separating fiction from reality... a couple of days on the DYNO
I was thinking 4-6,000 rpm as midrange.
In my limited experience with exhaust ports I did my first ones much like an NA where I went down and rounded for an early opening but also went up a bit on top to take out the stock "lip" and then squared out the edges on top as I had seen this kind of shape do well on a flow bench.
The power came on hard at 5,000rpm because it REALLY lacked power below that rpm despite full boost coming in before 3.500rpm.
On my next ports I wanted to be able to meter the power more easily with the gas pedal instead of being purely rpm dependent so I did a more traditional "turbo port".
Down and rounded a bit for earlier opening, but only squared the top corners a bit for and left the "lip" between the rotor housing and the sleeve. This lip is supposed to fight reversion that kills power in the mid range as well as not extending the exhaust/intake overlap any more.
On this engine the torque was pretty much flat from full boost to where the intake ports started dropping off (7,250 rpm) because intake had early opening but stock closing timing.
After I built the engine a fellow forum member clued me into an article he read of a Japanese tuner that found the most power on stock FD ports with dyno testing!
I will see if I can track that info down.
In my limited experience with exhaust ports I did my first ones much like an NA where I went down and rounded for an early opening but also went up a bit on top to take out the stock "lip" and then squared out the edges on top as I had seen this kind of shape do well on a flow bench.
The power came on hard at 5,000rpm because it REALLY lacked power below that rpm despite full boost coming in before 3.500rpm.
On my next ports I wanted to be able to meter the power more easily with the gas pedal instead of being purely rpm dependent so I did a more traditional "turbo port".
Down and rounded a bit for earlier opening, but only squared the top corners a bit for and left the "lip" between the rotor housing and the sleeve. This lip is supposed to fight reversion that kills power in the mid range as well as not extending the exhaust/intake overlap any more.
On this engine the torque was pretty much flat from full boost to where the intake ports started dropping off (7,250 rpm) because intake had early opening but stock closing timing.
After I built the engine a fellow forum member clued me into an article he read of a Japanese tuner that found the most power on stock FD ports with dyno testing!
I will see if I can track that info down.
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 912
Likes: 1
From: Norway
Looking good howard.
Im looking forward to the engine is up and running again with the link.
Iv'e just orderd 6 x 1000cc Injector Dynamics injectors for my FD. Going to run Shell 99vpower fuel and water/meth. Will a singel 1000cc injector be enough for w/m, and about 500rwhp? Not going to push the GT4094R to much on the BP engine. Got plans on running the car for a while on the street
How would it be to run the w/m injector with one of the fuel injector outputs from the ECU?
JT
Im looking forward to the engine is up and running again with the link.
Iv'e just orderd 6 x 1000cc Injector Dynamics injectors for my FD. Going to run Shell 99vpower fuel and water/meth. Will a singel 1000cc injector be enough for w/m, and about 500rwhp? Not going to push the GT4094R to much on the BP engine. Got plans on running the car for a while on the street
How would it be to run the w/m injector with one of the fuel injector outputs from the ECU?
JT
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
yes the single 1000 will work perfectly for your purposes... i did run 2 1000s w meth just teed into my secondaries and it worked well. my guess is one 1000 paralleled w your secondaries should work fine.
BTW, i really think the GT4094 should get waay more applause than it gets.
the compressor area is 8.17 sq inches V the GT4294 at 8.38 yet is so much more compact. you get almost all of the bang of the 4294 but do not have to screw w such a large package.
if you want to spend the time it is possible to design a significantly more efficient manifold as you can place it equidistant to both rotors alongside the motor and gain advantage.
i haven't been able to fully dyno mine but it was a screamer on the road and the spool made me think i had a GT35 on the motor.
hc
BTW, i really think the GT4094 should get waay more applause than it gets.
the compressor area is 8.17 sq inches V the GT4294 at 8.38 yet is so much more compact. you get almost all of the bang of the 4294 but do not have to screw w such a large package.
if you want to spend the time it is possible to design a significantly more efficient manifold as you can place it equidistant to both rotors alongside the motor and gain advantage.
i haven't been able to fully dyno mine but it was a screamer on the road and the spool made me think i had a GT35 on the motor.
hc
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 912
Likes: 1
From: Norway
yes the single 1000 will work perfectly for your purposes... i did run 2 1000s w meth just teed into my secondaries and it worked well. my guess is one 1000 paralleled w your secondaries should work fine.
