow Richard Lamb is quick. He already replied to me and he also received an email from HairyWRX. Going to reply back will keep this updated.

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213
    Here is the latest from Richard Lamb. He wanted me to post this to see if anyone has any comments on it.

    Talk about great customer service.

    "I did some research yesterday on the ECUtek site and also spoke to one of the technical guys there (UK) about your findings of the 45whp loss.
    He immediately suggested that the Subaru ECU needed time to learn the new environment and it would take time to do it. Shiv has somewhat speeded up the learning time by modifying the temporary memory via real-time software link up. But as soon as the engine is switch off the modified map will be lost. A "re-flash" is needed to make it permanent.

    Unfortunately for Subaru's ECU, it is not as simple as it sounds. The ignition timing plays a very important role of producing best power for a given fuel grade, Subaru uses a patented strategy called "Active ignition" (see link below for details), it constantly adjusts the ignition timing against knock, it is done in two stages, coarse and fine. Providing other sensors show normal engine operation, the "coarse" stage is quite quick but the "fine stage" is quite slow in comparison - few hundred kilometres.

    From birth the ECU has a "base" ignition map - it is catered for the worse fuel grade down to 88 octane - it is really not a very nice ignition map to use at all. The "Active-ignition" adds an advance timing on slowly eventually the engine's performance increases as the ECU adds more and more advance timing to it. Unfortunate when you go for a ECUtek re-flash, this learn map is lost forever. The ECU has to re-learn the ignition map from scratch on the day the stageII+ was implemented.

    "Active Ignition" explained:
    http://www.ecutek.com/tuning/ignition/


    This how I interpret the situation since the addition of the 2d:
    The car was re-flashed to stageII+, all the "Active Ignition" data was lost. After several hundreds of kilometre later, the ECU has adopted Shiv's mapping strategy, a/f ratio and base timing (settable by authorised Ecutck dealer). I have to assume at this stage that the a/f ratio was quite rich (to be expected for safety reason). The introduction of 2d and adding another in-cylinder coolant - on top of what is an already rich (10.5 :1 or so ) was not ideal at all. The chances would be that the spark plugs
    will have difficulties in firing the mixture. The ECU would try to modify the ignition to the suit but to no avail - it was simply impossible - power loss was imminent.

    Your visit to Shiv probably have proved the point I was making. By leaning the fuel and advancing the ignition (by twiddling the temporary map -RAM based ), the power immediately sprung back to 242whp from 205whp. If you were to re-flash that setting into the ECU, a few kilometre later, the "Active-mapping" will have the ability to learn the new environment and I am confident that it will equal or even exceed the 245whp of the stageII+ .

    I say this with a good reason - The whole reason for the use of
    Aquamist is to eliminate the necessity of fuel dumping so you will avoid bore wash, carbon build-up (look at your exhaust pipe - even after the three-way cat) and wasting fuel. Water is free. Other advantages such as no need to use bigger injectors, Fuel re-map, better idling (big injector dumps too much fuel during idle). It appeared that you have chosen a more complex method to achieve the 245whp (90F day) rather than just add 2d to a standard factory engine, and even the possibility of not having to change the 380cc/minute injectors. ( my guess is that the 380cc injector may even allow you to produce a 300+crank HP with a very clean emission ! )

    I was surprised that I have to do quite a bit of researching over the last two day to give you a plausible reason whereas if you ask Shiv, he may have the reason on the spot. I would be grateful if you could post this post to the forum so others and comment and may be helping me to understand the
    Subaru tuning strategy more - I am here to learn as well."
    Last edited by WRX-Hellfire; 08-24-2003 at 11:18 AM.

  14. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    23
    That is great customer service!

    Well, I'm going to get the aquamist 2D. It has confirmed gains of at least 25 whp and it'll improve my gas mileage at the very least. It should pay for itself in a year.

    Richard's explanation makes sense - the confirmed gains were with the UTEC, which doesn't wipe out the ECU's learning algorithm, so the gains were immediate. Whereas, it appears the ecutek reflash wipes out the timing learning algorithm, hence it will take longer to see the gains.

    If you manage to do another dyno run sometime later, I'd be interested to see what you gain. Hopefully, I'll have my WI installed and tuned by then as well.

  15. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    52
    I am not surprised that at 11.5:1 AFR you did not see an increase in output. I am surprised you were knocking though. Since with WI you can run 12.5:1 and leaner (see on the NASIOC board plenty are doing it) your knock at such a rich level (for WI that is rich) tells me you are not flowing enough water relative to fuel.

    More than likely the .7mm jet is not sufficient for your application. Let me try to lay out why.

    The fia2 mirrors your IDC to the HSV. The stock injectors will run high IDCs and the HSV will flow a considerable amount of water through the .7mm jet. However the IDCs of your STi injectors are much lower - and the HSV as a result permits lower water flow to the jet.

    Just as a for instance suppose at 4500 rpm and 100% map stock injectors are running 80% IDC to get an AFR of 12:1. With your fuel upgrades your IDC may only be 50% to get that same AFR. With the fia2 you are flowing around 60% less water mirroring the STi injectors vs. the stock injectors.

