Inaccurate's Nitrous Methanol Injection System (NMI)
02-05-2011, 12:00 AM
#81
Safety Car
Thread Starter
- - - - - 
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -
IAT SENSOR RELOCATION
In Pic Above - Removing IAT sensor from it's oem location.
In Pics Above - An allen head plug was used to plug the oem IAT location. The thread is M12 x 1.5 mm. The allen head plug is the McMaster-Carr PN# 99642A229 (click here).
In Pics Above - A 5-ft extension was added to the oem connector. Wiring sheath is McMaster-Carr PN# 7408K46 (click here).
In Pic Above - The new wiring extension is soldiered to the oem wiring and routed to the front grill.
In Pics Above - The IAT sensor is relocated to the lower grill opening.
In Closing - I used my DashDyno to confirm the temperature readings from the relocated sensor. It was operating fine.
I also used the DashDyno to confirm that my tune (performance) was unaffected by the relocation. I recorded the MPH-vs-Time for a 45-90 MPH run and compared it to my baseline runs with the sensor in the oem located. It was comforting to be able to use the DashDyno to confirm that I had not hurt my n/a tune.
The logger's benefits are being manifested as I had hoped. I highly recommend the DashDyno to anyone that often makes performance mods on their TL. I wished I had got it years ago to see (quantify) the performance improvements from the TL Diet and my various bolt-ons.
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -IAT SENSOR RELOCATION
In Pic Above - Removing IAT sensor from it's oem location.
In Pics Above - An allen head plug was used to plug the oem IAT location. The thread is M12 x 1.5 mm. The allen head plug is the McMaster-Carr PN# 99642A229 (click here).
In Pics Above - A 5-ft extension was added to the oem connector. Wiring sheath is McMaster-Carr PN# 7408K46 (click here).
In Pic Above - The new wiring extension is soldiered to the oem wiring and routed to the front grill.
In Pics Above - The IAT sensor is relocated to the lower grill opening.
In Closing - I used my DashDyno to confirm the temperature readings from the relocated sensor. It was operating fine.
I also used the DashDyno to confirm that my tune (performance) was unaffected by the relocation. I recorded the MPH-vs-Time for a 45-90 MPH run and compared it to my baseline runs with the sensor in the oem located. It was comforting to be able to use the DashDyno to confirm that I had not hurt my n/a tune.
The logger's benefits are being manifested as I had hoped. I highly recommend the DashDyno to anyone that often makes performance mods on their TL. I wished I had got it years ago to see (quantify) the performance improvements from the TL Diet and my various bolt-ons.
The following 2 users liked this post by Inaccurate:
homeboynyc (04-27-2013),
swoosh (09-14-2013)
02-05-2011, 08:02 AM
#83
Mom why is there two?
Mcmaster carr. I dont think alot of people use them..... Its good to see someone else that knows about them that catalog is the shit. I bought my phenolic from them
03-19-2011, 01:28 AM
#84
Safety Car
Thread Starter
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -
Engineering The Methanol Delivery System
I got some goodies to start plumbing the methanol fuel cell and pump. The quarter coin in the pic is for a size reference.
I decided to use all AN fittings and factory-crimped teflon hoses with AN ends. I had used AN fittings a lot in my earlier years of hot rodding. So, I am very comfortable with plumbing using AN stuff. And, I know beyond a doubt that the AN stuff can be trusted to form a leak-proof joint every time... and it will stay leak proof. Because methanol fumes are toxic, I want fittings that I can trust.
What is one of the biggest hassles of hot rodding? Not having enough fuel flow!
I learned from my earlier years in hot rodding to make sure that you over-engineer your fuel system. A stitch in time saves nine. It is best to design your fuel system with over kill so that it never becomes an issue in the future.
In the pic above, you can see the size of the #8 AN hose and fittings used on the inlet side (left side) of the pump. The quarter coin in the pics is for a size reference.
For the outlet side (right hand side in pic) of the pump, #6 AN hose and fittings are used. Why the larger #8 on the inlet and smaller #6 on the outlet? Because pumps hate to suck. Typical pumps are designed to push, not pull. Therefore, pumps should have minimal restrictions on the inlet side of the pump.
I had conducted some bench testing with the methanol pump prior to ordering my fittings. I had tested the pump flow with various hose sizes. The pump was very sensitive to inlet restriction. It was for this reason that I decided to use the #8 AN size on the inlet side of the pump. And because most of the bulkhead fittings are in size #8, this cinched the decision.
I will be venting the fuel cell with a #8 AN hose also. It does little good to have a free flowing tank outlet if the tank vent is unable to keep up with the displaced volume. The #8 vent hose is way overkill, but that is the theme that I am chasing with the inlet side of the pump.... zero restrictions.
For other people on Acurazine that are using this pump for various reasons (such as water/meth injection), I will include details of my pump testing.
Note that all of my testing is the free flow rate of the pump with various hose diameters and hose lengths. No pressure testing was performed. I am aware that methanol has a different viscosity than water, and my testing with water is not exactly the same flow rate that will be achieved when pumping methanol. This testing is just to provide an estimate. I will test with isopropyl alcohol soon.
In the testing below, you will see how sensitive the pump is to any restriction present on the inlet side of the pump. Whereas, the pump can flow surprising well with severe restriction on the output side of the pump. This demonstrates how pumps are great at pushing the fluid outward (generating pressure) but terrible at sucking fluid into the pump (suction).
The maximum flow rate of the pump (with no restrictions on either the inlet or outlet) during my testing was 1.1 GPM (Gallons Per Minute). The label on the pump specifies that the flow rate is 1.0 GPM at 12 Volts. I was driving the pump with 13 volts, So, the 13 volts is probably why I got a slightly higher flow rate.
