Anybody use water injection?
12-27-2003, 12:13 AM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
From what I have understood so far through this discussion, I am not convinced that Shiv knows what he was saying from his recent reply on the EVO board.
He failed to understand that water and excess fuel are both non-combustables, after all the oxygen has been used up inside the combustion chamber.
Almost all his dyno results published has strongly indicated that his intention to discredit the use of water injection by adding water into an already stinking rich air/fuel mixture, the end result would almost guarantee the loss of power. Casual observer of his results (many on discussion boards, I might add) would receive the perceived impression of water injection is not an effective tuning tool and fuel dumping is.
Instead of publishing further positive dyno results in graphical form after fuel was taken out, he tended to announce the power increase in words - but always short of a few whp than his water-less tune. Most of the time he indicated that he has reached the limitation of a water injection tune - due to knock!?
If it wasn't for a few water injection enthusiast across the boards publishing the results of their water injection tunes, obtaining greater power increases - "without knock!!!", often 10-20% more power than Shivs fuel-dumping tune. Water Injection will truly be regarded as a useless band-aid and does not belong to the world of good tuning practice.
EVO, WRX are all four-stroke engines, why should there be any difference? Shiv seemed to have so far indicted that. Luckily the following people has proved him wrong:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...09#post5291809
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...ater+injection
Peter head - observer
He failed to understand that water and excess fuel are both non-combustables, after all the oxygen has been used up inside the combustion chamber.
Almost all his dyno results published has strongly indicated that his intention to discredit the use of water injection by adding water into an already stinking rich air/fuel mixture, the end result would almost guarantee the loss of power. Casual observer of his results (many on discussion boards, I might add) would receive the perceived impression of water injection is not an effective tuning tool and fuel dumping is.
Instead of publishing further positive dyno results in graphical form after fuel was taken out, he tended to announce the power increase in words - but always short of a few whp than his water-less tune. Most of the time he indicated that he has reached the limitation of a water injection tune - due to knock!?
If it wasn't for a few water injection enthusiast across the boards publishing the results of their water injection tunes, obtaining greater power increases - "without knock!!!", often 10-20% more power than Shivs fuel-dumping tune. Water Injection will truly be regarded as a useless band-aid and does not belong to the world of good tuning practice.
EVO, WRX are all four-stroke engines, why should there be any difference? Shiv seemed to have so far indicted that. Luckily the following people has proved him wrong:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...09#post5291809
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...ater+injection
Peter head - observer
Last edited by peter head; 12-27-2003 at 06:07 AM.
12-27-2003, 11:50 PM
#47
@Stoptech
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,416
Car Info: 2002 WRX Wagon
peter, one of the mistakes you're making is assuming that one HP on one dyno is equal to one HP on another dyno. as we all know, shiv's dyno dynamics dyno reads lower than just about any other dyno in the country (and shiv will argue that it is the most accurate as well). the power differences you speak of between shiv's WI tunes and other WI tunes can be explained, at least partially, by the consistently low readings of shiv's dyno dynamics dynamometer.
i believe there is an article on the vishnu website (or at least a post here or on nasioc) that more specifically describes the difference in power readings between shiv's and other dynos. for reference, a friend's car with STi v7 motor and tranny running 15 PSI recently made ~260 AWHP on shiv's dyno in pleasanton, and immediately went to ATP's dyno in fremont and made ~310 AWHP. altitude may have a small part to play in the differences in those numbers, but it mostly has to do with the manufacturer and calibration of the dynos.
ed, thanks for your unbiased and objective research on this topic. peter, thanks for helping to facilitate this discussion and continuing to ask questions.
-tim
"interested observer"
i believe there is an article on the vishnu website (or at least a post here or on nasioc) that more specifically describes the difference in power readings between shiv's and other dynos. for reference, a friend's car with STi v7 motor and tranny running 15 PSI recently made ~260 AWHP on shiv's dyno in pleasanton, and immediately went to ATP's dyno in fremont and made ~310 AWHP. altitude may have a small part to play in the differences in those numbers, but it mostly has to do with the manufacturer and calibration of the dynos.
ed, thanks for your unbiased and objective research on this topic. peter, thanks for helping to facilitate this discussion and continuing to ask questions.
-tim
"interested observer"
12-27-2003, 11:57 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
tim - good and valid points, that we all always need to remind ourselves of with respect to absolute dyno results, they are not comparable.
Dispite the possible misuse of the absolute results while writing a post - I think and hope what most people observing the recent events are paying the most attention to is the gains between tunes on the same dyno. Dispite absolute differences between dynos, I think we can all agree that the gains betwen runs on the same dyno have some relative validity unless the dyno is just completely miscalibrated.