    The idea behind jet size is to match the potential of the injectors to the jets. For instance on stock injcectors your max static potential of the injectors is 1760 cc - so you want to pick a jet with potential somewhere between 176cc (for 10% water to fuel) and 440cc (for 25% water to fuel). Except for the most severe race applications with in excess of 2 bars of boost 25% is not really necessary to get to the maximum power AFR. So lets say 15% water to fuel is a good street level and will let you tune to maximum power of 12.5:1 AFR (+/- for the VE at that load point) that means with stock injectors a jet that flows 264cc at the setting of the pressure switch. With the STi jets you need to have flow potential of around 400cc to match the injector potential. Note since you would never run 100% on the STi injectors on your set up and at the target AFRs you wouldn't actually flow that much and one pump wouldn't get you there - but you don't need to.

    Now ideally there would be a way to multiply the fia2 - for instance a dial that would mirror 1x, 1.5x, 2x, 2.5x and 3x the IDC of the injectors. This would permit the fia2 to flow more water through the HSV on fuel setups that are running lower IDCs. Since that doesn't exist at this time, I have two suggestions and can assure you that if they are followed you will get what you had originally expected from the WI.

    1. Put in the .9mm jet and set the pump pressure switch to 7 bars of pump pressure or

    2. Install 2 .6mm or .7mm jets - again you will never run high enough IDCs to get to their full potential and run out of pump pressure. You could theorectially use one .7 and one .8 for now to test this out. I would run this at the 5 bar setting.

    Now more than likely the first one may still be a little less water than you want because as you continue to lean - the IDCs will go down and again the fia2 will flow less water. The second recommendation is really the one that will get you into the 15% water to fuel ratio.

    Once you are getting enough water - clear the timing adjustments. Get the AFR to around 12.5 accross the board you will not knock on the second recommendation - on the very small chance you do (because I have never tune on CA gas so I might not appreciate how bad it is) then turn up the pump pressure. Once you are at 12.5 AFR across the board turn down the pressure to find out where the knock threshold is - then turn it back up a safe margin.

    Once this has been done you can now tune timing to MBT.

    You will experience the tuning benefits of WI at this point - now of course you get into the iterative process of adjusting load points to the exact AFR that produces maximum power for a given load point's VE and the piston, head and air/exhaust flow characteristics of your set up.

    If you haven't tuned with WI before it is new and different - but your tuner has to fully buy into the very simple fact that no internal combustion engine ever has its maximum power AFR below 12.0:1 - the only reason anyone runs richer than 12.1:1 is to cool the cylinders and the intake charge - none of that fuel is burned and none of it adds power if anything that excess fuel is robbing power by slowing the flame front. It just so happens that turning up the boost provides more power increase than running rich fuel settings. But all else equal and if knock is being prevented - 12.25:1 will always produce more power than 11:1 AFR. WI will let you get to the 12.25:1 without knock.

    It is funny how so many describe WI as a tuning crutch - fuel dumping is the actual crutch. It works like this buy a bigger turbo so cfm can be increased and use fuel to control the resulting knock. Invariably in order to dump more fuel you just so happen to also have to spend a grand on the fuel system. The increased cfm over comes the excess fuel parasitic effects - net positive. Now WI can allow you to increase your cfm and still stay in the sweet range of AFR - but it is less well known from those newer to performance. With WI you will only get the benefit of the higher CFM and lose the parasitic effects of fuel dumping.

    I have been using WI on high compression track and marine engines since the early 80's and it was developed in the '30s. GNs were using it - but everyone gets the reason it worked half wrong - everyone thinks it was to overcome heat soak issues and the poor intercooling. With today's larger intercoolers tuners figure they didn't need it anymore. Yes WI helped with the GNs IC issues but well over half its benefits are actually in cylinder. What today's better ICs really mean is that you no longer have to jet in front of the IC but can jet after it.

    Remember WI was developed having nothing to do with forced induction, charged intake air or the resulting heat associated with it. WI at its inception was to deal with in cylinder issues of high compression engines. Its solution is just as applicable to forced induction but it is an in cylinder solution - not a charged air solution - ICs handle that and the best way to handle heat soak today is an external water or CO2 spray.

    Look at my list of links on maximum power AFR -

    Max AFR links

    this is part of my larger draft document

    Draft Turbo and Knock paper

    This is a draft and I do seek constructive input on its usefulness and development at the contact address there.
    Last edited by jehcpa; 08-23-2003 at 11:29 PM.
    Ed.
    www.chargedperformance.com
    www.waterinjection.info

  16. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    213
    Thanks for the input. I also received an email from Richard Lamb and he was going down the same path you wrote here. He said more water is probably needed due to the idcs. I am not sure what my idcs were but will contact Vishnu tomorrow and get them. I am also going to see if they will retune my car with the 2 jets installed.

    Is there a recommended engagement point for WI? Should it start at 10psi, 12psi? etc...




    Originally posted by jehcpa
    I am not surprised that at 11.5:1 AFR you did not see an increase in output. I am surprised you were knocking though. Since with WI you can run 12.5:1 and leaner (see on the NASIOC board plenty are doing it) your knock at such a rich level (for WI that is rich) tells me you are not flowing enough water relative to fuel.