My goal is to have this same 1.1 GPM flow rate after my entire fuel system is plumbed up to the fuel solenoid, located under the hood. This is why I am using a #6 hose to run from the methanol fuel cell (at rear of the car) to the solenoid. This long length (estimated to be 12 feet) of hose will be creating a significant amount of friction (flow restriction) if the hose is too small in diameter.
When I bench tested my actual setup to be used, the system was still flowing the maximum output, 1.1 GPM. I still need to purchase another 6 feet of hose to complete my install. But, I feel confident that another 6 feet of #6 hose will still be flowing the full 1.1 GPM.
For reference, the NMI system will require approximately 0.4 GPM of methanol for a 100-shot boost level.
In pic above - This is testing the flow rate with the #8 inlet hose and a free flowing outlet. The flow rate was the maximum output (1.1 GPM). As would be expected, the short length of the #8 hose has added no resistance.
In pic above - This is proving (to myself) that the 6 feet of #6 hose does not create any resistance to the system. The flow rate was still the maximum output (1.1 GPM).
In pic above - This shows that the pump still has maximum output (1.1 GPM) even with this small diameter nylon tubing on the outlet side. The black tubing (1/4" O.D.) is the typical tubing used for most water/meth injection kits.
In pic above - We are restricting the pump inlet by using the smaller diameter black tubing (1/4" O.D.). The outlet has no restriction using the #8 AN 90* elbow. The flow rate is 0.8 GPM in this setup due to the inlet incurring some resistance.
In pic above - This setup is using 2 feet black tubing for the inlet and 5 feet black tubing for the outlet. As would be expected, the flow rate is the same as the previous test (0.8 GPM) directly above because the inlet hose is the same as the previous test. The pump suffered no performance loss by having to force the flow out thru the 5 feet of small diameter hose. It is mainly the inlet side that is sensitive to restrictions.
However, if we add more length (hence more restriction) to the black hose on the inlet side, the performance will suffer. When using 5 feet black tubing for the inlet and 5 feet black tubing for the outlet, the flow rate dropped to 0.7 GPM.
How would the flow be affected if the black hose on the inlet side was increased to 10 feet? When using 10 feet black tubing for the inlet and 2 feet black tubing for the outlet, the flow rate dropped to 0.46 GPM. This is less than half of the maximum possible flow rate. This sad performance is due to the restrictive inlet hose (small diameter combined with long length). Pumps do not suck.
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -Engineering The Methanol Delivery System
I got some goodies to start plumbing the methanol fuel cell and pump. The quarter coin in the pic is for a size reference.
I decided to use all AN fittings and factory-crimped teflon hoses with AN ends. I had used AN fittings a lot in my earlier years of hot rodding. So, I am very comfortable with plumbing using AN stuff. And, I know beyond a doubt that the AN stuff can be trusted to form a leak-proof joint every time... and it will stay leak proof. Because methanol fumes are toxic, I want fittings that I can trust.
What is one of the biggest hassles of hot rodding? Not having enough fuel flow!
I learned from my earlier years in hot rodding to make sure that you over-engineer your fuel system. A stitch in time saves nine. It is best to design your fuel system with over kill so that it never becomes an issue in the future.
In the pic above, you can see the size of the #8 AN hose and fittings used on the inlet side (left side) of the pump. The quarter coin in the pics is for a size reference.
For the outlet side (right hand side in pic) of the pump, #6 AN hose and fittings are used. Why the larger #8 on the inlet and smaller #6 on the outlet? Because pumps hate to suck. Typical pumps are designed to push, not pull. Therefore, pumps should have minimal restrictions on the inlet side of the pump.
I had conducted some bench testing with the methanol pump prior to ordering my fittings. I had tested the pump flow with various hose sizes. The pump was very sensitive to inlet restriction. It was for this reason that I decided to use the #8 AN size on the inlet side of the pump. And because most of the bulkhead fittings are in size #8, this cinched the decision.
I will be venting the fuel cell with a #8 AN hose also. It does little good to have a free flowing tank outlet if the tank vent is unable to keep up with the displaced volume. The #8 vent hose is way overkill, but that is the theme that I am chasing with the inlet side of the pump.... zero restrictions.
For other people on Acurazine that are using this pump for various reasons (such as water/meth injection), I will include details of my pump testing.
Note that all of my testing is the free flow rate of the pump with various hose diameters and hose lengths. No pressure testing was performed. I am aware that methanol has a different viscosity than water, and my testing with water is not exactly the same flow rate that will be achieved when pumping methanol. This testing is just to provide an estimate. I will test with isopropyl alcohol soon.
In the testing below, you will see how sensitive the pump is to any restriction present on the inlet side of the pump. Whereas, the pump can flow surprising well with severe restriction on the output side of the pump. This demonstrates how pumps are great at pushing the fluid outward (generating pressure) but terrible at sucking fluid into the pump (suction).
The maximum flow rate of the pump (with no restrictions on either the inlet or outlet) during my testing was 1.1 GPM (Gallons Per Minute). The label on the pump specifies that the flow rate is 1.0 GPM at 12 Volts. I was driving the pump with 13 volts, So, the 13 volts is probably why I got a slightly higher flow rate.
My goal is to have this same 1.1 GPM flow rate after my entire fuel system is plumbed up to the fuel solenoid, located under the hood. This is why I am using a #6 hose to run from the methanol fuel cell (at rear of the car) to the solenoid. This long length (estimated to be 12 feet) of hose will be creating a significant amount of friction (flow restriction) if the hose is too small in diameter.
When I bench tested my actual setup to be used, the system was still flowing the maximum output, 1.1 GPM. I still need to purchase another 6 feet of hose to complete my install. But, I feel confident that another 6 feet of #6 hose will still be flowing the full 1.1 GPM.
