Advantages/Disadvantages over 2.6???
Senior Member
Joined: 07-16-08
Posts: 5,610
Likes: 0
From: Boynton Beach, Fl
its not about how fast you can go, its about how fast you can get up to that speed.
two cars trap the same speed.. lets say 105
one car wins. how?
car one gets to 105 a full 500 feet before the other one does... that car will win...
that means while that one car is at 105, it will have traveled the same distance in a shorter time, because it is moving faster.
two cars trap the same speed.. lets say 105
one car wins. how?
car one gets to 105 a full 500 feet before the other one does... that car will win...
that means while that one car is at 105, it will have traveled the same distance in a shorter time, because it is moving faster.
Last edited by ShortStack; Jan 23, 2009 at 04:15 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
And humid days have increased water vapor in the air, there by reducing the density of the airmass. Reducing total available oxygen for combustion in the cylinder. This is different from injecting the water into the engine since the water being injected can remove heat from the air making it MORE dense.
Blue washer fluid as discussed in this thread is 80% water.
I don't need to know the mod list. You provided enough information to answer the question. If he was running 14's and dropped to 13's with the change you listed then there was a problem.
You're quoting an 86HP 1.7 liter turbo engine made in 1965 as evidence in this thread?
Furthermore, a post in wikipedia claiming that some engine made an extra 20HP with WI means very little. We're discussing (or trying to) science here. Without more data on an example, it's no different than me grabbing a random notation on google and citing it as 'evidence'
I don't need to know the mod list. You provided enough information to answer the question. If he was running 14's and dropped to 13's with the change you listed then there was a problem.
You're quoting an 86HP 1.7 liter turbo engine made in 1965 as evidence in this thread?
Furthermore, a post in wikipedia claiming that some engine made an extra 20HP with WI means very little. We're discussing (or trying to) science here. Without more data on an example, it's no different than me grabbing a random notation on google and citing it as 'evidence'
Wally world -20 supertech is 40% meth from its MSDS
Someone actually made a spreadsheet of all the brands but I can't find it atm.
You obviously missed the first link where it said 145 from a 2.0L...open your eyes and read.
As for googling random evidence...you did that before on the fuel system stuff...Quoting filtration evidence from a guy whose highest certification was ASE mechanic.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-13-05
Posts: 5,733
Likes: 1
From: the glove
All washer fluid is 20-33% methanol and mostly water. Why are you defending calling it meth and challenging me for calling it water when the solution is always more water than methanol here? Wouldn't it be better to say water with some methanol mixed in?
I understand your point but it isn't totally accurate. The smaller the pulley, the sooner the power will drop off and the less timing you can run. Less timing means that the power will drop off sooner.
The torque only makes the car faster in the 1/4 mile if the average HP of the powerband is higher, after all high torque simply means more HP at lower rpm. Torque isn't a measure of work being done, HP is. If the larger pulley makes more HP, I would use that HP, shift the car higher and presumably have more average HP in the powerband.
We've already established and I believe agreed that water in your fuel raises the effective octane of the solution. If what you were saying was true, the entire country could just mix water in the tanks at the gas station and we could have a federal mandate of 14:1 compression vehicles. Then according to you, there would be "no loss in power" from the water and we could gain a bunch from the increased compression. Sadly, we cannot and thus the search for solving the world's energy problems continue...
I understand your point but it isn't totally accurate. The smaller the pulley, the sooner the power will drop off and the less timing you can run. Less timing means that the power will drop off sooner.
The torque only makes the car faster in the 1/4 mile if the average HP of the powerband is higher, after all high torque simply means more HP at lower rpm. Torque isn't a measure of work being done, HP is. If the larger pulley makes more HP, I would use that HP, shift the car higher and presumably have more average HP in the powerband.
We've already established and I believe agreed that water in your fuel raises the effective octane of the solution. If what you were saying was true, the entire country could just mix water in the tanks at the gas station and we could have a federal mandate of 14:1 compression vehicles. Then according to you, there would be "no loss in power" from the water and we could gain a bunch from the increased compression. Sadly, we cannot and thus the search for solving the world's energy problems continue...
with what little vendor respect you have left, a few people are bound to look upon this thread and others only to see you calling it water injection.
that'll insinuate bad things.
calling it meth, or methanol injection, or hell ever washer fluid injection would be a better and far safer / father from wrong, description.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
We've already established and I believe agreed that water in your fuel raises the effective octane of the solution. If what you were saying was true, the entire country could just mix water in the tanks at the gas station and we could have a federal mandate of 14:1 compression vehicles. Then according to you, there would be "no loss in power" from the water and we could gain a bunch from the increased compression. Sadly, we cannot and thus the search for solving the world's energy problems continue...
No (but don't prove why I'm saying no)...random rambling about something barely if at all related to what i posted, ignore any technical information that was provided. Maybe challenge me once or twice. Throw in a hypothetical situation or 2 for good measure.
With all this talk about how something non-flammable will reduce power output.. Just remember nitrous oxide, chemically speaking, is not flammable by itself either, we know what kind of power it doesn't make. 
.. not that it has any thing to do with any thing here.. i just felt the need to say that..
.. not that it has any thing to do with any thing here.. i just felt the need to say that..
Former Vendor
Joined: 06-03-08
Posts: 4,169
Likes: 8
From: Grand Rapids, MI
With all this talk about how something non-flammable will reduce power output.. Just remember nitrous oxide, chemically speaking, is not flammable by itself either, we know what kind of power it doesn't make.
.. not that it has any thing to do with any thing here.. i just felt the need to say that..
.. not that it has any thing to do with any thing here.. i just felt the need to say that..
One thing that struck me as odd here- When we speak of our experience with Eaton blowers, people are quick to point out that this is a Cobalt forum and therefore none of our M90 powered 3800 knowledge could possibly carry over. Then in a water/meth injection thread, there are people pointing us to articles involving a 1 cylinder motor and turbo setups from 40 years ago?
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Combustion is a chemical process between gasoline and oxygen. Pressurized nitrous oxide allows you to force much more oxygen into the engine than otherwise possible. It's easy to add the extra fuel to burn with this increased concentration of oxygen.
One thing that struck me as odd here- When we speak of our experience with Eaton blowers, people are quick to point out that this is a Cobalt forum and therefore none of our M90 powered 3800 knowledge could possibly carry over. Then in a water/meth injection thread, there are people pointing us to articles involving a 1 cylinder motor and turbo setups from 40 years ago?
One thing that struck me as odd here- When we speak of our experience with Eaton blowers, people are quick to point out that this is a Cobalt forum and therefore none of our M90 powered 3800 knowledge could possibly carry over. Then in a water/meth injection thread, there are people pointing us to articles involving a 1 cylinder motor and turbo setups from 40 years ago?
2007-01-2648 is a 2.0L DI turbocharged 4 cylinder that runs on e100 and is then tested on exxh blends where the xx is the % of ethanol and the rest is water. They had to increase the timing to maintain the power levels but noted that because of the advantages of water there was more room for increased compression and potential for overall increase in output on the fuels with more water in them
2007-01-2648 is a 2.0L DI turbocharged 4 cylinder that runs on e100 and is then tested on exxh blends where the xx is the % of ethanol and the rest is water.
2007-01-2648 is a 2.0L DI turbocharged 4 cylinder
2007
You obviously don't understand a single part of a how scientific research works.
Rent me! per hour
Joined: 03-22-07
Posts: 24,161
Likes: 20
From: Still fixing others mistakes.
12.0 afr
22 degree's of timing
2.7 vs 3.0
which one makes more wheel horse power and torque
this one should be easy.
it is a simple straight forward question.
same car.
same dyno.
same day.
stock unopened motor
22 degree's of timing
2.7 vs 3.0
which one makes more wheel horse power and torque
this one should be easy.
it is a simple straight forward question.
same car.
same dyno.
same day.
stock unopened motor
Former Vendor
Joined: 06-03-08
Posts: 4,169
Likes: 8
From: Grand Rapids, MI
You completely missed my point. My post had absolutely nothing to do with anyones comprehension of scientific research. I was saying how it's funny that our first hand experience and test data from years of running Eaton M90s quickly gets dismissed because it's not an M62. But then when we are discussing water/meth on an LSJ, people start talking about what? Different engines, several of which do not have a supercharger at all.
Former Vendor
Joined: 06-03-08
Posts: 4,169
Likes: 8
From: Grand Rapids, MI
In my experience, the 3.0 pulley has been the better choice in every situation that has naturally presented itself at our shop thus far. Of course you also have to consider the fact that our dyno is a Mustang Dyno with realistic load placed on the car. On a dynojet with less load, you might not run into the same limitations.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
You completely missed my point. My post had absolutely nothing to do with anyones comprehension of scientific research. I was saying how it's funny that our first hand experience and test data from years of running Eaton M90s quickly gets dismissed because it's not an M62. But then when we are discussing water/meth on an LSJ, people start talking about what? Different engines, several of which do not have a supercharger at all.
Senior Member
Joined: 10-02-07
Posts: 7,637
Likes: 0
From: Right here, Ohio
You completely missed my point. My post had absolutely nothing to do with anyones comprehension of scientific research. I was saying how it's funny that our first hand experience and test data from years of running Eaton M90s quickly gets dismissed because it's not an M62. But then when we are discussing water/meth on an LSJ, people start talking about what? Different engines, several of which do not have a supercharger at all.
Former Vendor
Joined: 06-03-08
Posts: 4,169
Likes: 8
From: Grand Rapids, MI
This is what you have to add? Seriously? Why would you even choose to participate in a discussion if that is the extent of your input?
Last edited by Matt M; Jan 23, 2009 at 10:58 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 10-02-07
Posts: 7,637
Likes: 0
From: Right here, Ohio
Former Vendor
Joined: 06-03-08
Posts: 4,169
Likes: 8
From: Grand Rapids, MI
It doesn't need to be. It is possible to have a debate without name calling and pointless mockery. I'm all for discussions, even disagreements that we can all learn from. Unfortunately many people around here have an overwhelming desire to take it to the point of insults and insinuations. It makes it difficult to utilize the forum for what it's intended.
It doesn't need to be. It is possible to have a debate without name calling and pointless mockery. I'm all for discussions, even disagreements that we can all learn from. Unfortunately many people around here have an overwhelming desire to take it to the point of insults and insinuations. It makes it difficult to utilize the forum for what it's intended.
Not even worth the time. You won't listen.