Continued from here to prevent hijack: http://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/wate...t-909.html

The rear half of the system is now complete. I'm only waiting on the nozzles and solenoids to arrive.

Its got a Shurflo 8000 pump set at 110psi and a model 181 accumulator which I will charge to 95psi when the system is complete. The two reservoirs are 1.5gallon coolant expansion tanks from 90's Chevy pickups connected in parallel. The pump power is controlled by a dash-switch signaling a relay by the pump. The pump tubing is 3/8" inlet, 3/8" to the accumulator and 1/4" from the accumulator on.
   
       
   
They are filled lopsided because the car was on a slope when the picture was taken.

The plan is 6x70cc/min(1gph) nozzles which is right about double the capacity of the system I use in the 240. One nozzle in the manifold inlet activated at 4psi, primarily for keeping the cylinders carbon-free during normal driving. One nozzle in each of the W115 manifold's runners activated at 10psi for additional power and heavy cylinder scrubbing.

More to come, hopefully soon.

PLease run a full sized ground wire to the starting battery or engine block. It may save some issues. I think you are just using that battery for the pump system, but the body ground you have will show resistance. I do alot of marine wiring & have seen issues with smaller grounds & bad connections create fire hazzards.
Ed

huh... I was just talking with one of my bro's about building a system like this the other day...he has one on his big diesel truck. How is it working out for you so far?

(07-17-2010 06:30 PM)yankneck696 Wrote:  PLease run a full sized ground wire to the starting battery or engine block.

Done long ago. I used the same gauge wire for a strap between the firewall and rear manifold stud, in addition to leaving the factory strap in place.
   

Quote:but the body ground you have will show resistance.

It isn't any different than the factory body strap. The entire chassis is a common-ground, it doesn't matter where the ground cable is attached as long as it has good contact. In my case the paint was removed under the cable /bolt face on both sides of the trunk well and the firewall.
I know plenty about proper electrical connections, it a big part of my everyday job.

(07-18-2010 03:03 AM)SurfRodder Wrote:  How is it working out for you so far?

Great on the 240. It gives a noticeable boost in power and the engine runs even smoother than before (despite #1 knocking). MPG is a bit better too, 28.6 average since installation compared to 27.06 average before. Though most of the difference is offset by the cost of methanol (works out to a few cents savings per fillup).

Looks good.

I have a water injection on my truck and use a 50/50 mix of denatured alcohol and distilled water. I use the washer reservoir and plumb it into the wye intake with a fogger nozzle.

Not to be argumentative, but steel is a poor conductor. A full (or over) sized positive & negative will end up working better. I used to run 3,600 PEP watts of RF amplifiers years ago in my CB days. Had 2 8D barreries in the pickup box. 2-2/0 wires for the positive & 1 2/0 for the negative & a 2 foot 1/0 cable to the body & frame from the battery & the same from the main amp. one day at a ham swap meet, I got some 2/0 silver tinned strap in a 50' roll real cheap. I used it from the battery to the bed, body, frame, engine & antenna mount. Lo and behold, 4,170 watts PEP with nothing else unchanged. Measured with a Bird wattmeter & just surprised. That's 570 watts of RF. With a class A/B RF amplifier, that runs at about 50-60% efficiency, that's about 1100 watts lossed through the body & frame. That's almost 90 amps of current. Now, I know that my amp draw was tremendously larger than yours, but I just want people to understand about using the body or frame as a negative conductor. Also, I was a licensed electrician for 14 years & kinda know my electrical properties & correct bonding methods. Again, I am not trying to nag, but there's a real world scenario. Ed

(07-19-2010 06:05 AM)yankneck696 Wrote:  Not to be argumentative, but steel is a poor conductor.

Tell that to every vehicle manufacturer.

(07-19-2010 07:03 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

(07-19-2010 06:05 AM)yankneck696 Wrote:  Not to be argumentative, but steel is a poor conductor.

Tell that to every vehicle manufacturer.

It's not as good as copper but is plenty fine for common ground. As long as the grounding wire is big enough.

(07-19-2010 08:03 AM)winmutt Wrote:  

(07-19-2010 07:03 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

(07-19-2010 06:05 AM)yankneck696 Wrote:  Not to be argumentative, but steel is a poor conductor.

Tell that to every vehicle manufacturer.

It's not as good as copper but is plenty fine for common ground. As long as the grounding wire is big enough.

+1 on that

Finally.
I had issues with the valves. The becooling ones are crap, one body cracked with the water pressure. For the same $50ea as online WI places wanted, I got a pair of Parker K family valves from a local hydraulic shop.
I'm also having an issue with the accumulator's top fitting sweating water past the threads. I can't tighten it any more without the risk of cracking the plastic.
The two Hobbs switches work well, but they don't have any amount of hysteresis so I had to set the pressures a little differently than I had planned (3psi and 8psi instead of 5psi and 11psi).
The blue wire is to the pump relay and the green and red wires go to indicator LEDs on the dash.
   

There isn't much visible engine side.
   

