ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
MERCEDES CLS AMG
MERCEDES CLS AMG
Nitrous oxide works so well because it is 33% oxygen compared to ordinary air, which is approximately 21% oxygen. Acting like a chemical supercharger, injecting nitrous oxide into an engine increased the amount of oxygen available to burn and thus the amount of power generated. Because nitrous is stored in liquid state it comes out of its tank cold. This increases the density of the intake air even further.
Injected nitrous into an engine without adding additional fuel will result in an ultra lean condition. This will quickly lead to detonation, which will melt pistons and blow head gaskets. Most nitrous systems consist of an adapter plate which sits between the throttle and the intake manifold. The adapter plate contains a petrol jet and a nitrous jet, which are controlled by a pair of solenoid valves. When the valves open they spray a controlled mixture into the intake. The amount of horsepower generated is determined by the size of the jets. An arming switch turns the system on, and a wide open throttle switch under the gas pedal opens the valves for an instant boost at any speed or RPM
I would recommend fitting a digimax progressive controller which will slowly feed the nitrous in and increase the amount injected into your engine over a 3 - 9 seconds. I also recommend upgrading your fuel pump to this spec -
http://www.williamsclio.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5571
This will be sufficient enough to increase the extra demand for fuel your engine will require. Behind fuel,timing is the most important area of Nitrous use to understand and follow. To get maximum power from a naturally aspirated or forced induction motor,you run the timing as high as detonation allows-you get max power there. By using better fuel ,you can put in more timing and get more power. Nitrous doesn't work that way. You must r****d the timing when using Nitrous. Why?.... Because it pumps up cylinder pressure so much that detonation may occur,resulting usually in broken pistons and bent rods.
For more info click here -
http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/tech/nitrous.shtml
Injected nitrous into an engine without adding additional fuel will result in an ultra lean condition. This will quickly lead to detonation, which will melt pistons and blow head gaskets. Most nitrous systems consist of an adapter plate which sits between the throttle and the intake manifold. The adapter plate contains a petrol jet and a nitrous jet, which are controlled by a pair of solenoid valves. When the valves open they spray a controlled mixture into the intake. The amount of horsepower generated is determined by the size of the jets. An arming switch turns the system on, and a wide open throttle switch under the gas pedal opens the valves for an instant boost at any speed or RPM
I would recommend fitting a digimax progressive controller which will slowly feed the nitrous in and increase the amount injected into your engine over a 3 - 9 seconds. I also recommend upgrading your fuel pump to this spec -
http://www.williamsclio.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5571
This will be sufficient enough to increase the extra demand for fuel your engine will require. Behind fuel,timing is the most important area of Nitrous use to understand and follow. To get maximum power from a naturally aspirated or forced induction motor,you run the timing as high as detonation allows-you get max power there. By using better fuel ,you can put in more timing and get more power. Nitrous doesn't work that way. You must r****d the timing when using Nitrous. Why?.... Because it pumps up cylinder pressure so much that detonation may occur,resulting usually in broken pistons and bent rods.
For more info click here -
http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/tech/nitrous.shtml
Last edited:
Donz144 said:
On the negative:
I haven't done it on a Clio, but I have had it done to a few other cars, and whilst the gain is impressive you have to concede that, and in spite of what some people say, there is a negative effect on reliabilty.
It's obvious, 50bhp more has to come at a price.
On the positive:
In my Mi16 205 (with only 167bhp engine) and NOS at 50bhp jets, I was able to comfortably out-drag a brand new M3 that my friend owns. At 120mph I decided that was enough but the M3 was a good half a dozen car lengths behind.
Regards
AJRMOTORSPORT said:
It's easy:
1. 205 Mi16 with (167bhp+50bhp) 227bhp, weighing 960kg = 236bhp per tonne
2. M3 with 320bhp, weighing 1500kg = 213bhp per tonne
By the way, I don't come from a background of having just had souped-up small cars (Stu8v will confer), I've also had an M3, E39 M5, 911 GT3, 30+ Integrales, Lotus Carlton, Maserati 3200GT, Esprit V8 TT etc, etc.
Regards
edit - and yes, I'm a part-time trader.
AJRMOTORSPORT said:
Yes, I dont think there is a car thats worth having that Derek hasn't owned
Nitrous or "chemical supercharging" has only one purpose and that is drag racing, anyone who tells you different must have deep pockets.
£ per £ its more cost effective to get cams etc etc. Of all the people who bought it all have now sold it on.
Its just too expensive and addictive, your bottle will always be empty, I cant deny its fun and it certainly makes for good power with a good kit but IMHO its not a good investment long term.
BTW my mate used to run 75bhp jets in his valver with no ill effects no controller just one big hit.
stu8v said:
Tell me about it!!! At the 'infamous' Donny trackday (in joke for us
) I went through an entire bottle in one session, and my bottle was the biggest they could fit, it's the size of a fire extinguisher. It has to be £100+ to fill it, which I haven't done yet, so in the long term I think it's probably better to look elsewhere. Better still, it's probably cheaper to lose weight first.Have you seen the RR site with the turbo clio? 250bhp+...... looks very interesting, I might give them a call.
