Hartmans' GN on the Dyno Pics

[Spoolingturbo6]

Cal Hartlines GN on the Dyno

Cal Hartlines GN on the Dyno Pics.........movies to follow

 

[BoostKillsStres]

Hey, its another one of those non IC alky setups, wonder if he was taking notes from Bruce LOL What power did it make and whats the setup?

 

[Razor]

Sorry bout the resolution. This was done on a VHSC and converted to .jpg.

12 pulls were done, the first tests were done on Isopropyl 70/30 after the third run and had the Iso dialed in at 16 PSI, I dropped the ISO out and replaced with straight methanol. Next pull not changing anything.. the motor picked up 10 RWHP across the board. AFR dropped from 12.1 on iso to 11.9 on methanol. So getting rid of the water made more power...shhh..dont tell the other guys this

Turbo outlet temps were 250 at 16 PSI, you can see the thermocouple wire in the bottom pixs, intake air temps were 140's. So we were getting a reduction of approx 40% air temp.

Next pull we did without alcohol and matched the results of the thermocouple probe and IAT sensor inside the intake. That pull was cut short seeing the temps rise pretty steeply.

Time for more boost.. next pull was to up the boost, we ended up with a not too flat curve due to the way the dyno loads the motor/turbo. 23-25 PSI was were it hovered at. Turbo outlet temps were 300's, IAT was in the 170's. Again the same ratio of 40 %. Motor made 670 rwhp at this point(Super Flow Dyno). I asked Cal how much fuel was being replaced at this point??? His answer was 30%.

Next pull we decided to increase the alcohol and see if the temps could further be reduced.. well the temps came down to the 140's.. but the power dropped of to 610 rwhp. Even tho the AFR stayed at 12.0. So there is a point whereby too much will cuase the loss of RWHP.

Next pull..running out of time.. we dropped the C16 out of the tank.. and ran the car on straight methanol. It produced the same results as the previous test.

Next pull we switch the alky kit off, running on straight methanol, and the IAT temps started coming up as well as the injector DC goes to 100% on 160 lb injectors .. shut it down.

That ended the tests due to time. It was past 9 o'clock at night at this point.

So summary.. what we wanted to achieve was the same results as his V3 front mount which weighs 60+ lbs. His car see's aprox 140's at high boost using the V3. We got 170's. We didnt hit the number. Altho his old smaller front mount would see 170's. So its a good guess that if a smaller high flow stock location can be used... and get a 30 degree temp drop out of it.. from 170's to 140's.. we'd replicate the results of the V3. And save on the weight.

Next thing.. tests were done on C16.. no ill effects of using C16 with methanol. The old saying...when you get to the track, switch the alky kit off and run C16.. doesnt hold water

To run straight methanol as a fuel get ready to double up on the injectors.. twice as much is needed to make the same power.

Guys running smaller IC and alky will note that swapping to larger IC a lot of times yields no improvement. This is something I know first hand. At least there is a test performed documenting why..

I have the FAST runs done on the car, the dyno pulls from Super Chips.. just need to figure a way of showing the results.. need some time. As soon as I have something up, i'll post the link.

Would like to thank Cal Hartline for the use of his car as a guinea pig , and the team at Super Chips in Orlando for allowing us to beat on their dyno after hours..

So is Cal taking the kit off??? hehehe...

Lets see the V3 and alky test coming soon...

 

[4sfed4]

Originally posted by Razor
Next pull we decided to increase the alcohol and see if the temps could further be reduced.. well the temps came down to the 140's.. but the power dropped of to 610 rwhp. Even tho the AFR stayed at 12.0. So there is a point whereby too much will cuase the loss of RWHP.

This is the area I am interested in (see my post in this thread http://turbobuick.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132810).

If the total fueling is increased (gasoline volume drops, but alky volume increases), yet the A/F stays the same, YET power still drops off, isnt this indicative of the higher volume of the oxygenated fuel (the methanol) messing with the wideband O2 sensor? Is the true A/F actually much richer than is indicated?

