wtf? dude, watering down gasoline wouldnt increase octane. Water breakes apart the chemical compound of gasoline and there for IT WONT BURN therefore its useless. Next time you reply to a topic, plz for the love of god re-read what you write.
wtf? dude, watering down gasoline wouldnt increase octane. Water breakes apart the chemical compound of gasoline and there for IT WONT BURN therefore its useless. Next time you reply to a topic, plz for the love of god re-read what you write.
As I said later in the thread, I said it as a tongue-in-cheek response to Historic's own remark about it being 50 octane fuel. However even your response says that the water will increase the fuel's reluctance to ignite - which is a basic definition of increasing octane, hence why I replied how I did.
well actually to clarify, it's not really the duration but rather the overlap that will bleed off compression.
i'm wanting to do it more for fuel mileage sake than overall performance, i don't want to run a cam that has a ton of overlap, just enough is all i want. i want to build the long rod roller motor for increased longevity and fuel mileage, by the combination of the higher compression and long rods as well as well as the coatings. i also want to be able to turn a low 13 to high 12 second 1/4 mile time. possibly faster if i don't have to give up too much in the mileage department. i too have been wanting to use the comp cams beehive springs on this engine. my goal is to make the valvetrain as light as possible but still strong enough to last 100,000 miles or more, well actually the whole engine for that long. i also want luxury car power and smoothness whicj means lot's of torque. basically i don't a peaky race only motor or an even more peaky street engine.
i feel like i can easily build the engine to be reliable, durable, able to pull down high 12 sec. 1/4 miles and still get over 20 miles to the gallon on pump gas. well that's my goal anyway and it's a ong way pff at the moment but i believe it is acheivable.
My goals as well Bnickel, I'm thinking 400rwhp out of a 331 with a roller cam and fuel injection - through a manual box, 3.9s so there isn't too much parasitic loss at the rear, and better highway rpm, and a carbon fibre driveshaft to cut rotating mass. With a more efficient drivetrain the 400rwhp shouldn't be much more in the engine, maybe around 450. I just want 400hp of maximum performance, like my sig, to match a great song. Also gives me reason not to build a car that I can't drive because the fuel just pours out the exhaust.
My reason for a big cam is so I can effectively use more compression, which I know is an investment in diminishing returns, but still, it's there to be had. It will also make the engine, because of the cam, more like a 4-cylinder, making power high up, so low down doesn't suck fuel much. Of course therein lies my dilhemma, I want to drive it, so torque is important, but I also want a good boot of power.
In recent times I've settled more on the 10.5:1 with a slightly lesser cam, to run on more readily availible fuel, with more torque. My thinking is though, that with a roller cam, I'm going to be able to run less overlap with less duration, but same flow, as ramps are more agressive, resulting in good low-end and just as good top-end. Now coupled with fuel injection and electronic ignition I'd be able to run a little bigger cam but still tune the injection to run good low down. My injection manifold of choice is an individual runner unit which I've heard tames a big cam as well, since the big reservoir that is usually the single plane manifold is not bouncing around from port to port sucking back on a cylinder when you need it to be either neutral or trying to force itself in. - Hence lending itself to an even bigger cam.
krash - as for volatility, I wouldn't put a match in a bucket of 50% gas 50% water.
i would, i'd even do it in a bucket of straight gasoline. gasoline does not burn, it's the fumes. as long as it is a bucket you should not get blown up, now if it was a can, totally different story. did you know you can actually put a match out in that bucket of gas? you can even put a cigarette out as well
i would, i'd even do it in a bucket of straight gasoline. gasoline does not burn, it's the fumes. as long as it is a bucket you should not get blown up, now if it was a can, totally different story. did you know you can actually put a match out in that bucket of gas? you can even put a cigarette out as well
Not unless it was emulsified, then I highly doubt it would light in an uncompressed state. Straight gas and water would stratify and be just as volatile as regular gas at the top of the bucket, especially a very full bucket as the surface would have greater exposure to oxygen.
My comment on the relationship between volatility and octane was meant to encourage some clarity of thought in response to the kneejerk and fairly insulting response made by an earlier poster.
i would, i'd even do it in a bucket of straight gasoline. gasoline does not burn, it's the fumes. as long as it is a bucket you should not get blown up, now if it was a can, totally different story. did you know you can actually put a match out in that bucket of gas? you can even put a cigarette out as well
I dunno what kinda gas you guys use but I know if I did that it'd still make one hell of a whomp as the fumes ignite.
Did you know it's also technically possible to extinguish a campfire with enough gasoline? If you dumped enough (now I mean in the realm of tens or even hundreds of thousands of litres) onto a fire it would starve it of oxygen and go out. As long as you submersed it quickly enough to encapsulate the flame. You'd have to dump it all at once, and over a large enough area that the flame travel was too slow to get to the edge before it was doused. Basically use the gas to stop oxygen getting to the flame.
Not unless it was emulsified, then I highly doubt it would light in an uncompressed state. Straight gas and water would stratify and be just as volatile as regular gas at the top of the bucket, especially a very full bucket as the surface would have greater exposure to oxygen.
My comment on the relationship between volatility and octane was meant to encourage some clarity of thought in response to the kneejerk and fairly insulting response made by an earlier poster.