New To Nitrous: Help Me Choose A Wet Kit
09-09-2005, 07:19 AM
#21
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 1,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White,
Why don't you start a thread and talk about how wonderfull dry kits are?
The title on this thread is "help me chose a wet kit" You rants and raves rarely have anything to do with the thread topic.
Why don't you start a thread and talk about how wonderfull dry kits are?
The title on this thread is "help me chose a wet kit" You rants and raves rarely have anything to do with the thread topic.
Originally Posted by white2001s10
I have actually been trying to separate the facts from the B.S. on here. When wet advocates post things like the above quote, less experienced tuners and nitrous users believe it and that's a problem.
It's not an issue of rocket science or a simple comparison between "your" dry system and "your" wet system.
Those who understand how the code in the PCM works would know your claims quoted above are very misleading. And when you say you've dyno tuned many cars on nitrous, my own opinion is that it's ineffective to try to tune for nitrous on a dyno in the first place. Second I question if you mean tuning the PCM calibration or just the nitrous system?
If you're actually tuning PCM, then you must know how different the tune will be between and wet and dry system, and further that you can run a dry system without a MAF in SD mode.
From your argument though, it doesn't sound to me that you are aware of many important facts.
For those who do not know (possibly including you?), here are some facts about wet vs dry.
The PCM will sense no added load with a wet system and therefor add no additional fueling or decrease the spark advance during N2O activation. This leaves you with a more aggressive tune than the typical untuned dry system.
With the normal (MAF used) dry system, the PCM senses much more added load which puts you lower in the VE table and much lower in your spark advance table. This runs the engine pig-rich, often maxing the injector pulsewidths, and with very little spark advance unless you actually adjust the calibration (tuning) to correct for this.
The factory calibration is already too rich when running NA, but the added load of the nitrous passing through the MAF creates an over-rich situation.
You'd be comparing 10:1 AFR with 18* advance against 11.5:1 AFR with 26* advance... hardly a fair comparison.
This means that an equally jetted wet system will make much more power than the dry, unless the tune is also equaled. If each system was running the same spark advance and the same AFR, then you'd see pretty much identical power output from each. Using a dyno to show positive results in an un-fair test is not a new idea or uncommon, but I'm calling B.S. on your testing.
The only thing a dry system would fail to match would be the fuel distribution error that the wet system would be giving you.
Being so, this would potentially allow you to tune leaner with the dry system before generating a problem.
The advantage in cost, potential power, and safety go to the dry system.
Just because the typical wet system is running with more spark advance and a leaner AFR, does not make the wet methodology superior to the dry. It only means that you're not comparing similar tunes anymore. A good tuner could absolutely get as much or more power from dry nitrous delivery. It seems that you are admitting to not getting a good tune for your dry system customers.
Before you try to claim all of this as theoretical, forget it. I and others have already done the tests and established the facts.
My discussion excludes port systems, but by the same means that gives dry N2O delivery the advantage over wet-flow, a port-injected N2O system is superior to both. Port delivery minimizes distribution error for both the N2O and fuel.
So why would someone choose a dry system when they could spend over twice the cash, and require several added safety devices by running a wet system? I have no idea, but it just doesn't seem as cool to go dry.
It's not an issue of rocket science or a simple comparison between "your" dry system and "your" wet system.
Those who understand how the code in the PCM works would know your claims quoted above are very misleading. And when you say you've dyno tuned many cars on nitrous, my own opinion is that it's ineffective to try to tune for nitrous on a dyno in the first place. Second I question if you mean tuning the PCM calibration or just the nitrous system?
If you're actually tuning PCM, then you must know how different the tune will be between and wet and dry system, and further that you can run a dry system without a MAF in SD mode.
From your argument though, it doesn't sound to me that you are aware of many important facts.
For those who do not know (possibly including you?), here are some facts about wet vs dry.
The PCM will sense no added load with a wet system and therefor add no additional fueling or decrease the spark advance during N2O activation. This leaves you with a more aggressive tune than the typical untuned dry system.