 

[HighPSI]

Larry,
We are looking into the A/F ratio aspects of our test and will be doing the next tests with a wideband calibrated for alcohol in the tail pipe and my FAST wideband in the downpipe.

Based on what I have seen on the dyno with my car in very conservative trim, for 90% of my customers, I would recommend an alcohol kit over an intercooler upgrade. I plan on talking with the GSCA club next week and explain to them the tests we ran (you may want to start putting a rough draft together , Julio).

I beleive with Julio's kit and a stock location intercooler, I could attain the same inlet temps as my V-3. Unfortunatly, I don't think I can find one to flow enough air.

 

[4sfed4]

Originally posted by HighPSI
Larry,
We are looking into the A/F ratio aspects of our test and will be doing the next tests with a wideband calibrated for alcohol in the tail pipe and my FAST wideband in the downpipe.

Excellent.

I will be most interested in that information as Ive got Julio's kit fully installed on my car now and knowing how the alky will affect the A/F readings will be quite useful.

I know it might not work like this, but heres a thought----

If stoichiometric for gasoline is 14.7:1 and 6.5:1 for methanol, then stoichiometric for a 70/30 gasoline methanol mix (such as your dyno test) might be something on the order of ((70 * 14.7)+(30 * 6.5)) / 100, or 12.24:1?

 

[HighPSI]

Based upon past experience, I suspect the FAST wideband will be reading in the mid 11's and the SuperFlow will be reading in the mid 6's at the same time.

 

[Eric Stage I]

Larry,

The wideband sensor is telling us Lambda. Lambda being the ratio of AF(actual)/AF(stoich). It's the software that gives us its interpretation of an a/f ratio based on the fuel it thinks we're using. If Cal's car with gasoline made best power at an indicated 12.0:1 a/f ratio, that's roughly .8 Lambda.

In the case of methanol vs. gasoline, both fuels roughly (very roughly, all cars are different) will make best power in that same area, around .8 Lambda (give or take .05). So if you switch fuel over to methanol, and continue using an a/f meter set up for gasoline, it will still show 12.0:1, even though its really something like 5:1.

In the case of the FAST system running methanol, it did what it was suppose to do and tried to maintain a Lambda of .8, and continued to add fuel until it could achieve it (or not achieve it).

Running methanol as the fuel will require 2-3 times more volume capability than gasoline from the injectors, fuel lines, fuel pump, etc.

In answer to your question... when you start tuning with Julio's kit, start by tuning to about the same numbers you would with gas and go from there, because Lambda for best power is roughly the same for both fuels, and Lambda is what the oxygen sensor is really trying to tell you. Once you are in that ballpark, then ignore the O2 numbers and tweak it for best power. Sometimes the O2's will lead you in the wrong direction.

Eric

 

[bruce]

My problem *was* not having a big enough tank for the brew. So I had to add an Intercooler. But, doing alky, right, is a biggy, IMO.

 

[Razor]

Originally posted by HighPSI
I don't think I can find one to flow enough air.

Cal, I think I may just have something up my sleeve.

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129531

The IC I spoke to you about prelim looks very very promising. Its getting some fitment issues resolved, the i'll start doing the probe test before and after. BTW I found those probes for under the hoses..also found an data log temp meter

We can record both events at once.

This thread is turning interesting

BTW.. Bruce, Metco makes/made 6 gallon cells that could go in the spare tire area for thirsty apps.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Razor

BTW.. Bruce, Metco makes/made 6 gallon cells that could go in the spare tire area for thirsty apps.

Unlike the 1/4m crowd I spend minutes atta time at near WOT. But, it can be weeks between *passes*. I'd almost have to run a recirculating system to keep it fully charged, and have long enough lead times to allow for things to purge which kinda makes it akward, IMO.

