• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Alternative to intercooling

Joined
26 July 2005
Messages
522
Location
Fort Myers, Florida
First of all, let me say that I’m not the only NSX owner that has gone down this path…I just wanted to share my experience. Also, if you are looking for high horsepower numbers – don’t bother reading on.

I own a 1992 NSX with the Comptech “high-boost” set-up, AEM engine management, RC 550 injectors, Walbro fuel pump, Comptech headers and exhaust. The results on an SAE corrected dyno showed 352 RWHP after AEM tuning. I was suffering the same woes as many CTSC owners – extremely high intake air temperatures, in excess of 260 degrees under load. I also installed the new AEM serial gauge so I could monitor those temperatures, as well as check my overall boost and air fuel ratios.

I looked at many of the intercooler alternatives posted on Prime, as well as talked with the guys that tuned my car – their backgrounds are turbo Mustangs, Firebirds and Honda Civics, all with high horsepower…the Mustang runs 8.10’s in the quarter with drag radials…nothing to laugh at.

Their suggestion was to try water/methanol injection. Armando (MiamiNeSex) has successfully made close to 470 RWHP with his BBSC, and the Aquamist set-up, along with a great tune, so I knew the system worked. The question was, what would happen with an older style CTSC and a maximum of 8lbs of boost?

I decided to try a system put together by Snow Performance. It was considerably less expensive than the Aquamist version, and it was made in the U.S. vs. England. The kit consisted of a high output pump, two different sizes of jets for applications up to 635 hp, a boost activated electronic pump controller, a 2quart reservoir, and an optional low liquid LED indicator. Everything necessary to install the kit was included…all connectors, tubing, and fittings. The only thing I fabricated was a small plate made from a large fender washer, which was used to mount the nozzle assembly to the rubber intake before the throttle body. I sandwiched the rubber between the fender washer and a flat thin brass nut that I loctighted on the inside of the intake. Boost to trigger the controller was taken from a "T" off the vacuum line to the fuel pressure regulator.

I ran wires for the two supplied LED’s to the pillar mount I used for the serial gauge – red for low fluid and green indicates when the injection pump comes on. The reservoir was mounted in the trunk, along with the boost controller and pump. There is an empty, four-spade connector in the trunk, just behind the driver that is normally used for the optional phone. I used two switched circuits – one for the pump and the other for the boost controller. The entire installation took about three hours.

Once installed, I scheduled another trip to the dyno. An initial run was made to verify original results…which were almost exactly the same as when I left the dyno. The boost controller was set to have the pump come partially on at 3lbs of boost, full on at 4lbs all the way to 9lbs.

A second run was made to check the pump settings. Everything worked perfectly. The pump lowered the intake air temps by more than 90 degrees. We ended up advancing the timing 3 additional degrees, made some slight air fuel adjustments and made another run. The goal was to achieve some gains in horsepower, but more importantly , keep the intake air temperature down. Final results were a small gain ( about 10 RWHP) in overall horsepower, but a substantial gain in midrange (18 RWHP), with similar gains in torque – a good thing if you track your car. Peak boost was 8.5 lbs at 5,000 rpm and boost dropped off to 5.5 lbs at 8,000 rpm, which is probably why the overall gain in horsepower was so small. Overall, I was expecting a greater horsepower increase, but we kept the timing conservative, and the air/fuel was no higher than 12 – so I’m sure more was available, and a tighter supercharger belt may have also helped. What is impressive is the consistent 90 degree lower intake air temps, which is important in the summer Florida temperatures. And, so far I’ve driven about 200 miles around town on the set-up and have used about a pint of the water/methanol mixture – so keeping the tank full does not seem to be a factor.

From Snow Performance site:

Why Water/Methanol Injection?
The Boost Cooler® is Snow Performance’s latest generation water/methanol injection system. The primary function of water/methanol injection is to provide “chemical intercooling”.
In gasoline engines, as with any intercooler, this suppresses detonation so more power producing boost and timing can be utilized. Water, with its high latent heat of vaporization cools the intake charge and combustion. Methanol cools the charge and combustion but also acts like an extremely high octane fuel (some researchers claim as high as 120 octane) as well as adding more oxygen to combustion.
In diesels, the effect is three fold: 1. The intercooling effect provides for more available air and all the benefits of a higher positive pressure ratio (more power giving fuel can be utilized safely without high combustion temperatures). 2. The combustion of water provides for more power on the power stroke. 3. Methanol acts as an additional fuel for more power.
A brief History:
Water injection was evaluated scientifically in the 1930’s by H. Ricardo who demonstrated that one can basically double the power output of an engine using water/methanol. The first widespread use was during WWII on supercharged and turbocharged aircraft. In 1942, the German Luftwaffe increased the horsepower of the Focke-Wulf 190D-9 fighter aircraft from 1776HP to 2240HP using 50/50% water/methanol injection. The allies soon followed by fitting the P51 Mustang and other high performance aircraft with water/methanol injection. Following the war, the turboprop aircraft industry used water/methanol injection and called it the “automatic power reserve system (APR)” for use in hot or high altitude take off. It surfaced again in the 60’s when GM used a system on the OEM turbo Corvair. It was used effectively in Formula 1 before being banned for adding too much power.