With the normal (MAF used) dry system, the PCM senses much more added load which puts you lower in the VE table and much lower in your spark advance table. This runs the engine pig-rich, often maxing the injector pulsewidths, and with very little spark advance unless you actually adjust the calibration (tuning) to correct for this.
The factory calibration is already too rich when running NA, but the added load of the nitrous passing through the MAF creates an over-rich situation.
You'd be comparing 10:1 AFR with 18* advance against 11.5:1 AFR with 26* advance... hardly a fair comparison.
This means that an equally jetted wet system will make much more power than the dry, unless the tune is also equaled. If each system was running the same spark advance and the same AFR, then you'd see pretty much identical power output from each. Using a dyno to show positive results in an un-fair test is not a new idea or uncommon, but I'm calling B.S. on your testing.
The only thing a dry system would fail to match would be the fuel distribution error that the wet system would be giving you.
Being so, this would potentially allow you to tune leaner with the dry system before generating a problem.
The advantage in cost, potential power, and safety go to the dry system.
Just because the typical wet system is running with more spark advance and a leaner AFR, does not make the wet methodology superior to the dry. It only means that you're not comparing similar tunes anymore. A good tuner could absolutely get as much or more power from dry nitrous delivery. It seems that you are admitting to not getting a good tune for your dry system customers.
Before you try to claim all of this as theoretical, forget it. I and others have already done the tests and established the facts.
My discussion excludes port systems, but by the same means that gives dry N2O delivery the advantage over wet-flow, a port-injected N2O system is superior to both. Port delivery minimizes distribution error for both the N2O and fuel.
So why would someone choose a dry system when they could spend over twice the cash, and require several added safety devices by running a wet system? I have no idea, but it just doesn't seem as cool to go dry.
09-09-2005, 09:15 PM
#22
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beckley, WV
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks 860 PERFORMANCE....i think I'm going to go with a NX wet kit...but, a direct port system has crossed my mind since winter isn't to far away and it will be garaged then until spring. I'm not interested in a dry kit for sure...I know some members swear by them but I'd rather go wet or a DP setup. Thanks for the help and keep the ideas coming. They're greatly apreciated!!!
09-09-2005, 09:59 PM
#23
Originally Posted by white2001s10
I have actually been trying to separate the facts from the B.S. on here. When wet advocates post things like the above quote, less experienced tuners and nitrous users believe it and that's a problem.
It's not an issue of rocket science or a simple comparison between "your" dry system and "your" wet system.
Those who understand how the code in the PCM works would know your claims quoted above are very misleading. And when you say you've dyno tuned many cars on nitrous, my own opinion is that it's ineffective to try to tune for nitrous on a dyno in the first place. Second I question if you mean tuning the PCM calibration or just the nitrous system?
If you're actually tuning PCM, then you must know how different the tune will be between and wet and dry system, and further that you can run a dry system without a MAF in SD mode.
From your argument though, it doesn't sound to me that you are aware of many important facts.
For those who do not know (possibly including you?), here are some facts about wet vs dry.
The PCM will sense no added load with a wet system and therefor add no additional fueling or decrease the spark advance during N2O activation. This leaves you with a more aggressive tune than the typical untuned dry system.
With the normal (MAF used) dry system, the PCM senses much more added load which puts you lower in the VE table and much lower in your spark advance table. This runs the engine pig-rich, often maxing the injector pulsewidths, and with very little spark advance unless you actually adjust the calibration (tuning) to correct for this.
The factory calibration is already too rich when running NA, but the added load of the nitrous passing through the MAF creates an over-rich situation.
You'd be comparing 10:1 AFR with 18* advance against 11.5:1 AFR with 26* advance... hardly a fair comparison.
This means that an equally jetted wet system will make much more power than the dry, unless the tune is also equaled. If each system was running the same spark advance and the same AFR, then you'd see pretty much identical power output from each. Using a dyno to show positive results in an un-fair test is not a new idea or uncommon, but I'm calling B.S. on your testing.
The only thing a dry system would fail to match would be the fuel distribution error that the wet system would be giving you.
