Streetability mods

[Olds455]

Instead of water use blue winter fomula cheap stuff windshield washer fluid. It is water+ methanol.
Shake the jug. If it foams it has detergent
If it climbs the side of thebjug ithas glycol in it.
You want the cheap simple winter formula blue stuff that has no detergent nor glycol. Read the MSDS safetey data sheet on it.
It is better than just water as a anti detonation fluid.
Cheaper than distilled water. Its about 25-30% methanol mix by weight Add a slight bit of Canola oil to reduce corrosion. Increase pump life.
Acts as a "top lube" too. Water injection nozzles must be stainless and yup you got to ckean them.
You got to stay on top of a water injection system.
If it fails you can damage the motor from knock.

Yep. People have been using cheap, de-icer for years in w/m injection systems. I remember when the first fail safe was built into them years ago. It was either Snow or Aquamist, IIRC. There was also Alky Control and Devils Own as well as SMC. Seemed like a new company opened every 6 months because someone decided they wanted to make their own kits their way. I'm not even sure if all of these places are still in operation anymore.


Thinking back, it may have even been an entirely separate company that developed the first failsafe. I remember it did a whole bunch of things that all other controllers didn't. It controlled w/m injection, boost, all kinds of stuff. I'll have to see if I can find the name.

[NewbVetteGuy]

The way I see it, you have roughly 3 options with suboptions under each or you can choose a combination of these options:
Each alternative option has different up-front vs recurring costs and power and MPG trade-offs that need to be considered.


1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics

1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
1a. Reduce "Dynamic" compression: Lower Static CR OR alter cam timing or combination of both (reduces power and MPG some, but less at higher compression ratios); up-front cost and labor required for both, no recurring costs. Retarding the cam timing works here without initial cost. I think altering ignition timing makes for less cylinder pressure before combustion so I'd technically lump it here, but mostly because I'm lazy and I don't have a better" bucket" for it.
1b. Reduce Airflow / VE intentionally: "Hobble" engine with intentionally restricted induction (seems like a horrible idea, IMHO; documenting only for completeness)

2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
2a. "Chemical Octane Boost": Use higher octane fuel, fuel blends, or octane boosters that change the measured RON/MON rating of the fuel burned. NO up-front costs (assuming your fuel system can deal with your fuel choice; big assumption, I know), largest recurring costs. Combining this option with other options reduces the recurring costs by allowing cheaper, lower octane fuels or less high octane fuel in the blend.
2b. "Kinetic "Octane" Boost": Improve the engine's quench & squish -only helps so much and involves up-front costs, but no recurring costs; maintain power levels, even extremely slight power gains possible. Yes, I'm using the term "octane" loosely here to refer to detonation resistance vs. actual fuel RON / MON ratings.
2c. "Thermal "Octane" Boost": Reduce combustion TEMPERATURE to increase detonation resistance. Per Vizard, every 8 degree drop in IATs = a 1 point RON/MON equivalent increase in fuel octane. Cold air intake and intake thermal coatings are useful. I have no idea how much coolant and oil temps will help, should be "some". One-time, up-front costs, limited effectiveness, effectiveness dependant upon weather / air conditions, but NO RECURRING costs and actually INCREASES power, slightly decreases MPG (colder air slightly decreases power; other thermal management can slightly improve it). Fattening your AFR goes here as the extra fuel resists detonation via cooling; MPG cost, obviously. -I think EGR goes here...
2d. Water injection, IMO, falls under "2c" as a thermal solution focused on reducing IATs, but Meth injection is particularly interesting as it both drops IATs (2c) AND acts as a 2a. Chemical Octane Booster boosting the actual measured RON/MON values of the fuel in the combustion chamber.

3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics
These solutions are all roughly the same and AFAIK include EFI + Electronic Ignition Control conversions or modern electronic-controlled Water/Water+Meth Injection systems. Big $$$$ up-front, but maintain / improve power, less expensive to continue to operate than higher octane fuel and provide plenty of other benefits. Holley Sniper has brought the price of EFI + electronic ignition control down to about $1,500 so less initial outlay than in years past, but still a significant investment.

