what mixture were you running? i would assume it would prob cool the pre ic temps more as opposed to the post ic?

Have been running this setup for about 15 years, at the time, Aquamist was the leader on commercial injection, all others were in infant stages. At the time, pre-turbo injection was less complex, not a whole lot could go wrong with the system.


My IAT sensor is before TB, unfortunately, can't tell temps pre/post IC.

I bought a Prometh pump because they say it has an internal pressure relief, but it looks pretty much identical to the Snow Performance pump, so now I'm wondering. I guess I'll go ahead and install it and see what happens. Does anyone know for sure that it does have the pressure relief? I don't see why they'd lie about that.
by https://www.flickr.com/photos/159205146@N07/, on Flickr

I'm planning on getting a Prometh solenoid too since it's only .7amp max, and the Holley solenoid I currently have is 30amp, which explains why it fried that circuit in the ECU. This way I won't have to use an SSR. I'm planning on most likely getting a driver for both the pump and solenoid though, or at least the solenoid, but I figure it can't hurt having one for both lol. I'd like to get a nozzle to go with the solenoid but Alex told me they're not available at the moment. What's the consensus on the Snow nozzles? Are they still lower standard than the Prometh nozzles? It seems to be conflicting info in this thread regarding those.

I see differences on the outside. Might be different revisions of the same product. I doubt they would say there was a pressure relief valve and not have one.

As for pre-turbo, I'm not sure I see the point unless you have already maxed out the turbo and need slightly more compressor. The hotter the air entering the intercooler, the better chance the intercooler has to shed off a higher percentage of the heat. Adding the AI/Meth post-intercooler adds to the cooling effect instead of just taking load off the intercooler. If you run pre-turbo, you are limited to ambient temps after the intercooler, but post-intercooler spray means you could thoretically drop below ambient. Pre-turbo just seems useful for stretching the compressor map or a no-intercooler situation.

Yeah there are subtle differences, but I figured I'd see a larger cap on the front end or something like that. But yeah, I don't see why they'd lie about it, so it probably has one.

I can already see a few minds asploding … :suspect:


.

Cool video.

Anyone here adding a lubricant to their water/methanol?

that might be questionable with water in the mix, you should consider a top lube in the fuel tank instead imo in addition to the OMP or premix oil being used.
.

I'd use cutting machine coolant oil.

I don't think cutting machine oil is meant to be burned. That sounds like trouble.

If you really want to inject oil, maybe use another set of injectors? You could even incorporate it into the block! Use a small shaft to help pump and meter the extra oil? Hook it up to the ECU, and have it act on a pre-defined map just for this oil injector? This sounds so familiar...

it keeps the injectors from rusting. Volvo patented the system in 1983. they used something that looked like an EFI injection system, but it used water with machine cutting oil to keep the injectors from rusting.
they were making ~300hp from the 2.1 engine in 1983. 1.5 bar of boost. its a mess too, they kept the K Jetronic for fuel, and there is a separate computer for ignition, and then the 3rd for the water injection.

https://www.media.volvocars.com/glob...acks-of-europe
https://dailyturismo.com/dto-volvo-2...oup-evolution/

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...140f1f66e7.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...8912b7b1cf.jpg

just ignore that it was 40 years ago, nobody does that now in the age where stainless steel and exotic materials are abundant. Not even on the newest systems that actually have direct PWM injectors

https://usrallyteam.com/index.php?ma...x&cPath=68_347
.

80 years ago, it turns out WM-50 had oil in it too.
"MW 50 is something of a misnomer, as it is actually a mixture of three fluids: 50% methanol acting primarily to achieve optimum anti-detonant effect, secondarily as an anti-freeze; 49.5% water; and 0.5% Schutzöl 39, an oil-based anti-corrosion additive...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_50#

Haha, my setup doesn't "require" a lubricant so I was more curious than anything.

With alcohol generally being harder on the internals, lots of talk about premix lately and the quantities required to keep things happy; cant help but think a lubricant would be valuable to those with high volume AI systems. I'd absolutely add a lubricant to my fluid if it would help, doesn't seem like a popular thing to do, though.

Will stick with premix and possibly a top lube for now, but if anyone knows a good soluble oil that might take up some slack, I'm in.

Think about where the AI is being injected. You'd be coating your intake in oil, likely your throttle body as well. You can open up the OMP and fix the flow rate, so you will have apex seal lubrication off-throttle, and then add premix to get to a good % on throttle. You seem to want to replace the OMP, if you want to inject oil, why not just use it?

Recently added WMI to my FD setup using generic boost switches for the time-being. Running two stages: W/M pre-turbo to specifically extend compressor efficiency/max air flow at higher boost (Stage 2); and, H2O post-IC ahead of throttle body to maintain cooler/cleaner engine internals (Stage 1).

Plan is to let the Syvecs ECU control pre-turbo compressor Stage 2 spraying to shift compressor map efficiency while stretching the EFR 8374 near-max limits as applicable. Many options for control available; PWM, linear/progressive, etc. Wondering if simple on/off control is all that is needed for this stage or do I need to match injection rate w rising boost or turbo speed sensor rpm or other available metric (EGT, perhaps?). In other words, what are any obvious indicators to let one know that the compressor efficiency map has shifted to a more favorable region as turbo air flow limits are stretched? Seems to this small brain that if just a set amount is needed to shift compressor map efficiency when operating at 20+psi, why go the PWM route or similarly more progressive strategy for Stage 2? I.e., Can I keep things simple here?

