[halfelite]

Originally Posted by Davenow

If you set your boost referencing controller up properly, the boost tapering will not cause the alcohol spray to taper.

If you run 20PSI as your peak boost, and you taper to 16PSI, simply set your max spray point at 16PSI. This will have 2 benefits.
1. You get full spray earlier, you can go more aggressive in that 16 to 20PSI range, which means not only do you make more power there than if you had part spray till 20, but you can map it to swing from 16 to 20 a bit faster.

2. You still have full spray as it tapers down to 16.


If set up properly, the performance difference is almost impossible to measure.


Aquamist is nice, but IMHO its a waste of money. Lots of bells and whistles that cost a ton, but dont make it any safer or give it the ability to make worthwhile power increases over a simple boost based kit. Of course the Aquamist guy will come in with a ton of "facts" abotu why their kit is SO much safer and will make SO much more power, however, the dyno tells a different story. The reality is that they arent making ANY more power, and that no failsafe in the world can stop that blank spot from getting to the cyl and either dump boost fast enough or switch maps fast enough. If any aquamist user is so sure, I challenge them to put a car on a dyno, and yank the plug on their alch kit at full spray at 25PSI. Nothing to worry about right? Exactly. The only foolproof failsafe is no alch kit at all. Short of that, setting your engine management up to listen for and respond to detonation is the safest way. Combine that with a simple boost dump failsafe and you are about as safe as you can ever get. The AEM kit is 400 bucks and comes with a failsafe. The Snow kit can reference MAF or boost for its metering, and metering it off the MAF will give you the same results as metering it off IDCs (actually, in my opinion, its better than duty cycle referencing, as the MAF will tell you how much air you are getting, I dont care how much FUEL I am using, I want to know how much air is going into the cyl. Take 2 cars, exact setups, but one car has 750cc injectors and one has 850cc injectors.
The car with the 850cc injectors will have lower duty cycle, and end up getting less of the spray into the cyl due to this. Now, I am sure you can set the alch kit up to compensate for that, but why?? Just reference the MAF if you are that worried about it.


I am not saying Aquamist is crap, or that duty cycle reference based control sucks, its just that "getting what you pay for" only works up to a point. And its not a $900 point. And that IDC based metering is largely marketing hype.

I agree about Labonte. Worked for Snow, left, took their designs with him, then badmouthed their products, which, at the time I am refering to, were the EXACT same thing he was selling. Some people argue that since he designed them, that they were HIS products. BS, he worked for Snow, designed them FOR Snow, to be sold as Snow products. They are Snow's products.

I agree with most of this all kits do the same thing. Only reason i chose aquamist is there support is top notch and will answer any questions. Even going beyond there product to help you modify it to suit your needs. the hsf kits are both boost and idc you can pick wich you like. And also i like using the LOW failsafe on the aquamist if you dont reach the amount of flow water you have set it wont let you boost . And if you go over the flow it will cut boost.

[Davenow]

Originally Posted by halfelite

I agree with most of this all kits do the same thing. Only reason i chose aquamist is there support is top notch and will answer any questions. Even going beyond there product to help you modify it to suit your needs.

I guess its all in how much you care and how much value you put in that. I myself dont need much of any support (beyond replacing a defective part) so I dont so much care about that. And I buy it in the form I need, and all I need is fairly basic.

Originally Posted by halfelite

And also i like using the LOW failsafe on the aquamist if you dont reach the amount of flow water you have set it wont let you boost . And if you go over the flow it will cut boost.

That IS nice, however, in my experience you either have a functioning kit or you dont. The only times I have seen low flow are cases where the people were using tap water or let some other impurities into the system, that clogged a filter/nozzle up. And that is a gradual thing, so you can see it on datalogs and such. All the sudden the engine isnt performing QUITE the same, knock correction is changing for the worse ETC.

