add 23 HP and 61 foot/lbs of torque.

[TimT]

All this for $2249!!

Check this out.

I know that water injection does cool the charge air, allow more boost, but I think this is bit of a stretch.

doesnt elephant or siene systems sell something like this?

[jluetjen]

With that sort of HP gain you need water injection on the brakes too!

[Chuck Moreland]

That would be Sherwood Lee and Seine. However I don't think he targets it for water injection into the intake stream.

[Schuey]

does the maker to e-RAM make this too?

LOL

o.k. is this serious or what?

[RallyJon]

A familiar crutch for the overboosted Honda drag race crowd. I wonder if there's anything water can't do? Spray it on your brakes, into the intake, on the intercooler... How about a water spray right on the steering wheel that hoses you down when you get "red mist".

I love that web site, though! They manage to insult just about everybody.

[Doug Zielke]

Quote:
"Methanol based windshield wiper fluid will boost octane levels as methanol's octane rating is 113".

The performance secret we've all been waiting for!

[CamB]

I think the claims are a bit wild. Aquamist in the uk has been making this sort of thing for a while. I think some WRC cars have used it.

Check this from the FAQ in the Aquamist site. They don't claim the earth...:

1. My turbo car runs standard boost, would water injection increase the power output ?
Water injection will not increase the power normally. But in countries where the ambient temperature is very high, injecting water will lower the inlet charge temperature and produces power increase.

2. I would like to increase my power output by increasing the boost pressure, would water injection help then?
It all depends, if you have good quality fuel and the ambient is not too high you can normally get away with 2-3 psi of boost increase without using water injection and will not run into detonation problems. On the other hand, if you DO NOT have good quality fuel and the ambient temperature is high and there is a slight tendency to engine knock, water injection or a bigger intercooler is essential.

3. Should I upgrade my intercooler or get a water injection system first?
They do different jobs, intercooler makes the air denser and thus giving more power. Unfortunately more power means higher combustion temperature and pressure, so water injection is becoming a more important addition to prevent the onset on detonation due to peak pressures and peak combustion temperatures.

The natural progression would be to retaining your stock intercooler and add water injection to supplement the existing cooling capacity of the stock system, charge temperature in particular.

When you decided to go all out for big power, the entire system would have to be upgraded, not just intercooler, turbo, up and down pipes etc. Water injection should definately be included on your list of upgrade components.

4. So I need to buy both at the same time?
Ideally, yes. Given that water injection can cool the inlet temperature as well as suppressing detonation, so water injection should be your prime consideration, as an intercooler cannot perform in-cylinder cooling.

[studeb]

i am not sure what you are doubting.
Water injection has been around for a long time. Roll Royce Merlins were/are equipped, and i believe the Messeschmidt power plant in the 109 was also water injected. Both were also supercharged.

[zanick]

hey wise guy, Yes, the latent heat energy of evaporating water can cool the intake charge. for every 40 degrees F, you can gain as much as the eRAM. by theway, did you see a testimonial racer post about the eRAM????? (on the huge eRAM thread)

anyway, I havent done the calulations, but the main reason for using water injection , as was said, is on super/turbo charged engines to reduce the chance of pinging. My Dad developed a simple water injection system on an old Corvair in the 60s, as we were doing valve jobs every couple of years. seemed to help.

MK

Originally posted by Schuey
does the maker to e-RAM make this too?

LOL

o.k. is this serious or what?

[Wayne 962]

Just like the eRam thread, independent tests would be the best judge...

-Wayne

[MotoSook]

There is some benefit to water injection, esp. if you run high boost. But water injection is less effective than intercooling. Intercooling in conjunctiuon with water injection. well! That's just going over board with the boost knob for safe streat use (but I like the guts of those guys who have money to buy a new motor when theirs blows up). There was an article in EuropeanCar mag a few months ago, that discussed water injection used on the author's turbocharged M3. If memory serves me right, the intercooling lowered intake air about 100 Deg. F while water injection lowered it by 50 Deg. F.