BTW, i really think the GT4094 should get waay more applause than it gets.
the compressor area is 8.17 sq inches V the GT4294 at 8.38 yet is so much more compact. you get almost all of the bang of the 4294 but do not have to screw w such a large package.
if you want to spend the time it is possible to design a significantly more efficient manifold as you can place it equidistant to both rotors alongside the motor and gain advantage.
i haven't been able to fully dyno mine but it was a screamer on the road and the spool made me think i had a GT35 on the motor.
hc
BTW, i really think the GT4094 should get waay more applause than it gets.
the compressor area is 8.17 sq inches V the GT4294 at 8.38 yet is so much more compact. you get almost all of the bang of the 4294 but do not have to screw w such a large package.
if you want to spend the time it is possible to design a significantly more efficient manifold as you can place it equidistant to both rotors alongside the motor and gain advantage.
i haven't been able to fully dyno mine but it was a screamer on the road and the spool made me think i had a GT35 on the motor.
hc
Need to find a pump to use with the water/meth system. Need to find a pump that works with meth and water.Iv'e been looking into manifold's, i just got the exhaust flange for it yesterday. Not sure how to build it atm, want it equal lengths and a good flow for the WG as that's the crucial part of getting it to run at 15 psi if i want to. With a quite big Bridge it will put out alot of HP at 15 psi i think.
BDW did the water/meth go on as soon as the secondarys turned on?
I can stage my injectors and have the water/meth on injector driver 7 for instance and have it turn on at 10 psi or something?
JT
yes the single 1000 will work perfectly for your purposes... i did run 2 1000s w meth just teed into my secondaries and it worked well. my guess is one 1000 paralleled w your secondaries should work fine.
BTW, i really think the GT4094 should get waay more applause than it gets.
the compressor area is 8.17 sq inches V the GT4294 at 8.38 yet is so much more compact. you get almost all of the bang of the 4294 but do not have to screw w such a large package.
if you want to spend the time it is possible to design a significantly more efficient manifold as you can place it equidistant to both rotors alongside the motor and gain advantage.
i haven't been able to fully dyno mine but it was a screamer on the road and the spool made me think i had a GT35 on the motor.
hc
BTW, i really think the GT4094 should get waay more applause than it gets.
the compressor area is 8.17 sq inches V the GT4294 at 8.38 yet is so much more compact. you get almost all of the bang of the 4294 but do not have to screw w such a large package.
if you want to spend the time it is possible to design a significantly more efficient manifold as you can place it equidistant to both rotors alongside the motor and gain advantage.
i haven't been able to fully dyno mine but it was a screamer on the road and the spool made me think i had a GT35 on the motor.
hc
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
"Need to find a pump to use with the water/meth system"
i do have a pump recommendation... IMO, the Alkycontrol pump is in a class by itself IF you plan to run 100% meth. contact Julio Don, proprietor and Elec Engineer. 1.8 GPM at open flow and seriously engineered.
i bought a Honeywell adj pressure switch. i set it at 1.5 PSI. it worked perfectly. since i was at the time running a Power FC i had no option other than paralleling the secondaries which worked very well.
the Alkycontrol pump and EV14 injectors (2 X1000) made 125 psi (logged) at the rail.
w my new Link setup i will be able to design a fuel table for just the meth.
"how much boost are you pushing with your setup and the timing at full boost"
my Jan 16th session ended prematurely w a diffuser going thru the motor. we were planning to run 29 psi w the BW and the last run was 24. IGL logged was 12 at peak torque 6550 rising to 14 at 8600. split 11.
update:
the last 2 months have been restructuring my setup and waiting on others to get things done. finally my Link system (ordered 2/2) will ship DHL from NZ on monday so i should be looking at it this coming week.
my new manifold is getting jigged. if the jig is not finished next week it is going to another shop that can do it immediately. i am spending extra time on the manifold as i plan to produce it.
most of the other parts are ready. i just purchased a motor that looks to be (literally) new which will be the basis the project. the motor won't take more than 10 days once i get to it.
i am also waiting on the Full Function Engineering secondary rail and will be running their crank wheel and a Hall effect sensor. everything else is readily available.
howard
i do have a pump recommendation... IMO, the Alkycontrol pump is in a class by itself IF you plan to run 100% meth. contact Julio Don, proprietor and Elec Engineer. 1.8 GPM at open flow and seriously engineered.
i bought a Honeywell adj pressure switch. i set it at 1.5 PSI. it worked perfectly. since i was at the time running a Power FC i had no option other than paralleling the secondaries which worked very well.
the Alkycontrol pump and EV14 injectors (2 X1000) made 125 psi (logged) at the rail.
w my new Link setup i will be able to design a fuel table for just the meth.