I also check on my kit once a month or so to make sure everything is in good working order, so I dont really worry about that. But again, that could be more specific to MY case (or others like myself)

[halfelite]

Originally Posted by Davenow

I guess its all in how much you care and how much value you put in that. I myself dont need much of any support (beyond replacing a defective part) so I dont so much care about that. And I buy it in the form I need, and all I need is fairly basic.

I like to go beyond the kit itself to add functions that no kit has and richard is pretty good at telling you how to make it work with there kits even if its taking apart the gauge to desolder components off of it

Originally Posted by Davenow

That IS nice, however, in my experience you either have a functioning kit or you dont. The only times I have seen low flow are cases where the people were using tap water or let some other impurities into the system, that clogged a filter/nozzle up. And that is a gradual thing, so you can see it on datalogs and such. All the sudden the engine isnt performing QUITE the same, knock correction is changing for the worse ETC.

I also check on my kit once a month or so to make sure everything is in good working order, so I dont really worry about that. But again, that could be more specific to MY case (or others like myself)

Most people should check there system but they dont. So always good for them to have the best. Im a person that will pay for the best if i think it will be good for me.

[oscargarza88]

i have the AEM meth kit and it is great. I mean i dont have any fancy features or anything just an LED to let me know when it is working and if somehting goes wrong...
cheap and effective i think... glad i got it, soo much more torqier feels great!

[disturbed1]

the best meth kit is a reliable one. I like the coolingmist cuz it comes with an adjustable controller. The tuner you chose will also determine how good your meth kit is with the tune.

[Davenow]

Originally Posted by halfelite

Most people should check there system but they dont. So always good for them to have the best. Im a person that will pay for the best if i think it will be good for me.

The best is only going to be as safe as its installation quality. And most "home users" arent going to do it in the 100% best safest way.

[Davenow]

Originally Posted by disturbed1

the best meth kit is a reliable one. I like the coolingmist cuz it comes with an adjustable controller. The tuner you chose will also determine how good your meth kit is with the tune.

Any progressive kit has that type of controller. SMC has it, Snow has it, I have yet to see a progressive alch kit without it.

I myself dont like the coolingmist kits because they are more complicated to install, which isnt the problem, its the fact that the directions SUCK (at best) and if you call them and tell them you read the directions, they basically say "its right there in the directions.

At least that is the level of support I got, I know another person who got the same useless response.


Honestly, if I were doing a kit tomorrow (I will be doing one as soon as my motor is done/broken in, I had an SMC kit but I sold it to try the AEM kit)


I would do

AEM
Snow
SMC

In no particular order. Well, AEM and snow before SMC, simply because I have already had the SMC (dont get me wrong, I was EXTREMELY happy with it. I just wanted to try something new and as a vendor, I get a really nice price on it.)

[papatel]

I haven't tried any other kits but I'm completely satisfied by SMC's solution. Its a snap to install and its extremely reliable (my experience). If it says its ready to spray (little green LED) then I am confident everytime i smash the pedal to the floor that my engine will get that cooling, octane boosting methanol it needs to prevent detonation.

One thing with all kits though: I've noticed that running 100% methanol seems to bring problems. Leaks, pump failures... I run 75%/25% meth/water and i have no issues.

The support at SMC is also quite amazing. I shorted my pump controller when i was working on some interior stuff and Steve sent me a new one the next day at no charge.

[Davenow]

One thing I love about the SMC kit is the simplicity. Its SOOOO easy to install, which makes it a bit safer for people who may not be 100% as far as installation skills.

And Steve at SMC... What can I say about that guy. He answered his phone and very happily answered a couple questions I had at 8PM on a Friday night. He has no problem spending an hour on the phone with you BSing about alch injection.

Like I said, the only reason I got rid of mine for the AEM kit is that it looked very interesting to me, the price point is killer and since I sell them, I wanted to have firsthand experience with that kit (because I have been recommending it over other kits lately, because of the price and feature set)

[gabedude]

BTW, Snow and Labonte are basically the same. The engineer who used to work at snow started Labonte. Those kits are not very plug and play but they tune and work just fine.

