Forced Induction

[child9]

Talyn, depending on the year of your Jeep another reservoir may not be a problem. My 96 had a reservoir up by the heater blower motor, but the newer XJ's have a reservoir that fits inside the driver's side front fender...which I now have because my original reservoir had to be removed for my swap. My jeep even had the hole for the filler neck to come out of. Might make for a clean installation option if you have room for both containers.

I also wanted to clarify...O-gauge you do specifically mean detonation and not pre-ignition, yes? I think those are two separate conditions, both of which have to be addressed in any solid turbo setup.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

Child9,

Good question that as there is indeed a difference between the two.

Here is what Mr. Allen W. Cline has to say about the two:

Detonation: Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the end-gas (remaining fuel/air mixture) in the chamber. It always occurs after normal combustion is initiated by the spark plug. The initial combustion at the spark plug is followed by a normal combustion burn. For some reason, likely heat and pressure, the end gas in the chamber spontaneously combusts. The key point here is that detonation occurs after you have initiated the normal combustion with the spark plug.

Pre-ignition: Pre-ignition is defined as the ignition of the mixture prior to the spark plug firing. Anytime something causes the mixture in the chamber to ignite prior to the spark plug event it is classified as pre-ignition. The two are completely different and abnormal phenomenon.

Article Link:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/Issue54/EngineBasics.html

Makes for a good read.

 

[child9]

I've read that EXACT article...and it appears to be fantastically clear and informative.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

It is a good one. I do believe that Mr Cline is one of the principle Designers of the Northstar series of GM engines.

Could be wrong here.

At any rate, the article does about the best job I have seen differentiating the two issues.

 

[Talyn]

I'm going to try to use the stock reservoir, but I hadn't looked at putting a bung on it and it may be difficult.

I'll be using a single nozzle Labonte kit with progressive control.

 

[Boostwerks.com]

That is the intention on my build. Have a fail save map that dials timing back and/or adds fuel. I never really had a use for the washer reservoir low indicator.. I will now though.

This is also what I'd like to do with my setup eventually. The low fluid indicator would make a perfect automatic map switch. I'll be using a simple devil's own kit however.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

IF you are using an AEM F/IC, then the fail safe circuit to move back to the "without methanol" map would be extremely easy as you make the map change by grounding the trigger pin. A simple relay with the coil triggered by the level sensor would do nicely.

For any other controller, the principle would be the same use the low level sensor to trigger the fall back MAPs. The circuitry is extremely easy as it can be done via relay logic.

Anyone can do relay logic. Easy-Peasy.

Personally, I would run the logic in full fail safe (aka paranoid) mode so that in the event of either a relay or sensor failure, the default condition is "without". Use the relay to activate the "with" MAPs.

Boosterwerks, interesting kit that...

 

[child9]

You can probably find something that will work from a company called Parker Instrumentation, Talyn.

 

[Bryan C.]

Lets bring this back to the top, lots of good information and cracker already santized the thread.

 

[gradon]

So it's Bryan Cracker, eh?

 

[child9]

I think it is worth mentioning that higher boost pressure is not a replacement for effective and efficient overall flow.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

^^Correct.

Which is why if you are making your own setup, IMO, use the 99+ horse shoe intake. The curved runners will help.

It could be argued that the log manifold will be detrimental unless the size of the runners is increased. As this is patently impossible to do, use of the late model intake is the best choice.

Why do I say this? The relatively small runner size coupled with the 90 degree bends will create a large amount of turbulence at the turn which will impede flow creating a cylinder to cylinder imbalance.

We all need to keep in mind that the log type manifold was used for cost containment, not performance...

My Sprintex manifold is, technically, a log type but it has been properly Engineered for flow. If you look at it, there is a large plenum built into it that extend all the way to cylinder 6. Also, the port on the manifold where the compressor bolts has an opening size that is the same as the compressor discharge port.

This is important. When building your manifold, you do not choke the compressor as that generates heat in the compressor and reduces flow.

IMO, a plate would need to be welded to the factory horse shoe manifold and then machined for the opening and the compressor adapter attaching points. An adapter plate would need to be made to bolt to the compressor that then attaches to the manifold proper.