Stage 1 at the manifold inlet. It works well for cruising cleaning, but I already feel it could be doubled in flow.
   

#1 of the second stage.
   

2-3, boost gauge/pressure switch fitting.
   

4-5, VNT control fitting. It was a tight fit, I couldn't avoid a U on the end.
       

Haven't done a 0-60 yet but it does give a nice kick. Waiting for an email back for a dyno session.

Peak EGTs remain unchanged, which I'm sure is due to the long duration of the 5.5mm injection pump elements.

You can seal that fitting with some blue loctite and that will seal it with out over tightening the fitting.

use #246 locktight if you can... that shit is magic! its thick and more oil resistant that then normal #242 stuff. Plus it will let you remove and reinstall the fitting as many times as needed.

Are you not using nozzles at the water outlets? it just sprays a stream into the manifold/runners?

(07-28-2010 12:56 PM)Captain America Wrote:  Are you not using nozzles at the water outlets? it just sprays a stream into the manifold/runners?

Huh?

(07-17-2010 11:35 AM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  The plan is 6x70cc/min(1gph) nozzles which is right about double the capacity of the system I use in the 240. One nozzle in the manifold inlet activated at 4psi, primarily for keeping the cylinders carbon-free during normal driving. One nozzle in each of the W115 manifold's runners activated at 10psi for additional power and heavy cylinder scrubbing.

More to come, hopefully soon.

Sorry forced, I re-read this and found my answer on the nozzles

I had to relocate the VNT controller air source. Water from the first stage was causing some sort of hydrolock in the low pressure controls and boost would only go to 2psi or 15psi. Changing from the intake manifold to the compressor housing fixed the issue, boost control is even a tad bit smoother.

I'm pretty displeased with the dyno operator this session. Not only did he have issues maintaining a reliable RPM reading but he just wouldn't put the throttle all the way to the floor even though I told him the kickdown was disabled.

Out of 6 pulls, half of them he didn't give it more than 1/2 throttle until 3500rpm and only one was partially valid. After Bandimere next week I'm going to find a better dyno shop.
   

Still, with the usable data, it shows 13hp over last year's non-WI run and bested my previous torque even without full throttle. A 0-60mph test shows .4sec quicker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGM3h3SEo9U

I'm curious as how you calculated your W/M flow rate. For a stock 617.95 based on the SAE documentation, I calculated a fuel flow rate of 7.93 to 8.45 gal/hr (4000-4500 rpm). I've read that W/M flow rate should be about 15% of the fuel flow, thus 1.2 to 1.3 gal/hr.

All I have for now is a stock 617.95 with the IP rack limiter removed and boost level of 8psi (which should be raised to X psi?, I don't have an EGT gauge at the moment).

(08-13-2010 02:59 PM)bmwpowere36m3 Wrote:  I'm curious as how you calculated your W/M flow rate.

Its the quoted flow rate by the manufacturer @110psi.

Quote:I've read that W/M flow rate should be about 15% of the fuel flow, thus 1.2 to 1.3 gal/hr.

A volume that low would hardly even be felt.

Quote:All I have for now is a stock 617.95 with the IP rack limiter removed and boost level of 8psi (which should be raised to X psi?

Boost with stock fueling should be turned up to 12psi. With the limiter removed it should be 15psi. You very much need a pyrometer without the limiter, the injection duration is long and it will get damagingly hot at full output.

(08-13-2010 06:51 PM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  

(08-13-2010 02:59 PM)bmwpowere36m3 Wrote:  I'm curious as how you calculated your W/M flow rate.

Its the quoted flow rate by the manufacturer @110psi.

Quote:I've read that W/M flow rate should be about 15% of the fuel flow, thus 1.2 to 1.3 gal/hr.

A volume that low would hardly even be felt.

Quote:All I have for now is a stock 617.95 with the IP rack limiter removed and boost level of 8psi (which should be raised to X psi?

Boost with stock fueling should be turned up to 12psi. With the limiter removed it should be 15psi. You very much need a pyrometer without the limiter, the injection duration is long and it will get damagingly hot at full output.

Thanks, what I meant about calculated W/M flow rate is how you decided upon using (6x) 70 cc/min nozzles or a total of 5.5 gal/hr. Why not 10 gal/hr or 3 gal/hr....

(08-13-2010 09:13 PM)bmwpowere36m3 Wrote:  Thanks, what I meant about calculated W/M flow rate is how you decided upon using (6x) 70 cc/min nozzles or a total of 5.5 gal/hr. Why not 10 gal/hr or 3 gal/hr.

420cc/min is 6.66gph (63cc=1gph).
A lot of 1.9TDI's run 6-7gph so I decided that range would be a safe bet. I believe DervTuning runs nearly twice what I currently do.

Updated the 240D to the new tank system. I left the pump in the engine bay and it has no problem sucking water through the 17' of 3/8" tube once it was primed. This eliminates unnecessary stress on the hood cable in cold weather to check/fill the water and adds another 1.5 gallons capacity.