F/I Blowing motors facts

[mrk1]

Originally Posted by totopo

On further retrospect... molarity is what is important, not weight, since it is a gas. Furthermore N20 disassociates in the cylinder (it requires high T), not the manifold.

So let's say you ran on 1 atm of pressure of PURE NOSS!!!!Z!!11! (/s). In effect, since each mole of N20 dissociates into half a mole of 02, that would equate to 50% atm partial pressure of 02.

So depending on your mixture of air vs N20 it would be somewhere between 20 and 50% effective 02.

edit (because math is fun!!!): 100% N2O would be 7.35 PSI of O2. To get that much with FI, given 20% of O2 in air you would need 2.5 atm worth of air, so an extra 1.5 atm of boost, which equals 22 PSI of boost!!!! just from the oxygen alone!

Just for clarification, your edit when you say 100%. Does that mean your math is for 100% nitrous in the cylinder? This just reads like your saying running nitrous is the same as running 22psi, don't want people to get the wrong idea.

I'm pro nitrous, ever since 2001 there has been a severe misunderstanding out there,



and yes my car is boosted as well.

[clayrush]

I thought I read that someone in this tread was done?

Can we be done?

[mrk1]

I think next up is to discuss who is having what for breakfast, this has come so far from the original post

[totopo]

Originally Posted by mrk1

Just for clarification, your edit when you say 100%. Does that mean your math is for 100% nitrous in the cylinder? This just reads like your saying running nitrous is the same as running 22psi, don't want people to get the wrong idea.

I'm pro nitrous, ever since 2001 there has been a severe misunderstanding out there,

and yes my car is boosted as well.

yes, sorry, that is not meant to say nitrous is like 22 psi of boost. What I meant to say is a theoretical engine running no air and running 1 atm of pure N2O for oxidizer instead of air, which is like no engine ever. and ignoring all the other effect like the cooling, Just to see what the math was like. But it does illustrate that it brings above atm levels of oxygen into the cylinder on just the the O it carries.

[mrk1]

Originally Posted by totopo

yes, sorry, that is not meant to say nitrous is like 22 psi of boost. What I meant to say is a theoretical engine running no air and running 1 atm of pure N2O for oxidizer instead of air, which is like no engine ever. Just to see what the math was like. But it does illustrate that it brings above atm levels of oxygen into the cylinder on just the the O it carries.

very cool math

[VitViper]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Pretty much.

I'm at the dyno and flashing takes forever. I wish EcuTek had live tuning

Perhaps we can get a free Motec like all the other free parts on the car /sarcasm

I think you'd like my FT86 package. Lots of fixes for annoying things on the base package, Flex Fuel, even Adaptive Boost Control

[Jaden]

I'm afraid you fail in the logic department...

Failed rods being a fact does NOT logically support your argument that the rods are too weak...It merely supports that rods can fail under boost...There is NO inference of causality there at all...

Jaden

p.s. this was a quote of FRS Justin saying this/


Per Webster dictionary


Definition of fact

1 : something that really exists or has occurred <Space travel is now a fact.> EX. People running high boost have broken rods is now a fact
2 : a true piece of information <“I just know for a fact that she has a huge family to feed!” — Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows EX. I just know for a fact people have broken rods under high boost.










If you can't see it now I can't help you /

but the quote button didn't work...

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by FRS Justin

Are you saying its not coming out of the nozzle at 900psi lol


You really aren't man enough to admit your wrong....smh you even posted the facts I guess copy and paste caught up with you...
its ok have it your way 300hp stock bottom end N/A fa20s exist, stock rods can handle high boost and everything we have debated about is true you win


Here read this if you still disagree it has 900 psi at the nozzle call the guys and tell them they are crazy...
http://www.badasscars.com/index.cfm/...rod/prd288.htm


and explain to everyone here where the 1000 psi goes leaving the tank to the end of the nozzle. I bet its magic huh.... smh


I can't Barney this down any lower someone else is going have to give you a physics lesson on flow and volume not to mention thermodynamics, to think you questioned my knowledge...sad indeed


How can you even have input on a subject when you don't understand the theory behind it is beyond me. That screams troll. Your like the talk show host Jerry Springer who feels out the room to see what the audience is thinking then takes it to the guest on the show.