Also thank you for the kind words - I as most humans do in fact have bias, but would like to think that I have objectively arrived at that bias... That is one reason I try to steadfastly back up my views and claims with the work of those that have had their own work peer reviewed and critiqued by the engineering community. I am really relying on thier work which should be objective - to support my resulting bias.
Dispite the possible misuse of the absolute results while writing a post - I think and hope what most people observing the recent events are paying the most attention to is the gains between tunes on the same dyno. Dispite absolute differences between dynos, I think we can all agree that the gains betwen runs on the same dyno have some relative validity unless the dyno is just completely miscalibrated.
Also thank you for the kind words - I as most humans do in fact have bias, but would like to think that I have objectively arrived at that bias... That is one reason I try to steadfastly back up my views and claims with the work of those that have had their own work peer reviewed and critiqued by the engineering community. I am really relying on thier work which should be objective - to support my resulting bias.
Last edited by jehcpa; 12-28-2003 at 12:01 AM.
12-28-2003, 01:19 AM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Steppin Razor,
Thanks for pointing out the dyno discripancies between tuners - definately my mistake to assume that. It is a pity, this has caused so much unnecessary and meaningless discussions. I could only go by what was published.
I have read Shiv's dyno dyanamics article - it appears that any tuners have absolute control over the results - included Shivs'. Until it is formally unified across the tuning world, the power reading discussions will continue.
Ed was correct in pointing out that readings from the same dyno during the same session is more lightly to be correct. on that basis, do you think Shiv's consistent power loss on Water injection tune compared to other's power gain on water injection tune is valid for discussion purposes?
I value any input - it appeared that no one so far has raised any questions after Shiv has posted his 2c on the 29th September - I merely tried to encourage others to speak out and ask questions - I have learned much from this discussion so far ... hope it this trend will continue on other boards as well.
Peter head - observer
Thanks for pointing out the dyno discripancies between tuners - definately my mistake to assume that. It is a pity, this has caused so much unnecessary and meaningless discussions. I could only go by what was published.
I have read Shiv's dyno dyanamics article - it appears that any tuners have absolute control over the results - included Shivs'. Until it is formally unified across the tuning world, the power reading discussions will continue.
Ed was correct in pointing out that readings from the same dyno during the same session is more lightly to be correct. on that basis, do you think Shiv's consistent power loss on Water injection tune compared to other's power gain on water injection tune is valid for discussion purposes?
I value any input - it appeared that no one so far has raised any questions after Shiv has posted his 2c on the 29th September - I merely tried to encourage others to speak out and ask questions - I have learned much from this discussion so far ... hope it this trend will continue on other boards as well.
Peter head - observer
Last edited by peter head; 12-28-2003 at 03:48 AM.
12-28-2003, 01:34 AM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would welcome BAN SUVS would post more of his views on the application of water injection - researched or not - it will be a valuable contribution. No questions yields no answers, no one will learn anything new.
Peter head - observer
Peter head - observer
Last edited by peter head; 12-28-2003 at 03:45 AM.
12-28-2003, 03:25 AM
#51
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Peter, I promise to get to this question in a thorough manner. I've been kicking around some ideas that aren't favorable for water injection, and some that are, but I want to be as specific and detailed as possible when I do. I must say, however, that this is one of the most informative and well-articulated threds I've taken part in. Kudos to all for keeping everything on a very objective plane and strictly in the interest of knowledge. Forgive me for my lack of timeliness in responding. Have faith- I missed this thread for over 2 months the first time, and it's only been a week this time. 
12-28-2003, 04:18 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
BAN SUV, it is refreshing to know that you are joining in the discussion and will be posting something on the water injection front - it doesn't have to be favourable at all.
I regretted to have mis-understood your "band-aid" statement from your previous post in September and since you have some involvement with Vishnu tuning, putting in a sweeping statement on the merit of water injection - thereby giving a false impression the Vishnu's view as a whole. This has led me to believe that all Vishnu personnals are against using water injection as a proper tuning tool. I apologise for the assumption.
My previous posts was trying to relate Shiv's last post has virtually stop the discussion dead - no one has challenged his view - leaving a unfinished thread without any sensible discussion.
His post was not that negative, but did implied that water injection should only be used on rare occasions and not for normal day to day tuning.
It takes time for any technolgy to mature - but discarding it outright is not an attitude I can accept from a respectable figure in the tuning industry.
WRX is a difficult engine to tune due to its highly sensitive ignition map, a few degrees difference could loose 10-20% of this output power. But it doesn't mean that dumping fuel is the only method to tuning it properly.