Other options involve selecting a "static" set of trade-offs: you make your decision, then you live with that decision for a long time. Electronic solutions allow you to change your mind and can balance maximum power and MPG with minimum recurring costs by ensuring that timing is always appropriate for the fuel, weather, and driving conditions. The electronic solutions involve the maximum "Dynamic Range" of cost, performance, and detonation resistance. With a fuel octane sensor and electronic control, you can change your mind on what trade-offs you want at any time (money gets tight, run on junk gas with junk timing and fat AFRs; want to play round with high octane fuel or has the weather gotten cold? -Get max perf.)

-I'm really curious if there are any electronic ignition controllers that can integrate a knock sensor and adjustable timing controls WITHOUT a full-fledged EFI system. Holley has some great products on the ignition control side of things, but AFAIK, the only option to control them is a full-fledged EFI system.



Adam

[NewbVetteGuy]

And sorry to the OP, but I'm going to go on a SLIGHT tangent because now I can't get it out of my head...

I've been in IT/Computing for 22 years now and there are clearly trends that have happened there that I now see happening in the automotive / ICE world.

In the 90s, every time computing PERFORMANCE increased, it was almost immediately used. There were applications that could and did take advantage of it and there was pent up demand for it. Computing power doubled reliably every 18 months, and it was put to "Good Use" -storage performance lagged behind until SSDs, but that's a tangent to my tangent.

Then we finally reached a point where new CPUs would come out and the performance just couldn't be put to good use. We finally reached the point where for the overwhelming majority of CONSUMER computing, the amount of processing power was more than people could use. We weren't power-limited any more.

The market had fragmented into power-hungry, highly powerful desktop machines that put out the heat of a small oven and made electric meters spin rapidly, and puny Netbooks that were small and light and had good battery life but horrible performance.

The next "frontier" on the high end of the market was increasing the "dynamic range" of computers ala the "Ultrabook" (think Macbook Air): users wanted it all. They wanted thin, light, long battery life AND powerful when they needed it. Intel worked SUPER HARD increasing the efficiency and dynamic range of computers so they could reduce power to make the battery last long and reduce the size of laptops, but they could still spin up with insane CPU power and complete hard work quickly. One of the big challenges is in running one of these things at max power for a long time as thermal management becomes an issue and then you have to throttle the performance back but the assumption is that you spin up fast for short periods of time, complete the work quickly and spin backdown before thermal mgmt becomes such a big deal.



Tell me that the automotive world isn't in the same place.
EFI-controlled engines that dynamically adjust valve timing, ignition timing, and fuel enrichment, "Too much Power" with too much heat to be sustained for long, EXCEPT the engineers know that you can only drive at 150mph on the street for a few seconds and you're going to have to slow down...


It also reminds me of geopolitics and war after nuclear weapons: the goal before the nuke was maximum lethality, then humanity had access to enough lethality to destroy the entire earth many times over and maximum lethality was no longer the goal and the cold war was born and then spawned Cyberwarfare and economic warfare and Asymmetric warfare modes. At 1,000hp the automotive world is in the same place, IMHO, and "dynamic range" and balacing EVERYTHING is now critically important.


In very related news: GM announced that the front-engine RWD Corvette has no future and a more "balanced" and better handling mid-engine Corvette is the only Corvette going forward. I fully expect the LT engine to be the option at the bottom end of the range, with a more modern engine with a "higher dynamic range" and more technology to be at the high end of the market. (Base Corvette = big fat, cheaper Dell Inspiron, High-end Corvette= XPS 13 "Ultrabook". You'll pay for the dynamic range.)

</End rant> Sorry OP....


Adam

[rebelrouser]

The way I see it, you have roughly 3 options with suboptions under each or you can choose a combination of these options:
Each alternative option has different up-front vs recurring costs and power and MPG trade-offs that need to be considered.