For reference, the NMI system will require approximately 0.4 GPM of methanol for a 100-shot boost level.
In pic above - This is testing the flow rate with the #8 inlet hose and a free flowing outlet. The flow rate was the maximum output (1.1 GPM). As would be expected, the short length of the #8 hose has added no resistance.
In pic above - This is proving (to myself) that the 6 feet of #6 hose does not create any resistance to the system. The flow rate was still the maximum output (1.1 GPM).
In pic above - This shows that the pump still has maximum output (1.1 GPM) even with this small diameter nylon tubing on the outlet side. The black tubing (1/4" O.D.) is the typical tubing used for most water/meth injection kits.
In pic above - We are restricting the pump inlet by using the smaller diameter black tubing (1/4" O.D.). The outlet has no restriction using the #8 AN 90* elbow. The flow rate is 0.8 GPM in this setup due to the inlet incurring some resistance.
In pic above - This setup is using 2 feet black tubing for the inlet and 5 feet black tubing for the outlet. As would be expected, the flow rate is the same as the previous test (0.8 GPM) directly above because the inlet hose is the same as the previous test. The pump suffered no performance loss by having to force the flow out thru the 5 feet of small diameter hose. It is mainly the inlet side that is sensitive to restrictions.
However, if we add more length (hence more restriction) to the black hose on the inlet side, the performance will suffer. When using 5 feet black tubing for the inlet and 5 feet black tubing for the outlet, the flow rate dropped to 0.7 GPM.
How would the flow be affected if the black hose on the inlet side was increased to 10 feet? When using 10 feet black tubing for the inlet and 2 feet black tubing for the outlet, the flow rate dropped to 0.46 GPM. This is less than half of the maximum possible flow rate. This sad performance is due to the restrictive inlet hose (small diameter combined with long length). Pumps do not suck.
03-19-2011, 09:38 AM
#86
working inside the house
and
and i do like how for the lines you are just over sizing them for minimal pressure drop, and future expansion\
edit: also on that 8-an tank vent, would it that be kinda small and a 10-an be better, and the reason why i say that is because don't gases (air in this example) don't flow the same amount through a line of the same size compared to liquid
edit again lol: on the power supply would it be worth it to put a battery or capacitors to help dampening out any pulses from that power supply, so it makes it an even truer DC voltage
and
and i do like how for the lines you are just over sizing them for minimal pressure drop, and future expansion\edit: also on that 8-an tank vent, would it that be kinda small and a 10-an be better, and the reason why i say that is because don't gases (air in this example) don't flow the same amount through a line of the same size compared to liquid
edit again lol: on the power supply would it be worth it to put a battery or capacitors to help dampening out any pulses from that power supply, so it makes it an even truer DC voltage
Last edited by friesm2000; 03-19-2011 at 09:49 AM.
03-25-2011, 12:58 AM
#87
Safety Car
Thread Starter
- - - - - - - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -
Final Assembly of Fuel Cell
It is best to lap the mouth of the US Plastics tank. The sealing surface is not completely true (level). The untrue surface could allow a minuscule amount of methanol vapors and liquid to escape. The lapping will ensure a good sealing surface for the cap. To lap the tank, tape a piece of fine sandpaper (400 or 600 grit) onto a flat surface (glass or marble) and slide the mouth across the sandpaper.
The best bulkhead AN fitting by far is the MagnaFuel AN Bulkhead Fitting PN# MP-3014 (click here). It is double the price of the typical brands. But, I took a chance and ordered one to check it out. It is designed great because it uses a sophisticated o-ring design that in molded onto the metal washer. If I need to order another #8 bulkhead, it will be this MagnaFuel brand. The one that I did order is the bulkhead that you see in the bottom of my fuel cell (purple color).
In the pic above - This shows where the vent is located along the exterior of the car. The vent is located in the recessed area for the shock absorber. I realize that there is a small chance for dirt/grit to find it's way into the fuel cell. However, I am taking a calculated chance that this won't be an issue. There will be a fuel filter on the high pressure side of the pump to catch any debris. If I am wrong about the fuel cell staying clean, I will be buying a replacement pump and installing a wire mesh on the vent bulkhead.
A stripe down the center of the fuel cell was left unpainted to allow the fluid level to be seen from outside of the tank.
To mount fittings, I advise anyone to not use the raised bosses on the US Plastics tanks. The bosses are a nice idea, but poorly executed. On every boss, there is molding flash along the center. The molding flash creates a leak-prone surface for fittings. Furthermore, the backside (inside surface of tank) of all bosses has an extremely irregular surface. Again, creating a leak-prone surface for any AN bulkhead fitting. It is much easier to get a great sealing surface along most flat areas on the tank.
Next step is mounting the pump. "I'll be back"...... with more updates
PARTS LIST & PRICES
Aeroquip AN Flare Adapter PN# FBM3155 (click here) = $23 x 2 = $46
Aeroquip AN Flare Adapter PN# FBM3156 (click here) = $19 x 2 = $38
Earls Performance AN Plug PN# 580606ERL (click here) = $6
Earls Performance AN to NPT Adapter Fitting PN# AT981608ERL (click here) = $5
Earls Performance AN to NPT Adapter Fitting PN# AT981666ERL (click here) = $8
Fragola Performance Systems P.T.F.E Hose Assembly PN# 370096 (click here) = $56
Fragola Performance Systems P.T.F.E Hose Assembly PN# 380012 (click here) = $26
Fragola Performance Systems P.T.F.E Hose Assembly PN# 382030 (click here) = $42
MagnaFuel AN Bulkhead Fitting PN# MP-3014 (click here) = $25
Russell Performance Fuel Cell Bulkhead Fitting PN# 670860 (click here) = $13 x 2 = $26
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -Final Assembly of Fuel Cell
It is best to lap the mouth of the US Plastics tank. The sealing surface is not completely true (level). The untrue surface could allow a minuscule amount of methanol vapors and liquid to escape. The lapping will ensure a good sealing surface for the cap. To lap the tank, tape a piece of fine sandpaper (400 or 600 grit) onto a flat surface (glass or marble) and slide the mouth across the sandpaper.