If you want to learn you have to be humble and like you told me "think outside the box" It's best you stick to driving and leave engines to other people. Hell you thought NOS was plumbed in before the MAF lol

UMMM, in direct injection applications fuel pressures can be 1000 bar... does that mean they are F/I?>??lol

Jaden

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by FRS Justin

Forced induction is the process of delivering compressed air to the intake of an internal combustion engine.


Agreed


A forced induction engine uses a gas compressor to increase the pressure, temperature and density of the air.


The gas compressor is the turbo S/C or NOS they all do the same thing by increasing o2 limits in the same volume


An engine without forced induction is considered a naturally aspirated engine. Agreed

You are not changing the pressure of the air charge which is necessary for it to be considered F/I, it is the exact same as ambient pressure (just with a richer O2 content because of it's chemical composition).

It isn't all motor, which is what you seem to be confusing with F/I vs. N/A...

There's a reason people use the term all motor rather than N/A...

Jaden

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I'm afraid you fail in the logic department...

Failed rods being a fact does NOT logically support your argument that the rods are too weak...It merely supports that rods can fail under boost...There is NO inference of causality there at all...

Jaden

p.s. this was a quote of FRS Justin saying this/


Per Webster dictionary


Definition of fact

1 : something that really exists or has occurred <Space travel is now a fact.> EX. People running high boost have broken rods is now a fact
2 : a true piece of information <“I just know for a fact that she has a huge family to feed!” — Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows EX. I just know for a fact people have broken rods under high boost.


If you can't see it now I can't help you /

but the quote button didn't work...

uhhhh..... I really don't see where you are coming from... So if the rods fail at high boost, and stronger rods don't fail as much at the high boost, then it stands to reason that the rods are too weak for the high boost? I don't see the mental gymnastics you are trying to do.

Rods will eventually fail as you increase cylinder pressure * rod temperature. So if you want to run ___ boost, and that brakes the rods, then your rods were too weak for your application.

Originally Posted by Jaden

UMMM, in direct injection applications fuel pressures can be 1000 bar... does that mean they are F/I?>??lol

Jaden

Soooo, do you understand the difference between oxidizer and fuel? Can you run an engine on fuel alone? can you run an engine on oxidizer alone?

Fuel is on the OTHER side of the equation. Car motors are limited by the oxygen. If you inject pure 02 straight into the cylinder instead of N2O, then I would argue that's basically FI.

Originally Posted by Jaden

You are not changing the pressure of the air charge which is necessary for it to be considered F/I, it is the exact same as ambient pressure (just with a richer O2 content because of it's chemical composition).

It isn't all motor, which is what you seem to be confusing with F/I vs. N/A...

There's a reason people use the term all motor rather than N/A...

Jaden

The whole semantics of what is FI and what is NA is pretty lame, as I said in the previous post. And why is everyone trying to jump on the OP. The statement that brought this out was CSG Mike that said N2O was NA. So you agree with the OP then that CSG Mike was wrong and it doesn't count as NA.

I understand CSG Mike is a stand up guy, a pillar of this community, and a wickedly fast driver, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to gang up on the OP. Especially if they can't do it civilly.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by totopo

uhhhh..... I really don't see where you are coming from... So if the rods fail at high boost, and stronger rods don't fail as much at the high boost, then it stands to reason that the rods are too weak for the high boost? I don't see the mental gymnastics you are trying to do.

Rods will eventually fail as you increase cylinder pressure * rod temperature. So if you want to run ___ boost, and that brakes the rods, then your rods were too weak for your application.



Soooo, do you understand the difference between oxidizer and fuel? Can you run an engine on fuel alone? can you run an engine on oxidizer alone?

Fuel is on the OTHER side of the equation. Car motors are limited by the oxygen. If you inject pure 02 straight into the cylinder instead of N2O, then I would argue that's basically FI.