1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics

1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
1a. Reduce "Dynamic" compression: Lower Static CR OR alter cam timing or combination of both (reduces power and MPG some, but less at higher compression ratios); up-front cost and labor required for both, no recurring costs. Retarding the cam timing works here without initial cost. I think altering ignition timing makes for less cylinder pressure before combustion so I'd technically lump it here, but mostly because I'm lazy and I don't have a better" bucket" for it.
1b. Reduce Airflow / VE intentionally: "Hobble" engine with intentionally restricted induction (seems like a horrible idea, IMHO; documenting only for completeness)

2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
2a. "Chemical Octane Boost": Use higher octane fuel, fuel blends, or octane boosters that change the measured RON/MON rating of the fuel burned. NO up-front costs (assuming your fuel system can deal with your fuel choice; big assumption, I know), largest recurring costs. Combining this option with other options reduces the recurring costs by allowing cheaper, lower octane fuels or less high octane fuel in the blend.
2b. "Kinetic "Octane" Boost": Improve the engine's quench & squish -only helps so much and involves up-front costs, but no recurring costs; maintain power levels, even extremely slight power gains possible. Yes, I'm using the term "octane" loosely here to refer to detonation resistance vs. actual fuel RON / MON ratings.
2c. "Thermal "Octane" Boost": Reduce combustion TEMPERATURE to increase detonation resistance. Per Vizard, every 8 degree drop in IATs = a 1 point RON/MON equivalent increase in fuel octane. Cold air intake and intake thermal coatings are useful. I have no idea how much coolant and oil temps will help, should be "some". One-time, up-front costs, limited effectiveness, effectiveness dependant upon weather / air conditions, but NO RECURRING costs and actually INCREASES power, slightly decreases MPG (colder air slightly decreases power; other thermal management can slightly improve it). Fattening your AFR goes here as the extra fuel resists detonation via cooling; MPG cost, obviously. -I think EGR goes here...
2d. Water injection, IMO, falls under "2c" as a thermal solution focused on reducing IATs, but Meth injection is particularly interesting as it both drops IATs (2c) AND acts as a 2a. Chemical Octane Booster boosting the actual measured RON/MON values of the fuel in the combustion chamber.

3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics
These solutions are all roughly the same and AFAIK include EFI + Electronic Ignition Control conversions or modern electronic-controlled Water/Water+Meth Injection systems. Big $$$$ up-front, but maintain / improve power, less expensive to continue to operate than higher octane fuel and provide plenty of other benefits. Holley Sniper has brought the price of EFI + electronic ignition control down to about $1,500 so less initial outlay than in years past, but still a significant investment.

Other options involve selecting a "static" set of trade-offs: you make your decision, then you live with that decision for a long time. Electronic solutions allow you to change your mind and can balance maximum power and MPG with minimum recurring costs by ensuring that timing is always appropriate for the fuel, weather, and driving conditions. The electronic solutions involve the maximum "Dynamic Range" of cost, performance, and detonation resistance. With a fuel octane sensor and electronic control, you can change your mind on what trade-offs you want at any time (money gets tight, run on junk gas with junk timing and fat AFRs; want to play round with high octane fuel or has the weather gotten cold? -Get max perf.)

-I'm really curious if there are any electronic ignition controllers that can integrate a knock sensor and adjustable timing controls WITHOUT a full-fledged EFI system. Holley has some great products on the ignition control side of things, but AFAIK, the only option to control them is a full-fledged EFI system.



Adam

You have to have a cam and crank sensor in order to control timing, so you need a computer of some kind to read the signals and modify the timing, so you already have those items with an injection system, so really you get the timing control on the cheap, if you already have the injection.

[NewbVetteGuy]

The way I see it, you have roughly 3 options with suboptions under each or you can choose a combination of these options:
Each alternative option has different up-front vs recurring costs and power and MPG trade-offs that need to be considered.


1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics

1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
1a. Reduce "Dynamic" compression: Lower Static CR OR alter cam timing or combination of both (reduces power and MPG some, but less at higher compression ratios); up-front cost and labor required for both, no recurring costs. Retarding the cam timing works here without initial cost. I think altering ignition timing makes for less cylinder pressure before combustion so I'd technically lump it here, but mostly because I'm lazy and I don't have a better" bucket" for it.
1b. Reduce Airflow / VE intentionally: "Hobble" engine with intentionally restricted induction (seems like a horrible idea, IMHO; documenting only for completeness)