[Richard L]

Interesting topic... I disagree with some comments from Davenow.

As a non-aquamist vendor himself, it wouldn't be fair to contradict or dismiss some of the functional and practical features included in the Aquamist system.

Davenow:
"hype" definition: intensive or exaggerated publicity or sales promotion. Which part of the aquamist's description is "hype" and not supported by fact?

[Davenow]

Originally Posted by Richard L

Interesting topic... I disagree with some comments from Davenow.

As a non-aquamist vendor himself, it wouldn't be fair to contradict or dismiss some of the functional and practical features included in the Aquamist system.

Davenow:
"hype" definition: intensive or exaggerated publicity or sales promotion. Which part of the aquamist's description is "hype" and not supported by fact?

I would agree about it possibly not being super ethical as far as the statements I have made about aquamist, HOWEVER, if you look back through my history here and on Nasioc, I am not saying anything I havent said for years. Its just VERY overpriced when it comes down to what it actually does. Besides that, I kind of am an aquamist dealer, since I sell the Perrin kit, which is just a rebadged Aquamist.

hype? That it is any really measurably safer than the rest. That it makes any measureable amount of power over the rest.

Dont get me wrong, I am not "calling them out" in a singular sense (is that the word I am looking for?) as pretty much every manufacturer of every performance part out there claims that their part is better than the competitions part. Even if they are identical (in some cases, they are)
Is it better and safer? On paper sure. Real world? Put it on a dyno and you will see. More of the power difference would come from properly sizing the nozzle to the requirements of the car, and maintaining(sp?) the proper line pressure. Which any properly functioning kit should handle both of those things.

I constantly (ok not constantly, but plenty of times) see people saying how much better MAF based metering is than boost pressure, because boost tapers. Just set peak spray to be lower than the peak boost, and when it tapers, spray wont taper where it needs it most.
Referencing the IDC is a joke IMO, the only thing it accomplishes is taking something basic and needlessly complicating it. You arent going to see a difference in power. Besides that, I give a rats ass about my IDC (relative), I care about how much air is going into the cyl.
Sorry that is a little sidetracked rant, I was thinking about a conversation I had with someone about how much better their kit was than mine (I had an SMC at the time) because they read the IDC to meter their spray.

The Snow/Labonte thing is a perfect example of this. When the Labonte kits were first available, there were claims of superiority in both safety and power made on their end. Even though, it was, down to every last screw and wire, a Snow kit. At least as far as I could tell from the kit I looked at.

To anyone that is so sure their kit makes more power than the next, I challenge you to do back to back testing on the same car, same dyno, same day, tuned by a WELL KNOWN THIRD PARTY. If you own a company selling meth kits, you can afford to do this. Prove your kit makes more power and any expense will be easily covered by selling more kits. Show me your kit making more power and I will sing your praises. This goes to ANY brand/kit/setup.


My point is, if you buy a well designed, well made, WELL INSTALLED (key element) kit, its no more or less safe, and within a couple hp/tq in one place or another across the curve.

The AM kit is surely the right kit for some people. But for many, its far more than they need to spend. From a materials and such standpoint is it worth the money? I guess. But its still way overcomplicated.


Anyway, I just want to make it clear that I am not just slamming them. And that I am not doing it because I do or dont sell some other kits. I have always said these exact same things, and I half ass do sell their kit (rebadged as Perrin)

[Richard L]

This is a good sensible and well balanced reply. I welcome this type of discussion.

Few points I like to add, which I believe you would accept our point of view...

Reference to MAF: Two minor points, which may or may not be important to some WAI manufacturers (more on this later). MAF is not totally linear to air flow. Secondly, it does not hold enough information on actual engine load. IDC is the final processed signal based on multitude of information gathered from sensors, transient load (acceleration), engine temperatures, RPM etc. Amount of fuel needed is then altered, based on a given specific fuel consumption (afr vs power). Different AFR is required for cruising and for acceleration.

