It would appear that on the EVO's water injection becomes a discussable topic - no mention of bandaids at all...

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...threadid=55246

 

Vishnu is the US Xede distributor. ChipTorque developed and designed the Xede this way and with these features prior to Vishnu picking the product up (I believe).

The on/off switch was originally conceived for an external intercooler water sprayer.

The two pwm outputs was originally intended for boost control, vtec or auxillary fuel injectors.

The on/off switch and one of the pwm outputs use the same pin - you can only have one or the other on that pin. The primary pwm most are using for boost control currently.

I and others chose to utilize these existing features to use with water injection since water injection uses the same types of signals as the original uses.

I think I and another gentleman on wrx hackers were the first to use Xede this way in the US around the same time as each other and independently of each other.

The guys at Vishnu always acknowledged that Xede could be used in this way if someone were to inquire about it but I do not think they ever encouraged it nor intended it - though this is the least negative if not almost encouraging response I have ever seen water injection discussed by Vishnu. Of course with Works coming out with an Aquamist specific kit for their tuning of Evos could have something to do with that.

Shiv has been very consistent on his views regarding the appropriateness of water injection for a long time going back even several years on some UK boards. This may be a sign of acceptance of the trend and willingness to provide what he can to customers product wise but I wouldn't take the Xede's abilities as a sudden embrassing of the technology by Vishnu.

This is all speculation on my part though - ask Shiv.

Ed.

 

Jehcpa,

Are you referring to this link?
http://bbs.22b.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000004.html

I read it, I don't think Shiv has change his view at all - just see his results on all his past water injection tunes and ... the ones that are yet to come.

I hope he will change one day - talent is wasted on a narrow view point and personnal pride, it will be a giant step to take for him - there are more ways to cool an engine than dumping fuel.

"Works" has a wider view point - it will be interesting to see how the two companies deal with their water injection enquiries from their customers.

Peter head - observer

 

Yes that is one example. Lets face it Shiv does have a lot of experience and in gaining that experience he may have found either that he has always been able to achieve his objectives with the tools at hand or been witness to a really bad result.

Also there have been instances where users have improperly implemented water injection. And once doing so those people through pride that they couldn't have done it incorrectly or otherwise simply will not see things any other way. If they are respected people in the community their misgivings carry a lot of weight. I don't know that Shiv ever had a bad experience but he may know someone he respects that has and as I said he has met his own objectives with the tools at hand.

My use of water injection has never been on a system that lacked other means of acheiving det free tunes, rather they have always been because water injection was the better method for knock suppression while achieving more power. I always have a nonWI tune available even when a WI system is installed - because you can run out of water and because components do break.

I think everyone in the community would benefit from opening their mind on occassion even if against their years of experience, if anything it will give an opportunity to possibly identify an erroneous conclusion or maybe reinforce their previous view. There are certainly instances in my life and activities where I should open my mind more, of course I would like to think that I do so when those situations arise.

For what it is worth over dozens of my own implementations and scores of implementations I have had involvement in, when water injection has been properly implemented it has always achieved the objectives sought better than alternatives.

Ed.

 

Jehcpa,

Having read the above link, it would appeared that Shiv has accepted the implementiion of water injection on the Xede controller his company supplied.
Can I assume he is going to tune his customer's car or he will just tell his customers how to do it himself?

I hope it will not be the repeat of WRX-hellfire's experience on the link earlier on this thread.

I will be very interested to see the EVO board posts that follows.

Peter head - observer

 

I can't speak for the manner in which he would support Xede's ability to drive/control WI. He has always been forthcoming with how to use Xede to control WI and has never recommended against using it for that purpose if a user wished to, but I would not take that to mean he would change his own methodology or that he would give advice on how to tune it necessarily. He likely would refer people to ChipTorque's documentation of Xede's use. To a great extent tuning is an intellectual competitive advantage. I wouldn't blame any tuner that doesn't go into great detail on their methods, though the general idea behind tuning is pretty well known and documented.

Again just my speculation - Shiv would be the best person to speak for himself.

Ed.

 

My experience with alcohol injection is all primarily through water mixes. I generally run methanol to water at 1:1. Most of the GN's do as well except they will run 3:1 and higher. The more alcohol you try to use the more complicated the fuel tuning becomes since you are moving to a hybrid fueling situation - some of them run alot of alcohol and from a gasoline stand point are very lean under boost. It works well but I haven't ever had a need to increase the complexity to using mixed fueling like that.

