Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#1603655 07/05/06 06:15 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Y
Addicted CEG\'er
Offline
Addicted CEG\'er
Y
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Originally posted by Tourige:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Originally posted by Tourige:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Originally posted by Tourige:
If your going to drill into the UIM might as well do a proper Direct Port and drill into the UIM above each port and run 6 different nozzles.

I just dont think it will clear the stock hood.




Thank God Tourige posted in the F/I forum! I now feel 100% dumber for reading your post.

Mark




Um.. werd?






Um.. Know what you're talking about before posting?

I can't wait to see what advice you give over on SVTP when you get your Cobra.

Mark




Can you at least tell me why im so crazy rather than just shutting me down, Honestly. If im wrong tell me what im wrong on, dont just say im wrong.




Oooooh, so YOU of all people want an explanation for someone just blurting out a random insult, such as RICE?? Well, in this case, you said if you were going to tap into the UIM, then you would do a proper install with direct port. What is NOT proper with a single jet/nozzle? You sound as if you're trying to correct Warmonger, somebody who has actually run nitrous on a Contour. If you know what you're talking about, and have something useful to chime in with, please do so. If you're posting to be a smartass, or want to give advice on something you have no experience with, don't bother.

Mark


2000 Black CSVT 3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
#1603656 07/05/06 06:29 PM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,637
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,637
IIRC Direct Port - Each port gets its own nozzle.

Im not trying to "Correct" Warmonger as i know he knows more about these cars than i ever will. Im just Going on what i know as direct port, Ive never heard of someone using 2 nozzles for Direct port, every one i have seen has a nozzle for each port.

Sorry, i didnt mean to rock the boat, just throwing ideas out there for the thread starter.


99 TRed Contour SVT # 1853 out of 2760 230.2 WHP @ 6500 237.0 WTR @ 2250
Originally posted by MxRacer:
Originally posted by RawBurt:
I'll be keeping it to myself, until the time comes. It'll be hard to find.


much like your weiner.


#1603657 07/05/06 06:46 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Y
Addicted CEG\'er
Offline
Addicted CEG\'er
Y
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
You're correct, in that a direct port has one nozzle/jet going to each cylinder. Fortunately for us crammed engine compartment people, it's not the only proper setup.

Mark


2000 Black CSVT 3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
#1603658 07/05/06 07:25 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
R
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
R
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Originally posted by Tourige:
IIRC Direct Port - Each port gets its own nozzle.

Im not trying to "Correct" Warmonger as i know he knows more about these cars than i ever will. Im just Going on what i know as direct port, Ive never heard of someone using 2 nozzles for Direct port, every one i have seen has a nozzle for each port.

Sorry, i didnt mean to rock the boat, just throwing ideas out there for the thread starter.


Tom wasn't referring to a direct port setup, he was just stating that you may want to use two seperate nozzles for the fuel and nitrous. Personally, I used a Shark Nozzle, I believe made by NZ. Worked fine for me and I would stick with that for simplicity sake.


Ryan Trollin!
#1603659 07/05/06 08:19 PM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,637
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,637
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by Tourige:
IIRC Direct Port - Each port gets its own nozzle.

Im not trying to "Correct" Warmonger as i know he knows more about these cars than i ever will. Im just Going on what i know as direct port, Ive never heard of someone using 2 nozzles for Direct port, every one i have seen has a nozzle for each port.

Sorry, i didnt mean to rock the boat, just throwing ideas out there for the thread starter.


Tom wasn't referring to a direct port setup, he was just stating that you may want to use two seperate nozzles for the fuel and nitrous. Personally, I used a Shark Nozzle, I believe made by NZ. Worked fine for me and I would stick with that for simplicity sake.




Thats not what he was saying, he is saying you drill 2 35 shot nozzles into the UIM Corners. I think you mis read his post(running a different nitrous and fuel line to different corners= )


99 TRed Contour SVT # 1853 out of 2760 230.2 WHP @ 6500 237.0 WTR @ 2250
Originally posted by MxRacer:
Originally posted by RawBurt:
I'll be keeping it to myself, until the time comes. It'll be hard to find.


much like your weiner.