We based our flow on IDC because it makes the most sense to us. We even match the HSV's electromechanical property to the fuel injector, in terms of impedance, winding inductance and speed. Another aspect of a IDC reference system is consist to fuel flow - if you are going to add second source of cooling and octane variance to the primary fuel system, it pays to be consistent throughout the power producing range.

Hype:
Here is a good example of the word, as used in it proper context. A 150psi (checkvalve) PPS (progressive pump speed) system doesn't have the dynamic range to track MAF. At best, it can only increase the flow by 70% with reasonable atomisation. Even it could on paper, the inertia of he rotating pump is never going to track the MAF variation during transient conditions.

Picking up from an early comment on accuracy of MAF, why bother with accuracy - the PPS delivery flow can never be accurate - the word "hype" really means something here.

Power challenge:
We have had this kind of challenges before, power producing capabilities for $$$/bhp gain. We will accept any challenge provided the flow of each system meets the claimed delivery. Regardless of IDC, MAF or MAP based. If the flow can not track the input signal in an ideal setting test bench conditions, what chance has the system in the real world conditions. Needless to say – they declined this stage of the challenge.

Cost justification:
Exclude the poor £/$ exchange rate, Aquamist is still very reasonably prices in its own right – I know you don’t think accurate delivery and good failsafe is necessary, it is a luxury one can omit. But if you believe it is a sensible addition to a well tuned methanol/water equipped engine, putting a few hundred dollars to minimise engine damage is a sound investment.

Adding a gauge/flow sensor based failsafe mechanism to any PPS will eventually cost very closed to the $900 aquamist HFS-5 system. We also have a $650 failsafe equipped system. We must not assume “hype” will automatically sell systems, people are a great deal more intelligent than you think, “substance” is what people are looking for these days. Aquamist is not complicated, putting the correct wires into well labelled terminal posts takes 20-30 minutes. Mechanical installation is similar to any other similar systems.
.
.

[Davenow]

I am running out the door right now so I have to brief, I just want to address one thing quick.

*edit*
I have had no caffiene and was up WAY to late last night, so I probably jump around a bit in this, please read the entire thing before replying because I would bet my life I say a couple things that seem off if you dont read the entire thing to find an explanation of one statement or another elsewhere in the post.

Saying that I dont think accurate delivery and a good failsafe are necessary is a bit too.. Not sure of the word I want here.... Well in any case, its stretching it a bit as far as the point I am making (or trying to make)

Accurate delivery and a good failsafe are obviously important.
HOWEVER
The degree of accuracy is the thing. Yes the system you are using is insanely accurate, but does it NEED to be that accurate. Is there any measurable advantage to this degree of accuracy? When other systems are using a method that while less accurate, has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be totally adequate in terms of functionality. In other words, they make the power, and they do it very well. So is there a reason to take it that much further at the expense of the final cost of the kit itself? I just dont see it. Again, I have seen tons of different setups using several different water/alch/meth injection methods, and other than progressive kits being easier to tune smoothly (and just generally work a lot nicer), I have yet to see any indication that one kit really does better or worse than another.

