Your post is a bit cryptic, so here goes. It sounds like you're saying there's no way NOS can be accidently ingested.

If you don't think NOS Spraying 6 inches from a tube sucking 30 psi of negative vacuum through it is going to be ingested into the engine them you need to do a little homework. For the very same reasons the OP decided to use NOS instead of Co2 (Accidental ingestion would cause the car to fall flat on it's face) some amount of NOS can and will be ingested. What that amount is I have no idea.

 

Does negative vacuum = positive pressure?


Steve

 

When intakes start blowing, perhaps!

 

 

Whats funny is that some of them actually do blow!

 

Yeah...where the hell did he go?..I havent heard that name in like 5 years....used to be on E46Fanatics.........

 

now this is a laugh

yes;... they are showing up at the tracks....where...????

I am sure I will eat up many bags of popcorn before this one gets answered

 

sure it can..I have a line blow off at speed and ingested it. I use a medical grade so it smelled like spearmint . LOL

As for sucking into the intake...LOL anything can as far as that goes get drawn into an improperly seal intake system. But the effectiveness of the NOS under that example would be negligible. Call any NOS company and tell them what you just posted. Who am I to challenge your knowledge and wisdom on the properties with NOS.


To set the record I am not supporting the questionable whp claims here but I do question the that whp gains caused by the accidental nos and the comments on how it may have been ascertained.

 

The OP himself claimed that due to his intake design, the entire reason he's USING NOS instead of Co2 is because of the fact that the Co2 would likely get sucked into the intake (Which would make the car fall on it's face during acceleration). Creating an area of low pressure relative to the high pressure air rushing towards it is always going to create a vacuum effect.

Depending on the positioning of the intake tubing and NOS sprayers it's entirely possible to ingest NOS under the right conditions (Especially with several high speed dyno fans spraying on the car). Doing so would create an obvious and noticable increase in power.

I don't care how cold your intake air is, you're not going to see a 60 HP bump from a cooler intake charge. Do people gain 60 HP when driving around during winter months? When it's 36 degrees here in the morning does my car make 265 whp instead of 231? I didn't think so . Conversely, when I'm on the track and see 170-180 degree intake temperatures I don't lose 60 HP.

An extreme example: at 30 degrees F 10 psi of air weighs about 0.136 lbs/cubic foot, at 200 degrees (Crazy Heatsoak), the same cubic foot of air at 10 psi weighs about 0.101 lbs, which means that the same charge of air will have ~26% less density due to it's temperature. I'm sure we all know that increasing the density of an air charge doesn't mean that you increase the amount of HP generated by that surplus of air. Aka adding 15% more air doesn't mean you make 15% more power right off the bat, the opposite is also true, subtracting 15% of the air the engine had doesn't mean you're now automatically making 15% less power. There are other factors at play here, temperature alone couldn't explain the numbers the OP is giving us. Even if it could explain the HP, it doesn't explain the anomaly of torque, which is 60-70 lb-ft higher than we've seen on a car with similar mods.

It would be interesting to know what intake temps the OP is even seeing, as that would obviously give us some clues as to what is going on.

Edit: If any math wizzes happen to catch a mistake in my calculations let me know, trust me, I'm no mathematician!

 

Shouldn't it technically be No2...not, NOS. NOS = Nitrous Oxide Systems http://www.holley.com/index.asp?division=NOS.

I'd just hate for the MINI community to start sounding like Paul Walker

I'll put my flame suit on now, and while I'm at it, use this damn popcorn smiley that has become the number one smiley

 

I like NOS, it's got more of a fast and furious sound to it . Honestly I don't even understand the point... having an extra 100 HP for 10 seconds is, well, boring. I'd rather save some money and make another 100 HP all the time .

 

Agreed

 

no2 has it's time and place... certain people do things with their cars that they would rather have 100hp on comand for 10-13 seconds... considering the cost difference between adding a nos system on their cars and adding 100 all the time hp, an nos system is very cost effective.

I'm simply not an engineer... however, wouldn't the supercharger eat up whatever cumbustable properties the no2 would have in the air particles. Although i guess it doesn't matter as it boils far below any realistic ambient temperature. It's plausible to me that you would be voiding any increase in power due to the increased octane no2 would give and rather you are seeing benefits because of the intake air temps. After all the m45 is a pretty violent blower.