 

[CobraMarty]

Agree with all the above.

 

[child9]

From my limited flow bench experience the openings of the flange connections don't need to be the same, but flow DOES need to go from the smaller and into the larger...never vice-versa. As O-G touched on, I believe that overall cylinder balance is more important than than a couple of runners getting more optimum flow. The sum of the flow between all cylinders being higher is important, but so is that flow being as equally distributed as possible.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

IMO, what we need to keep in mind is that all engines are single cylinder. We run 6 of those singles on a common crankshaft, others run between 8 to 16 plus the 2, 3 and 4 versions...

OK, there are a couple of 5 cylinder versions as well...

The point I am attempting to make is that the overall efficiency an engine as well as it's overall Hp and Torque depend on all of these independent cylinders working as close as possible in the same fashion.

Which brings us to not only forced induction but fuel injection as well. The best thing that ever happened for IC engines was port timed fuel injection as the fuel delivery method. Carb'd engine rarely produce even results unless there is one barrel of carburetion per cylinder. A delivery method long used by high end performance cars such as Ferrari and Lamborghini. I, myself, have built many V-8s that used DCOE Weber two barrel carbs in a lay down configuration. Manifolds that are no longer available due to the lack of demand.

Forced induction, ideally, provides the consistent cylinder to cylinder air mass for the engine to ingest and the timed fuel provides an even (withing the limits of the injector tolerance) fuel charge.

It all plays together and a study of the theory is very helpful in understanding exactly what is going on in there. It is beyond the scope of this thread to explain all of the intricacies of the IC engine.

Having direct access to all of the variables of the combustion process makes tuning much easier than it was back when. We have the ability to infer the mixture by measuring the residuals in the exhaust and back calculating the AFR. In a perfect world, individual EGT sensors would be in the exhaust manifold as well as O2 sensors so as to get each of the cylinders at the peak.

We operate under limits. Knowing this, we can manage the limits as well as possible. Which is why I spent the money on a set of flow matched injectors. Yes, you can go to the Yard and scrounge up a set of used who know how they operate injectors for cheap but, is that really what you want?

I think not. In this game, quality matters. Do yourselves a favour and do not cut corners just to save a buck...

 

[child9]

Individual throttle bodies would be ideal. I always liked this on bikes, then later learned they did this in F1. It makes sense, too. I mean every cylinder gets its own component of everything else. Each cylinder has it's own piston, valves, runners, etc. Why do they ALL share one throttle body? Why does all the air the cylinders need have to squeeze through one hole? For space and cost reasons...def not performance. As far as balance goes, I see it in my head too. Even with perfectly balanced injectors the individual air flow through each cylinder isn't taken into account...just the overall MAF. If the exact (or close) same amount of fuel is sprayed into each cylinder at a given rpm and the actual air flow per cylinder is slightly different from the next (which it is) then the AFR will be slightly off and power will be diminished. O-guage totally pointed out that the system accounts for the average AFR and the total air only. Chances are no single cylinder is getting the perfect mix. Some are leaner and some are richer. This just illustrates the importance of BALANCED air flow to the cylinders...or individual EGTs and O2s that the engine management system could account for and adjust the pulse-width of each injector separately. Once that system is in place then the builders primary concern would be just making changes that improved flow to the cylinders, as the fuel system would make changes to compensate at the cylinder level and overall power and efficiency will rise.

If I get the opportunity, I will be exploring this on one of the FSAE cars at school. If I can land a scholarship I will be joining longhorn racing at UT. Given the resources of the University and my now working at the Mech E machine shop (I can freaking CAST and sls/sla 3d print now!) I am willing to bet this could be shown to work...albeit not readily applicable to a street app due to the space constraints. :/

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

Child9,

Ah yes, F1 engines and the cars themselves. They are marvels of Engineering. This is the last year for the 2.4 Litre normally aspirated V-8. These engines do not have cam shafts, nor to they have valve springs. What they do have is a set of computer controlled hydraulic cylinders that operate the valves. AND, they are software limited to 18,000rpm by the FIA. The FIA is the sanctioning body. They put the arbitrary limit on the engines in an attempt to slow them down.

Hasn't worked...