As far as a failsafe goes. Bottom line, engine management. Set your EM up to listen for the beginnings of det more closely, and to react a lot more forcefully (for lack of a better word) to it and you will be safer than 9 out of 10 failsafes out there. Failsafes that dump boost are in my opinion a joke, nothing more than a warm fuzzy blanket of nothingness. At 6500rpm and 25PSI of boost, there is no way you can drop the pressure in the system fast enough to prevent that blank spot from hitting the cyl before the pressure is lowered. I doubt its possible at any RPM. I know that your failsafe Map switching is a better option, but again, how fast can this happen??? I havent done this but I would definately be incredibly suprised (I seriously cannot see any possible way) if you took a car, at full boost yanked the plug out of the meth kit, and the failsafe could change the map before the blank spot hits the cyl. In my experience, if the kit fails you ARE going to see det. (depending how aggressive your mapping it of course) Which brings me back to my philosphy that the only true failsafe is not to run it at all. Now, I dont call that much of an option, so beyond that, I would say that properly set up engine management is the only true failsafe. 99% of people have no business driving around with a ragged edge meth tune. (because they dont have the rest of the "whole picture" of their engine modifications to dictate tuning the meth map that aggressively) So if you dont go wild with the tuning on the spray, and your EM is set up to deal with detonation properly, you in all likelyhood will survive a system failure. I have run my kit out of spray at full boost more than once in the past (my own dumb fault, I had a level sensor, it worked, I just spaced out and didnt check it) and my motor never let go as a result. That car had 55k on it, and before I traded it I did a leakdown test and the motor was mint. I know several other people who have had some sort of a failure, be it running out of mix or something stupid going wrong (because most failures are just that, something stupid that in all likelyhood could have been avoided) and none of them have lost their motor. So one of the big selling points of a failsafe system is based on a fear that isnt fully justified, the fact that most people seem to be under the impression that a kit failure means instant engine damage. When in reality, if you have a pretty conservative tune on the spray, a kit failure stands little chance of causing engine damage unless you keep beating on the car. But no one that sells kits with a failsafe will ever tell you that because that shoots a big hole in one of their largest selling points.

But at the same time, any failsafe out there will make a bad situation (the kit fails/whatever) a bit safer for some people, as it makes it a bit moer dummy-proof. In other words, if they are too dumb to keep their foot out of it till they get home, the switched map/lowered boost pressure/whatever will keep it safe.

As far as the back to back power testing, I would 100% do it if I had the funds. I am far too small time as far as my business goes at this point. If I had ready access to a dyno, a test mule car and the budget to buy one of your top of the line kits as well as whatever more "basic" kit I wanted to put it up against (I honestly dont think it would make a whole lot of difference there) and the time to switch kits/retune the car and do a bunch of pulls on both kits, I would.

But obviously at this point that isnt realistic for me to do. When I am bigger, have my own shop and dyno, DONE. No problem I will spend the money just to have proof to back up my statements. As a manufacturer of these kits, I think maybe its something you guys (not just you at AM, but any of the alch/water/meth kit builders) should think about. I think solid proof that your kit makes more power (and if more, at least enough to justify the cost difference) and that your failsafe can catch a worst case scenario failure (complete flow stop at high RPM and high boost, because that is what most people are worried about, even if they dont voice it) without any or with minimal detonation, then man, I gotta think the other companies out there would almost go out of business. Show me a big power difference, even if its elsewhere in the curve (not peak I mean) and I will have an AM kit in my vehicle tomorrow (well, not tomorrow, my motor isnt even fully back in yet lol). If you have access to a dyno for the day, I cant see it costing you much more than a grand to do it, including the price of the other kit. If the competition wont step up, dont give them a choice. Buy their kit, and do the test yourself. If I was building a kit to go head to head against yours, I would buy your kit in a heartbeat just to show how much of a waste of money all the bells and whistles are. (Dont take the wrong, I am just saying that if I was selling my own kit, I would want to make my competition look like garbage, it only makes good business sense ) SO personally, I think you guys should buy a kit from one or two of the other guys, do the testing, publish the results. If you are worried about an ethics thing as far as naming names, just refer to them as "competator kit A and B VS our OMGWTFBBQ kit" or something like that. You are just as capable of putting your money where your mouth is as they are. I dont know what your profit margin is on these kits, but again, show REAL and large enough advantages, and there is no way that you wont make the cost of the testing back in short order. Because dynos dont lie (well, if the testing is controlled enough they dont) but very solid advantages on paper, almost always lie. Yes your kit is technically better, yes on paper it looks like it will produce far better results. In real world use, I have yet to see an evidence that it actually does. And I know several tuners that feel the same way. Its a case where "good enough" is truely good enough. And going beyond that with ultra high resolution and ultra tight flow tolerances just doesnt produce measureable gains.
At least in my experience anyway. I would love for you to prove me wrong, because that would mean that REAL testing has been done, instead of claims based on theory. The real testing gets REAL info out there. Real info is meaningful, and good for the community as a whole. Theoretical gains based on the belief that the higher end features will produce the gains, are really good for absolutely nothing.