At any rate, people have seem fairly remarkable hp differences by freezing ic's... blasting co2/no2 on the ic during a run, or even using ice... but i do agree that there has to be more going on here then juts a frozen ic. If it were just a frozen IC would we see insane tq numbers like that? I could imagine seeing high hp numbers because of a intake charge wayyyyyy lower then ambient... but that kind of tq that low in the powerband seems a bit weird.

Who knows... guess it's one of those had to be there things. (for the record that smiley is pretty fun.)

 

I know I know, I was just kidding, it'd drive me nuts to have a power button like that. I'd spend $900 a month on No2 fillup's .

Couldn't find any information on No2 combustion temperatures, Nitrogen in itself isn't flammable, and I'm not sure what the auto-ignition temperature of o2 is.

The HP in itself is hard to believe, but the torque is just too far fetched. I can see if you got your intake temps sub zero a 30+ HP advantage (Provided you had the fueling to allow for the increased air density). That much torque is just crazy though. That's 20 lb-ft more than Jan's 2.0 stroker motor.

On a tangent, I didn't see any mentioning of larger injectors, he's putting down 250 wHP/Lb-ft of torque with 340 cc injectors?

Now maybe I understand why Mark never put the popcorn smiley in, I'm starting to regret requesting it!

 

Rusty

Being a nitrous person for the last 20 yrs I've seen enough broken hearts with it, but used properly there is nothing quite like it.

At the moment I'm trying to decide which combo is really best out there and where do I want to go with my Mini as I'm doing my 2nd track day at the end of this month, in fact I'm going to do the track day before I've been up the strip this year.

Anyway at the moment if I can make the hp that you guys are at the ground with the eaton as an everyday driver I'm going to be happy espically at 2600lbs with me in it.

But come May 11th and I'm up against 10sec VW Rabbits in the first Euro shoot out at the drag strip, If I can run Mid to low 11s I'm going to be happy.

So is the ideal world a Mini that can go around the track then go to the strip and run mid to low 11s and still get 25+ mpg??

 

Hey Mike

I forgot to say without Nitrous I launch at the ECU rpm limit which with the clutch in is 7400 while in gear it reverts back to 7000.

With the nitrous on and if I've flat shifted it I've seen in the 8k range but I've always put that down to my data logger not reading it right but then again............

 

Yes... emphasis on the track thing. Breaking and turning to be exact.

 

on the track, "braking and turning" is much better than "breaking and turning"!

 

indeed... i should change my usual routine. Mebbe my lap times would benefit.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Infact the N20 Cools the SC down so you get more effcient boost ON TOP of the fact that the SC is helping to atomize the N20 so that it is infact achieving a more effective burn as it's ingested... it's delicious!

oh and as a side note, Hubie and I dumped 7 lbs of CO2 onto the alta TMIC (before the run not durring) 4 years ago with his TCed MINI, made 50 WHP. So is it possible, sure, but we were running some 30 lbs of TC boost

 

Alright, just wanted to clear some things up I'm finding wrong with the thread so far. Its late, waiting on my friend to get back from photographing some more cars for magazine coverage, and I have nothing better to do besides sleep (I'll get to that in about 10 mins!).


Correcting the bold comments:

1. Since this forum is magical about picking out words and twisting them, I stated using nitrous instead of carbon dioxide would be better for the possibility that it could be ingested, not the fact that it is highly likely. It is possible, but....
2. Not likely considering the high-speed fans were PUSHING the liquid nitrous out of the engine bay and onto the windshield. I stated the hood was open, and it would be more likely for nitrous to be ingested with the hood shut then it would be with the hood open and fans blowing. As another test to determine the intake consumption of nitrous with the hood shut, spraying the nitrous at a stoplight (read: no airflow, hood shut, definite possibility that nitrous would get ingested if it could be), the car emitted no signs of nitrous ingestion - namely higher revving in idle, changing AFRs, etc. So we have seen that though POSSIBLE, I can very well assume it is not being ingested, but for the naysayers, we will keep testing on the dyno and on the street to see what's really happening here.
3. Speaking of naysayers.... I read a post where Jan was able to pull 49.9 hp from a JCW MINI on ECU tuning alone. Lets assume 49.9HP was the maximum amount of power able to be pulled from the ECU during tuning for a second, regardless of the supporting or other mods. If 50HP came from tuning on my car, could 10HP be resultant of a cooler, FROZEN intake charge? Hmmm.... now with the assumption that Jan is a normal, mortal human being, is it possible that another normal, mortal human being could pull more HP from ECU tuning alone if you don't believe N2O being sprayed on the intercooler did anything (directly contradicting the three dyno charts showing where I sprayed nitrous and where I did not)?