"how much boost are you pushing with your setup and the timing at full boost"
my Jan 16th session ended prematurely w a diffuser going thru the motor. we were planning to run 29 psi w the BW and the last run was 24. IGL logged was 12 at peak torque 6550 rising to 14 at 8600. split 11.
update:
the last 2 months have been restructuring my setup and waiting on others to get things done. finally my Link system (ordered 2/2) will ship DHL from NZ on monday so i should be looking at it this coming week.
my new manifold is getting jigged. if the jig is not finished next week it is going to another shop that can do it immediately. i am spending extra time on the manifold as i plan to produce it.
most of the other parts are ready. i just purchased a motor that looks to be (literally) new which will be the basis the project. the motor won't take more than 10 days once i get to it.
i am also waiting on the Full Function Engineering secondary rail and will be running their crank wheel and a Hall effect sensor. everything else is readily available.
howard
Sticking with same ports with this engine? Lot of guys making big power on the stock exhaust ports, just something to consider. Also, what seals will you run? I know this is a thread about turbos, but knowing all the variables is important to the information gained.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
"Sticking with same ports with this engine? Lot of guys making big power on the stock exhaust ports, just something to consider. Also, what seals will you run? I know this is a thread about turbos, but knowing all the variables is important to the information gained."
to a significant degree, the usage of a turbo decreases the need of optimal porting. to use the vernacular, a turbo just rams the air in no matter the ports. so yes, it is not difficult to make power w stock ports, which aren't all that bad.
i really like my ports and they are the product of almost a decade of cam timing work w my piston motors prior to 83 when i went rotary. i worked w Competition Cams designing the cam timing for my race motors. my rotary porting was partially determined using a degree wheel.
if you look at purpose ground cams for turbo/super charged apps you will see they open the exhaust a tad earlier... diverting the last of the oomph to further power the turbo. it is a win win. you are correct re the exhaust port not needing alot of work. it is huge, it is peripheral and it is open a long time. further, it needs to close when mazda wanted or you get intake pollution which is life threatening.
i do open my exhaust ports early.
i was very happy w the power profile from Jan 16. peak torque around 6500, and power extending towards 9000. i was not happy w power at 5500 and i know the fix and it will be in place next dyno. considering i get 21 mpg at 14.7 on the highway i think my dual purpose ports are fine.
as to seals, i have a set of ALS that have been sitting around for a while and think i will run them. my opinion is that there are a number of excellent seals and i am completely ambivalent as to whether i have Mazda, ALS, or Atkins in the motor. i know there are other seals that work well too, i just haven't had direct experience with them... that's my humble opinion and i am sticking to it.
and, absolutely yes, the thread is here for all to learn and share. including me.
"Prolly couldn't hurt to walk away from the idea of 100% meth either."
all options are open here. i am re-considering injectant and haven't reached any conclusions as yet. my AI system, using ECU directed fuel injectors, can deliver precise amounts of whatever exactly wherever.
here's what i will be firing up systems-wise:
fresh engine
Link Xtreme wire in ECU (should arrive in 2 days)
Link DisplayLink (sort of a Commander on steroids)
Link 4 bar MAP sensor
Full Function Engineering primary and secondary rails
Bosch EV 14 1000 cc primary
Bosch EV 14 1000 cc secondary
Bosch EV 14 1000 cc meth injectors (2)
all 6 injectors run separately
4 IGN-1A coils
new set custom Magnecor 10 mm wires
Full Function Engineering 36 tooth crank wheel w Hall effect pickup
turbo manifold w larger runners
stock exhaust port area: 50 mm/1.968 diameter area 3.042 sq "
Jan 16 manifold runner area 2.22 sq "
next manifold runner area 3.35 sq "
i purposely built my first manifold w a runner area of 2.22 sq" w an angled transition at the manifold flange so as to compare w the larger manifold in relation to backpressure, EGT, flow, as well as power and curve. it will be an interesting comparison.
