No puddling with LS2 Intake.
07-13-2005, 03:40 PM
#1
No puddling with LS2 Intake. I have read from a GM sight that the newer LS2 intake was also designed to prevent fuel puddling at front of intake. The LS1 and LS6 apparently has fuel puddling issues. Has anyone else read this?
After hearing all the rumors, I am still waiting and wondering if my LS6 intake will ever burst from my wet nitrous system. If it ever does I will buy the LS2.
After hearing all the rumors, I am still waiting and wondering if my LS6 intake will ever burst from my wet nitrous system. If it ever does I will buy the LS2.
07-13-2005, 03:47 PM
#2
Interesting reading;
Here's an explanation on puddling by NXRicky.
Puddel-ing myth or fact.
What is puddle-ing?
Can it cause a backfire in my intake?
Why is this term used so often?
pud·dle P Pronunciation Key (p d l)
1.
a.A small pool of water, especially rainwater.
b.A small pool of a liquid.
Puddleing is a term used to described fuel collecting in an intake on the walls or in the floor of an intake.
Puddle-ing cannot make a car back fire. The fuel will not self ignite in this arena. And fuel cannot puddle in an intake.
The term is over used to describe a backfire. People will say “It is always the nitrous’ fault” when there is backfire while using nitrous. “It puddle” This thought process is simply because it is so violent when it does happen.
I have read the posts over the last few years about fuel collecting in an intake. OK
And the lean backfires. Ok
Question is “what lit the fuel in the runner”. What cause the flame to come into the intake side of things and light the fuel nitrous mixture in an intake? I believe it has to do the velocity. Airflow coming into cylinder must be decreased some how for the flame to be allowed into the intake track. This is why all nitrous companies tell you not to spray an engine below 3000 RPM’s. The nitrous injecting into your engine has a higher velocity then the actual engine cfm flow at that rpm. Air stalls or slows down just enough for the flame in the combustion chamber to come back up into your intake port and then you have a backfire. .
Also you will only be able to put X amount of nitrous and fuel into and engine. Being that it is an air pump the pump can only move so many cfm’s and a nitrous system can not pressurize the intake track. (non-boosted applications)
Damp areas are not going to light themselves; if there were any damp areas in an intake. Areas that are wet after an intake has been ran on car are from vapors that are hanging around once the car is turned off.
Air hushing into a cylinder helps push the unburned and burning media into the exhaust. If you ever started a car without a header or exhaust manifolds on; you have seen the flames. So as long as velocity is kept up no problems, this is a per cylinder way of looking at it.
Air travels though a 347cubic inch engine at __156__ mph at 6500 RPM with a 75mm throttle body. Now lets say from the backside of your throttle body to the exhaust port is 3 ft. It only takes air .0131 of a second to go from the throttle body to the exhaust port. So in no way can the fuel puddle in an intake. There is not enough time.
Note that these calculations make some assumptions like non-turbo, and airflow is equal to displacement, etc.
Here's an explanation on puddling by NXRicky.
Puddel-ing myth or fact.
What is puddle-ing?
Can it cause a backfire in my intake?
Why is this term used so often?
pud·dle P Pronunciation Key (p d l)
1.
a.A small pool of water, especially rainwater.
b.A small pool of a liquid.
Puddleing is a term used to described fuel collecting in an intake on the walls or in the floor of an intake.
Puddle-ing cannot make a car back fire. The fuel will not self ignite in this arena. And fuel cannot puddle in an intake.
The term is over used to describe a backfire. People will say “It is always the nitrous’ fault” when there is backfire while using nitrous. “It puddle” This thought process is simply because it is so violent when it does happen.
I have read the posts over the last few years about fuel collecting in an intake. OK
And the lean backfires. Ok
Question is “what lit the fuel in the runner”. What cause the flame to come into the intake side of things and light the fuel nitrous mixture in an intake? I believe it has to do the velocity. Airflow coming into cylinder must be decreased some how for the flame to be allowed into the intake track. This is why all nitrous companies tell you not to spray an engine below 3000 RPM’s. The nitrous injecting into your engine has a higher velocity then the actual engine cfm flow at that rpm. Air stalls or slows down just enough for the flame in the combustion chamber to come back up into your intake port and then you have a backfire. .
