gsr_nikhil
Member
Let em talk! Interesting topic hah
Sent from my Moto seX using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto seX using Tapatalk
300hp B-series All Motor
- Thread starter Muckman
- Start date
jbrown97ls
Active Member
That was a bit harsh, Nick.
JustinMcGee1
I like Hondas
Agreed.
Aussie
Zoom-Zoom
I asked a question, if you think it's retarded give me a reason why. Or you could just link me to somewhere else where the pros and cons of running meth have already been documented, although I've probably read it.
Maybe I should be lessen the exaggeration on my comment about making more power; just say the gains from running Meth seem derisory.
He's still upset from me calling out his super gsr falling behind on the straights to a stock ls :lol:
Last edited:
Nick_C78
New Member
A question that was answered in the thread about the car. And it was retarded because even if it would somehow make the same power, it wouldn't be able to do multiple passes like the meth setup. Also, to clarify, it wasnt that you ASKED the question why is he using meth. It was your comments about lowering compression and switching back to gas would net him the same results. Common sense would tell you that no it wouldnt, and also there are hundreds if not thousands of builds like you suggested. None of which come close to his numbers. They are also not as, dare I say it, reliable.
So yeah, it wasn't that you asked a question. It was that you acted like you knew what you were talking about. I dont like when people spread bullshit. If you used words like "might" and made it sound more like an idea rather than like absolute truth it would have been different. You also dont admit when youre wrong. Youll try to be a wise ass about it instead. I may be a dick, but I admit when I am wrong and I dont spread bullshit as if is absolute truth.
So yeah, it wasn't that you asked a question. It was that you acted like you knew what you were talking about. I dont like when people spread bullshit. If you used words like "might" and made it sound more like an idea rather than like absolute truth it would have been different. You also dont admit when youre wrong. Youll try to be a wise ass about it instead. I may be a dick, but I admit when I am wrong and I dont spread bullshit as if is absolute truth.
Aussie
Zoom-Zoom
What? I read the thread, he chose meth cause it was cheaper to run he said, and safer. I said that it was safer, and more reliable, so now your just saying the same thing I said.
If you disagree, just disagree, but at least back it up with something more than " there's a reason race teams use it."
Race teams use it because they banned gas a long time ago, I'd say if gasoline mixtures were legal, the teams would have concocted some super petrol similar to F1 and be making more power.
If you disagree, just disagree, but at least back it up with something more than " there's a reason race teams use it."
Race teams use it because they banned gas a long time ago, I'd say if gasoline mixtures were legal, the teams would have concocted some super petrol similar to F1 and be making more power.
Who cares who believes me, you think I have some moral responsibility to provide 100% truthful and accurate statements 100% of the time? No one building a 15:1 meth motor is going to give a s*** what I say.
Last edited:
jbrown97ls
Active Member
I also, noticed that there was no in depth explanation of choosing the M1 (is that the fuel he uses?) I'm sure Aussie just wanted a better explanation as to why/how i makes more power. That link is mostly everyone bitching about a bad comparison of cams and shit talking anyway.
Muckman
Not a M0derator
Ok lets pull this thread back to the discussion. I welcome debate and love discussing the science behind racing. Lets examine both statements.
Here is a good fuel comparison from a racing perspective - http://www.smokemup.com/tech/fuels.php
The real argument here is octane. Higher octane allows us to run higher cylinder pressures without detonating, I think we all know this. Higher cylinder pressures by way of mechanical compression ratio, forced induction, or to a lesser extent ignition advance. Even on the same applications where the tuner switched from pump gas 93 octane to E85, the engine made more power. Why? More ignition advance is possible and other properties such as the lower heating value of alcohol, which translates into a cooler intake charge making more power. Methanol has an even higher octane rating than E85 for anyone who wants to get technical.
Here is a back to back dyno test of E85 vs Gasoline - http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_0904_e85_vs_conventional_gasoline/
I found many more E85 vs pump gas dyno charts that I can cite but the Import Tuner article reads the best. So I think I made my point there. Higher octane fuels (even fuels with lower BTU) will make more power.
Here's some basic reading on compression ratio which Im sure everyone knows, but just in case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio
And I even did my own compression testing on my own Integra because I wanted to quantify HOW MUCH POWER IS COMPRESSION WORTH, which I'm sure you remember. I tested using the same fuel, head, cams and turbo; everything except the compression ratio - 9 vs 13.5:1.
Here's a comparison at 0psi. What this means is the wastegate spring is pulled so the maximum exhaust is bypassed and the turbo will not create any boost. This is effectively naturally aspirated - albeit a little less efficient considering the turbine wheel is restricting the exhaust some.
Here's a comparison at a low boost of 5.5psi.
Aussie is referring to BTUs. While he is correct gasoline does contain more energy per volume than alcohol, more alcohol is injected to maintain the same lambda stoichiometric fuel ratio. Alcohols (Ethanol, Methanol) have a much lower stoichiometric ratio than gasoline. This means more alcohol is injected making up the difference in energy content.