The best bulkhead AN fitting by far is the MagnaFuel AN Bulkhead Fitting PN# MP-3014 (click here). It is double the price of the typical brands. But, I took a chance and ordered one to check it out. It is designed great because it uses a sophisticated o-ring design that in molded onto the metal washer. If I need to order another #8 bulkhead, it will be this MagnaFuel brand. The one that I did order is the bulkhead that you see in the bottom of my fuel cell (purple color).
In the pic above - This shows where the vent is located along the exterior of the car. The vent is located in the recessed area for the shock absorber. I realize that there is a small chance for dirt/grit to find it's way into the fuel cell. However, I am taking a calculated chance that this won't be an issue. There will be a fuel filter on the high pressure side of the pump to catch any debris. If I am wrong about the fuel cell staying clean, I will be buying a replacement pump and installing a wire mesh on the vent bulkhead.
A stripe down the center of the fuel cell was left unpainted to allow the fluid level to be seen from outside of the tank.
To mount fittings, I advise anyone to not use the raised bosses on the US Plastics tanks. The bosses are a nice idea, but poorly executed. On every boss, there is molding flash along the center. The molding flash creates a leak-prone surface for fittings. Furthermore, the backside (inside surface of tank) of all bosses has an extremely irregular surface. Again, creating a leak-prone surface for any AN bulkhead fitting. It is much easier to get a great sealing surface along most flat areas on the tank.
Next step is mounting the pump. "I'll be back"...... with more updates
PARTS LIST & PRICES
Aeroquip AN Flare Adapter PN# FBM3155 (click here) = $23 x 2 = $46
Aeroquip AN Flare Adapter PN# FBM3156 (click here) = $19 x 2 = $38
Earls Performance AN Plug PN# 580606ERL (click here) = $6
Earls Performance AN to NPT Adapter Fitting PN# AT981608ERL (click here) = $5
Earls Performance AN to NPT Adapter Fitting PN# AT981666ERL (click here) = $8
Fragola Performance Systems P.T.F.E Hose Assembly PN# 370096 (click here) = $56
Fragola Performance Systems P.T.F.E Hose Assembly PN# 380012 (click here) = $26
Fragola Performance Systems P.T.F.E Hose Assembly PN# 382030 (click here) = $42
MagnaFuel AN Bulkhead Fitting PN# MP-3014 (click here) = $25
Russell Performance Fuel Cell Bulkhead Fitting PN# 670860 (click here) = $13 x 2 = $26
03-25-2011, 01:25 AM
#89
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Actually we can do it easier than that. If you got a DashDyno, we could compare MPH-Vs-Time performance data. I remember that you have the AutoEnginuity. But, the AutoEnginuity polling method makes me lack confidence in it's performance data.
I can't over stress how useful I have found my DashDyno. A person can't realistically run down to their favorite dyno every time they need to experiment with a new tune or new mod. That is, for people like you and me that are trying to dial-in a turbo or nitrous, having the ability to jump into your car and make a test run down your nearest back road to collect accurate and repeatable performance data is INVALUABLE.
Sorry for turning this reply into a commercial for the DashDyno. I get over zealous sometimes
I can't over stress how useful I have found my DashDyno. A person can't realistically run down to their favorite dyno every time they need to experiment with a new tune or new mod. That is, for people like you and me that are trying to dial-in a turbo or nitrous, having the ability to jump into your car and make a test run down your nearest back road to collect accurate and repeatable performance data is INVALUABLE.
Sorry for turning this reply into a commercial for the DashDyno. I get over zealous sometimes
Last edited by Inaccurate; 03-25-2011 at 01:30 AM.
03-25-2011, 01:40 AM
#91
Actually we can do it easier than that. If you got a DashDyno, we could compare MPH-Vs-Time performance data. I remember that you have the AutoEnginuity. But, the AutoEnginuity polling method makes me lack confidence in it's performance data.
I can't over stress how useful I have found my DashDyno. A person can't realistically run down to their favorite dyno every time they need to experiment with a new tune or new mod. That is, for people like you and me that are trying to dial-in a turbo or nitrous, having the ability to jump into your car and make a test run down your nearest back road to collect accurate and repeatable performance data is INVALUABLE.
Sorry for turning this reply into a commercial for the DashDyno. I get over zealous sometimes
I can't over stress how useful I have found my DashDyno. A person can't realistically run down to their favorite dyno every time they need to experiment with a new tune or new mod. That is, for people like you and me that are trying to dial-in a turbo or nitrous, having the ability to jump into your car and make a test run down your nearest back road to collect accurate and repeatable performance data is INVALUABLE.
Sorry for turning this reply into a commercial for the DashDyno. I get over zealous sometimes
Just not the same as doing a 40-140 pull on the highway while recording it
I was doing some reading a little a while back on a different forum (cant remember which one) and people were discussing autoenginuity's software. Everyone was praising it. Im pretty confident that the software works fine, I think the settings need to be changed and I dont know how to do it
03-25-2011, 03:01 AM
#92
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Bert,
Good to hear that the AutoEnginuity is more accurate than I had thought. I agree that it would be great to have a real life race. But seeing that this will probably never happen due to the distance that separates us, I do look forward to having some virtual races.