The whole semantics of what is FI and what is NA is pretty lame, as I said in the previous post. And why is everyone trying to jump on the OP. The statement that brought this out was CSG Mike that said N2O was NA. So you agree with the OP then that CSG Mike was wrong and it doesn't count as NA.

I understand CSG Mike is a stand up guy, a pillar of this community, and a wickedly fast driver, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to gang up on the OP. Especially if they can't do it civilly.

Rods fail N/A too. The argument that boost exists, rods fail, therefore rods are too weak is flawed logic... You're skipping a step for one thing which would be therefore rods fail because boost, but even THAT is invalid logic.

Even if you could show that rods fail ONLY when boosted, it wouldn't show that the rods are too weak, because then the argument would have to be, some rods fail when boosted, the rods that failed only failed when boosted, therefore rods are weak.... still fail of logic.

So, the whole premise of the op is a fail of logic.

IF he had said, hey if you're planning on F/I, you may want to get different rods because some rods have failed. Then he wouldn't be getting jumped on.

But to come on and say "Hey all you people need to shut up about tunes, it's the rods that suck", he should expect to get bashed a little.

As far as N/A vs. F/I. There really is no debate to be had. Words MEAN something. Forced induction doesn't mean adding more O2 content. It means forcing more air than 1 bar, whatever bar is at the elevation you're at. So, NO, N2O is NOT F/I. It is not ever adding more than 1 bar of pressure to the combustion chamber.

Jaden

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Rods fail N/A too. The argument that boost exists, rods fail, therefore rods are too weak is flawed logic... You're skipping a step for one thing which would be therefore rods fail because boost, but even THAT is invalid logic.

Even if you could show that rods fail ONLY when boosted, it wouldn't show that the rods are too weak, because then the argument would have to be, some rods fail when boosted, the rods that failed only failed when boosted, therefore rods are weak.... still fail of logic.

So, the whole premise of the op is a fail of logic.

IF he had said, hey if you're planning on F/I, you may want to get different rods because some rods have failed. Then he wouldn't be getting jumped on.

But to come on and say "Hey all you people need to shut up about tunes, it's the rods that suck", he should expect to get bashed a little.

As far as N/A vs. F/I. There really is no debate to be had. Words MEAN something. Forced induction doesn't mean adding more O2 content. It means forcing more air than 1 bar, whatever bar is at the elevation you're at. So, NO, N2O is NOT F/I. It is not ever adding more than 1 bar of pressure to the combustion chamber.

Jaden

Okay, Jaden, I know you think the twins are the bests cars ever, and you think the fa20 is the most solid engine ever, but I don't think you understand some important principles.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhh, I really really, REALLLLLYYYYYY hate arguing with you, because I take the time and effort to research my posts, try to make it as straight forward as possible, and then you always reply in like 10 seconds with the most off-the-wall stuff that I don't know what to say. When I get too annoyed to post you take it as your victory.

What annoys me too is that I know there are many people, many well known people, here that bashed the OP in how he said it, and are reading this thread, but who agree that boost could use beefier rods, and who know you are spewing ridiculous nonsensical crap, but who won't call you out on it because you are on "their" side. I hope one of them comes and tries to convince you of things, because you never listen to me.

If no one does, I guess I will eventually, but I feel like I will be repeating myself. please re-read this post:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=141

I re-read this thread from the beginning, and it is actually starting to really piss me off. I have a theory why this thread went the way it did, and why it made some people super salty, and why some people just want it to disappear, but I don't want to say it because I don't want to piss people off or call people out.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by totopo

Okay, Jaden, I know you think the twins are the bests cars ever, and you think the fa20 is the most solid engine ever, but I don't think you understand some important principles.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhh, I really really, REALLLLLYYYYYY hate arguing with you, because I take the time and effort to research my posts, try to make it as straight forward as possible, and then you always reply in like 10 seconds with the most off-the-wall stuff that I don't know what to say. When I get too annoyed to post you take it as your victory.