after spending some time addressing wide band options i am going back to what i previously had run before FJO... Techedge. there are a number of reasons but one of the most primary is i want to run the newer Bosch LSU 4.9 sensor. the unit is a touch pricey but it is really important to have confidence in the number. if you have a spare hour i invite you to the Techedge site as it is a wonderful exposition of air fuel tech. i will be running the 2C0B w the XR1 display.
since the Xtreme is saturated as to injectors i will add an AEM Peak and Hold converter. (the purpose built for rotary Link RX is peak and hold but runs only 4 injectors)
finally, i will be running two Bosch knock sensors, one in each rotor housing. the Link monitors each and can change timing/fuel/boost etc based on knock output.
oh, one other change, no primary diffusers...
howard
to a significant degree, the usage of a turbo decreases the need of optimal porting. to use the vernacular, a turbo just rams the air in no matter the ports. so yes, it is not difficult to make power w stock ports, which aren't all that bad.
i really like my ports and they are the product of almost a decade of cam timing work w my piston motors prior to 83 when i went rotary. i worked w Competition Cams designing the cam timing for my race motors. my rotary porting was partially determined using a degree wheel.
if you look at purpose ground cams for turbo/super charged apps you will see they open the exhaust a tad earlier... diverting the last of the oomph to further power the turbo. it is a win win. you are correct re the exhaust port not needing alot of work. it is huge, it is peripheral and it is open a long time. further, it needs to close when mazda wanted or you get intake pollution which is life threatening.
i do open my exhaust ports early.
i was very happy w the power profile from Jan 16. peak torque around 6500, and power extending towards 9000. i was not happy w power at 5500 and i know the fix and it will be in place next dyno. considering i get 21 mpg at 14.7 on the highway i think my dual purpose ports are fine.
as to seals, i have a set of ALS that have been sitting around for a while and think i will run them. my opinion is that there are a number of excellent seals and i am completely ambivalent as to whether i have Mazda, ALS, or Atkins in the motor. i know there are other seals that work well too, i just haven't had direct experience with them... that's my humble opinion and i am sticking to it.
and, absolutely yes, the thread is here for all to learn and share. including me.
"Prolly couldn't hurt to walk away from the idea of 100% meth either."
all options are open here. i am re-considering injectant and haven't reached any conclusions as yet. my AI system, using ECU directed fuel injectors, can deliver precise amounts of whatever exactly wherever.
here's what i will be firing up systems-wise:
fresh engine
Link Xtreme wire in ECU (should arrive in 2 days)
Link DisplayLink (sort of a Commander on steroids)
Link 4 bar MAP sensor
Full Function Engineering primary and secondary rails
Bosch EV 14 1000 cc primary
Bosch EV 14 1000 cc secondary
Bosch EV 14 1000 cc meth injectors (2)
all 6 injectors run separately
4 IGN-1A coils
new set custom Magnecor 10 mm wires
Full Function Engineering 36 tooth crank wheel w Hall effect pickup
turbo manifold w larger runners
stock exhaust port area: 50 mm/1.968 diameter area 3.042 sq "
Jan 16 manifold runner area 2.22 sq "
next manifold runner area 3.35 sq "
i purposely built my first manifold w a runner area of 2.22 sq" w an angled transition at the manifold flange so as to compare w the larger manifold in relation to backpressure, EGT, flow, as well as power and curve. it will be an interesting comparison.
after spending some time addressing wide band options i am going back to what i previously had run before FJO... Techedge. there are a number of reasons but one of the most primary is i want to run the newer Bosch LSU 4.9 sensor. the unit is a touch pricey but it is really important to have confidence in the number. if you have a spare hour i invite you to the Techedge site as it is a wonderful exposition of air fuel tech. i will be running the 2C0B w the XR1 display.
since the Xtreme is saturated as to injectors i will add an AEM Peak and Hold converter. (the purpose built for rotary Link RX is peak and hold but runs only 4 injectors)
finally, i will be running two Bosch knock sensors, one in each rotor housing. the Link monitors each and can change timing/fuel/boost etc based on knock output.
oh, one other change, no primary diffusers...
howard
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
"why didn't you just buy the vipec version of the link extreme? has peak and hold driver build in"
i am working w Link and certain people wanted the Xtreme in my car. BTW, i did pay round money for it. no free lunch, maybe a discounted lunch.
hc
i am working w Link and certain people wanted the Xtreme in my car. BTW, i did pay round money for it. no free lunch, maybe a discounted lunch.
hc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Coleman CPR View Post
you are correct re the exhaust port not needing alot of work. it is huge, it is peripheral and it is open a long time. further, it needs to close when mazda wanted or you get intake pollution which is life threatening.
i do open my exhaust ports early.