With regards to external spraying of CO2 - it improves the efficiency of the intercooler to super cool the induction charge increasing its density and will suppress knock somewhat in that fashion. However, its in cylinder benefits are limited as you still need to suppress the tendency of pump fuels to detonate and charge cooling will only take that so far since the air will quickly heat up again since its own specific and latent heats are low.

Benefits - easy to implement, cools the charge well
Disadvantages - no real significant ones, but it only goes so far and some feel that the super cooling of the intercooler and resulting heat cycling can damage the materials over time

 

Another happy UTEC implementation of WI.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...09#post5291809

I had forgotten about the UTEC beta firmware that aussieinstlouis did earlier in the summer and didn't want to give out Si2WRX's experience without him having done so himself - but as you can see there is a way to use UTEC as an independent mapping source for water injection using their boost controller.

Ed.

 

Shiv has responded - in two minds?

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...threadid=55246

I think I can guess what the result will be in January.

Peter head - observer

 

His observations are quite accurate - though I disagree with his reasons.

For instance:

Will be observed when using fuel dumping for knock suppression, and at the appropriate AFR you are able to reach MBT. Since when he tunes a WRX with sufficient ability to flow fuel, he always achieves a knock free tune with good timing, any further knock suppressent whether it is fuel or water will rob power. If he adds more fuel to the same already optimum fuel dumping tune that he claims WI is robbing power from - he will also see the same or great power loss. He can tune with fuel dumping very well, safely and be aggressive with timing without knock.

By the way when fueling is not sufficient for a knock suppressed tune prior to WI or when fueling can not be modified (which is the core source of the bandaid sound bite) - water is a much more appropriate way to handle the situation than fuel dumping. Just ask all the grand ams out there that use WI or the BMW tuners who are adding SC and keep coming to me for WI rather than larger injectors or some way to increase fuel. They are getting power optimum 12.5:1 AFR and using water rather than fuel to reach MBT without knock. Because in rich settings the excess gasoline isn't burning it is only polluting.

He is observing that going from putting water injection over an already knock suppressed tune requires to lean fueling to see power recovery - this has never been argued - if you use water injection there is no reason to run such overly rich fueling. He loves to say how water is noncombustible but for some reason will not acknowledge once all the oxygen is gone from the cylinder that any excess gasoline is effectively noncombustible as well... gasoline will not combust without the presence of an oxidizer. The fact is that water is so much better at what excess fueling has traditionally been used for that you can inject less water than you were of fuel and as a result of less total liquid being injected permit more air to enter the cylinder. Plus when you consider Glassman's research water is the best way to actually complete combustion whereas excess hydrocarbons inhibits it.

I could go into further disection of the post but those are the main points relevant to some of the questions asked here previously.

Shiv and I disagree, but what disappoints me most is that I will listen to what he has to say while from what I can tell he hasn't been willing to read even the last section of my paper. I really want someone to tell me why that last section is wrong - I have begged people to on car as well as engineering boards across the internet but dissenters repeat so many myths and sound bites but never address the contents of my paper directly. (By the way any username created since I created the www.turboice.net site has been turboICE so as you can see I was already following that thread.) The thing is I think if anyone has a good chance of discrediting my paper somehow it would be shiv based on his contacts - but his critique of WI doesn't go anywhere near the topics of my paper. This is the section I am referring to http://www.turboice.net/documents/tu...rinjection.htm

If the results of my conclusions are wrong I (and others using water injection successfully) would really like to be shown that I am - because a lot of people are getting the results expected with the WRX and every other appropriate implementation tried. I used it for years not knowing why it worked only that it did. I only recently began researching why, because I couldn't have a conversation about why until I did. Once I did research all the reasons why it has worked for so many years for me became crystal clear.

With regards to relative levels of success between vehicles, certainly some starting points will yield more results than others. But there is nothing magic about the UTEC that makes water injection work better than XEDE or any other fuel and ignition management method out there. I think the successes on the WRX have been quite worth pursuing for those that have on WI even if they were starting from a more optimum point than the level of optimization prior to WI than say the Evo.

Ed.