What annoys me too is that I know there are many people, many well known people, here that bashed the OP in how he said it, and are reading this thread, but who agree that boost could use beefier rods, and who know you are spewing ridiculous nonsensical crap, but who won't call you out on it because you are on "their" side. I hope one of them comes and tries to convince you of things, because you never listen to me.

If no one does, I guess I will eventually, but I feel like I will be repeating myself. please re-read this post:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=141

I re-read this thread from the beginning, and it is actually starting to really piss me off. I have a theory why this thread went the way it did, and why it made some people super salty, and why some people just want it to disappear, but I don't want to say it because I don't want to piss people off or call people out.

With what you said in it. Yes, the more power you create, the more stresses involved and the greater likelihood of catastrophic failure...we get it.

You're still not addressing the points made.

rod failure does NOT necessarily infer an inherent weakness of the rods, nor does it mean that at a given power level they will fail.

That IS what the op stated. I'm sorry but it is. He said, people need to shut up about the tunes and understand that any F/I needs upgraded rods because they are too weak.

Well, that hasn't meted out in a majority of cases. So he got called out on it.

Should you upgrade your rods in F/I on a FA20? absolutely. If you're planning on getting the most out of your engine upgrade the rods, get forged pistons, slightly lower the C/R...etc...

Is there a greater risk involved in using F/I with stock internals? Yes..

There's a greater risk using stock internals with an E85 tune, or a stage II 93 tune for that matter.

Should everyone fore go making sure they get a good tune and upgrade their internals if they're going F/I? NO, it's been proven in many cases to not be necessary even beyond 300 whp.

Should they go into it with their eyes shut thinking they're going to get 100K miles out of a used motor after running 15+ psi of boost at 450 whp on E85? Absolutely not, and anyone who does that is a fool who SHOULD be parted from the money he's going to have to spend to replace his shit.

I'll tell you one thing that I DO know...A bad tune will cause catastrophic failure a lot sooner than a good tune on E85 at 350WHP will because of stock rods...

Jaden

p.s. I don't think the twins are the best cars ever... I DO think that they are the best bang for your buck new car for DIY tuners that want high performance newer cars for the least amount of money and the most elbow grease...

[orangespark]

Originally Posted by totopo

Okay, Jaden, I know you think the twins are the bests cars ever, and you think the fa20 is the most solid engine ever, but I don't think you understand some important principles.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhh, I really really, REALLLLLYYYYYY hate arguing with you, because I take the time and effort to research my posts, try to make it as straight forward as possible, and then you always reply in like 10 seconds with the most off-the-wall stuff that I don't know what to say. When I get too annoyed to post you take it as your victory.

What annoys me too is that I know there are many people, many well known people, here that bashed the OP in how he said it, and are reading this thread, but who agree that boost could use beefier rods, and who know you are spewing ridiculous nonsensical crap, but who won't call you out on it because you are on "their" side. I hope one of them comes and tries to convince you of things, because you never listen to me.

If no one does, I guess I will eventually, but I feel like I will be repeating myself. please re-read this post:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=141

I re-read this thread from the beginning, and it is actually starting to really piss me off. I have a theory why this thread went the way it did, and why it made some people super salty, and why some people just want it to disappear, but I don't want to say it because I don't want to piss people off or call people out.

I agree with what this person said. What Justin was trying to say is beefier rods would have helped a lot. I'm new to this and learning on the side about material properties but I'm always on the forums reading about people going F/I and how some people are having a hard time.
Our shop mechanic at work has a 328 (Twin turbo) currently and has been boosting up the turbo compression on his engine for quite a while. He feels very safe doing it on stock. That engine was designed to be F/I.
What I'm trying to say is, whoever is working on pushing the boundaries CSG_Mike, etc. Props to you guys. In terms of learning, this forums is awesome. But as my only car, I don't i'll be able to go F/I on this car. Critical info provided by Justin is useful.
Also, I was reading someone else's thread and he dissected the FA20 and found the build quality sub-par. Lots of sharp edges, etc. Not sure if that ties into this.