Increase your MPG by using water?

[Paul Beazer]

Anyone heard of this before?

WATERCAR (http://easywatercar.com/2books.htm?hop=skycforme)

File with Snake oil??

[ANTHONY]

I suppose you can still flood the engine.

[Turbo_Steve]

Innnteresting......Still puzzling over the petrol process, but in THEORY a hydrogen diesel mix would be extremely efficient, especially as pre-ignition is how a diesel works. Need to look into petrol some more.
What I have some doubts about is the amount of Hydrogen you'd get from the process they describe.
I'll have a chat with my tame chemist, I think.

[wirdy]

Looks complete 8ollocks to me.:happy:

[Nick Mann]

Very unconvinced.

I haven't read it fully, and don't intend to. The thing is written like a bad commercial for a shopping channel. Puts me off instantly!

It looks like they are using electrolysis to seperate the water, then simply pumping the gasses into the engine. What are the chemical reactions that give more power out by doing this? I can see that the extra Oxygen will help, but where is the extra Hydrogen going?

[CANDEE]

A lot of people use water injection to stop detonation.. so it might use the Hydrogen for that purpose....

[Nutter_John]

Water injection is used to cool down the charge to prevent det , not in the way this snake oil suggests

[Nick Mann]

Water injection is used to cool down the charge to prevent det , not in the way this snake oil suggests

:thumbsup: /yes ;)

[CANDEE]

:thumbsup: /yes ;)

Got ya :P Just cant be bothered to go though the link properly.. :P

[Turbo_Steve]

How is it different from NO2?
A small amount of N02 will have a massive impact on an engines power output.
NO2 has a collosal impact on the efficiency of diesel engines.
Hydrogen is a more reactive gas than NO2. (Anybody remember the Hindenberg? :D )
Yes the website is rubbish, and I don't doubt that this kit is of extremely dubious value,especially in reliability terms, but the principal at stake is actually quite interesting.

By volume of charge (i.e. air/fuel mix) a 10% NOS injection gives a significant increase in output...more than the 10%.
So whilst I remain skeptical, unless you've got a degree in chemistry, I think it's unfair to dismiss it as snakeoil out of hand.

[Nutter_John]

Not a chemist but how much enegy is being used to split the chemical bonds in water

extracting Oxygen from water is not new the navy have been using this years on submarines to allow them to travel huge distances without coming to the surface , but then again they have a nuclear reactor to power the process so do give a crap about how much power it uses .

[I-S]

Not a chemist but how much enegy is being used to split the chemical bonds in water

Exactly as much as is released when combusting it back again.

Water injection has long been known to have the benefits these people describe - decoking and octane boosting. It lessens the tendency for knocking by lowering charge temperature as well as increasing thermal mass of the charge (ie as you compress the air/water/fuel charge it heats up less than an air/fuel charge). The water also expands significantly as it heats up (ie goes from vapourised liquid to steam) as ignition occurs, increasing cylinder pressure and thus torque. The water (as steam) also is a very effective decoking agent. Here's more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

Their "electrolysis to HHO" is BS. Water injection is not.

[Davezj]

the physical quantity of gas preduced for such a small volume of water would surley be insignificant in comparison to the volume of air that gets dragged through the engine. the jar would have to look like a state of continual boiling to get anywhere near the quantity of hydrogen and oxygen to get any kind of impact to the burn cycle of the engine.

now i have seen on mythbusters that a car engine can run of hydrogen with out any kind of modification. they had a cylinder of the stuff and pumped it directly in to the carb of a car. how long the engine would last i don't know. the engine mythbusters test went bang but it was a hydrogen leak that caused that.

And yes i have seen water being injected in to a carb to increase power. but again i not know how long the engine would last.

[Kenneth]

You CAN run an engine on water that has been turned to HHO (or browns gas as it is referred to) that fact is known.

