special tool

Tommy - it will condense in the intercooler.

toddk911

"it will condense in the intercooler."

Thus, acting as the IC cooler/sprayer.

hmd

ST is talking about injection. If you have the water condense in the ic you get water in your intake not fine mist that you need.

toddk911

My understanding is that the water never actually condenses, at least not enough to get any large amounts of water, due to the air flow thorugh the IC.

special tool

Todd - your understandng is wrong.

onewhippedpuppy

Just to interject a little something into this thread, has anyone tried the DEI CO2 intercooler sprayer or intake cooler? The idea seems solid, but whether it works or not is another matter. The CO2 purge kit "to get the look of nitrous" is horribly tacky though. If the intake cooler would work, putting them before and after the intercooler seems like it could be useful. Not sure, but I don't think the intake cooler wastes any CO2, it just recirculates it, similar to freon. Not really positive, I just briefly browsed the site.

http://www.designengineering.com/index.asp

A group in the mechanical engineering dept. here at WSU did an experiment where they designed a freon based intercooler on a F250 Powerstroke, it gained something like 10-15 Hp, but packaging was a problem, even in that beast of a truck.

toddk911

"A group in the mechanical engineering dept. here at WSU did an experiment where they designed a freon based intercooler on a F250 Powerstroke, it gained something like 10-15 Hp, but packaging was a problem, even in that beast of a truck."

My idea some time back was to incorporate the ac system/freon lines in the intake manafold and/or IC pipes.

Should be able to do a search on it.

TurboTommy

It's not a huge deal if water condenses in the intercooler.
Condensation or lack of evaporation in the first place is a function of quantity of water and heat of the charge air.
So whether there's condensation in the intercooler or whether the water doesn't fully evaporate AFTER the IC (because of less heat); it's all basically the same end result. At least before the IC thorough mixing is achieved (Todd is right). In any event, if there's too much water, the water droplets will be too heavy with both scenarios (before or after the IC).

The real reason injecting before the IC is not as beneficial is because the easily evaporated water (heat directly from the turbo compressor) will take up space in the IC which normally should be occupied by air, and also the IC can't do its' full job. However, this is not to significant and both scenarios (before or after) are better than port water injection!
And, any of these is ten times better than an intercooler sprayer!

toddk911

"It's not a huge deal if water condenses in the intercooler.
Condensation or lack of evaporation in the first place is a function of quantity
of water and heat of the charge air.
So whether there's condensation in the intercooler or whether the water doesn't
fully evaporate AFTER the IC (because of less heat); it's all basically the same
end result."

Exactly.

Although, in re to direct port injection, Yes, it is much harder and more comlicated then standard WI, the benifits and results far excede standard injectio. And Laust can offer personal experience.

TurboTommy

Todd,
why exactly do you think port WI is better?
I guess you went through the thought process of detonation reduction vs density gain vs burn rate and with your experience port WI has proven to be the best?

toddk911

Why are the fuel injectors direct port injection?

Why does NO2 provide the biggest gains in direct port applications?

"better" is very subjective. Which is why I never used the term better, I said "benifits and results far exceed standard injection"

Not my personal experience, my personal research and Laust's personal experience.

toddk911

Although direct port injection is far more difficult to set up and tune and carries a greater propensity for failure then standard injection.

special tool

You guys are funny.
You will never find ONE example of anyone - who has tested their car - injecting water before the intercooler - it just falls out and displaces oxygen (pointless and probably LOSES power).
I am sure every single water injection manufacturer advises against it in the instructions.

I have hard dyno numbers on spraying water ON the intercooler - they are good.

TurboTommy

I always try to gather info from a variety of different sources if I don't know something for sure, and in order to get the complete picture.
One shouldn't post with such conviction based on hearsay;

Special Tool,
you're way off, man!
It almost seems like you posted just for the hell of it, and nobody is going to know the difference whether it's right or wrong.
It so happens that a major WI kit manufacturer (I'm sure you can guess who) recommends injecting before the IC as one of their possible locations.

"I am sure that every single water injection manufacturer advises against it in the instructions."

I guess this was just the first thing that popped into your head


Todd,
"benefits and results far exceed standard injection"
Come on, man; don't repeat garbage. Think for yourself.
Also, you might be making false assumptions in regards to port water vs port fuel.

special tool

That's if it is impractical to place after the intercooler.
Last resort.
Please see the following tech. discussion.

http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/waterinjection.html