#1603660 07/05/06 08:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
R
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
R
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Originally posted by Tourige:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by Tourige:
IIRC Direct Port - Each port gets its own nozzle.

Im not trying to "Correct" Warmonger as i know he knows more about these cars than i ever will. Im just Going on what i know as direct port, Ive never heard of someone using 2 nozzles for Direct port, every one i have seen has a nozzle for each port.

Sorry, i didnt mean to rock the boat, just throwing ideas out there for the thread starter.


Tom wasn't referring to a direct port setup, he was just stating that you may want to use two seperate nozzles for the fuel and nitrous. Personally, I used a Shark Nozzle, I believe made by NZ. Worked fine for me and I would stick with that for simplicity sake.




Thats not what he was saying, he is saying you drill 2 35 shot nozzles into the UIM Corners. I think you mis read his post(running a different nitrous and fuel line to different corners= )


saw that but forgot about it. I understand his reasoning for it, but don't think its really needed for anything under ~100hp shot. Some people worry about the nitrous/fuel mixture hitting that 'wall' and it fall out of the air and puddling in the intake. I think his idea is a decent one, but doubt anyone will every try it.


Ryan Trollin!
#1603661 07/05/06 10:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
W
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Originally posted by Tourige:
Originally posted by warmonger:
Just far enough back to get a good distribution of N2O and fuel before it hits the divided upper intake plenum.
I think after the throttlebody is too close. In the accordion or in the outlet of the maf sounds fine for a basic kit.

If you wanted better performance you could run dual nozzles, one in each inlet of the manifold right where it splits. This keeps less thermal expansion from the N20 heating up outside the manifold and will equally divide it between banks. It would be more efficient on all fronts.
Instead of one 75shot nozzle you can run twin nozzles with 35 shots and drill them into the manifold right at the corners. Make sure the lines going to each nozzle are exactly equal in length for both fuel and N20 as compared from bank-to-bank, and as short as possible.


Don't forget the bottle heater, fuel pressure cut-out safety valve, and probably a electric cut-off at the bottle for the best safety.




If your going to drill into the UIM might as well do a proper Direct Port and drill into the UIM above each port and run 6 different nozzles.

I just dont think it will clear the stock hood.





Agreed that direct port is the "best" if you mean most power output available, yet all methods are "proper" if setup correctly. However, direct port is much more complicated than a single jet/nozzle setup. There is a point of diminishing returns with any setup and that would be where the cost and complexity begin to exceed the benefits, and I think the direct port is beyond this point. Each proper method has its merrits but depends on what is important to the designer.
Let me summarize why:
There is nothing wrong with the single jet/nozzle mounted in the intake, it works well. However it has the limitation of having to being far up the intake tract which gives the nitrous more time to absorb heat and expand before getting to the cylinders. More heat and expansion upstream = less power downstream (not that you're lacking when you are running N20). So optimally you want to get closer. Good mixing is more important that having a cooler charge and that can only be accomplished far enough away from the split on the UIM. So you're stuck.

Direct port for an engine like ours would require twin lines per cylinder for a wet setup, a setup that I personally think is the best. A dry setup at least one line per cylinder. That can easily be done UNDER the UIM with a gasket spacer! So I don't think hood clearance is your issue, the issue is the costs.
And why do it? Just to get the most efficient version of a 100 shot maybe? Not worth it. Noone is nitrous dragging this engine on a built motor where a 250shot or something could be used in a rear wheel drive car. 100shot is about it usually. <Gosh, when I think of how easy it would be to implement so many cool ideas when money ISN'T an object, I just want to be rich>

So my idea was a compromise that satisfies three assumpitions:

- closer to the cylinder by almost a foot and a half equals more time in the engine absorbing heat and expanding=more power for a given shot.
- even distribution, twin nozzle/jet setups so that each bank gets its own half of the fuel/nitrous mixture
- Fairly simple and straight forward as it would require only two brass T fittings at where it splits to both nozzles, and an extra jet/nozzle fitting. Added costs less than $100 easy!