2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
2a. "Chemical Octane Boost": Use higher octane fuel, fuel blends, or octane boosters that change the measured RON/MON rating of the fuel burned. NO up-front costs (assuming your fuel system can deal with your fuel choice; big assumption, I know), largest recurring costs. Combining this option with other options reduces the recurring costs by allowing cheaper, lower octane fuels or less high octane fuel in the blend.
2b. "Kinetic "Octane" Boost": Improve the engine's quench & squish -only helps so much and involves up-front costs, but no recurring costs; maintain power levels, even extremely slight power gains possible. Yes, I'm using the term "octane" loosely here to refer to detonation resistance vs. actual fuel RON / MON ratings.
2c. "Thermal "Octane" Boost": Reduce combustion TEMPERATURE to increase detonation resistance. Per Vizard, every 8 degree drop in IATs = a 1 point RON/MON equivalent increase in fuel octane. Cold air intake and intake thermal coatings are useful. I have no idea how much coolant and oil temps will help, should be "some". One-time, up-front costs, limited effectiveness, effectiveness dependant upon weather / air conditions, but NO RECURRING costs and actually INCREASES power, slightly decreases MPG (colder air slightly decreases power; other thermal management can slightly improve it). Fattening your AFR goes here as the extra fuel resists detonation via cooling; MPG cost, obviously. -I think EGR goes here...
2d. Water injection, IMO, falls under "2c" as a thermal solution focused on reducing IATs, but Meth injection is particularly interesting as it both drops IATs (2c) AND acts as a 2a. Chemical Octane Booster boosting the actual measured RON/MON values of the fuel in the combustion chamber.

3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics
These solutions are all roughly the same and AFAIK include EFI + Electronic Ignition Control conversions or modern electronic-controlled Water/Water+Meth Injection systems. Big $$$$ up-front, but maintain / improve power, less expensive to continue to operate than higher octane fuel and provide plenty of other benefits. Holley Sniper has brought the price of EFI + electronic ignition control down to about $1,500 so less initial outlay than in years past, but still a significant investment.

Other options involve selecting a "static" set of trade-offs: you make your decision, then you live with that decision for a long time. Electronic solutions allow you to change your mind and can balance maximum power and MPG with minimum recurring costs by ensuring that timing is always appropriate for the fuel, weather, and driving conditions. The electronic solutions involve the maximum "Dynamic Range" of cost, performance, and detonation resistance. With a fuel octane sensor and electronic control, you can change your mind on what trade-offs you want at any time (money gets tight, run on junk gas with junk timing and fat AFRs; want to play round with high octane fuel or has the weather gotten cold? -Get max perf.)

-I'm really curious if there are any electronic ignition controllers that can integrate a knock sensor and adjustable timing controls WITHOUT a full-fledged EFI system. Holley has some great products on the ignition control side of things, but AFAIK, the only option to control them is a full-fledged EFI system.



Adam

You have to have a cam and crank sensor in order to control timing, so you need a computer of some kind to read the signals and modify the timing, so you already have those items with an injection system, so really you get the timing control on the cheap, if you already have the injection.

Dual Sync Distributor. Drop it in and connect it to your cheap(er) electronic timing control computer... assuming one exists.
Then even the CARB guys can have electronic ignition control.
Then the carb guys could do coil-on-plug ignition without having to move to EFI,too...

Just seems unnecessary to bundle it with EFI, IMO. Some of the old farts just won't give up their carbs and they have money to burn.
*Chumming the waters*

Adam

[thedynoguy]

Hey Phil, your thread has officially been hijacked. I hope you'll stop in when you're back in town...

[GARY C]

The way I see it, you have roughly 3 options with suboptions under each or you can choose a combination of these options:
Each alternative option has different up-front vs recurring costs and power and MPG trade-offs that need to be considered.