Also you will only be able to put X amount of nitrous and fuel into and engine. Being that it is an air pump the pump can only move so many cfm’s and a nitrous system can not pressurize the intake track. (non-boosted applications)
Damp areas are not going to light themselves; if there were any damp areas in an intake. Areas that are wet after an intake has been ran on car are from vapors that are hanging around once the car is turned off.
Air hushing into a cylinder helps push the unburned and burning media into the exhaust. If you ever started a car without a header or exhaust manifolds on; you have seen the flames. So as long as velocity is kept up no problems, this is a per cylinder way of looking at it.
Air travels though a 347cubic inch engine at __156__ mph at 6500 RPM with a 75mm throttle body. Now lets say from the backside of your throttle body to the exhaust port is 3 ft. It only takes air .0131 of a second to go from the throttle body to the exhaust port. So in no way can the fuel puddle in an intake. There is not enough time.
Note that these calculations make some assumptions like non-turbo, and airflow is equal to displacement, etc.
07-13-2005, 04:09 PM
#3
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NXRicky is plain wrong first of all. The weak attempt at logic doesn't hold up at any point in the argument.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
07-13-2005, 04:16 PM
#4
For some reason, I would highly doubt that GM would have designed that particualr intake to prevent this...I'm sure they knew some new C6/GTO owners would use a wet nitrous kit, but they wouldn't have cared because whatever damage they incurred would not have been covered under warranty anyway.
07-13-2005, 04:35 PM
#5
Closed ex-Sponsor Account
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by white2001s10
NXRicky is plain wrong first of all. The weak attempt at logic doesn't hold up at any point in the argument.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
Now your simple attempt to prove me wrong. please. A bucket is no were near like the floor of an intake.
I can not believe some one would be so stupid to tell people to spray highly atomized fuel into a buck and try to suck it out with a vaccuum. You just cause a fire, total un safe... A vaccuum in no shape or form could ever produce the volume of air that could even come close to the air move through an engine. I notice you said put it on the lowest setting, so sad.Your statement sure sounds like another one that use to visit this board.
And the puddle discussion goes on...
Ricky
07-13-2005, 04:53 PM
#7
This statement:
"I have read from a GM sight that the newer LS2 intake was also designed to prevent fuel puddling at front of intake. The LS1 and LS6 apparently has fuel puddling issues. Has anyone else read this?"
Does not equal this statement:
"The LS2 will mount the throttle body on a slightly upward angle to prevent water puddling at the base."
"I have read from a GM sight that the newer LS2 intake was also designed to prevent fuel puddling at front of intake. The LS1 and LS6 apparently has fuel puddling issues. Has anyone else read this?"
Does not equal this statement:
"The LS2 will mount the throttle body on a slightly upward angle to prevent water puddling at the base."
Trending Topics
07-13-2005, 04:59 PM
#8
I found the article. The second statement is the correct one.
Doesn't water (ingested water from ram air) and fuel flow very close to the same? So I think the LS2 will help wet nitrous users.
Doesn't water (ingested water from ram air) and fuel flow very close to the same? So I think the LS2 will help wet nitrous users.
Last edited by gollum; 07-13-2005 at 05:06 PM.
07-13-2005, 05:07 PM
#9
Closed ex-Sponsor Account
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different worlds, the water is not atomized the fuel in a good wet kit is exp. NX,Tnt, Nitrous Outlet. You see there is not a problem with puddleing in an intake, it is misplaced buy people who can not explain back fires, and wet kit haters...
Ricky
Ricky
07-13-2005, 05:10 PM
#10
Originally Posted by white2001s10
NXRicky is plain wrong first of all. The weak attempt at logic doesn't hold up at any point in the argument.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
You cant be serious.I guess all these millions of people that spray using wet systems all have puddling issues.