You are absolutely right that once you add a high end failsafe many kits will be in the same price range. Actually I think the Snow kit, once fully priced out is slightly more expensive. But I also think that is way overboard and is too much $$$ for the needs of most people.



In any case, I am glad you arent taking this as me just being some guy who knows nothing (not that I know everything, but I have a pretty good idea of where I am coming from, or at least like to think I do) that is slamming your stuff for the sake of slamming it. I really am not intending this as slamming your product any way. I just honestly feel that for 99% of people, its far more than they need. I am just putting my feelings/experiences/thoughts out there.



Now, building a high end track car? I am talking 500+whp all day every day tune, repeated laps on the track, way high tolerances, everything tweaked to be at its edge? Then I can definately say that the extra accuracy and "tolerances" from a fluid deliver standpoint, would be worth it, and its the way I would go without a doubt. (well, I would do the perrin kit because its your kit anyway and I can get it at wholesale )
However, 99% of people, the real use is short WOT bursts of acceleration, almost never more than 7-10 seconds in duration at a shot (well, slightly more for drag strip use) and power levels far below what I was talking about above.


Back to "hype" for a moment. I dont say that to mean that you guys sit there and think of ways to word things to build this hype. In this case, I think the "hype" is building itself. I watched someone watching a video of your gauge/failsafe/controller thing (DDS3?) and all the video was, was a clip of it in action, the result was the person going "see dude, how badass is that" in a "how much more badass is that than the other kits out there" with the belief that it was going to actually get him something more than what I consider a very expensive light show. Obviously calling it a light show is WAAAAY oversimplifying what it does, but again, do you NEED to see this stuff?
But when I asked him "why do you need that, how is that going to make you faster or safer" there was no answer. Because there cannot be any answer other than "it doesnt".
I care about 3 lights.

ON
Spraying
Problem

Short of that, dont bug me.

Now, being one that has also spent a bunch of money on mods that in all reality "did nothing", I totally understand if the visual aspect of that system adds a couple hundred dollars worth of value for some people. Hell man I am on the edge of buying an HKS CAMP2 just because its INSANELY cool and I have a head unit that can be used as a display for it. But buy it for the right reasons. Does it look really cool? yes. Does it tell you its working? Yes. Do you get ANYTHING else out of it? Yes it has that bar meter thing for flow. Who cares? Its either working or its not. If the meter showed a problem with the flow I could see some use, but if there is a problem your failsafe would already be reacting to it before the driver even sees the meter drop. Which is why I consider it nothing more than an expensive light show. But again, I totally understand that this aspect of it could be worth a decent amount of money to some people.



Crap.. I gotta go. I had to go 20 minutes ago. So much for being brief.

I do have more to say though, I will be back.

Unless I forget, in which case, I will still be back, just, later lol.

[halfelite]

Only thing I can say about the dds3 gauge is that the bar graph lets you know when you have a clogged nozzle or a simple leak. I know you countered with logs will also show this. But who wants to log there car everyday. I understand logging once a month or if you are going to the track. But for a DD logging all the time is out of the question i think for most people. And setting up EM to manage Knock better out is hard to do when under normal driving condition in california you get knock from running piss poor 91.
Now I also no a protune will help with this to a degree. But you cant have a high knock level and except it to only go off in meth failure.