Originally Posted by Howard Coleman CPR View Post
you are correct re the exhaust port not needing alot of work. it is huge, it is peripheral and it is open a long time. further, it needs to close when mazda wanted or you get intake pollution which is life threatening.
i do open my exhaust ports early.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,837
Likes: 3,234
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
turbo manifold w larger runners
stock exhaust port area: 50 mm/1.968 diameter area 3.042 sq "
Jan 16 manifold runner area 2.22 sq "
next manifold runner area 3.35 sq "
i purposely built my first manifold w a runner area of 2.22 sq" w an angled transition at the manifold flange so as to compare w the larger manifold in relation to backpressure, EGT, flow, as well as power and curve. it will be an interesting comparison.
howard
stock exhaust port area: 50 mm/1.968 diameter area 3.042 sq "
Jan 16 manifold runner area 2.22 sq "
next manifold runner area 3.35 sq "
i purposely built my first manifold w a runner area of 2.22 sq" w an angled transition at the manifold flange so as to compare w the larger manifold in relation to backpressure, EGT, flow, as well as power and curve. it will be an interesting comparison.
howard
mike
but you do agree they are basicly the same thing, just vipec has peak and hold for injectors?
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
"The complexity of this build never ends. What are the goals with all of these new goodies?"
perhaps the build never ends, it has been fun since 99, but i am not so sure the complexity has risen since my system switch to Link..
my Link ecu has eliminated:
Datalogit
Apexi AVC-R boost control module
J&S Knock sensor
Honeywell pressure switch meth actuator
piggy back wired meth injectors
additional simplifications are the removal of 2 CDI amps.
the only modules on my setup other than the Link will be the Kenne Bell Boost A Pump, Wideband and Peak and Hold converter. all other controls reside within the ECU.
i am not making the switch to necessarily simplify my car but to improve it.
some of the upticks are pretty simple...
i was getting 11 data samples per second. i will now be able to log 100 parameters (which of course i won't) at 50 samples per second for 14 minutes! 4 MB memory! i won't have to drag my laptop around in my car as i have a screen (DisplayLink) that is approx 4 X 3 to monitor, log, display and tune.
logging can be set up so it turns on (and off) automatically with any parameter.
i will be very interested to view data at 50 Hz.
simple? how about "QuickTune?"
set target AFRs in 440 cells and go for a logged drive. push a button on all or part of the logged data and presto, a new adjusted fuel table per your target AFR.
the Xtreme has an internal knock control that will work separately on each rotor. you establish individual rotor normal noise on a X Y grid and then program a response to unusual knock within the timing/fuel table in all 440 cells. response is in microseconds. timing/fuel reintroduced at a rate of speed and delay you stipulate.
if you are getting more knock in, for example, the front rotor you have the ability to tune the fuel/timing in that rotor only. there are separate X Y tables for each of as many as 8 injectors. of course the waste spark mode on the leading ignition is history.
and speaking of ignition, there is an X Y grid (RPM & load) for tuning the ignition coil dwell. so you run your coils around 3 Ms around town and juice them to 4.5 Ms when it is time to make power. nice for the coils and plugs.
a welcome non-Link addition will be the full Function Engineering 36 tooth crank ignition sensor wheel and Hall effect pickup. when combined w the Link 40 Mhz specialised engine management processor ignition will control to .1 degree and fuel to .01 ms.
then there's the "Motorsports" features... antilag, launch control and flatshift. gear compensations for fuel, ignition and boost if you wish.
the ECU purchase decision was made by me Feb 2. various delays ensued but i do expect it to arrive this week. board members might be interested to know that there will shortly be a Link Section in the Engine Management portion of the site.
