3.0L 11.1 Compression 1000+ awhp 3/S on stock cams at Altitude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by familyMAN

Find some Wikipedia since your own inquiry?

---

Not really. I had to stop and think for a lil bit about why the power increase wasn't 1:1. At first I thought it was just a NOS on top of E-85. It wasn't sinking into my pea sized brain CK's also direct injecting methanol and evaporating ALL with NOS. Once he re-explained it I started thinking to myself, well geeze that's the same conceptual idea as compound turbocharging except instead of compressing you're evaporating. You compound the density from the evaporating ethanol with the evaporating methanol. Just something I've never seen but understood when he re-explained the process and I considered the composition and mass of liquids likely being injected. It's absolutely brilliant if you ask me! But, I do wonder about the engine longevity due to it being supercooled and the crazy high cylinder pressure likely being generated.

It's definitely something new to this platform. I don't have doubts about the results. I just want to see some more. I also want to see if the head lift issue is an issue with all that power or if it stems from something else. Certainly makes for an interesting discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Fast

But, I do wonder about the engine longevity due to it being supercooled and the crazy high cylinder pressure likely being generated.

---

Uncorrected, with nitrous it would be in the 8xxhp/7xxtq range if only a 20% (but many times your correction is 25%). Wouldn't cylinder pressure would be like any other 7xxtq 3.0. Certainly, not unheard of when you have chris's car, the little dr750 cars are getting close to that tq/cylinder pressure, and of course many 72/74 strokers at or above tq.

The difference is it's instant. Using DR750 cars is a perfect example. NOS tends to deliver the hp hit of the pill. Tq is often double the pill. That was my experience with race and nitrous. Never messed with corn, so I have no thoughts on that.

Jeremy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Fast

A 75 shot on top of race gas = 75-100 hp.

A 75 shot on top of evaporating methanol = 100 horsepower + another 50 for the charge cooling temp density increae + no detonation + max timing adavance. You don't have to hold any timing back because it won't detonate like racegas mixed with NOS will. Not hard to believe at all really. Just not something you'd normally see on a V6. Meth on top of NOS is tech you typically see on SBC's and BBC's. It's flippin cool!

Simple to call something BS if you have no experience or explanation for it because you don't understand Enthalpy of Vaporization. LOL, CK might answer tough talk like that (he's a pretty smart feller).

---

Interesting theories... Sorry, but to anyone that's been around awhile, these numbers are complete horseshit. If there is indeed a 20% or greater correction factor then that answers most of the questions, and very obviously makes these numbers a complete joke. That type of correction on a FI setup is absolutely laughable to begin with, so what was the point?


Tell you what, let's cut all of the bullshit and forthcoming engineering buzzwords... I'll put my money where my mouth is: take this car to the track and make 2 passes on video in the mid 150's; ET is does not matter - should be easily doable with the alleged WHP - and I'll Paypal you or the owner $300. Make it a $600 if you happen to click off a 9 on at least 1 of the 2. That will easily cover your transport, entry fees, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HellBringer

Tell you what, let's cut all of the bullshit and forthcoming engineering buzzwords...

---

:Clap:Almost lost my coffee!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by familyMAN

Uncorrected, with nitrous it would be in the 8xxhp/7xxtq range if only a 20% (but many times your correction is 25%). Wouldn't cylinder pressure would be like any other 7xxtq 3.0. Certainly, not unheard of when you have chris's car, the little dr750 cars are getting close to that tq/cylinder pressure, and of course many 72/74 strokers at or above tq.

---

Colorado Springs has a little better air than Denver. Air density is usually in the 78-80% range so the CF is around 1.2. I believe the cylinder pressure will actually be much higher. The latent heat of vaporization of gasoline, even race gas is much lower vs. ethanol which is a decent evaporative cooler. The methanol portion is a super evaporative cooler and then he's spraying the cocktail(pill). I want to say it's an equivalent to running something like 150+ octane fuel when you compound them together. I believe the eth/meth/nos will actually absorb more heat in the compression cycle which will effectively reduce the combustion pressure in compression but that means it has to increase at a higher rate with more area in the expansion process to have the same area in an otto cycle curve and the same power output.

What I wonder is, if the typical HG breach from the block/head expanding (which results in deck warpage) stems from higher latent heat of vaporization from lower octane gas? If you lower the latent heat and keep the cylinders cooler will the metal not expand as much and the head gasket hold at higher hp levels and clamp with even greater cylinder pressure? That's something interest to me. Only CK or someone with nitromethane injection experience would know that answer. I have no experience with the pill CK is shooting. It's fascinating to see new lines in the sand drawn and crossed. I will ping him and see if he has time to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HellBringer

Interesting theories... Sorry, but to anyone that's been around awhile, these numbers are complete horseshit. If there is indeed a 20% or greater correction factor then that answers most of the questions, and very obviously makes these numbers a complete joke. That type of correction on a FI setup is absolutely laughable to begin with, so what was the point?


Tell you what, let's cut all of the bullshit and forthcoming engineering buzzwords... I'll put my money where my mouth is: take this car to the track and make 2 passes on video in the mid 150's; ET is does not matter - should be easily doable with the alleged WHP - and I'll Paypal you or the owner $300. Make it a $600 if you happen to click off a 9 on at least 1 of the 2. That will easily cover your transport, entry fees, etc...

---

LOL, I dont care man. I have some experience with seeing vehicles here at altitude on a dyno and putting out 600 uncorrected. With an SAE Correction the numbers were 1.25 and 750whp.

Going to sea level these were the REAL numbers. SEE the correction factor are 1? That means they are both uncorrected. They are from the same car at altitude and then driving on a trailer and going directly onto a dyno and doing a pull on the same setup. So if you take the typical 1.25 dyno correction factor and consider it, it's really not horseshit at all. It's quite obvious you don't have any experience or real world results to share so here's some.


http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/y...s/bothbaro.jpg

See the difference in the in/hg...? Yeah, that's altitude difference from sea level vs 9000ft 75% density equivalent right there.

Is this your car? and where was the sea level dyno?

Why wouldn't you have posted that dyno until now with all of the talk on altitude correction over the past year here (threads you were even involved in)?

Edit: what was the boost pressure on each?

It's a shame there is such a huge difference in outside air temp. I know it won't skew numbers that much, but it is still something to consider.