Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
Interesting. It's more usual to see claims that a colder water would lead to higher improvements, even though a higher temperature would lead to an easier vaporising of the gasoline and decrease pumping losses due to a slight decrease on the dynamic compression.
.
|
True.
My take on this is that the colder the water the more heat that it will need to absorb.
The downside of colder water is that it is 'harder' or denser. So I'm convinced that it led to blowing a head-gasket. Probably because there was too much water going in one particular cylinder. Sometimes what goes on in an engine is mysterious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
How would you say that 62.5% improvement wouldn't impress anyone?
|
I guess so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
The only downside with a rear-mounted turbo is the increase on turbo-lag, but it doesn't seem totally bad since it allows the compressed air charge to decrease its temperature naturally a little before it reaches the intake manifold, mostly avoiding the need for an intercooler.
|
Hope so.
Picture: (Garrett was installed this week)
__________________
2003 Renault Scenic - 30% more power with no loss in fuel economy.
1991 Toyota GT4 - more economical before ST215W engine-swap.
previous: Water-Injected Mitsubishi ~33% improved.
future - probably a Prius