Its not possible!!!!!!!! Unless you are using a crappy nozzle desighn or the tune up is WAY off.Ricky you better quite desighning nitrous systems and start desighning barbie doll clothing or something..
I cant help but to think you are puposly trying to get a arguement going.I just can not see any purpus in having a technical discussion on something that has been covered time and time again.....Im out of this one...
Dave
07-13-2005, 05:14 PM
#11
Originally Posted by NXRICKY
Different worlds, the water is not atomized the fuel in a good wet kit is exp. NX,Tnt, Nitrous Outlet. You see there is not a problem with puddleing in an intake, it is misplaced buy people who can not explain back fires, and wet kit haters...
Ricky
Ricky
07-13-2005, 05:15 PM
#12
Closed ex-Sponsor Account
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nitro Dave's Nitrous Outlet
No disrespect intended here.But you are saying that the Main Manager over Nitrous Express has NO idea what he is talking about
You cant be serious.I guess all these millions of people that spray using wet systems all have puddling issues. Its not possible!!!!!!!! Unless you are using a crappy nozzle desighn or the tune up is WAY off.
Ricky you better quite desighning nitrous systems and start desighning barbie doll clothing or something..
I cant help but to think you are puposly trying to get a arguement going.I just can not see any purpus in having a technical discussion on something that has been covered time and time again.....Im out of this one...
Dave
You cant be serious.I guess all these millions of people that spray using wet systems all have puddling issues.
Its not possible!!!!!!!! Unless you are using a crappy nozzle desighn or the tune up is WAY off.Ricky you better quite desighning nitrous systems and start desighning barbie doll clothing or something..
I cant help but to think you are puposly trying to get a arguement going.I just can not see any purpus in having a technical discussion on something that has been covered time and time again.....Im out of this one...
Dave
Ricky
07-13-2005, 05:36 PM
#13
The article states:"The LS2 intake will mount the throttle body on a slightly upward angle to prevent water puddling at the base" unquote.
Where does this water come from I say? Rain ingested from ram air or ram air mods. Wouldn't you think water and fuel would flow very close the same?
So using the LS2 intake would benefit wet nitrous users the same as it would prevent rain water from puddling in the intake.
Where does this water come from I say? Rain ingested from ram air or ram air mods. Wouldn't you think water and fuel would flow very close the same?
So using the LS2 intake would benefit wet nitrous users the same as it would prevent rain water from puddling in the intake.
Last edited by gollum; 07-13-2005 at 05:48 PM.
07-13-2005, 05:47 PM
#14
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NXRICKY
HMMMM now hang tight pilgram. I have shown that it does not puddle, and its just math, a week attempt I think not.
Now your simple attempt to prove me wrong. please. A bucket is no were near like the floor of an intake.
I can not believe some one would be so stupid to tell people to spray highly atomized fuel into a buck and try to suck it out with a vaccuum. You just cause a fire, total un safe... A vaccuum in no shape or form could ever produce the volume of air that could even come close to the air move through an engine. I notice you said put it on the lowest setting, so sad.Your statement sure sounds like another one that use to visit this board.
And the puddle discussion goes on...
Ricky
Now your simple attempt to prove me wrong. please. A bucket is no were near like the floor of an intake.
I can not believe some one would be so stupid to tell people to spray highly atomized fuel into a buck and try to suck it out with a vaccuum. You just cause a fire, total un safe... A vaccuum in no shape or form could ever produce the volume of air that could even come close to the air move through an engine. I notice you said put it on the lowest setting, so sad.Your statement sure sounds like another one that use to visit this board.
And the puddle discussion goes on...
Ricky
A shop vac can equal the flow of one intake port, and if someone wanted to try it, they could use a nonflamable liquid. Point is that it need not be done.
The use of the word stupid was a mistake on your part and doesn't help support your opinion. I think you are in denial.
Atomized is not a correct description of fuel droplets. In fact fuel itself, even as a molecule is composed of many atoms.
If you are sure fuel doesn't collect in the plenum, then where does the required energy come from that rips the intake apart?