The statement that causes a lot of misunderstanding and controversy is what one researcher said "You can cover over 1000miles on 1 gallon of water"

While this was technically fact (it has been done in a lab) what is not often given out with that statement is 2 things

1) The system had a huge electroliser that was not only big and heavy, it also used enough power to dim the lights in the neighbourhood when operating

2) The system in question had a condenser which returned the vapor from combustion to water, which was re-used over and over again. Without this system you would not get far at all.


From this, I would class the link in question as a jar of water with a current running through it that is placed in the engine bay and eventually evaporates of its own accord.

[Nick Mann]

You don't need bucket loads of energy to split water. But small amounts will not split it quickly!! No energy system is 100% efficient, so splitting water to then recombine it is going to get less energy out than you put in. Unless there is a chemical reaction I haven't spotted, the whole system has got to be rubbish.

The thing that bugs me is the claims of mileage increases. How does it do that?

[Turbo_Steve]

Okay, more reasoned debate...happy now :D :D :D
And can I just say that I really love CVR4....intelligent, informed and eloquent discussion...this place rocks.

Isaac is bang an with water injection: been there, done that, and it really is very good, especially if you can inject directly into the cylinder. Mapping with WI means more ignition, cooler EGTs and a cleaner burn.
Shame it's not cheaper to implement, really.

Hydrogen...again, yep documented benefits

Given that WI typically uses 2Litres for every tank of fuel (if you drive it hard).
So if, in theory, this was actually working (which I remain skeptical about), presumably it would use water at a related rate? (maybe half?)

[Kieran]

So Steve, based on your above comments, I presume you like systems like Aquamist then?

Also... on a slight kink... I have an intercooler water spray system (not yet fitted). I know the principe is that the water zaps heat out of the metal, but how effective are they? Any comments on that?

[Nick Mann]

They are effective. Ask Derek about his water pistol useage at Santa Pod! They are most effective when the car is stationary, to remove heat build up. I think that Derek knocked several tenths off his 1/4 mile the couple of times he used the water pistols.

[I-S]

Surely an alcohol (methanol, ethanol or propanol) intercooler spray would be good? Quicker evaporation will cool the intercooler more, quicker and also would not cause problems on the strip (although explaining that to them might not be so easy). Only downside being it's flammable...

Now, I've spent a bit of time looking into water injection, because it seems like it would be ideal on the GDI - equivalent octane boost (ie reduction of knocking), removing carbon, helping with high compression, etc. There's some interesting possibilities in DIY for a manifold injection system. An ultrasonic misting jet (eg sonicom) produces a very fine mist that would be ideal, or a small misting jet from a mister system (if you've been to the desert states in the USA, you may have seen misters in operation - a very fine mist of water is sprayed out, and it cools the air massively. You will often see them around outdoor seating areas of restaurants, etc. The mist is so fine that even if the wind blows it on you it does not feel wet, just cool).

A low level of water injection could be interesting - in the 1/2ml per second range. Ideally you want to have water injection rate inversely proportional to manifold vacuum in an N/A engine (ie high vacuum at idle, little to no water injection, low vacuum at WOT, high water injection), which shouldn't be too tricky to engineer.

In an intercooled turboed engine, water injection would effectively work as a further intercooler, and should ideally be implemented after the intercooler (the intercooler is more effective in terms of degrees lost the hotter it is, so adding the water injection before it will make the main intercooler less effective. The water injection will soak up a given amount of heat through the specific heat capacity of the water injected which doesn't change).

[Turbo_Steve]

Water Injection:
I broadly agree with Isaac on this: it's brilliant.
Have used a pair of aquamist pumps and nozzles tapped straight to the inlet manifold, pointing into the runnels. It was wired to an ECU output, so could be delivered at specific parts of the map.
We mapped a car on Optimax (as was) and then installed the WI, and found the car would run fairly comfortably on 95RON with the WI set up correctly.