So the most expensive part of the wet kit is the jets/nozzle parts assuming you've got to have a fuel and nitrous solenoid ANYWAY to get it to work. So whatever the jet/nozzle cost is, you would go x2 on the cost for this idea...........as opposed to x6 for the direct setup.

Now picture the last part, by doing direct port into the UIM you greatly increase the cost and only save yourself a couple of inches of travel distance for the nitrous and air. Better to leave it alone. The twin jet setup makes up most of the distance already and is cheaper and simpler to setup.



Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
#1603662 07/05/06 10:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
W
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by Tourige:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by Tourige:
IIRC Direct Port - Each port gets its own nozzle.

Im not trying to "Correct" Warmonger as i know he knows more about these cars than i ever will. Im just Going on what i know as direct port, Ive never heard of someone using 2 nozzles for Direct port, every one i have seen has a nozzle for each port.

Sorry, i didnt mean to rock the boat, just throwing ideas out there for the thread starter.


Tom wasn't referring to a direct port setup, he was just stating that you may want to use two seperate nozzles for the fuel and nitrous. Personally, I used a Shark Nozzle, I believe made by NZ. Worked fine for me and I would stick with that for simplicity sake.




Thats not what he was saying, he is saying you drill 2 35 shot nozzles into the UIM Corners. I think you mis read his post(running a different nitrous and fuel line to different corners= )


saw that but forgot about it. I understand his reasoning for it, but don't think its really needed for anything under ~100hp shot. Some people worry about the nitrous/fuel mixture hitting that 'wall' and it fall out of the air and puddling in the intake. I think his idea is a decent one, but doubt anyone will every try it.




You're probably right.
I only put forth the idea because I think the savings in thermal expansion might be fairly significant. I'm thinking a split 50shot that goes into the manifold with good mixing is probably worth a 75shot upstream in net power, or close to it. If I'm right, that means means you could get what...maybe 30% more time on each bottle fill to go just as fast? It'd pay for itself in a month, probably a week for me!


Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
#1603663 07/05/06 10:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 718
9
Veteran CEG\'er
Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
9
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 718
Well i don't know exaclty how much power i put down with the 75/100/125 shots, but i do know with a 125 shot i trapped 110mph.

I have a regular 2.5 V6 without SVT cams. Now it does have pretty much all bolt-ons, so i figure i prolly got 160ish whp. At the very most 170...AT THE MOST! So if you add 125hp to that i got 295. Based off of my 110mph trap speed i would guess that the hp can't be too far off.

Hmmm...maybe i will have to go to the dyno soon...i would actually like to know what i can put down.

My thinking for placing mine in the MAF is to let the fual/nitrous atomize better before hitting the divider and going around the bend in the UIM. Even if i do loose a little hp because of it, i feel a little safer knowing i don't have the nozzle really close to the divider. Like other people have voiced concerns about, i don't want all that fuel to hit the divider and fall down...i think it would be better for the motor to have it be further from it.

But i really don't know all that much about nitrous...i have only had it for just over a year....averaging just over a bottle every two weeks ... i get a little crazy with it sometimes.


1999 Cougar V6 MTX SVT UIM/LIM/65mm TB, I/H/E, Fidanza/SPEC III/Torsen, Koni/GC's, 19" Icon wheels w/ Pirelli rubber, NX Wet Kit
#1603664 07/06/06 02:16 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 686
M
Matty K Offline OP
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
M
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 686
Whew.... um.... (mostly) good post, all!

I have a full NOS powershot kit, so I have a nozzle that mixes the fuel/nitrous correctly... for simplicity's sake, I think I'll just mount it partway down the accordian tube (which is actually a Weapon R hard pipe on my car). As others have stated, I'll risk a slight power loss in order to assure a good mix.

Fuel pressure safety switch, window switch, and purge are on the way. The bottle heater will be a later addition... I live in a constantly-warm climate (Los Angeles), but it's still a good idea.


'98 Contour SVT - Please pardon our dust, under heavy construction. '96 Escort LX - Pretender to the throne.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5