I remember the last time that you posted some acceleration data from your AutoEnginuity in the turbo thread. The numbers were pretty impressive (quick).
Good to hear that the AutoEnginuity is more accurate than I had thought. I agree that it would be great to have a real life race. But seeing that this will probably never happen due to the distance that separates us, I do look forward to having some virtual races.
I remember the last time that you posted some acceleration data from your AutoEnginuity in the turbo thread. The numbers were pretty impressive (quick).
04-06-2011, 04:39 AM
#95
Safety Car
Thread Starter
- - - - - - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -
BACKFIRE BURST PANEL
MEASURING THE AVAILABLE CLEARANCE
To start this mod, I had to measure the clearance above each bolt along the manifold top cover. All bolts provided at least 2 inches of clearance between the hood.
ENGINEERING THE SYSTEM
I had originally thought of using springs to hold down the manifold cover. This is how all commercial Backfire Burst Panels are designed (see pics above).
As I was looking for a spring to purchase, I realized that a spring is not the ideal component for my needs. My most important design goal was to have the manifold cover to be able to lift at least 1 full inch above the manifold. All possible springs would jeopardize this goal because springs consume too much linear length at coil bind.
With springs no longer being an option, I was left with finding another solution. Something needs to be able to decelerate the manifold cover during a backfire. The cover preferably should not be allowed to collide into the bolt head during a backfire. The cover and/or bolt could be damaged by the violent impact of metal against metal.
My next idea was to use a polyurethane bumper to soften the impact. My search for a bumper led me to silicone grommets. The silicone grommets have a durometer rating of 50A and have a temperature range of –60° to +500° F. Perfect
With the cushions found, I then proceeded to find the length of bolt needed. The hood clearance is 2 inches. Leave a half inch clearance between hood and top of bolt. Allow for one inch on free space for the manifold to travel along. Add thickness of a load-spreading washer and two grommets. Add depth for the threads to fully thread into the blind hole in manifold. The numbers crunched out to be a 60 mm bolt length.
Silicone sealant was used to seal (glue) the cover to the manifold.
The next challenge was to design a retention method for the manifold cover. The cover needs to be clamped down to avoid vacuum leaks. But at the same time, the cover must be free to lift upward without too much resistance during a backfire.
Do I trust the silicone sealant to solely keep the manifold cover glued in position? Maybe. But this is a daily driver and over a period of time, the sealant could lose it's grip.
The solution is to use a nylon fastener in just three locations. The threads in the nylon nut can be easily sheered off during a backfire. But to make sure, I used a drill to ream out most of the thread engagement area. The goal was to leave just enough thread strength to hold the cover down (slightly more than finger tight), while still being extremely easy to shear the nut off. The combined holding force of the sealant and the weakened nylon nuts should be an insignificant obstacle to the backfire.
PARTS LIST & PRICES
Metric Black Nylon Hex Nuts - McMaster PN# 93800A600 (click here) = $12
Metric Bolt 60mm Length - McMaster PN# 92095A254 (click here) = $8
High-temperature Flexible Grommet - McMaster PN# 1061T25 (click here) = $6 x 2 = $12
Black Stainless Steel Washers - McMaster PN# 90618A600 (click here) = $13
BACKGROUND READING
A nitrous backfire is much more explosive than a normal engine backfire. Some people claim that a nitrous backfire can bend a connecting rod or harm a piston in an extreme case.
It is fairly common for a nitrous backfire to destroy parts of the induction system (see pic above) and sometimes the car's hood too. This is why I place so much importance on having a backfire burst panel to allow the explosive force to safely escape without causing any harm.
Backfire Burst Panels are used by a few nitrous or supercharger users. Thus, there are a few commercial burst panels on the market. However to me, the biggest problem with most commercial burst panels is that they offer too little of an opening. All burst panels use springs to hold the panel in a normally closed position. However, the typical spring reaches coil-bind at approx half of the springs full length. When the length of the spring (at coil bind) is subtracted from the overall travel distance, the allowable opening is very inadequate to vent the explosive force in my opinion.
When designing my panel, I wanted my panel to have at least one inch of travel. That is, I wanted the panel to be able to rise above the manifold at least one inch during a backfire. Combined with the huge perimeter distance and the 1 inch of lift (actually 1-1/4" with the bumpers compressed), my backfire panel has a huge area to quickly vent the explosive force.
Below are pics of typical backfire panels being used. Note that many of these are for superchargers.
In all of the examples above, the opening is way too small for my comfort.... at least for a nitrous backfire.
In the pics below, this industrial style burst panel appears to offer sufficient venting area. However when we see the actual opening in the manifold, it is not as large of an opening as we had thought.
It is imperative that the pressure from the backfire explosion has ample venting area to release the sudden pressure buildup. Nearly all commercially made panels that I have seen pictured on the internet are much too small in venting area for my comfort. Thus, it is of no surprise to me that a person can find stories of backfire panels that failed to protect the induction system from damage. It is my opinion that these stories are due to panels having too little venting area.
Any explosion will produce a lot of gas in very, very short time period. This huge volume of gasses must be able to exit very, very quickly. Having a panel with too little venting area will allow the pressure to buildup quicker than the pressure is able to escape. If the pressure is allowed to buildup, the probability of damage to the induction system rises along with the gas pressure.
"I'll be back"...... with more updates
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -BACKFIRE BURST PANEL
MEASURING THE AVAILABLE CLEARANCE
To start this mod, I had to measure the clearance above each bolt along the manifold top cover. All bolts provided at least 2 inches of clearance between the hood.
ENGINEERING THE SYSTEM
I had originally thought of using springs to hold down the manifold cover. This is how all commercial Backfire Burst Panels are designed (see pics above).