1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics

1. Reduce Cylinder Pressure
1a. Reduce "Dynamic" compression: Lower Static CR OR alter cam timing or combination of both (reduces power and MPG some, but less at higher compression ratios); up-front cost and labor required for both, no recurring costs. Retarding the cam timing works here without initial cost. I think altering ignition timing makes for less cylinder pressure before combustion so I'd technically lump it here, but mostly because I'm lazy and I don't have a better" bucket" for it.
1b. Reduce Airflow / VE intentionally: "Hobble" engine with intentionally restricted induction (seems like a horrible idea, IMHO; documenting only for completeness)

2. Boost Octane / Detonation Resistance
2a. "Chemical Octane Boost": Use higher octane fuel, fuel blends, or octane boosters that change the measured RON/MON rating of the fuel burned. NO up-front costs (assuming your fuel system can deal with your fuel choice; big assumption, I know), largest recurring costs. Combining this option with other options reduces the recurring costs by allowing cheaper, lower octane fuels or less high octane fuel in the blend.
2b. "Kinetic "Octane" Boost": Improve the engine's quench & squish -only helps so much and involves up-front costs, but no recurring costs; maintain power levels, even extremely slight power gains possible. Yes, I'm using the term "octane" loosely here to refer to detonation resistance vs. actual fuel RON / MON ratings.
2c. "Thermal "Octane" Boost": Reduce combustion TEMPERATURE to increase detonation resistance. Per Vizard, every 8 degree drop in IATs = a 1 point RON/MON equivalent increase in fuel octane. Cold air intake and intake thermal coatings are useful. I have no idea how much coolant and oil temps will help, should be "some". One-time, up-front costs, limited effectiveness, effectiveness dependant upon weather / air conditions, but NO RECURRING costs and actually INCREASES power, slightly decreases MPG (colder air slightly decreases power; other thermal management can slightly improve it). Fattening your AFR goes here as the extra fuel resists detonation via cooling; MPG cost, obviously. -I think EGR goes here...
2d. Water injection, IMO, falls under "2c" as a thermal solution focused on reducing IATs, but Meth injection is particularly interesting as it both drops IATs (2c) AND acts as a 2a. Chemical Octane Booster boosting the actual measured RON/MON values of the fuel in the combustion chamber.

3. Mitigate Detonation with Electronics
These solutions are all roughly the same and AFAIK include EFI + Electronic Ignition Control conversions or modern electronic-controlled Water/Water+Meth Injection systems. Big $$$$ up-front, but maintain / improve power, less expensive to continue to operate than higher octane fuel and provide plenty of other benefits. Holley Sniper has brought the price of EFI + electronic ignition control down to about $1,500 so less initial outlay than in years past, but still a significant investment.

Other options involve selecting a "static" set of trade-offs: you make your decision, then you live with that decision for a long time. Electronic solutions allow you to change your mind and can balance maximum power and MPG with minimum recurring costs by ensuring that timing is always appropriate for the fuel, weather, and driving conditions. The electronic solutions involve the maximum "Dynamic Range" of cost, performance, and detonation resistance. With a fuel octane sensor and electronic control, you can change your mind on what trade-offs you want at any time (money gets tight, run on junk gas with junk timing and fat AFRs; want to play round with high octane fuel or has the weather gotten cold? -Get max perf.)

-I'm really curious if there are any electronic ignition controllers that can integrate a knock sensor and adjustable timing controls WITHOUT a full-fledged EFI system. Holley has some great products on the ignition control side of things, but AFAIK, the only option to control them is a full-fledged EFI system.



Adam

You have to have a cam and crank sensor in order to control timing, so you need a computer of some kind to read the signals and modify the timing, so you already have those items with an injection system, so really you get the timing control on the cheap, if you already have the injection.

Dual Sync Distributor. Drop it in and connect it to your cheap(er) electronic timing control computer... assuming one exists.
Then even the CARB guys can have electronic ignition control.
Then the carb guys could do coil-on-plug ignition without having to move to EFI,too...

Just seems unnecessary to bundle it with EFI, IMO. Some of the old farts just won't give up their carbs and they have money to burn.
*Chumming the waters*

Adam

Could be over complicating things, if you build it according to the fuel your going to use and tune it to where it doesn't ping using the weights, springs and adjustable vac advance/retard hooked to ported or full vacuum (depending on application) then you don't need all that.

You could go back to ESC and an electronic quadrajet.

[fdicrasto]

Hey Phil, your thread has officially been hijacked. I hope you'll stop in when you're back in town...

I will be in Rochester end of June. See you then.You know this engine; Johnny Za Za.