Regards
bang on the button stu, N20 is fun.....for a while.
I used to carry multiple CO2 fire extiguishers in my boot.......and used to go through obcene amounts of gas...............but its off my car now........
Unless your running large shots, its not as fun as people say, and if you do run large shots you have to design your engine around N20 operation.
I used to carry multiple CO2 fire extiguishers in my boot.......and used to go through obcene amounts of gas...............but its off my car now........
Unless your running large shots, its not as fun as people say, and if you do run large shots you have to design your engine around N20 operation.
Fred2001Dynamic said:
Fair point, but I'd disagree, especially in the context of any engine that uses variable valve timing. A well set-up FI engine would be producing boost at 2.5k rpm, long before any VVT engine would be anywhere near it's power band. Better throttle response and pick-up from an NA, but ultimately the FI would be far more powerful.
Ideally you'd want supercharging.
Regards
Fred2001Dynamic said:
I'll assume RR are telling the truth, but in any case it'd be the same for most modern generation FI engines, but their engine is producing 230lb/ft at 5k rpm, with a maximum level of 250lb/ft; I stand to be corrected, I'm only going on what I know of NA engines generically, but I can't see how the 172-style (is that the F4R) engine could get close to that level of torque at any RPM.
If we were talking V6/S6 etc, I'd be inclined to say the above is possible from an NA, but we're talking about a VVT 4-pot.
Again, I stand to be corrected.
Regards
BenR said:
In terms of tuning, it's far cheaper to tune an FI than an NA, you have more bhp/lbft per CC pro rata, the torque is produced further down the rev-range, and consequently they're quicker; isn't that what everyone is after when they're tuning their vehicle - more useable power?
The only applications in motorsport that I can think of where FI isn't used is as a result of it having been banned, not as a result of it being the preferred power delivery.
Regards
edit - by the way, the crudest form of tuning an FI is increasing boost, however, the work done on my Delta included everything that you'd do to an NA, i.e. drop forged decked/dished pistons, fire rings, 3-angle valves, honed block, matched rods/pistons, knife-edged crank etc.
In my opinion, the BIGGEST problem with 1000bhp Jap-cars is that often the 1000bhp is absolute fantasy bullsh!t, and, they rarely handle. Now THAT is boring!!
I dont quite think your getting my point, sorry.
If i were to spen my days doing easy step tuning on turbos, slapping on boost controllers and sending them off again, i'd literally run into a wall headfirst.
The challenges associated with holding VE on a high revving NA engine and concentrating on burn quality and holding favourable characteristics is what interests me.
I'm not saying FI is ultimately a thousand times faster, but i'm not always interested in ultimate speed, not everybody is interested in the drive that FI gives. A well designed medium output FI system is great low down, but a henously powerful one is just as peaky as a high output NA system, unless you have taken substantial efforts with aux systems to prevent lag.
And without sounding disrespectful, but listing a number of parts and modifications that you had done to a delta means nothing, as its the design of the components, not merely the fact that you have them. The amount of effort i put into controlling the minute details and component reations within the phenomenas themselves, that is what interests me.
As for the japs and their tuning houses, some produce massive power vehicles, barn stormingly quick.....but i leave all of their ideas well alone as their tuning methods are still back in the 70-80's, depite their OE manufacturers being the most advanced in the world.
If i were to spen my days doing easy step tuning on turbos, slapping on boost controllers and sending them off again, i'd literally run into a wall headfirst.
The challenges associated with holding VE on a high revving NA engine and concentrating on burn quality and holding favourable characteristics is what interests me.
I'm not saying FI is ultimately a thousand times faster, but i'm not always interested in ultimate speed, not everybody is interested in the drive that FI gives. A well designed medium output FI system is great low down, but a henously powerful one is just as peaky as a high output NA system, unless you have taken substantial efforts with aux systems to prevent lag.
And without sounding disrespectful, but listing a number of parts and modifications that you had done to a delta means nothing, as its the design of the components, not merely the fact that you have them. The amount of effort i put into controlling the minute details and component reations within the phenomenas themselves, that is what interests me.
As for the japs and their tuning houses, some produce massive power vehicles, barn stormingly quick.....but i leave all of their ideas well alone as their tuning methods are still back in the 70-80's, depite their OE manufacturers being the most advanced in the world.
"... If i were to spen my days doing easy step tuning on turbos, slapping on boost controllers and sending them off again, i'd literally run into a wall headfirst."
I don't see why it should be so difficult, compared to an NA engine. Mapping is probably harder on a FI engine as although the limits are easier to reach, the resulting damage is normally far more serious if you cross those limits.
"... I'm not saying FI is ultimately a thousand times faster, but i'm not always interested in ultimate speed, not everybody is interested in the drive that FI gives."
If it's done properly, as per my Delta, then it's as smooth as any NA, more akin to a V6 infact.