As I was looking for a spring to purchase, I realized that a spring is not the ideal component for my needs. My most important design goal was to have the manifold cover to be able to lift at least 1 full inch above the manifold. All possible springs would jeopardize this goal because springs consume too much linear length at coil bind.
With springs no longer being an option, I was left with finding another solution. Something needs to be able to decelerate the manifold cover during a backfire. The cover preferably should not be allowed to collide into the bolt head during a backfire. The cover and/or bolt could be damaged by the violent impact of metal against metal.
My next idea was to use a polyurethane bumper to soften the impact. My search for a bumper led me to silicone grommets. The silicone grommets have a durometer rating of 50A and have a temperature range of –60° to +500° F. Perfect
With the cushions found, I then proceeded to find the length of bolt needed. The hood clearance is 2 inches. Leave a half inch clearance between hood and top of bolt. Allow for one inch on free space for the manifold to travel along. Add thickness of a load-spreading washer and two grommets. Add depth for the threads to fully thread into the blind hole in manifold. The numbers crunched out to be a 60 mm bolt length.
Silicone sealant was used to seal (glue) the cover to the manifold.
The next challenge was to design a retention method for the manifold cover. The cover needs to be clamped down to avoid vacuum leaks. But at the same time, the cover must be free to lift upward without too much resistance during a backfire.
Do I trust the silicone sealant to solely keep the manifold cover glued in position? Maybe. But this is a daily driver and over a period of time, the sealant could lose it's grip.
The solution is to use a nylon fastener in just three locations. The threads in the nylon nut can be easily sheered off during a backfire. But to make sure, I used a drill to ream out most of the thread engagement area. The goal was to leave just enough thread strength to hold the cover down (slightly more than finger tight), while still being extremely easy to shear the nut off. The combined holding force of the sealant and the weakened nylon nuts should be an insignificant obstacle to the backfire.
PARTS LIST & PRICES
Metric Black Nylon Hex Nuts - McMaster PN# 93800A600 (click here) = $12
Metric Bolt 60mm Length - McMaster PN# 92095A254 (click here) = $8
High-temperature Flexible Grommet - McMaster PN# 1061T25 (click here) = $6 x 2 = $12
Black Stainless Steel Washers - McMaster PN# 90618A600 (click here) = $13
BACKGROUND READING
A nitrous backfire is much more explosive than a normal engine backfire. Some people claim that a nitrous backfire can bend a connecting rod or harm a piston in an extreme case.
It is fairly common for a nitrous backfire to destroy parts of the induction system (see pic above) and sometimes the car's hood too. This is why I place so much importance on having a backfire burst panel to allow the explosive force to safely escape without causing any harm.
Backfire Burst Panels are used by a few nitrous or supercharger users. Thus, there are a few commercial burst panels on the market. However to me, the biggest problem with most commercial burst panels is that they offer too little of an opening. All burst panels use springs to hold the panel in a normally closed position. However, the typical spring reaches coil-bind at approx half of the springs full length. When the length of the spring (at coil bind) is subtracted from the overall travel distance, the allowable opening is very inadequate to vent the explosive force in my opinion.
When designing my panel, I wanted my panel to have at least one inch of travel. That is, I wanted the panel to be able to rise above the manifold at least one inch during a backfire. Combined with the huge perimeter distance and the 1 inch of lift (actually 1-1/4" with the bumpers compressed), my backfire panel has a huge area to quickly vent the explosive force.
Below are pics of typical backfire panels being used. Note that many of these are for superchargers.
In all of the examples above, the opening is way too small for my comfort.... at least for a nitrous backfire.
In the pics below, this industrial style burst panel appears to offer sufficient venting area. However when we see the actual opening in the manifold, it is not as large of an opening as we had thought.
It is imperative that the pressure from the backfire explosion has ample venting area to release the sudden pressure buildup. Nearly all commercially made panels that I have seen pictured on the internet are much too small in venting area for my comfort. Thus, it is of no surprise to me that a person can find stories of backfire panels that failed to protect the induction system from damage. It is my opinion that these stories are due to panels having too little venting area.
Any explosion will produce a lot of gas in very, very short time period. This huge volume of gasses must be able to exit very, very quickly. Having a panel with too little venting area will allow the pressure to buildup quicker than the pressure is able to escape. If the pressure is allowed to buildup, the probability of damage to the induction system rises along with the gas pressure.
"I'll be back"...... with more updates
04-06-2011, 07:14 PM
#96
Team Owner
I think that's a great idea to use the whole cover as a burst plate. It should barely have to stroke with that much surface area. Now I see why you were asking about a burst plate a while back on that Indy motor picture.
04-06-2011, 07:56 PM
#98
Team Owner
The only thing I would worry about is the silicone being too strong. It's doubtful but imagine the pressure needed to push the cover at it's center to overcome the silicone's grip.
04-06-2011, 08:42 PM
#99
some of that shit can really hold the pieces together, and the only way is to crack them loose at a corner and kinda "peel" the parts apartand also considering this inaccurate, do you really need any type of a hold down force, other then like some rubber cushions to cushion the pop off action (basically just enough to pre-load a o-ring seal), because any thing above atmospheric is going to be unwanted (since you do not want boost), so it only needs to press it enough to seal like a o-ring (which machining a groove for one might be the easiest solution
) , then the vacuum will just pull/seal it tighter, with the engine running
04-07-2011, 12:07 AM
#101
Safety Car
Thread Starter
I have been battling the decision of 3 break-away nuts or trust just the sealant. You guys are pushing me to think that I should go with no nuts.