So we then went on to create a new Optimax map, and found we could use significantly more advance, and even have 2psi more boost below 5000rpms.
As Isaac says, it's best if you can have some control over the WI, even if it's just a boost switch set at 10psi, it's enough to ensure you only use the water when you need it.
Also, using water from your screenwash bottle isn't a problem..the screenwash doesn't seem to make any difference to the combustion process.
I WOULD however suggest two safety tips:
1) Unless you have a sensor in your WI resevoir the reduces boost / changes the map, I would suggest it is used as a "safety net" rather than for extra power. So you map without it, perhaps with slightly less safety margin than you would normally, and then switch it on.
2) IF you run it off your screenwash tank, DEFINITELY fit a float sensor. There's nothing worse than running out of screenwash when the roads are salty...you're blind. The float sensor disables the WI and shows you a dash light, telling you to take it easy and that you need to fill up your screenwash.

The only, ever-so-slight point Isaac has made that I'd challenge is the intercooler point: IF you run the WI injection for about 25 seconds AFTER you come off boost, and have the nozzle BEFORE the intercooler, it helps to stabilise your intercooler temperature. This massively reduces it's benefits on the combustion process, but hugely improves the intercooling on a road car. If you're just fitting it in the inlet tract, rather than the manifold or throttle body, (i.e. it's a cheap way of drilling out a little det, rather than mapping you out to the max bhp) then this is probably the route I'd choose.
Worth mentioning, but very much a "horses for courses" matter of personal choice.


Intercooler sprays:
Hmm. These are great if you like to heat your engine up, and then stand around letting it all soak into your intercooler. To be really effective, however, you're looking at a good 500ml of water being sprayed every time you want to cool down. You really want ice cubes in your water tank for this to work at it's best. My experiences have been limited, but listening to other people, they've generally found that a couple of decent fans pulling air through the intercooler is just as effective at preventing heat soak.
A good intercooler sprayer should not only be available at standstill, but should also click on periodically under sustained high boost.....some imprezas do this. The early Evos do not, however they DO actuate it if you go from high boost to slow speed.
Be aware that some race circuits and drag strips forbid their use.

If you're REALLY trying to cool your intercooler down from heat soak spraying it with a pressurised gas (e.g. carbon dioxide fire extinguisher) is bloody amazing: virtually freezes the thing solid in seconds! Just make sure it's well away from your engine's inlet, or you'll be displacing valuable air, and losing power.

Another chap I know put a copper capillery into his inlet pipe, just before the throttle body, and ran liquid nitrogen through it. This increased his air density sufficiently that his ECU got confused and stuttered. After some map tweaks and some fresh freezer juice, we ran an extra 12 degrees of advance at WOT, and just got him under the magic 11 seconds (from 12.2) so he was well pleased. Again, not very practical for road use, and it had a tendency to freeze his throttle butterfly open.

Those people I know who have tried using alcohol instead of water, and indeed mixes, have generally not noticed much of an improvement. Indeed, Aquamist used to advise against it...not sure if they still do?
Certainly I would never put it into my WI......you're changing the properties of your fuel, which is a bad thing: fuel is V E R Y complicated.
Spraying it on the intercooler just seems expensive: a fair portion of it will evaporate before it every gets to the intercooler, unless you use massive droplets and plenty of them.


Sorry....long post, my bad.

[Kieran]

Sorry....long post, my bad.


Not at all, a very interesting read!

Have some rep!:scholar:

[bradc]

hmm I do have all that spare space in the spare wheel well that could be used for a water tank :)

[I-S]

Steve - don't ever apologise for a great post like that. I've only read about water injection and I'm very interested to hear about your real experiences, particularly that bit about the intercooler.

What would be your view on a small level of water injection in the GDI to keep carbon and knocking in check?

[Turbo_Steve]

In the interest of being transparent, some of what I described (in a great rush cos I was in need of getting to bed on time because...well, nevermind :D ) is second hand experience, i.e. talking to other folks at Santa Pod / Elvington / Silverstone etc. Some of the most interesting exchanges you can have are with competitors regarding last years car....they're usually happy to discuss their experiences quite honestly.
So, I've never tried the water jet before the intercooler....but I know people who have done so with great results.
I've never tried the CO2 thing either...but I know someone who has. In fairness, he never quite got his to work reliably, but it was mainly working around an initially flawed design rather than a problem with the idea.
If you're just drag-racing, the CO2 thing strikes me as extremely cheap bhp....I might be tempted to bring along a fire extinguisher if I do any 1/4 miles and freeze the knacks of my intercooler just before doing a run. Should be revealing.