I think instead of assuming each and every individual's cars have the maximum amount of available power drawn from it, there MIGHT be more power to be pulled either by doing one of two steps you are not doing and I have been doing - N2O intercooler sprayer and the ECU images I was running. Everyone has done everything else on my car without the types of gains, why is it blasphemy to assume a 50HP tune and a 10HP colder charge temp OR a 60HP tune? I am not debating the remainder of rustyboy's post as it is all correct. Except for the part where he thought I was still running stock 340CC injectors as my mods list clearly states RC Engineering 440CC's.

I'd also like to stop a terrible tread spreading on this thread dead in its tracks. Chemstry 101: CO2 is the compound describing CARBON DIOXIDE as there are one parts carbon and two parts oxygen, DI- being the leader for TWO. In the same respect, NO2 would therefore be the compound describing NITROGEN DIOXIDE, using one part nitrogen and two parts oxygen, and is a poisionous pollutant. N2O uses two parts nitrogen and only one part oxygen and goes by the compositional nomenclature NITROUS OXIDE, typically shortened to "nitrous" or sometimes referred to by ricers "NOS" (pronounced with a Southern draw, NAWZ).

• CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
• NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)
• NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)

In case you were wondering, I got C's in all three chemistry classes in college, hopefully you did better and just put the 2 in the wrong place!

 

Nitrous Oxide has already had its bad reputation in the early 80's when guys used too much No2 and not enough fuel combinations. Nitrous has come a long ways since then.
The Hot Rod slang term for Nitrous Oxide is NOS. It was derived from the company that to date has been around the longest and had the prominent name in the business. Nitrous Oxide Systems. They were one of my sponsors on my Super Gas Camaro. I ran a three Stage computer controlled Nitrous system to rail my small block to an ET of 7.86. Normally I ran in the 9.90 index. Easier on the parts and wallet. If used sanely a few seconds burst on the track (about 3 second) can help bring your mph up very quickly. But then you have to use SELF-CONTROL with it !!

No2 is not combustible by the way (for the smart guy) it is an oxidizer. So that means it does not burn.
For those that have not used it as they say "DON"T KNOCK IT INTIL YOU HAVR TRIED IT "

And again if you really understand how No2 works then reading that it was drawn in, ingested, sucked or pulled in with a vacuum would have HIGHLY irritate whp/tq readings. There would be an inconsistency in the amount and the pressure of the Nitrous, not to mention no additional fuel to help prevent leaning out the intake charge.

Most minis do not have high WHP that can propel them from 0-100 in record times. So occasionally when you come across a Cobra or similar neck jarring street rod it is nice to hang with them from 0-100.

I do not know to many that venture out and build there own No2 systems and the only one I know of for the MINI is the Venom M7 system. It is safe has small consistent gains and easy to install. I have helped many to set them up and have also improved on them slightly. On my own Mini.....well its my own designed Nitrous set up. And there is more then one No2/Fuel nozzle and fuel pump.

 

let's be PERFECTLY CLEAR HERE>>>>>>

the ONLY reason we got 50whp out of the car was this....

it had a UNICHIP on it before we started

 

I think they should sell the UNICHIP to parents that don't want their kids to get in trouble for speeding.

If you're competing for the biggest gains thread title, you should set up a car with a UNICHIP, plasma booster, vortex generator, Nology wires, and 87 octane gas, then "tune" it back to stock

 

Mike did you log what the timing and a/f was doing on the runs?