IHC - When I design stuff like this.... stuff where I can not test my ideas, I usually rely on comparisons to known similar situations. In this case, I view it this way. If I was able to turn the manifold cover upside-down with nothing under it, and then place my foot on it, I can not see it holding my weight without popping the sealant bond. Thus, the cover should overcome the sealant bond with less than 150 pounds. The surface area of the cover is 70 square inches. Based on my assumptions, the cover should pop the sealant loose with less than 3 psi. Do you agree with my logic? If not, please tell me and I will give it more thought. My manifold is in your hands.
IHC - When I design stuff like this.... stuff where I can not test my ideas, I usually rely on comparisons to known similar situations. In this case, I view it this way. If I was able to turn the manifold cover upside-down with nothing under it, and then place my foot on it, I can not see it holding my weight without popping the sealant bond. Thus, the cover should overcome the sealant bond with less than 150 pounds. The surface area of the cover is 70 square inches. Based on my assumptions, the cover should pop the sealant loose with less than 3 psi. Do you agree with my logic? If not, please tell me and I will give it more thought. My manifold is in your hands.
04-07-2011, 03:27 AM
#102
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Do you guys think that I should used something else with less adhesion than the silicone sealant if I do not use any nuts?
In the past when I used it, this copper exhaust flange RTV seemed to not have much adhesive strength. Should I use this instead?
04-07-2011, 04:02 AM
#103
Safety Car
Thread Starter
- - - - - - - - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -
METHANOL PUMP MOUNTED
In pic above - This shows where the pump is mounted under the floorboard.
In pic above - Black stainless steel locknuts were used to secure the pump.
In pic above - The rubber vibration grommets can potentially be pulled out of the mounting bracket. Because the pump will be hanging upside down, I was paranoid that the pump could fall if the rubber grommets became dislodged from the mount. For insurance, I used bolts that had a head diameter larger than the grommet hole.
"I'll be back"...... with more updates
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -METHANOL PUMP MOUNTED
In pic above - This shows where the pump is mounted under the floorboard.
In pic above - Black stainless steel locknuts were used to secure the pump.
In pic above - The rubber vibration grommets can potentially be pulled out of the mounting bracket. Because the pump will be hanging upside down, I was paranoid that the pump could fall if the rubber grommets became dislodged from the mount. For insurance, I used bolts that had a head diameter larger than the grommet hole.
"I'll be back"...... with more updates
04-07-2011, 07:44 PM
#107
I have been battling the decision of 3 break-away nuts or trust just the sealant. You guys are pushing me to think that I should go with no nuts.
IHC - When I design stuff like this.... stuff where I can not test my ideas, I usually rely on comparisons to known similar situations. In this case, I view it this way. If I was able to turn the manifold cover upside-down with nothing under it, and then place my foot on it, I can not see it holding my weight without popping the sealant bond. Thus, the cover should overcome the sealant bond with less than 150 pounds. The surface area of the cover is 70 square inches. Based on my assumptions, the cover should pop the sealant loose with less than 3 psi. Do you agree with my logic? If not, please tell me and I will give it more thought. My manifold is in your hands.
IHC - When I design stuff like this.... stuff where I can not test my ideas, I usually rely on comparisons to known similar situations. In this case, I view it this way. If I was able to turn the manifold cover upside-down with nothing under it, and then place my foot on it, I can not see it holding my weight without popping the sealant bond. Thus, the cover should overcome the sealant bond with less than 150 pounds. The surface area of the cover is 70 square inches. Based on my assumptions, the cover should pop the sealant loose with less than 3 psi. Do you agree with my logic? If not, please tell me and I will give it more thought. My manifold is in your hands.
i would at least put long bolts (enough to bottom them out in the hole so they stay tight, while still requiring the desired travel/pop) in every hole, with a rubber dampener on each, so that when it DOES pop, it does not go anywhere it wants, especially into the underside of the hood, but hopefully will drop right back down into place and maybe seal the manifold again, so the engine does not rev uncontrollably (or at least off the rev limiter)
another advantage to the o-ring idea would also be that the cover drops back down, seals back up, and off you go again....
also i see one flaw possibly in the break away of the sealant, does that account for the TOTAL holding area of the sealant, or 1/4" (or whatever it may be) X how ever many inches it is around the opening?
maybe do some hard real world tests....
pull the manifold completey off
make a plate to cover the intake ports on the bottom side (which might come in handy later down the road also, especially working on like the fuel injectors and such, drop the plate on the block side instead, and nothing can go down the ports
either pull the throttle body off, and cover that opening, or somehow plug that opening
plug off the rest of the ports and openings
THEN pressurize AWAY :blastoff: lol
only thing i see though is that the testing would take a bit though, cause you have to be able to let the sealant harden up every test (24 hours normally)
Last edited by friesm2000; 04-07-2011 at 07:49 PM.
04-07-2011, 07:54 PM
#108
and in this photo, it is very similar to how i have run the nitrous line on my 2g, with using that kinda empty are, but instead of going back into the car, i ran it along the frame rail on the side of it, so if i did hit something like a speed bump, it would still hit the frame first (basically i just mimicked the fuel lines, but on the passenger side instead)
04-07-2011, 08:44 PM
#109
also i was thinking about the sealant, and i thought of one that would probably be more consistent each time it is removed and such, and that would be very narrow and thin doable sided tape, such as used on Mylar balloons (let alone being able to plop the cover on, toss in the bolts and off you go...; only issue might be the temp rating of the stuff idk)
http://apps.webcreate.com/ecom/catal...roductID=16983
also another issue i see is with those break away bolts especially if you are planning on reusing a stock gasket (even a new one), and that would be because there is a reason for Honda originally putting that many bolts, because they wanted to ensure the even tightening of the gasket, which with only 3 bolts, you might have trouble doing
http://apps.webcreate.com/ecom/catal...roductID=16983
also another issue i see is with those break away bolts especially if you are planning on reusing a stock gasket (even a new one), and that would be because there is a reason for Honda originally putting that many bolts, because they wanted to ensure the even tightening of the gasket, which with only 3 bolts, you might have trouble doing
04-07-2011, 09:36 PM
#110
Safety Car
Thread Starter
friesm2000,
Thanks for the input. I am still thinking about what IHC said about the sealant being too strong. After I thought about what I said in reply about 150 lbs being able to break the seal, I begin to have second thoughts. I could see the sealant bond holding more, maybe 300 lbs if the force is equally distributed across the cover. And of course, this is exactly what the air pressure does. I am still pondering. I appreciate your thought on the matter.