I'm not expert on GDI (or engines in general, by any means!) but my understanding is that they rely on a small area inside the piston crown to act as a tiny combustion chamber: air is drawn in as normal, and a tiny amount of fuel is injected when the piston is at the top of it's compression stroke. As it's a very high compression engine (piston crown almost touching the head from what I gather) the combustion actually happens inside this little chamber, allowing for less fuel, therefore a much hotter but smaller explosion. Great for cruising on light loads, but absoloutely not torque.
So the engine must cut over to a more normal mode of operation (injecting the fuel earlier in the cycle, triggering the ignition later, I would guess, otherwise it's likely to bend a rod) and must use more fuel at this point so as not to detonate.

So, after my ramblings, (which I've posted so that if my understanding of the engine technology is incorrect I can be edumacated) I can say with confidence on the WI side.......no idea! :D

If you're after more power, it should work brilliantly in "normal" mode, allowing you to put in a little less fuel and advance the ignition, just like a regular high compression engine. As these units are designed to inject very late and spark very early, I would assume the piston head, and possibly the rod is very strong, so you could keep pushing the engine towards "GDI mode" even in high load circumstances (if you can keep the temperatures down) but with the higher, more powerful fuel ratio. Just don't start trying to run full power at TDC or something is bound to go crunch.

In true GDI mode, things are more complicated so I really am theorising.
I would want to start by trying to lean the mixture out in GDI mode, watching EGTs and knock levels. Assuming you can take out sufficient fuel, you should be able to inject enough water to cool things down, but it's going to be a balancing act, I reckon. My understanding is that there isn't much scope for changing the ignition timings when running lean burn, so there aren't many advantages to be had there.

The problem appears to be that the volume of air is so small that over injecting the water disrupts the fuel stratification. This ruins the burn pattern (which is a specific shape on a GDI....flatter and "squarer" than regular combustion.

The two options appear to be injecting direct into the cylinder (which sounds like pricey specialist equipment to me) or injecting into the inlet manifold at as high a pressure as possible in extremely small quantities.

I definitely think it will clean out your internals, and will give you all the usual benefits on medium & high loads, as that's familiar territory.
The difficulty is going to be controlling it sufficiently at light load, and the fact that to truly realise the full benefit from WI, the ECU either needs to be able to measure it's affects (massively expensive) or you need to get it remapped and build in some safety.

As I say, I'm totally theorising here, but is that kind of what you're after?

[I-S]

Somewhat, yes - interesting view. When you say bad for torque, you mean the lean burn mode? The 2.4GDI is torquey - moreso than the 2.5 V6, but that might well be under normal burn conditions.

The other thing is I wonder the insurance implications of such a system.

[Turbo_Steve]

Apologies, Yes, I mean the lean burn sacrifices torque for fuel efficiency. Once you push the pedal in, it reverts to working like a normal engine again, except that it's got a decent compression ratio into the bargain, presumably delivering the decent torque.

Every insurance company reacts differently to these kind of things.
To be honest, I'd be disinclined to tell them about WI...and ask them about a remap. They usually only seem concerned about the final power output and the cost.

[bradc]

The 2.4's are actually rated at the exact same amount of torque as the V6, but the V6 is rated at 4500rpm, while the 2.4 is at 3500rpm. Both have 230nm

[I-S]

Figures I had for european spec (taken from the good german wikipedia page on the EA0: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Galant_EA0) are 223Nm @ 4500 for the V6 and 225Nm @ 3500 for the 2.4. You can see from the torque/power curves that up to 4000rpm the GDI has a slight advantage, above 4000 it's the V6 all the way. It's very noticeable that in the GDI you gain very little from pushing beyond 4000, whereas the GLS did.

[bradc]

ahh ok, I do have a JDM spec though, which is also rated at 129kw, and the 2.4gdi is rated at 121kw.