Why do some people's engines die at the end of a nitrous run when they let off the gas?
May I hear your best answers to those questions without name calling?
07-13-2005, 05:53 PM
#15
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nitro Dave's Nitrous Outlet
No disrespect intended here.But you are saying that the Main Manager over Nitrous Express has NO idea what he is talking about
I hope you are not suggesting that he cannot be wrong on an issue because of his job.
The issue has been covered time and time again, and should have been settled long ago if not for denial,
and to be semi-fair... the wet-kit lovers /dry haters.
07-13-2005, 05:56 PM
#16
Originally Posted by white2001s10
Why do some people's engines die at the end of a nitrous run when they let off the gas?
May I hear your best answers to those questions without name calling?
May I hear your best answers to those questions without name calling?
thats too funny
07-13-2005, 06:22 PM
#18
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Port Richey
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by white2001s10
NXRicky is plain wrong first of all. The weak attempt at logic doesn't hold up at any point in the argument.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
Second, GM doesn't design intakes around nitrous oxide. In factory form, the only thing that puddles in either intake is oil from the PCV system.
Third, any (and that's ANY) wet system other than port-fogger will puddle fuel in the intake manifold carbureted or fuel injected. That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Activate your wet system into the bottom of a bucket for 10 seconds. To simulate the intake port feeding from the plenum, stick a shop-vac hose into the bucket 2" from the bottom of the bucket. Use the lowest setting on the vac. Then see what you end up with in the bottom of the bucket.
A company selling nitrous kits wants you to think it's rocket science to justify the high prices of kits these days.
Do your own independant testing to eliminate bias.
That much fuel doesn't stay in suspension at the high pressure seen in an intake plenum at WOT.
Then there is the "pressure" you speak of???
At WOT the manifold pressure is only slightly above ambient with the TB blade full open...the velocity is greatest. The velocity of the air in the plenum is plenty sufficient to keep the fuel in suspension if you stay within the recomeneded parameters that most nitrous manufacturers recomend....Such as "over 3000 rpm" and "no more than a 200 shot down the manifold". These are basic guidelines..yes you could spray more...or at lower rpm. But you will begin creeping towards an unsafe condition. Obviously the more fuel you flow down a manifold the more volume and velocity of air it will take to keep it in suspension.
Lastly your example with the vacum sucks. You will not keep up velocity comparable to a running engine at WOT with your example.
Then you say the use of the term "atomized" is incorrect. That term has been used with internal combustion engines as long as I can remember. Here is the defination of atomized
at·om·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t-mz)
tr.v. at·om·ized, at·om·iz·ing, at·om·iz·es
1 To reduce to or separate into atoms.
2 To reduce to tiny particles or a fine spray.
3 To break into small fragments.
4 To subject to bombardment with atomic weapons
Looks like 2 and 3 fit fairly well.
I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your arguements...but the bottom line is wet kits are very very safe when used with half a brain and present no abnormal problems. Yes you can create the conditions for a nitrous backfire to happen...but these conditions would go against what manufacturers recomend and know to be safe.
I understand if you are a proponent of dry kits for certain logical reasons. But to try to instill fear for false reasons just isnt gonna happen in this forum. If you want to prove a point...have a plan and back up your theory with solid logical information.
07-13-2005, 06:30 PM
#19
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Port Richey
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the LS2 intake is concerned...I wouldnt bother with it. It seems to be a substandard intake as far as performance is concerned and I dont believe the LS6 to be a bad design for a wet kit. If you were going to upgrade step up to a FAST. Its a great design all the way around.
I cant see the subtle changes between LS2 and LS6 justifying the choice.
I cant see the subtle changes between LS2 and LS6 justifying the choice.
07-13-2005, 06:33 PM
#20
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by white2001s10
Gotcha, you admited the air fuel mix would cause a fire. Nobody is going to vacuum up fuel, because they know there could be a fire, and they also know the fuel is going to puddle in the bucket, so no need to even try it. If they do try, I want to see pics of the fire though.