For another twist! On large combustion turbines (jet engines essentially) used in generating electricity and compression of fluid for pipe transport, "fogging" is used to increase horsepower/efficiency. Fogging is water injection with fogging nozzles. Siemens has developed another system similar to fogging, but it is essentially spraying water into the intake at a very specific amount, such that it atomizes prior to combustion. I think that's right..the mind is a bit foggy these days..so don't hold me to anything

[zanick]

That sounds about right. Ive heard the same, but there are always trade offs with intercoolers and water injectors. All that is kind of over my head.

Ill have to stick with the stuff I know for now.

I have a hard time believing 23hp, as My NOS system in my race car would last for 10 laps and I would use it on the straights. by the time the bottle was half empty, the hp gain went from 50hp down to about 25. even 25 was slightly noticable. I cant imagine a shot of water keeping up with a 25 shot of freezing air and Gasoline!!!! Maybe the 23hp is what you can gain by turing up your boost and getting the hp that way, and having the water cool it down to keep the engine alive.

NOS was great, but that was only good for 10laps, and cost $40 to fill the 10lb bottle. I still cant believe that 10lbs of "air" was stored in a bottle!!!! very cool. (pun intended)

so, in otherwords, if you are going to have an injection system, may and its not to work with the turbo/supercharger, then use NOS. Otherwise, thats a lot of plumbing for a small gain, I would imagine. Yes, show us the dyno runs. If I can get 23hp with my race car by shooting in a spray of water, Id do it if it was safe.

Mk

Originally posted by Souk
There is some benefit to water injection, esp. if you run high boost. But water injection is less effective than intercooling. Intercooling in conjunctiuon with water injection. well! That's just going over board with the boost knob for safe streat use (but I like the guts of those guys who have money to buy a new motor when theirs blows up). There was an article in EuropeanCar mag a few months ago, that discussed water injection used on the author's turbocharged M3. If memory serves me right, the intercooling lowered intake air about 100 Deg. F while water injection lowered it by 50 Deg. F.

For another twist! On large combustion turbines (jet engines essentially) used in generating electricity and compression of fluid for pipe transport, "fogging" is used to increase horsepower/efficiency. Fogging is water injection with fogging nozzles. Siemens has developed another system similar to fogging, but it is essentially spraying water into the intake at a very specific amount, such that it atomizes prior to combustion. I think that's right..the mind is a bit foggy these days..so don't hold me to anything

To add to what studeb said, aircraft piston engines and some early turbine engines used water injection many. many years ago. The horsepower ratings with water injection were higher than without.

I think a properly set up system on a car would yield desirable results. My only question would be if the gains are what the manufacturer claims.

The water injected aircraft engines developed enough extra power to justify the added weight of the installed system (not to mention the water it used), but the aircraft engines we're talking about here displaced anywhere in the neighbourhood of one thousand to four thousand cubic inches.

Perhaps a smaller automotive engine would only see a proprtionately smaller performance gain, one that is not worth the time and money to install water injection in the first place.

[john70t]

I won't make any claim other than 2nd hand info, but I heard in addition to cooling the charge(condensing air), water also boosts the octane rating by slowing the flame front propagation so that in knock sensored engines the timing can be bumped up safely without detonation.
I had a teacher who worked in a dealership who swore by a 50/50 tranny fluid/water mist into the intake for de-carbonizing the chamber(V8 big metal).

[jluetjen]

Keep in mind that airplane engines (Like the WWII engines mentioned earlier) are designed around a vary different set of parameters then a car engine. Airplane engines tend to run on booste for long periods with very little throttle at relatively low rev's in a relatively low ambiant pressure environment. This is one of the reasons why turbos were used in that application much earlier then in cars.

Car's have a far wider range of throttle openings and rev's, generally run within a few thousand feet of sea level under a wide range or loads. I don't remember the details, but these conditions have a lot to do with why the benefits were or are far greater for aero use of water injection compared to the use in an automotive application.