"... A well designed medium output FI system is great low down, but a henously powerful one is just as peaky as a high output NA system"
Agreed, something as small/light as a Clio would most definitely need an LSD, but in my opinion it needs one at 172bhp. I note that on BB's site they don't show any video clips of their Clio under hard acceleration, or on the track either. There's nothing more yawn-inspiring for me than to watch 1/4 mile races/drags, absolutely pointless and means very little when it comes to driving enjoyment.
"... unless you have taken substantial efforts with aux systems to prevent lag."
Lag isn't an issue these days, or certainly not when compared to the days of Cosworths (for example), where you'd measure lag with a calendar.
"... And without sounding disrespectful, but listing a number of parts and modifications that you had done to a delta means nothing, as its the design of the components, not merely the fact that you have them."
The point I'm making is that the same effort needs to go into building an FI engine as it does for an NA, it isn't simply about running high boost. That comment also relates to the fact that I'm not 'wet behind the ears' when it comes to engine development either.
"... As for the japs and their tuning houses, some produce massive power vehicles, barn stormingly quick.....but i leave all of their ideas well alone as their tuning methods are still back in the 70-80's, depite their OE manufacturers being the most advanced in the world."
In my opinion, being quick has to relate to the real world, i.e. RR and dyno figures are nigh-on useless if the car/engine isn't tractable - if you can't use all of that massive bhp, then why have it?
Regards
I don't see why it should be so difficult, compared to an NA engine. Mapping is probably harder on a FI engine as although the limits are easier to reach, the resulting damage is normally far more serious if you cross those limits.
"... I'm not saying FI is ultimately a thousand times faster, but i'm not always interested in ultimate speed, not everybody is interested in the drive that FI gives."
If it's done properly, as per my Delta, then it's as smooth as any NA, more akin to a V6 infact.
"... A well designed medium output FI system is great low down, but a henously powerful one is just as peaky as a high output NA system"
Agreed, something as small/light as a Clio would most definitely need an LSD, but in my opinion it needs one at 172bhp. I note that on BB's site they don't show any video clips of their Clio under hard acceleration, or on the track either. There's nothing more yawn-inspiring for me than to watch 1/4 mile races/drags, absolutely pointless and means very little when it comes to driving enjoyment.
"... unless you have taken substantial efforts with aux systems to prevent lag."
Lag isn't an issue these days, or certainly not when compared to the days of Cosworths (for example), where you'd measure lag with a calendar.
"... And without sounding disrespectful, but listing a number of parts and modifications that you had done to a delta means nothing, as its the design of the components, not merely the fact that you have them."
The point I'm making is that the same effort needs to go into building an FI engine as it does for an NA, it isn't simply about running high boost. That comment also relates to the fact that I'm not 'wet behind the ears' when it comes to engine development either.
"... As for the japs and their tuning houses, some produce massive power vehicles, barn stormingly quick.....but i leave all of their ideas well alone as their tuning methods are still back in the 70-80's, depite their OE manufacturers being the most advanced in the world."
In my opinion, being quick has to relate to the real world, i.e. RR and dyno figures are nigh-on useless if the car/engine isn't tractable - if you can't use all of that massive bhp, then why have it?
Regards
your trying to tell a die hard NA entusiast, i still cant stand turbos........i own one, but it drives me up the wall lol.
I just dont find them that interesting, despite their the pros and cons from either setup, i just like screamers.
oh, unless we talk about superchargers........now those i can stand.
I just dont find them that interesting, despite their the pros and cons from either setup, i just like screamers.
oh, unless we talk about superchargers........now those i can stand.
cant speak from clio experience but had a wizards of nos kit on my 106
standard engine was 103bhp (1.6 8v), with gas i got 179.5bhp (using approx 85bhp ish jets and a minimax controller - which j3ned called a digimax earlier)
as others have said, its perfect for 1/4 milng and the odd bit of usage but anymore and it gets very expensive.
the amount of in gear power it gives you is unreal. (my 106 only weighed 820kgs) the increase really was amazing with the gas switched on.
the kit is now fitted to my mates astra GSI on throttle bodies with the same jets in it and he was able to keep up with his mates m3 cabriolet round elvington airfield..
standard engine was 103bhp (1.6 8v), with gas i got 179.5bhp (using approx 85bhp ish jets and a minimax controller - which j3ned called a digimax earlier)
as others have said, its perfect for 1/4 milng and the odd bit of usage but anymore and it gets very expensive.
the amount of in gear power it gives you is unreal. (my 106 only weighed 820kgs) the increase really was amazing with the gas switched on.
the kit is now fitted to my mates astra GSI on throttle bodies with the same jets in it and he was able to keep up with his mates m3 cabriolet round elvington airfield..
just like to add to that
i was running nearly double my engines standard power for a year, did lots of drag runs etc and when i stripped my engine down everything was fine
even had the muppets at top gear performance put that full shot in at 2k rpm on the rolling road and it didnt blow up.
i was running nearly double my engines standard power for a year, did lots of drag runs etc and when i stripped my engine down everything was fine
even had the muppets at top gear performance put that full shot in at 2k rpm on the rolling road and it didnt blow up.