And, you are correct, one TB per cylinder. It is the only way to get perfectly balanced flow. Once you introduce a manifold, all of the flow impediments rear their ugly heads. Plus individual cylinder exhaust gas analyzer hardware is installed so that each cylinder is tuned to perfection dynamically.

4 valve per cylinder and direct injection. Makes for a very busy cylinder head.

The amount of telemetry that flows off of the car, during the race, to the Pit Wall for the Race Engineers to analyze during the race is almost unbelievable. Do a search on the steering wheel. That part alone can run $10,000. I have a replica in my gaming cockpit that I use in my Simulator.

Am I a fan? You betcha. Racing that requires top speeds in excess of 200mph and corners that require slowing to 40mph is not just roundy rounds like some unmentioned boring drivel...

A standing start just to add Drama to the first corner...

You know, an F1 car develops enough down force to run across the ceiling of a tunnel. Better than one gravity at relatively low speeds. Cornering at close to 5 Gs. Braking at 5.4 Gs. Acceleration (average) rates:
0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds

Depending on the track as the cars gearing is changed to suit the track. Have I mentioned that the locker is adjustable (a switch on the steering wheel) by the Driver?

Carbon Fibre brake rotors and ceramic pads that operate at 1,000 degrees C. This is not a typo pals... Ever see carbon fibre glowing cheery red? Just watch the next race, you will see.

Sorry about hijacking my own thread but there is a point here...

Next year, the engines are to be in a 1.6 Litre V-6 Turbocharged configuration.

Forced Induction is coming back to F1. Last time, the engines were 3 litre V-12 producing over 1,000Hp.

I do not care where you are from, that is a ton of power. It will be interesting to see what the Engine builders (Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari) get out of them and how long they hold together.

Hold together. It is a fact of life that the more power you extract out of an engine, the shorter the life span. Dragsters get rebuilt between runs as the engine is shot after a quarter mile.

 

[child9]

Yeah I've been really getting into F1 more as well.

On another performance note, this time going to something in it's relative infancy, it occurred to me the other day that I've always been told the limit to boost in a diesel application is the strength of the block. Perhaps that is true with traditional blocks, but then I got REALLY theoretical and thought "what if a block was twice as strong as the normal ones? Is there really no limit to boost?" Well, my answer is no, and it's because it occurred to me that the more air we cram in a cylinder the more FUEL must also be added. So I guess the next limit is when the boost level brings the fuel level up to the point where the cylinder will hydrolock. So there was that "aha!" moment, and then something I read in a list of how freaking awesome Top Fuel dragsters are. They are running on the verge of hydrolock the entire time during their run. ****ing awesome. It's funny to me how often I realize something or figure something out or invent something only to find out later that it has been done before.

I did that with nitrous oxide as well. I started to research how to make more power by adding pure oxygen into the intake, only to find out later that Mr. Smokey Unich did the same thing. Apparently pure oxygen just melted blocks in the end, so using a little chemistry he found a way to both introduce more oxygen while simultaneously cooling the intake air. Boom. Nitrous Oxide injection. "NOS" for the kids.

Sigh. One of these days I will be the first with something worth something, I just know it.

 

[Talyn]

What they do have is a set of computer controlled hydraulic cylinders that operate the valves.

I would love to see this come on production cars. Cam change? Plug the PC in. One cam for mileage, one for power, one for torque? Flip a switch. I believe Koenigsegg is working on one, but that still not what I would call a production car.

3 litre V-12 producing over 1,000Hp.

I love the idea of a small displacement large cylinder count engine.

moment, and then something I read in a list of how freaking awesome Top Fuel dragsters are. They are running on the verge of hydrolock the entire time during their run. ****ing awesome. It's funny to me how often I realize something or figure something out or invent something only to find out later that it has been done before.

Have you seen the youtube video of the top fuel injector firing? its like a fire hose.

 

[child9]

There was a Jaguar prototype I was around when I worked for Livernois Vehicle Development back in 07...it was camshaftless but used electronic solenoids to move the valves. Sooner or later the technology will be prevalent in everyday cars. I for one can't wait. Talk about being able to switch from economy mode to performance mode at the flip of a switch!