Wet vs. Dry: Effectivnes?
I currently run a dry shot. I have seen too many intakes blow up from fuel puddling. On my setup I have NO lean spike. My car actually goes super rich and then slowly leans out to 11.5 to 12.0 AFR. Taking the chance on whether my setup has the right noids, etc., was way too complicated for me. I decided to eliminate all of that just by going dry and adding a boost a pump just in case. So far at 760rwhp/890rwtq on two .047 jets and I still have the boost a pump just in case. First .047 comes on at 3200rpm and the second one comes on at 4800rpm. I am going to mess around with it a little more to bring my tq down to around 750rwtq. Space out when I spray or lower the jets and add a third stage. Good average tq all the way across the powerband wins races on the street. 
TECH Apprentice
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
From: one step ahead of you
Originally Posted by VINCE
I currently run a dry shot. I have seen too many intakes blow up from fuel puddling. On my setup I have NO lean spike. My car actually goes super rich and then slowly leans out to 11.5 to 12.0 AFR. Taking the chance on whether my setup has the right noids, etc., was way too complicated for me. I decided to eliminate all of that just by going dry and adding a boost a pump just in case. So far at 760rwhp/890rwtq on two .047 jets and I still have the boost a pump just in case. First .047 comes on at 3200rpm and the second one comes on at 4800rpm. I am going to mess around with it a little more to bring my tq down to around 750rwtq. Space out when I spray or lower the jets and add a third stage. Good average tq all the way across the powerband wins races on the street.
Maybe just make the 2nd stage progressive with NX's new controller. Bring the 2nd on at 4000 and have it ramp up to be ***** out by 5500 or so. It would probably be cheaper to do that then by another noid, line, nossle, ect.
Originally Posted by VINCE
I currently run a dry shot. I have seen too many intakes blow up from fuel puddling. On my setup I have NO lean spike. My car actually goes super rich and then slowly leans out to 11.5 to 12.0 AFR. Taking the chance on whether my setup has the right noids, etc., was way too complicated for me. I decided to eliminate all of that just by going dry and adding a boost a pump just in case. So far at 760rwhp/890rwtq on two .047 jets and I still have the boost a pump just in case. First .047 comes on at 3200rpm and the second one comes on at 4800rpm. I am going to mess around with it a little more to bring my tq down to around 750rwtq. Space out when I spray or lower the jets and add a third stage. Good average tq all the way across the powerband wins races on the street.
Originally Posted by Robert56
Yep, thats basically the same set-up I am using. I also am thinking about a thrid stage, for the reason you stated "Good average Torque across the power band wins races...". Also, spreading the torque will help with parts breakage, but the guys that spray wet big outa the hole and use the torque spike to get moving more power to ya, but I'll pass you on the big end. The fuel puddling thing is highly debated, however, dry does not blow the intake/hood off.
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
The reason the wet kit atomizes the fuel better is because it uses the force and pressure of the N20 to help "blast" it into a finner mist. Fuel comming out of an injector at let just say 50 lbs will not be atomized as good or as fine of a mist as the fuel that get blasted though a good nozzle design with 1050 lbs of force behind it.
Pretty much the same as putting an M80 or a half stick of dynomite inside a water mellon. Both deffinetly get the job done, the 1/4 stick just makes smaller bits.
I would also like to contend that the delay on the fuel side might actually be a good thing. Better to have the N2O first then the fuel at a pretty low pressure with an atomization level equivalent of a Windex bottle allowing it to puddle easier. But, I'm not a chemical engineer, just an electrical engineer and figured I'd throw that up for debate. Any comments on the fuel delay beeing better after that thought?
Pretty much the same as putting an M80 or a half stick of dynomite inside a water mellon. Both deffinetly get the job done, the 1/4 stick just makes smaller bits.
I would also like to contend that the delay on the fuel side might actually be a good thing. Better to have the N2O first then the fuel at a pretty low pressure with an atomization level equivalent of a Windex bottle allowing it to puddle easier. But, I'm not a chemical engineer, just an electrical engineer and figured I'd throw that up for debate. Any comments on the fuel delay beeing better after that thought?
Good insight/explanation, I agree. On the delay, I think the optimum idea would be to get both at nozzle at same time and leave nozzle at same time. Generally, we like rich upto max torque and then richening out thereafter, so torque spike and lean spike together is not ideal, imo. But many do it.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