I am not using the oem thin metal gasket. Just silicone by itself.
Thanks for the input. I am still thinking about what IHC said about the sealant being too strong. After I thought about what I said in reply about 150 lbs being able to break the seal, I begin to have second thoughts. I could see the sealant bond holding more, maybe 300 lbs if the force is equally distributed across the cover. And of course, this is exactly what the air pressure does. I am still pondering. I appreciate your thought on the matter.
I am not using the oem thin metal gasket. Just silicone by itself.
04-07-2011, 10:43 PM
#112
friesm2000,
Thanks for the input. I am still thinking about what IHC said about the sealant being too strong. After I thought about what I said in reply about 150 lbs being able to break the seal, I begin to have second thoughts. I could see the sealant bond holding more, maybe 300 lbs if the force is equally distributed across the cover. And of course, this is exactly what the air pressure does. I am still pondering. I appreciate your thought on the matter.
I am not using the oem thin metal gasket. Just silicone by itself.
Thanks for the input. I am still thinking about what IHC said about the sealant being too strong. After I thought about what I said in reply about 150 lbs being able to break the seal, I begin to have second thoughts. I could see the sealant bond holding more, maybe 300 lbs if the force is equally distributed across the cover. And of course, this is exactly what the air pressure does. I am still pondering. I appreciate your thought on the matter.
I am not using the oem thin metal gasket. Just silicone by itself.
and saying again
, i think machining a groove for a o-ring would be your best bet, especially for consistent results time after time of "venting/opening" pressuresalso have you thought about maybe a cantilever arm design; with one end attached to the cover (or just pushing down on it, so they can slide, then the original bolts holes will "guide" the cover as necessary); the pivot attach to the maniold (either welding, or bolts with some thread sealant on them); then the other end with the spring pressing against it, basically doable (or more) the available travel range of the selected springs (which would be easier to find only a couple of higher rated springs, then like 10 or more low rated springs)
also i would say the picture posted before with the bolts sticking up, probably be good for those "guiding bolts"
also as a side note, i am surprised you have not hacked those ears off yet on the manifold cover plate for mounting the beauty shield to, it may save you an once or two
for like 10 seconds of workedit: was looking at that doable sided tape again, and noticed a link to a spec sheet (i don't think the most precise measurements, but will give you a good idea of typical specs though)
and looks like the 9499 would be your best bet with it's long term temp rating of 300, compared to 9497's temp rating of only 250 degress (which would be close to approaching possibly when the engine heat soaks after driving for a bit)
Last edited by friesm2000; 04-07-2011 at 10:51 PM.
04-08-2011, 09:55 PM
#116
Could you put silicone on the cover and put oil or other non stick stuff to the mating surface to create a gasket that fits, but is not held down by adhesion.
Let the silicone cure then clean off the oil and try out.
Let the silicone cure then clean off the oil and try out.
04-08-2011, 10:51 PM
#117
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Exactly. I have not mentioned it, but this has always been my exact thought for a Plan B. I would use wax paper on the one side to prevent sticking until cured.
04-09-2011, 12:53 AM
#118
Safety Car
Thread Starter
- - - UPDATE - - - - - - - -MISC SMALL STUFF
In pics above - secured the stainless steel braided teflon hose (#6) along the oem metal lines for the evap, gasoline, and rear brake lines.
In pic above - After securing the line, I placed a 1/2 gallon of isopropyl alcohol in the methanol fuel cell. Note that you can see the fluid level thru the center strip on the cell. I will be leaving this isopropyl alcohol in the cell for two weeks to check for leaks. I rather deal with any possible leaks with the isopropyl alcohol in there instead of the methanol alcohol.
With the car sitting in the garage for 6 hours, I have found no leaks thus far.
In pic above - I thought it would be fun for us to play a game. What can be derived from this pic? Also, what is unusual regarding the colors of the solenoids (specific to NX brand)?
"I'll be back"...... with more updates
04-10-2011, 11:54 PM
#120
Safety Car
Thread Starter
One of the two answers is "dual stages". The pic from yesterday showed two fuel solenoids. This therefore implies a two stages system. A two stages system means that I will be running a much larger shot (maybe 150 shot) than I had originally planned. Ironically, I will be increasing my overall safety level much more than before with my original plan. I will go into my details regarding this in a few days.
The second answer is regarding the colors of the solenoid. All NX solenoids have color-coordinated wires (see pic above). The blue NX nitrous solenoid typically has blue wires. And, the red NX fuel solenoid typically has red wires.
My pic shows red fuel solenoids with blue wires. :
My fuel solenoids were custom ordered from NX to have magnets (and wires) from a nitrous solenoid installed. The typical NX fuel solenoid is only able to reliably open against 50 psi. Whereas, my methanol pump operates at 200 psi. Thus, a typical NX fuel solenoid would not be able to open against the 200 psi. The solution is to use the much more powerful magnet from a nitrous solenoid to operate my fuel solenoids.
And as a side note, these are methanol specific fuel solenoids. They have special seals to handle the methanol.
The following users liked this post:
homeboynyc (04-27-2013)