Here is a good fuel comparison from a racing perspective - http://www.smokemup.com/tech/fuels.php
The real argument here is octane. Higher octane allows us to run higher cylinder pressures without detonating, I think we all know this. Higher cylinder pressures by way of mechanical compression ratio, forced induction, or to a lesser extent ignition advance. Even on the same applications where the tuner switched from pump gas 93 octane to E85, the engine made more power. Why? More ignition advance is possible and other properties such as the lower heating value of alcohol, which translates into a cooler intake charge making more power. Methanol has an even higher octane rating than E85 for anyone who wants to get technical.
Here is a back to back dyno test of E85 vs Gasoline - http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_0904_e85_vs_conventional_gasoline/
I found many more E85 vs pump gas dyno charts that I can cite but the Import Tuner article reads the best. So I think I made my point there. Higher octane fuels (even fuels with lower BTU) will make more power.
Higher compression ratio will always make more power in every circumstance, period, assuming everything else created equal. This is assuming you are not knock limited by your fuel (see above). I'm assuming you thought the "bigger explosion" of gasoline vs alcohol would make up for the lower compression but that's not how it works.
Here's some basic reading on compression ratio which Im sure everyone knows, but just in case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio
And I even did my own compression testing on my own Integra because I wanted to quantify HOW MUCH POWER IS COMPRESSION WORTH, which I'm sure you remember. I tested using the same fuel, head, cams and turbo; everything except the compression ratio - 9 vs 13.5:1.
Here's a comparison at 0psi. What this means is the wastegate spring is pulled so the maximum exhaust is bypassed and the turbo will not create any boost. This is effectively naturally aspirated - albeit a little less efficient considering the turbine wheel is restricting the exhaust some.
Here's a comparison at a low boost of 5.5psi.
Last edited:
Aussie
Zoom-Zoom
Agreed meth will produce more power than pump gas easy, I should clarify I wasn't implying he run 93. But since he's ordering m1, he could order leaded race gas with an even higher octane than meth. I think m1 is around 110? You can order 114+ fuels, although they prob cost an arm and a leg.
Still I just couldn't justify the trouble of running meth for the extra 15 or so hp that is gained over running pump gas in this application. I'm sure once he has more work in the head the gains will be much greater.
It's also not my intention to take anything away from the build, anyone still supporting the B this much has my utmost respect, just incase someone gets the wrong idea.
Still I just couldn't justify the trouble of running meth for the extra 15 or so hp that is gained over running pump gas in this application. I'm sure once he has more work in the head the gains will be much greater.
It's also not my intention to take anything away from the build, anyone still supporting the B this much has my utmost respect, just incase someone gets the wrong idea.
Last edited:
Nick_C78
New Member
So...your argument was that he should have went the more expensive and less reliable( and arguably less power) route to avoid going through the "trouble" of using meth?
Aussie
Zoom-Zoom
Shut up Nick, you haven't said a single useful thing in this thread. Now you're gonna hop back in like a little co-signer after Muckman posted something worthwhile.
Yes to me meth seems troublesome. Worrying about consistency because of it absorbing moisture, the corrosiveness, that he'll have to clean the system regularly, all things to take into consideration when switching to meth. So while it is safer in some ways, in others it's not. Most people I've seen jet a certain amount of it, not 100%
Muckman
Not a M0derator
The better argument would be high octane gasoline vs methanol.
-VP M1 methanol is 110 octane.
-VP110 gasoline is 110 octane.
-E85 (summer blend) from the pump of course can vary. It used to be published that it was 105 octane, this was not using the same R+M/2 system to calculate octane. Ive read the true octane value of pump E85 is closer to 96 - 98.
-VP C85 ethanol is 99 octane.
I couldn't find any direct comparisons of Methanol vs VP110 but plenty with E85 (remember Methanol is higher octane then E85).
Here is a comparison of pump E85 vs VP110
http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2703616
Here is a comparison of E85 and Q16. Q16 is gasoline with 116 octane! The two are nearly identical.
http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2996605
I don't think you have to worry about consistency or moisture considering its a high quality race fuel that's used for a short time, this is not. If you want to talk about pump ethanol then yes those are valid concerns.
-VP M1 methanol is 110 octane.
-VP110 gasoline is 110 octane.
-E85 (summer blend) from the pump of course can vary. It used to be published that it was 105 octane, this was not using the same R+M/2 system to calculate octane. Ive read the true octane value of pump E85 is closer to 96 - 98.
-VP C85 ethanol is 99 octane.
I couldn't find any direct comparisons of Methanol vs VP110 but plenty with E85 (remember Methanol is higher octane then E85).
Here is a comparison of pump E85 vs VP110
http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2703616
Here is a comparison of E85 and Q16. Q16 is gasoline with 116 octane! The two are nearly identical.
http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2996605
I don't think you have to worry about consistency or moisture considering its a high quality race fuel that's used for a short time, this is not. If you want to talk about pump ethanol then yes those are valid concerns.