as far as my "goal"... i am always looking at upgrading my FD. the FD is something special to start with and like any thoroughbred it responds to the whip. my turbo project remains job one and the Texas Mile is job two.
i will be back on the dyno with the Borg Warner as it is by no means run out. i do not expect any "magic" from the Link system, i do expect alot better data and better data generally leads to better outcomes. the manifold will probably be the largest new factor.
howard
perhaps the build never ends, it has been fun since 99, but i am not so sure the complexity has risen since my system switch to Link..
my Link ecu has eliminated:
Datalogit
Apexi AVC-R boost control module
J&S Knock sensor
Honeywell pressure switch meth actuator
piggy back wired meth injectors
additional simplifications are the removal of 2 CDI amps.
the only modules on my setup other than the Link will be the Kenne Bell Boost A Pump, Wideband and Peak and Hold converter. all other controls reside within the ECU.
i am not making the switch to necessarily simplify my car but to improve it.
some of the upticks are pretty simple...
i was getting 11 data samples per second. i will now be able to log 100 parameters (which of course i won't) at 50 samples per second for 14 minutes! 4 MB memory! i won't have to drag my laptop around in my car as i have a screen (DisplayLink) that is approx 4 X 3 to monitor, log, display and tune.
logging can be set up so it turns on (and off) automatically with any parameter.
i will be very interested to view data at 50 Hz.
simple? how about "QuickTune?"
set target AFRs in 440 cells and go for a logged drive. push a button on all or part of the logged data and presto, a new adjusted fuel table per your target AFR.
the Xtreme has an internal knock control that will work separately on each rotor. you establish individual rotor normal noise on a X Y grid and then program a response to unusual knock within the timing/fuel table in all 440 cells. response is in microseconds. timing/fuel reintroduced at a rate of speed and delay you stipulate.
if you are getting more knock in, for example, the front rotor you have the ability to tune the fuel/timing in that rotor only. there are separate X Y tables for each of as many as 8 injectors. of course the waste spark mode on the leading ignition is history.
and speaking of ignition, there is an X Y grid (RPM & load) for tuning the ignition coil dwell. so you run your coils around 3 Ms around town and juice them to 4.5 Ms when it is time to make power. nice for the coils and plugs.
a welcome non-Link addition will be the full Function Engineering 36 tooth crank ignition sensor wheel and Hall effect pickup. when combined w the Link 40 Mhz specialised engine management processor ignition will control to .1 degree and fuel to .01 ms.
then there's the "Motorsports" features... antilag, launch control and flatshift. gear compensations for fuel, ignition and boost if you wish.
the ECU purchase decision was made by me Feb 2. various delays ensued but i do expect it to arrive this week. board members might be interested to know that there will shortly be a Link Section in the Engine Management portion of the site.
as far as my "goal"... i am always looking at upgrading my FD. the FD is something special to start with and like any thoroughbred it responds to the whip. my turbo project remains job one and the Texas Mile is job two.
i will be back on the dyno with the Borg Warner as it is by no means run out. i do not expect any "magic" from the Link system, i do expect alot better data and better data generally leads to better outcomes. the manifold will probably be the largest new factor.
howard
Last edited by Howard Coleman; Mar 28, 2012 at 10:26 AM.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,067
Likes: 7
From: Home of the Rolex 24
Interesting choice Howard. I enjoy the effort to push the envelope. Hopefully in due time we will be able to switch to "learned" system such as link and those of us with some knowledge on the tuning end can plug and play ourselves. G
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
i will be switching to WM50.
50% distilled water and 50% methanol.
i will deliver it thru either one or two Bosch EV14 injectors located pre turbo. i am going to talk w Bosch tech to properly size the injector/s so that i get max atomization which, as i read, is important for compressor wheel integrity.
my AI system is capable of 125 psi rail pressure which may also help w atomization.
unlike other preturbo setups i will be able to program exactly what i want in 440 cells.
50% distilled water and 50% methanol.
i will deliver it thru either one or two Bosch EV14 injectors located pre turbo. i am going to talk w Bosch tech to properly size the injector/s so that i get max atomization which, as i read, is important for compressor wheel integrity.
my AI system is capable of 125 psi rail pressure which may also help w atomization.
unlike other preturbo setups i will be able to program exactly what i want in 440 cells.