Peter head - observer
I regretted to have mis-understood your "band-aid" statement from your previous post in September and since you have some involvement with Vishnu tuning, putting in a sweeping statement on the merit of water injection - thereby giving a false impression the Vishnu's view as a whole. This has led me to believe that all Vishnu personnals are against using water injection as a proper tuning tool. I apologise for the assumption.
My previous posts was trying to relate Shiv's last post has virtually stop the discussion dead - no one has challenged his view - leaving a unfinished thread without any sensible discussion.
His post was not that negative, but did implied that water injection should only be used on rare occasions and not for normal day to day tuning.
It takes time for any technolgy to mature - but discarding it outright is not an attitude I can accept from a respectable figure in the tuning industry.
WRX is a difficult engine to tune due to its highly sensitive ignition map, a few degrees difference could loose 10-20% of this output power. But it doesn't mean that dumping fuel is the only method to tuning it properly.
Peter head - observer
Last edited by peter head; 12-28-2003 at 03:11 PM.
12-28-2003, 08:52 AM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread is one that helped me bring the paper to its current state from the first rough drafts. Just to bring some other views for those that haven't seen them.
http://forums.NASIOC.com/forums/show...hreadid=424462
and another one:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...SPID=71&page=1
http://forums.NASIOC.com/forums/show...hreadid=424462
and another one:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...SPID=71&page=1
Last edited by jehcpa; 12-28-2003 at 08:57 AM.
12-28-2003, 02:36 PM
#56
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally posted by awns729
I'm going to ask imprezer to sticky this thread for free, cuz this is probably the most informatvie thread i've ever seen. Great info guys!
I'm going to ask imprezer to sticky this thread for free, cuz this is probably the most informatvie thread i've ever seen. Great info guys!
12-29-2003, 01:30 AM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Today is an interesting day, Shiv has made an unusual remark after MapMaker50 has responded his post:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...threadid=55246
He went on to say that "water is not combustible" - has he missed the point altogether?
Has has found a new way to consume the excess fuel after all the oxygen has been used up? Perhaps he is referring to a six-foot flame trailing the exhaust pipe?
I begin to doubt his ability to understandard basic scientific facts and his thinking behind every tune.
Please comment and try to help me to regain some respect for his Guy.
Peter head - observer
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...threadid=55246
Shiv wrote: I've found WI, used alone, to be quite a remarkable power robber. Never seen one part result in such an across-the-board reduction in power. The only way to compensate for the addition of noncombustible water in the air/fuel charge is to take advantage of the in-cylinder temp reduction by running leaner fuel maps and more advance ...
.... Just my 2C,
Shiv
.... Just my 2C,
Shiv
Has has found a new way to consume the excess fuel after all the oxygen has been used up? Perhaps he is referring to a six-foot flame trailing the exhaust pipe?
I begin to doubt his ability to understandard basic scientific facts and his thinking behind every tune.
Please comment and try to help me to regain some respect for his Guy.
Peter head - observer
Last edited by peter head; 12-29-2003 at 01:36 AM.
12-29-2003, 11:39 AM
#58
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Posts: 293
Car Info: 2004 Impreza WRX
This is my first post to this forum ..
I recently bought a 2004 WRX and I can already tell that this car has some real good potential.
I sold my 1995 Talon to buy the subaru and I was using water injection on it for about four months .. until i got so fed up with constantly tuning the a/f about every two or so weeks that i pulled it off.
I don't like water injection right now but my mind isn't totally made up .. maybe i will have a use for it in the future but right now i dont know enough about it to make it work for me.
but here is where i learned what i do know about it.
http://users.frii.com/maphill/wi.html
I recently bought a 2004 WRX and I can already tell that this car has some real good potential.
I sold my 1995 Talon to buy the subaru and I was using water injection on it for about four months .. until i got so fed up with constantly tuning the a/f about every two or so weeks that i pulled it off.
I don't like water injection right now but my mind isn't totally made up .. maybe i will have a use for it in the future but right now i dont know enough about it to make it work for me.
but here is where i learned what i do know about it.
http://users.frii.com/maphill/wi.html
12-29-2003, 11:54 AM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
With a good progressive injection system, consistent gas quality and stable fuel management retuning shouldn't be necessary. I even forced myself not to play with my WRX Xede & Aquamist setup for 7 weeks including a major road trip during that time - to see where the long term timing and fuel trims would go. It could have been left alone for a long time.
12-30-2003, 01:44 PM
#60
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Posts: 293
Car Info: 2004 Impreza WRX
I was using the spearco system and my timing was always advancing far beyond where it should have been .. that mitsubishi engine was a pain. But a least its gone now and i have a new toy to paly with .. maybe ill give WI on the subaru a shot .. just not right now "its still stock".