The latest competitive use is in World Rally Racing (WRC) where virtually all teams use it in some form and in diesel truck/tractor pulling competition. It is important to note that in the fall of 2004, the long standing world record in the quarter mile for diesels was broken twice (now 7.98 sec) by two different vehicles; both using the Boost Cooler® water/methanol injection system by Snow Performance.

If you’d like more information or would like to see photos of the installation, feel free to PM or e-mail me at [email protected].
Mark Youngquist
 
Last edited:
Great idea - I don't know why more CTSC users don't incorporate this especially with no readily available 'cooler option. This is a very cost-effective mod as well as (of course) fundamentally functional for the intended purpose.
You were probably conservative in your timing advance and so haven't seen the big power gains, however the safety margin undoubtedly increased dramatically.
This would work extremely well with the new CTSC Autorotor set-up I'm convinced, especially with an AEM controller.
 
I like the idea for safety, I just think it would be a pain to keep filling up the tank. :biggrin:
 
D'Ecosse said:
Great idea - I don't know why more CTSC users don't incorporate this especially with no readily available 'cooler option. This is a very cost-effective mod as well as (of course) fundamentally functional for the intended purpose.
You were probably conservative in your timing advance and so haven't seen the big power gains, however the safety margin undoubtedly increased dramatically.
This would work extremely well with the new CTSC Autorotor set-up I'm convinced, especially with an AEM controller.

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. Especially after looking at some of the elaborate intercoolers I've seen on this site. The whole thing cost under $500.00, and could easily be removed if necessary. Making the engine live longer seems worth it alone.
 
NetViper said:
I like the idea for safety, I just think it would be a pain to keep filling up the tank. :biggrin:

It's really amazing how little you (or at least I) have the pump come on. Normal driving does not trigger it - I estimate 500 miles per tankful - 2 quarts.
 
m3456y said:
It's really amazing how little you (or at least I) have the pump come on. Normal driving does not trigger it - I estimate 500 miles per tankful - 2 quarts.

Wow. I did not realize it was that low.
 
m3456y said:
It's really amazing how little you (or at least I) have the pump come on. Normal driving does not trigger it - I estimate 500 miles per tankful - 2 quarts.
What would you estimate during a 20 minute track session while almost always under boost?

BTW, here are m3456y's photos:

57110962-M.jpg


57110993-M.jpg


57110977-M.jpg


57110942-M.jpg
 
Thanks for the picture posting help...I guess I'd go with the optional 7 quart reservoir and low fluid indicator to be safe. I really don't know how fast you'd burn that up - but my guess is you'd easily make it. On the track - I think you'd like the hp and torque gains (18 RWHP) we saw between 5-6,500 rpms.
 
Very good review, thank you for sharing.

Why not use the AEM to control the pump, then you could tie in the intake air temps themselves to maybe save on filling the bottle. and you could log pump on/off with your other logging, may be usefull at the track.

It would seem the belt was slipping at high RPM's, my setup is very much the same as yours and while my peak boost does not reach 8.5lbs my system does make more boost at higher RPM's. Usually in the low 6.2 to 6.4lb area at 8k RPM. I think if you get the boost up another pound at 8k RPM you would break 370Hp. I would love to see any logs you have from the last dyno runs if you saved them.

Have you replaced the bypass hose with the hard pipe yet. This made a difference in my overal intake temps during normal driving, when you do alot of quick on-off throttle the intake temps do not creep up like they use to.

Dave
 
m3456y said:
Thanks for the picture posting help...
No problem.:wink: By the way, how do you like the AEM multi gauge?
 
DDozier said:
Very good review, thank you for sharing.

Why not use the AEM to control the pump, then you could tie in the intake air temps themselves to maybe save on filling the bottle. and you could log pump on/off with your other logging, may be usefull at the track.

It would seem the belt was slipping at high RPM's, my setup is very much the same as yours and while my peak boost does not reach 8.5lbs my system does make more boost at higher RPM's. Usually in the low 6.2 to 6.4lb area at 8k RPM. I think if you get the boost up another pound at 8k RPM you would break 370Hp. I would love to see any logs you have from the last dyno runs if you saved them.

Have you replaced the bypass hose with the hard pipe yet. This made a difference in my overal intake temps during normal driving, when you do alot of quick on-off throttle the intake temps do not creep up like they use to.