    More than likely the .7mm jet is not sufficient for your application. Let me try to lay out why.

    The fia2 mirrors your IDC to the HSV. The stock injectors will run high IDCs and the HSV will flow a considerable amount of water through the .7mm jet. However the IDCs of your STi injectors are much lower - and the HSV as a result permits lower water flow to the jet.

    Just as a for instance suppose at 4500 rpm and 100% map stock injectors are running 80% IDC to get an AFR of 12:1. With your fuel upgrades your IDC may only be 50% to get that same AFR. With the fia2 you are flowing around 60% less water mirroring the STi injectors vs. the stock injectors.

    The idea behind jet size is to match the potential of the injectors to the jets. For instance on stock injcectors your max static potential of the injectors is 1760 cc - so you want to pick a jet with potential somewhere between 176cc (for 10% water to fuel) and 440cc (for 25% water to fuel). Except for the most severe race applications with in excess of 2 bars of boost 25% is not really necessary to get to the maximum power AFR. So lets say 15% water to fuel is a good street level and will let you tune to maximum power of 12.5:1 AFR (+/- for the VE at that load point) that means with stock injectors a jet that flows 264cc at the setting of the pressure switch. With the STi jets you need to have flow potential of around 400cc to match the injector potential. Note since you would never run 100% on the STi injectors on your set up and at the target AFRs you wouldn't actually flow that much and one pump wouldn't get you there - but you don't need to.

    Now ideally there would be a way to multiply the fia2 - for instance a dial that would mirror 1x, 1.5x, 2x, 2.5x and 3x the IDC of the injectors. This would permit the fia2 to flow more water through the HSV on fuel setups that are running lower IDCs. Since that doesn't exist at this time, I have two suggestions and can assure you that if they are followed you will get what you had originally expected from the WI.

    1. Put in the .9mm jet and set the pump pressure switch to 7 bars of pump pressure or

    2. Install 2 .6mm or .7mm jets - again you will never run high enough IDCs to get to their full potential and run out of pump pressure. You could theorectially use one .7 and one .8 for now to test this out. I would run this at the 5 bar setting.

    Now more than likely the first one may still be a little less water than you want because as you continue to lean - the IDCs will go down and again the fia2 will flow less water. The second recommendation is really the one that will get you into the 15% water to fuel ratio.

    Once you are getting enough water - clear the timing adjustments. Get the AFR to around 12.5 accross the board you will not knock on the second recommendation - on the very small chance you do (because I have never tune on CA gas so I might not appreciate how bad it is) then turn up the pump pressure. Once you are at 12.5 AFR across the board turn down the pressure to find out where the knock threshold is - then turn it back up a safe margin.

    Once this has been done you can now tune timing to MBT.

    You will experience the tuning benefits of WI at this point - now of course you get into the iterative process of adjusting load points to the exact AFR that produces maximum power for a given load point's VE and the piston, head and air/exhaust flow characteristics of your set up.

    If you haven't tuned with WI before it is new and different - but your tuner has to fully buy into the very simple fact that no internal combustion engine ever has its maximum power AFR below 12.0:1 - the only reason anyone runs richer than 12.1:1 is to cool the cylinders and the intake charge - none of that fuel is burned and none of it adds power if anything that excess fuel is robbing power by slowing the flame front. It just so happens that turning up the boost provides more power increase than running rich fuel settings. But all else equal and if knock is being prevented - 12.25:1 will always produce more power than 11:1 AFR. WI will let you get to the 12.25:1 without knock.

    It is funny how so many describe WI as a tuning crutch - fuel dumping is the actual crutch. It works like this buy a bigger turbo so cfm can be increased and use fuel to control the resulting knock. Invariably in order to dump more fuel you just so happen to also have to spend a grand on the fuel system. The increased cfm over comes the excess fuel parasitic effects - net positive. Now WI can allow you to increase your cfm and still stay in the sweet range of AFR - but it is less well known from those newer to performance. With WI you will only get the benefit of the higher CFM and lose the parasitic effects of fuel dumping.

    I have been using WI on high compression track and marine engines since the early 80's and it was developed in the '30s. GNs were using it - but everyone gets the reason it worked half wrong - everyone thinks it was to overcome heat soak issues and the poor intercooling. With today's larger intercoolers tuners figure they didn't need it anymore. Yes WI helped with the GNs IC issues but well over half its benefits are actually in cylinder. What today's better ICs really mean is that you no longer have to jet in front of the IC but can jet after it.

    Remember WI was developed having nothing to do with forced induction, charged intake air or the resulting heat associated with it. WI at its inception was to deal with in cylinder issues of high compression engines. Its solution is just as applicable to forced induction but it is an in cylinder solution - not a charged air solution - ICs handle that and the best way to handle heat soak today is an external water or CO2 spray.

    Look at my list of links on maximum power AFR -

    Max AFR links

    this is part of my larger draft document

    Draft Turbo and Knock paper

    This is a draft and I do seek constructive input on its usefulness and development at the contact address there.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •