I understand that you feel that some information presented could be considered proof. However, you are ignoring the fact that we have dyno'd hundreds of cars on our dyno and conducted our own testing in house. This could be considered proof on our account. We have tested LSJs running M62s with washer fluid injection and developed our own conclusions. If someone wants to convince me that washer fluid injection works, then I would hope to see data presented from testing involving the same/similar motor with the same/similar supercharger with data logs and dyno charts. If it works and hundreds of people are doing it, then we shouldn't have to read about completely different setups to draw a conclusion.

Seriously guys, I'm not acting childish or insulting anyone, so I'm not sure why many of you are so quick to ridicule me. I currently hold the world record 1/4 mile ET in 3 different FWD platforms. That took an unbelievable amount of work, dedication, and knowledge. Do you really think I suddenly become a moron every time I work on a Cobalt?

 

This thread is awesome...I am happy I posted this question...many different inputs.

 

This thread is awesome...I am happy I posted this question...many different inputs.

 

show and tell the world record stuff.

3SX continues through the 9's....

11/7/07 - 3SX took T4 back to Darlington, but this time ran into transmission issues keeping us from getting between gears during the runs. The first run pulled off a 9.339 @ 159.23 from a crappy launch and 60'. That time breaks the trap speed record, verging on 160mph in a mere 1/4 mile!

8/25/07 - Back to Darlington this time, backing up and improving on T4's capabilities, first laying down a 9.334 @ 155.6 and then edging the World Record a little further again by running a 9.214 @ 154.98

Quickest Races in NHRA History:
TOP FUEL – Tony Schumacher, Long Grove, Ill., 4.477 seconds vs. David Grubnic, Ennis, Mont., 4.497 seconds, 2004 CARQUEST Auto Parts NHRA Nationals, Joliet, Ill.
FUNNY CAR – John Force, Yorba Linda, Calif., 4.697 seconds, vs. Jack Beckman, North Hills, Calif., 4.662 seconds, 2006 Auto Club NHRA Finals, Pomona, Calif.

PRO STOCK – Greg Anderson, Charlotte, N.C., 6.563 seconds vs. Jeg Coughlin, Delaware, Ohio, 6.589 seconds, 2007 ACDelco Gatornationals, Gainesville, Fla.

PRO STOCK MOTORCYCLE – Andrew Hines, Indianapolis, 6.905 seconds vs. Chip Ellis, Indianapolis, 6.941 seconds, 2008 O'Reilly Midwest NHRA Nationals, Madison, Ill.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quickest Fields in NHRA History:
TOP FUEL – Tony Schumacher, Long Grove, Ill., 4.472 seconds to Joe Hartley, Portland, Ore., 4.575 seconds, 2007 CARQUEST Auto Parts NHRA Winternationals, Pomona, Calif.
FUNNY CAR – Gary Scelzi, Fresno, Calif., 4.692 seconds to Jim Head, Columbus, Ohio, 4.795 seconds, 2007 CARQUEST Auto Parts NHRA Winternationals, Pomona, Calif.

PRO STOCK – Greg Anderson, Charlotte, N.C., 6.564 seconds to Steve Spiess, Manhatta, Ill., 6.590 seconds, 2008 NHRA Virginia Nationals, Richmond, Va.

PRO STOCK MOTORCYCLE – Angelle Sampey, New Orleans, 6.871 seconds to Mike Berry, Littleton, Colo., 7.033 seconds, 2007 ProCare Rx NHRA SuperNationals, Englishtown, N.J.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., April 7, 2008 -- Team Chevy's Marty Ladwig started off the 2008 NOPI Drag Racing campaign with a record-setting victory at today's NOPI Florida Nationals. Ladwig established a new Pro FWD national elapsed time mark and earned the season-opening win by defeating 2007 NHRA Pro FWD champion Gary Gardella in an all-Chevy Cobalt final-round at Moroso Motorsports Park. In the title match, the two Chevrolets were even to half track before Ladwig's car edged ahead to take the win light with a national record 7.337 e.t. at 199.87 mph. Gardella's car got slightly loose, and he clicked it off early crossing the stripe in 9.531 seconds at 80.45 mph.

 

you are also ignoring the fact that some of the people in here do the same.... don't always think you are talking to young car noobs.
As for the arguments presented. All you points so far have been disproved with evidence, articles, scientific explanations, etc etc. Yet you still continue to try and argue the point, yet you yourself have yet to put out one piece of proof backing any of your statements except " I know from testing" or basicaly in a nut shell "because I said so". Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinions on things, but opinions are like ********, everyone has one (I love that line).
Personally I've been doing my best to stay civil in this as I'm too old for internet bickering, but stop beating a dead horse. Claims are just that, until you show some real solid proof, dyno sheets showing your correction factors, or anything besides what could be construed as doctor'd dyno sheets, you are just pissing in the wind.
Anyway, another thread I'm done with.

 

Just wanted to point out im probably the youngest on this site

 

This comment truly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. The mere fact that you tried to relate humidity to the argument at hand shows that you lack any true understanding of what you're talking about. While it may appear that simple on the surface, humidity is a completely different variable than water/meth injection.

 

agreed....

 

everyones basis is "you can run more timing with a 3.0 pulley vs a 2.x" well, lets turn the tables. which i did and evened it all out.

it's a simple comparison that people can't seem to come to reason about. i know the truth behind, as do others on here.

 

Area, your claim is meaningless in this discussion because you are locking variables that are not meant to be.

2.7" pulley with 22 timing
3.0" pulley with 22 timing
which makes more power?

The question in itself shows a lack of knowlege. I explained it before and you keep asking the question.
1. you aren't adding if anything else changed. This is a thread about a 2.6" pulley on a stock M62 and moved into washer fluid injection.

I could just as easliy ask, 2 with everything the same and one is trapping higher. Which is running more boost?
See my point? There isn't enough data to answer the question. You keep posting this 1/2 sentences with 1/4 of the info needed and thinking you're proving something. You're not.

Reminds me of someone who said "each deg of timing is 5HP" and left it at that. laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Your question just makes too many presumptions.
-Are we talking about an ecotec 2.0L engine
-Is this a stock crank pulley?
-Is there belt slip?
-did anything have to be done to run the 2.7?
-Is the AF ratio the same?
-what other mods does the car have?
-What fuel is the car running?
-Why would someone run the same AF ratio and timing on a 3.0 if the car can run a 2.7 with no problems?

You see, there are so many questions left unanswered it becomes impossible to discuss, much less answer your question.
First of all "i know the truth behind" isn't even a gramatically correct sentence. I can't even decipher a point out of that.
Second, 'lets turn the tables' is not gramatically correct either and I don't know what you're implying. Is there a knob you are turning? What table is being turned? The kitchen table? The MAF table? Can I assume we're talking about a PCM calibration? What table needs to be 'turned' to run a 2.7" pulley? Finally, what evened out? Like literally as in it was odd but now it's even? Are we talking about polar molecules again? Or even/odd tables? Did you turn all the timing tables from 7 to 6 to make them even numbers? I can't understand what you're saying.
If it's -20, then it is 33% methanol and 67% water.
http://www.nugentec.com/FAQ/Freezing...h%20Points.htm
A lot of fluid used is -5 deg which is about 22% methanol and 78% water.
to even get to 40% methanol a solution would have to "protect to -40" and you don't see much of that.
no, you haven't explained it. You haven't explained why if you have water in the air it's bad, if you have water in the fuel it's bad but if you inject it with a magic kit, then it's good. You keep saying the same thing over and over but you don't answer the question. Saying water is a polar molecule is not an answer. It's a meanless fact. I could say gas is non magnetic. Just because I can put words in a gramatically correct sentence doesn't mean they have any relevance to this topic
We don't know what you want as proof. List your criteria for 'proof'. Some of the questions are so elementry that I do have a hard time answer things. I never thought I would have to answer a question as to why water would reduce engine power. I actually had to think about it because it's not something I ever considered.

Can you prove that adding an intercooler to your exhaust won't make the car faster?

Can you prove that rubbing KY Jelly on the hood won't increase trap speeds?

Can you prove that banana's don't increase your IQ by 2 points for 4 hours? Oh you can? Well what if you eat 2 bananas?

You see, some things are so ridiculous to ask that it can be hard to 'prove' them when the questioner has his own criteria for 'proof'. We offered up $1000, I'm not sure what more we can do???
if one car got to 105mph at the 820' mark, why would it stop accelerating? Why wouldn't it reach a higher speed and keep accelerating in the last 500'?
What is your point here because it doesn't appear to make any sense what-so-ever.
Show me a single scientific explaination that has disproved anything I've said. There's 20 pages here or chatter trying to discredit my assertions but none of it was science.
--------------
Somone stated that injecting washer fluid before the blower gives a better seal. Do you have a before and after datalog of a pull? On the street or on the dyno? How much did the MAP change with and without the water? how much did the MAF change?

You see evidence like that can be discussed. Meaningless rhetoric about a guy you know who ran 13's is not something we can have a meanful discussion about.
SAE tech article 841399 is about a single cylinder engine with 7.5:1 compression running 87 octane at 2000 rpm. I cannot think of an example farther from the Ecotec. I don't believe you point deserves a response but if you send me the article in it's entirety I'll break down the science for you.
--------------
part of the problem in addressing all of you guys is that all of your arguments are contradictory but you aren't engaging in diolog with eachother. You simple want to bash ZZP and call is idiots without addressing any science or knowledge here.

One discussion is about water being a polar molecule. Someone here has to know that this means nothing for th conversation yet you remain silent because it was presented as evidence against ZZP.

One person says adding water to your engine with no other changes won't reduce it's power output. Many of you know this isn't true yet you remain silent because it was presented as evidence against ZZP.

someone is discussing the chemical changes of methanol when mixed with water, yet someone out there had to take a chemistry class and you remain silent because it was presented as evidence against ZZP. Tell me, what is the new chemical formed when water and methanol are mixed? Can you give me the chemical structure broken out?

Some of you have to understand that if a solution is 80% water and 20% methanol, calling it 'meth' is a misnomer yet you remain silent because it was presented as evidence against ZZP.

Someone claimed that nitrous oxide isn't flamable as evidence that something doesn't have to be flamable to work and therefore water should be considered. Most of you know the ignorance of this statement yet you remain silent because it was presented as evidence against ZZP. In a quality forum, someone would take the time to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine to this poor guy but instead you hand him a pitchfork and add him to the group trying to linch ZZP, happy to embrace his ignorance as long as it suits your current needs.

Some are suggesting that water injection has no downsides. Others are suggesting it only works when you add some methanol. Tell me, do you think every car manufacture in the world is ignorant to this technology 'discovered' here? Any reason why auto manufactures wouldn't make their cars 14:1 compression with two tanks? One tank for gas and one for washer fluid? you could just fill both and get crazy economy because of the increased efficiency. Do you ever stop and think about the intellectual arrogance a person would have to have to think that they found a new concept and all their friends know about it but no auto manufactures do? Or is this a "it doesn't work with compression, just boost" type thing? if so, explain in technical detail why. If you think you're going to say "because boosted air is hot and you're cooling it" then here is my reply in advance "spray it into the combustion chamber using direct injection. At 14:1 the air is way hotter than boost would ever be. If you don't understand that, then ask, go learn or accept that some science is above your current knowledge level.

the list goes on and on. so many people in here are saying completely different things, yet you all are against ZZP without every mentioning the disagreements with each other. The joyful embrace of ignorance in the delight of drama....

 

zoomer. go back a bit. you will see that i mentioned that on MY car. lsjwannabe stated his car picked up 3.5 whp on his setup with 1 degree of timing added.

lets nit pick some more posts here.

for all i care, which really isn't that much. i just argue because im bored. it is to the point im not bored enough to finish this ****.

cheers

 

I double checked the MSDS and it is indeed 30% for the wally world. i stand corrected

As for the SAE article...any engineer with a degree should have access to the SAE archives. Like I said to matt...if you think cause its a single cylinder that it makes it irrelevant to any other SI piston ICE shows that you have no understanding of scientific testing.

Also I quoted a DI turbo 2.0L 4 banger paper as proof too. 2007-01-2648

And trust me. My engineering degree says you won't break it down any further for me.

Come back with some real proof, like published papers.

 

djt has my vote... Matt, you and Zoomer are doing yourself no good, kinda like I am not doing myself anygood arguing with Aaron at TTR. YOu make yourselves look bad. Please dont do it anymore.

 

Hey zoomer... im pretty sure he stated what was and what wasnt going to change.

everything that gets thrown at you, you completely avoid by pretending that those articles (which are real, by the way) dont really mean anything...

I hope you are understanding that just because you say it, doesnt make it right. If you have a theory, its cool to explain it, but if we dont agree, it doesnt make us wrong. We are saying you are wrong, because we have proof to back up what we are saying (which im sure you havent noticed, because you just pretend its not there).. The points your trying to make so far have only been futher backed by more points that you theorize, not points that are realized by actual technicians who have actually done real experiments (which by the way, we havent seen from you) on the matter.

I am sorry if it really bothers you this much that we dont believe you. we have plenty of our own evidence that shows well enough how liquid injection improves performance.

If you really want to keep going with this.. have fun... But you have not made any new points in a while.. and frankly i dont think your going to come up with anything new. If you come back with some actual information (because seriously, your not the all knowing god you think you are) and its not just some theory you have come up with... well... thats a different story.

 

... holy fawk!
Did the mod crew over here get hit on the head or what?

It's like everyone forgot about the old school physics of fuel consumption and ignition timing.... Then again... the placebo effect seems to be very strong over here.


Edit:
Oh... and to the guys referencing SAE papers and such... lets review the following;

I'd also like to point out his SAE sources (far more than one article, as you all can see);
I think a few of you need to, first, ditch the egos, and, second, pull your heads out of your asses and realize that "water/meth" (as a generic term) WILL NOT increase power output of a motor. And that even when properly dialed in, it, again,may not increase the power of the motor if the criteria for such a mod is not required.
In an LSJ, I'd say that we sit on the fence. Some people on here will benefit from it... while others may not.
So please, (both sides) STOP throwing around the generalization of water/meth being either a good or bad thing. Just like a lot of things 'LSJ', it's trial and error, and everyone will get a different result.

/my speech!

 

2007-01-2648 refers to the challenge of removing water from ethanol in a direct injection turbo charged application. It then goes on to cite the reduction of NO in vehicles by using water fuel blends in very low RPM engines. There are other notations, mostly related to emissions and EGR being superior to water for lowering them based on other factors. If you truly are an engineer, you should be ashamed for posting that in this thread.

Furthermore, the same group that is discounting all of ZZP's work on an M90 power fuel injected engine is claiming that this knowledge doesn't apply to the M62 powered ecotec. yet at the same time, citing studies about emissions of a direct injection turbo powered engine running on ethanol. It's a disappointing display of a groups lack of even wanting to learn.

I'm sorry, is there technical information in that response? Was there something I was supposed to learn? Did you add any meaningful discussion? Did you link any articles, cite any data or provide any valuable information to this topic?
nothing could be further from the opposite of what's happening. First you claim that Area stated what was going to change, yet he didn't. not only that, you didn't copy them in your response. Instead you just say "he already said that" as if just repeating "he answered that" over and over is evidence. Notice in my posts how I copy the information and reply to it in a specific and detailed mannor? Try doing the same. Please do not ever post again "we already proved that" without copying what you're talking about.

Second, I read the articles, cited the reasons why they didn't apply and responded technically and thoroughly. You obviously didn't read the article or you would be making such statements. I like how you add in "they are real" as if that needs to be said? Do you think I wouldn't check? I'm interested in learning and clearly you don't seem to be.
your point is noted but I need to expound.

i have posted this before but will again. The power output of an LSJ will increase by approx 5% if running on pure alcohol (no gas or water). It is therefore safe to assume that adding pure alcohol in any %, will increase the power output of the engine. In addition, alcohols (such as methanol) will allow increased timing and boost pressures, giving you the ability to add even more HP.

The problem is that water has the opposite effect. So adding water to the engine will always reduce the HP potential unless the engine is suffering from low timing due to overboosting, in which case a larger pulley will give the best gains.

At some point a mixture of alcohol and water will have zero net HP. That may be 20% water, 50%, etc. It hasn't been tested on this engine. I can say that due to the parasitic losses of the Eaton blower, the % that needs to be alcohol vs. a turbo car is much higher. So on a turbo build on the verge of detonation a mixture of 50/50 water meth, may allow more boost and increased power output. This doesn't mean that it would on an Eaton powered car. You'd have to have a lot more alcohol to make up for the loss in power from spinning the blower faster.

furthermore, the percentages used on this board (less than 50% alcohol) will not produce gains over a properly built setup. It's just way too much water.
I'm not nit picking. My point went over both of your heads.

The reason you cannot say a deg of timing is worth XXX amount of HP is because it's never fixed. You seem to think that I called you out because every car is different. it is, but I understand you know that as well. What you two don't know or posted as if you don't is that there is no fixed amount of power on any car that a deg of timing is worth. that's because as timing drops each deg is worth more and more HP. A stock cobalt is going to pickup over 20WHP by adding 1 deg if the timing is low enough. On the other hand it will be zero gain if the timing is already high. Further yet, the HP gain is different at every RPM and different with different boost levels. A better way to decribe it would be to say that on your car with XX power adder at XX rpm with XX amount of boost and a base of XX timing, 1 deg gave me XX amount of HP. But like the other posts I was pointing out, you gave one piece of a 5 part answer and turned in your homework.

Please read the above twice and PM if you need further explanation (anyone). It's an important concept to grasp. Once you do, you'll see how it's possible to spray water in the engine and gain power. If you're timing was at 5 deg because of a super small pulley, you could add a little bit of water. That water is going to cost you a little bit of power BUT you'll gain huge (maybe 20WHP) from 1 deg of extra timing with hardly any water added. This is where the myth of WI gets perpetuated. What needs to be added and usually isn't, is that the experiment was incomplete. on that same car, you could have lowered boost just enough to add 1 deg of timing and achieved better results than by adding water.

Further more a turbo car is going to respond differently. Assuming an engine with 100HP NA, it requires 14.7 psi to get to 200HP. But if you have an M62 making that 14.7 psi, it will take 40HP to spin the blower, netting you 160HP at 14.7psi. A turbo doesn't do that and has nearly no penalty when adding boost (if sized correctly) so at the same 14.7psi, it would make 200HP.

(these examples are simplified and leave out uneeded variables on purpose to simplify the discussion for ease of understanding. 14.7 is one atmosphere)

So if you take 60HP gained and divide it by the boost you get 4.08HP per pound of boost. A turbo setup gains 100HP/14.7 or 6.8HP per pound of boost.
Now say you add a 50/50 mix of water meth and just enough to allow 1 more psi of boost. you'll gain 4.08HP on the M62 car and 6.8HP on the turbo car. However you'll lose power from adding the water. For this example, lets say 5HP. So the net loss on the M62 car is .92 HP and the net gain on the turbo car is 1.8HP. This is why you cannot compare.

Again, the illustration is simplified and leaves out increase parasitic loss on the M62 as boost rises, the vacuum in the intake manifold on the NA setup, the exhaust pressure loss of the turbo and many other factors. But for the sake of understanding the point, it should be clear.

 

lulz at zoomer, Somebody take his shovel away, cause he's digging his own grave

 

10-4

 

Actually, I think you confused me with someone else. That was my first post in this thread.

By the way, what kind of degree do you have? I'm curious. Cause you're arguing with at least three people with engineering degress that I know of in this thread.

 

LOL know how I know you only read the abstract and not the entire paper?

If you were to read the paper you'd see that they compare performance of the fuels based on water level and find no difference in performance in any of the levels tested up to 20% water. In fact, they said that due to the knock and pre-ignition properties of the water that it offers the greatest opportunity for increased output via compression and/or boost.

Like I said before you obviously have no idea how to apply scientific research to real conditions. And this whole tech paper section was brought up cause you said water in fuel reduces power flat out. I showed that it does not.

SO what technical info have YOU or your people contributed to this thread?

What is your degree in again?

No it won't and I proved that with technical papers. That single cylinder paper specifically shows your claim to be false

 

DJT, I don't have time currently to explain the entire paper but let me make a few points to show the flaws of your logic. BTW, excellent paper. The problem is that it doesn't apply to our situation and it proves my point in the respects that it does apply.

Here's why it's not directly applicable to the ecotec.

1. They are running a motor on 100% alcohol. We are running gasoline engines.
2. The tests are not at the same RPMs we're concerned with (although I'm editing because some are)
3. They are not increasing boost as people are doing here. This entire discussion is about increasing boost by using water injection with some alcohol. The paper has a fixed rpm and boost.
Here's where it does apply and proves the people mocking me 100% wrong. Allow me to quote your paper:
"At fixed ignition timing, the increasing addition of water reduces engine output,"

"The reduction in efficiency at fixed ignition timing
may be attributed to a reduction in burn rate and also
combustion stability, as would be anticipated with the
addition of a diluent"

"a reduction of output
in the order of 2% is observed from E100 to E93h, and a
further reduction of 2% from E93h to E87h."

I hope that most of you can easily understand what the tech article my opposition posted is saying. With no other changes, water reduced engine power

Now, I know what comes next. Claim of increasing timing, boost, etc. the article has more which I can break down as it relates to the combustion process at 2k rpm vs what we're doing, varying boost pressures, running on all alcohol, etc. I'll get to it. for Now I hope that people will read that article before posting and making any more claims about water not lowering engine output.

-Good stuff-
How about another quote "The exhaust temperatures follow
trends observed previously up to 4000 rpm, whilst at 5000
rpm the temperature of E93h exceeds that of E100,
indicating the relative loss in efficiency."

 

Zoom posted pages of technical information. The fact that you choose not to believe anything he posts does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 

Good clarification.

I personally feel there are a few more variables involves in the deciding matter... sure they can be calculated out... but trial and error is probably a better solution.

One thing, though, you mention power gains via alcohol... I assume this is on a car built and tuned for alcohol based fuels... correct? Or is this, on a gasoline car, from simply finding the 'sweet spot' in the balance of energy content and 'octane level'? (Seeing as methanol has less energy content per unit volume as compared to gasoline, yet is less prone to knock.)

On the topic of water percentage... I have to agree. Although I stand by the fact that every car is different, I think that people are 'band-aiding' their w/m injection systems with more water to make up for a lack of planning on the installation end of things. With that said, I also think that people are further band-aiding the system by injecting too much of the mixture (both water and alcohol) as a whole... again due to lack of installation planning.

 

Wow.......................................
Bout all I can say for the last 21 pages.

Lets clear some of this up with some given logic:

1.) Meth injection not Water Injection!!!!!!! (WRong)(lol)

Unless your running 100% meth which I know few are then it's called Water Meth Injection.
The vast majority are using a 30% meth 70% mix and those doing the 2 bottles of heet deal it's about 46% or something like that it's been awhile.

2.) Increase in POWER!!!!!!!!!

First off and as zoomer posted from the tech article everyone seems to be going nuts about.
Water creates higher octane true. Because it is a deterent to combustion. The "effective" octane goes up but in realty power from that combustion is going down do to the water diluting the gas and the flame it creates during the combustion process. So thats out the park.

Shooting meth by itself will hurt not help on a stock motor or close to it. End Story.

Meth is there to cool the intake charge. Plain and simple. It also cools some other things mainly the blower. But Meth has a lower combustion point so spraying 100% meth is ill advised espically since meth burns as a near invisible flame.

So to answer what is being said.
Unless the increase in power is do to the cooler charge alowing more timing. But the water is hurting power so if there is in increase it's minute. Increasing timing may help but not much. The only effect that helps is the cooling of the intake charge.

In reality a 10 shot of nitrous dry would be a better solution as the amount of nitrous is no where near dangerous to the engine unless sprayed in a stupid manner and even then unless the car was bouncing off the rev limiter I don't see it hurting much. Nitrous Oxide when compressed at its normal 950 to 1100 psi sprays at -65 degrees F. And will cool the intake charge up to 75 degrees. On a 10 shot the bottle will last a considerable amount of time. (Although not as long as a gallon of meth) but the effect is your getting the cooler charge to bump timing slightly and an added 10 hp and a bit more torque (roughly).

3.) Certifications and Degrees?

Wow lets pull the i'm a certified so and so on the internet card.
Guess what I'm a fully liscensed Brain Surgeon .
Just because some one doesn't have a "certification or degree" doesn't know what they're talking about. Bill Gates dropped out of college look where he is. Harrison Ford dropped out of High School but the man knows how to act. Stop giving the attitude that I know better cuz I read a book took a test and got a piece of paper saying how smart I am. You ever work on whats being said with your hands? Been there and did it not just read it and remembered a fact? How bout this go read all about painting a car. Every thing you can and then go do it? Tell me if it comes out as a masterpiece.
Some things are learned by experience.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is meth injection (water meth injection) is not a viable solution in just about any application or else we would be running water gasoline hybrid engines that sprayed water at in various levels to allow higher octane and give more power by increasing timing. But wow no one does that? You can point to the engines that "Feature" that and find out real fast it was from companies attempting to lower emissions back in the 80's and the designs fell through and the engines were discountinued.
So take your superior platform keep spraying methanol in your engines with tiny pullies to justify that pulley and wonder why this superior technology (meth injection) and your tiny pully still hasn't gotten you over the 300 hp mark by itself. Right?
Seriously think about it. With your logic I could get a stage 2 car.
Drop a 2.6 pully in. A 3, 4, 5, 6 gph Meth injection system in whichever size and then tune for the higher octane and should be getting 300hp! I haven't seen it happen yet.

If you want to debate thats fine but to outright smash Zoomer and Matt wheter or not they're Supporting Vendors after they've given they're side and shown they're own info and continue to give you reasons your "documentaion" is faulty or being misread is just sad. It shows me the maturity of the vast majority of the people on Css.net.

So keep shooting water into your engines and not take advice and offers of support and knowledge that is credible.

Oh and for the people who will be replying to me with the usual I'm full of bull and don't know $hit.
I ran Meth injection my self on a cobalt for 3 months. No Gain. Wheter on smaller pully and when on my regular pully (Stage 2) I actually lost power.

 

While methanol has lower energy content per unit, the stoich air/fuel ratio is far less than gasoline, meaning that you can effectively burn a lot more methanol with the same amount of oxygen.