Dave

The guy that did my tuning suggested something similar...I just wanted to keep it simple. Nice thing about the AEM serial gauge is that it holds high and low readings in memory...so yeah, I've hit 8-8.5 pretty consistently. I agree with you on tightening the belt - I've been afraid to go too far with it. I have Comptech's bypass hose fix...just been too lazy to install it. I had the dyno shop overlay a before and after intercooler run and I'll post it when I pick it up.
 
I remember reading about Armando's installation and now yours Mark...

Wow... I must admit your installation is very clean and you have made it look very easy!

I have thought about it before and you have made me consider it again... I wonder how this would work on a turbo application???...

Thanks for the write-up Mark
 
To answer a couple questions...

KGP: I love the new serial gauge. It took me a while to get the hang of programming it, but its very easy once you catch on - and have the proper Windows operating system. I discovered an AEM problem with the water temperature calibration as a result of the gauge (do a search on water temperature and check my post). You can easily make the fix in your AEM unit. Having the ability to check low and high limits, and switch between gauge functions instantly is very nice. You can also program alarm indicators in each gauge, if you want.

Donwon: Yes it's the older style Supercharger with the "high boost" pulley.

AU NSX: The installation was a very easy one. Because the pump is a pushing type, you could mount it in front and run the tubing back as well. You could even just order the low fluid indicator and use your existing windshield washer fluid tank. The boost controller could be mounted in the engine compartment . The only thing is the high point of the injector tube must be above the reservoir - or you need a valve to stop siphoning...which on an NSX is really no problem. The system is actually built around any FI installation. Snow Performance claims a 15-20% HP increase if you start the tuning at 12.5 A/F (which I did not do).
 
m3456y said:
AU NSX: The installation was a very easy one. Because the pump is a pushing type, you could mount it in front and run the tubing back as well.


We initially mounted the Aquamist pump up front, but the distance from the injector hindered the "instant on" that you would need for it to work correctly. We ended up using the windsheild washer fluid tank as the methanol reservoir, we also mounted a booster pump up front to maintain pressure all the way to the Aquamist pump which we mounted in the engine bay.


PS Congrats on the IAT numbers.


Armando
 
MiamieNeSeX said:
We initially mounted the Aquamist pump up front, but the distance from the injector hindered the "instant on" that you would need for it to work correctly. We ended up using the windsheild washer fluid tank as the methanol reservoir, we also mounted a booster pump up front to maintain pressure all the way to the Aquamist pump which we mounted in the engine bay.


PS Congrats on the IAT numbers.


Armando

Thanks Armando...my system is not "instant on" it comes partially on at initial boost setting...then full on. It may not need a booster pump - but good suggestion.
 
Can the potential decrease in IAT be predicted by some formula? It would be logical that the percent decrease is itself decreased as the starting IAT's get lower. It would be nice to be able to predict whether the addition would still be significant with an aftercooler. Armando, do you have any pre/post mist IAT data with your aftercooler in place?
 
WOODY said:
Can the potential decrease in IAT be predicted by some formula? It would be logical that the percent decrease is itself decreased as the starting IAT's get lower. It would be nice to be able to predict whether the addition would still be significant with an aftercooler. Armando, do you have any pre/post mist IAT data with your aftercooler in place?

Woody, If Armando can't help you, you may want to drop this guy an e-mail...he may have the answer to your question:
[email protected]
 
So what are your intake temps now, 170? Is that still high? Thank you for posting this..I didn't know it was that cheap considering the alternative of having an aftercooler fabricated. Very interesting, definitely something for me to look into.
 
Wheelman said:
So what are your intake temps now, 170? Is that still high? Thank you for posting this..I didn't know it was that cheap considering the alternative of having an aftercooler fabricated. Very interesting, definitely something for me to look into.

170 is the highest I've seen under boost - even on the dyno. Driving around town...temps stay in the 160 range. After the dyno pulls, you could actually place your hand on the supercharger. The solution seems too simple - I admit.
 
180 is the highest mine has been on the dyno pulls. I wonder what they would go down to if I put this system on. What are the differences between this system and the Aquamist that Armando has?..besides price that is. Advantages/disadvantages?
 
Wheelman said:
180 is the highest mine has been on the dyno pulls. I wonder what they would go down to if I put this system on. What are the differences between this system and the Aquamist that Armando has?..besides price that is. Advantages/disadvantages?

Not knowing what you have, or if you have an intercooler of some sort...180 seems pretty low, from the information I've checked out.

Is that the reading you are getting from your AEM? Before the injector, mine was beyond AEM measurement...I think it only shows up to 260 degrees, but I could be wrong. I'm not sure of the differences, I know Aquamist makes a very nice unit though.
 
What mix of methanol/water are you using?
FJO claims that water has a better cooling effect than methanol and that a 30% methanol content is best for a low boost application. (FJO is a Canadian company that makes high end water/methanol injection systems.)
Have you experimented with different mixtures to determine which mix works best?
Also, watch out for the corrosive effect of the methanol on the rubber parts.
 
Back
Top