Note: Stage 1 control for post-IC spraying seems more practical for me since I have the instant feedback of IATs during injection. It's the pre-turbo stage that I'm mostly interested in the forum's feedback.

Appreciate your comments in advance!

Prometh question not covered.

From their nozzle charts you can have the same flow rate by doing this:
(1) larger orifice with smaller number of slots or
(2) smaller orifice with larger number of slots.

Which of the two would result in smaller droplets?

the smallest/most narrow x shallowest slots imo, but perhaps my ignorance is showing :dunno:

that might be the one with the most slots, but is not truly defined as such.
.

Shame no one engaged with you on this, unfortunately I don't have any advice for you either. However we seem to have the same plan. I have the AEM V3 setup with 250cc pre turbo and 1000cc pre throttle body running 50/50 water meth. I too plan to max out the 8374 with my bridgeport, and plan to play with the progressive controller on the dyno to see the effects on power and egts in the spring. There seems to be a wide range of advice on nozzle size, but the AEM chart shows 1300cc for 600hp at 25psi. Not sure how those numbers relate to a rotary but I figured it was a good place to start. What nozzle sizes are you running?

since the rotary is moving 1.3x more air per hp that’s likely a factor.

so that 600 piston hp is only equivalent to ~460 rotary hp

fuel type type will matter

generally would run the pre-turbo in the region where compressor map efficiency is falling off at the right and thus, the compressor discharge temp is going to be escalating.

Just a quich glance, but on an EFR 8374 @20 psi is going to be falling below 70% around 60 lbs/min or ~450 whp, 65 lbs/min @ 25 psi or ~480 whp. You might consider sooner to get a jump on it, you just have to study the compressor map and decide at what point past the peak efficiency to kick it in.
.

Thanks team! Yeah the increased airflow need for hp equivalency to piston engines would probably apply directly to the nozzle size needed. I can easily increase the pre-turbo nozzle as it's the smallest one. I have thermocouples pre-turbo (pre-nozzle), pre-intercooler, post-intercooler (pre-nozzle), FD UIM stock location and one in each exhaust manifold runner. So I should be able to play with the controller and pre-turbo nozzle size and see how much I can affect temps all throughout the system. Plan is to keep egt's under 950c (efr limit but should be able to keep it in the 800's) and otherwise look at air temps going into the engine and keep increasing the flow until temps stop dropping or power does. Obviously I'll be fine with some power loss for safety if the temps are continuing to drop substantially and not just marginally. I'm at 2200ft so that doesn't help the compressor, but hopefully the denser air from the WM will at least make up for that. My car really doesn't need this turbo maxed out, but if it can still put the power down then maybe the turbo is too small, lol. A LOT of testing coming this spring!

@FFR818

"As a GENERAL rule of thumb when using a 50/50 WM mixture, use a factor of 100 ml/min (cc = ml) for every 100 hp achieved; approx. 1.5 gph nozzle capacity per 100 hp. This is primarily a starting point for the 20 psi or less crowd. If using water only, go with 1 gph nozzle capacity for every 100 hp produced.

Note: These are general 'starting points' considering the variable factors of differing mfr pump pressures & nozzle flow ratings offered; more prudent to start at the minimal end, and work your way up as applicable."

I posted the above guidelines in another thread where the OP had unwittingly been spraying far too much WI, which was causing predictable internal combustion issues; hence, limiting otherwise achievable power to the wheels.

In your case, I would cut the pre-TB amount of WMI to something closer to the 400-500 ml/min range; 6-8 gph nozzle size. I'm very confident in this amount being a good starting point for you.

For shifting compressor map efficiency, I'm far more iffy on what amount of AI it takes. For my own setup, I was initially just looking to avoid the 8374 IWG surge point that typically occurs around 21-23 psi from what I've been told (special thanks to Ian/Blue TII, et al). But now I'm mostly interested in shifting compressor efficiency to max out 8374 airflow. So whatever boost that turns out to be (upper 20s/30 psi perhaps?), then that will ultimately be my max boost available on petro & AI for the random occasions that I choose to fully stretch the turbo's legs.

I have a turbo speed sensor to assist, including a Syvecs ECU, so I'll let my tuner figure out the applicable settings for "reliably" allowing max boost when applicable. But the majority of my typical wknd/highway driving will be in the mid-teens or fewer psi range based on my own driving style.

Thanks for the contribution Topolino! But this somewhat proves my statement about there being some confusion over injector size. AEM recommends just over 1300cc with their system for 600hp and 25psi, but by your recommendation it should be half of that. On the other hand, Team makes a good point about the additional airflow required for a rotary to make 600hp vs a piston engine that AEM would’ve been basing their numbers on.

After a lot of searching I decided to err on the side of caution and go with the AEM recommendation since I’m running their injectors, pump, and controller. And then I’ll do some testing on street and dyno to see how it responds. I can definitely move more of my injection to the turbo inlet if needed, but this will depend on the turbo outlet temps as I increase the boost as detonation protection is more important to me initially as I test then compressor efficiency.

my feeling is that the AEM recommendation is perhaps very conservative for the obvious reasons. The rotary application being unique, I’d tend to rely more on the true experience of rotary engine owners and what Topolino stated matches my own experience.

In your situation though, maybe giving up some performance to be on the conservative/safe side is the way to go.
.