I'm rethinking where to inject the alky to be most effective.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by 4sfed4

If stoichiometric for gasoline is 14.7:1 and 6.5:1 for methanol, then stoichiometric for a 70/30 gasoline methanol mix (such as your dyno test) might be something on the order of ((70 * 14.7)+(30 * 6.5)) / 100, or 12.24:1?

FWIW, IMO, that's fine for an engine running at Stoich, trouble is at WOT the extra richness is for in cylinder cooling. So the WOT best AFR is going to change somewhat as he varies the % of alky injected. While most of the fuel in the engine is made reactionalable thru atomization, with alky injection you can vary the degree of charge temp with atomization/vaporization levels.

What really matters is how reactionable the stuff is inside the cylinder, and how much of the heat from that reaction(s), can be recovered and converted into crankshaft energy. And the effeciency of that reation to consume O2 is what the WB is going to read. It's a good indicator of AFR, but it's not perfect.

Without mentioning any names, one oem manufacturer that uses WB closed loop, is now no longer even montoring the O2 in it's new car certification process.

While hopefully only obvious, one needs to remember to tune for best performance rather then worring too much about reported AFRs.

Well, I think that's what I remember having read somewhere er nother.

 

[4sfed4]

Thanks for the input fellas.

 

[Otto J]

So how do you feel on an intercooled car like mine,MY intake temps are hovering around 145 on a 85* day at 30#s of boost. Would you think it is beneficial to try to bring the temps down into the 110-120 range?
In theory it should make more power. I just borrowed a kit from my Friend who got it from Razor in BG back in may. So i was going to put it on and see what i can do with it on race fuel at higher boost levels.

 

[Otto J]

Also Cal where is you IAT loacated? in the manifold?
Mine is currently in the intercooler cool side but my intake is drilled for it in the back(BGC) so i am moving it there for a more accurate Meth reading

 

[HighPSI]

My IAT is located in the manifold.

Definitly give Razor's kit a try. I had the BIG nozzles and was displacing nearly 30% of my fuel. In your case I would inject a lot less methanol and use it to drop the IAT's another 40-50 degrees (depending on what your new IAT's are with the sensor in the intake).

Bruce, let me know where you end up injecting the alky. MY BPG intake has horrible cyliner to cylinder variation (Over 12% from the richest to leanest cylinder), so I wanted the nozzle upstream enough to try and help this.

 

[Otto J]

DId you still have tht much variation using Jason's Plate? If so it is probably more because its not designed t oflow liquid also i would think.

 

[HighPSI]

No, the air distribution problems were before the plate. I don't have exact data for cylinder to cylinder variances with the plate but I know it's much, much better.

 

[ijames]

the first tests were done on Isopropyl 70/30 after the third run and had the Iso dialed in at 16 PSI, I dropped the ISO out and replaced with straight methanol. Next pull not changing anything.. the motor picked up 10 RWHP across the board. AFR dropped from 12.1 on iso to 11.9 on methanol. So getting rid of the water made more power...shhh..dont tell the other guys this

The viscosity of isopropanol is much higher than that of methanol, and isopropanol/water is also pretty viscous, so I think that you inadvertantly turned up the total alcohol flow when you made the switch without changing the nozzles/pump settings. I really don't think you can say anything about the water contribution with just this one observation - to me, all you can say is that you made this switch and saw more power but you don't know why because several variables were not measured or controlled. Course, this isn't a peer-reviewed chemistry journal, but why let that make you overreach ?

 

[Razor]

Again, the test was a simple lets drop one liquid and try another.

After the first liquid was dialed in for a few pulls. Then having it pick up power without dialing in the second liquid, it was enough proof in my book. If we raised the AFR from the 11.9 to 12.1 on straight methanol, I bet the gain would have been more.

My own track experience with water mixes vs straight, I have always had the motor pickup on straight. It was neat to see similar results on a dyno.