Being so, this would potentially allow you to tune leaner with the dry system before generating a problem.
The advantage in cost, potential power, and safety go to the dry system.
Just because the typical wet system is running with more spark advance and a leaner AFR, does not make the wet methodology superior to the dry. It only means that you're not comparing similar tunes anymore. A good tuner could absolutely get as much or more power from dry nitrous delivery. It seems that you are admitting to not getting a good tune for your dry system customers.
Before you try to claim all of this as theoretical, forget it. I and others have already done the tests and established the facts.
My discussion excludes port systems, but by the same means that gives dry N2O delivery the advantage over wet-flow, a port-injected N2O system is superior to both. Port delivery minimizes distribution error for both the N2O and fuel.
So why would someone choose a dry system when they could spend over twice the cash, and require several added safety devices by running a wet system? I have no idea, but it just doesn't seem as cool to go dry.
It's not an issue of rocket science or a simple comparison between "your" dry system and "your" wet system.
Those who understand how the code in the PCM works would know your claims quoted above are very misleading. And when you say you've dyno tuned many cars on nitrous, my own opinion is that it's ineffective to try to tune for nitrous on a dyno in the first place. Second I question if you mean tuning the PCM calibration or just the nitrous system?
If you're actually tuning PCM, then you must know how different the tune will be between and wet and dry system, and further that you can run a dry system without a MAF in SD mode.
From your argument though, it doesn't sound to me that you are aware of many important facts.
For those who do not know (possibly including you?), here are some facts about wet vs dry.
The PCM will sense no added load with a wet system and therefor add no additional fueling or decrease the spark advance during N2O activation. This leaves you with a more aggressive tune than the typical untuned dry system.
With the normal (MAF used) dry system, the PCM senses much more added load which puts you lower in the VE table and much lower in your spark advance table. This runs the engine pig-rich, often maxing the injector pulsewidths, and with very little spark advance unless you actually adjust the calibration (tuning) to correct for this.
The factory calibration is already too rich when running NA, but the added load of the nitrous passing through the MAF creates an over-rich situation.
You'd be comparing 10:1 AFR with 18* advance against 11.5:1 AFR with 26* advance... hardly a fair comparison.
This means that an equally jetted wet system will make much more power than the dry, unless the tune is also equaled. If each system was running the same spark advance and the same AFR, then you'd see pretty much identical power output from each. Using a dyno to show positive results in an un-fair test is not a new idea or uncommon, but I'm calling B.S. on your testing.
The only thing a dry system would fail to match would be the fuel distribution error that the wet system would be giving you.
Being so, this would potentially allow you to tune leaner with the dry system before generating a problem.
The advantage in cost, potential power, and safety go to the dry system.
Just because the typical wet system is running with more spark advance and a leaner AFR, does not make the wet methodology superior to the dry. It only means that you're not comparing similar tunes anymore. A good tuner could absolutely get as much or more power from dry nitrous delivery. It seems that you are admitting to not getting a good tune for your dry system customers.
Before you try to claim all of this as theoretical, forget it. I and others have already done the tests and established the facts.
My discussion excludes port systems, but by the same means that gives dry N2O delivery the advantage over wet-flow, a port-injected N2O system is superior to both. Port delivery minimizes distribution error for both the N2O and fuel.
So why would someone choose a dry system when they could spend over twice the cash, and require several added safety devices by running a wet system? I have no idea, but it just doesn't seem as cool to go dry.
Actually Moe bailey does the computer tunning and does a great job at it.I do the nitrous tunning.We work together on it.90 percent of the cars we do are directport and high hp out puts.I never said we could not get the same power out of a dry system.I said we see better torque and performance gains out of a wet system.
I will not argue with you because I know thats all you are looking for..But I will tell you this.
The average joe blow does not have the knowlegde or tunning capabilities to just throw a dry 150 175 hp shot on a stock car and do there own tune.So in this case they will need injectors and then to pay someone to tune it.Where is the savings??????????
I can take a average car install a wet system with 150-175 shot and make no changes other than a fuel pump and checking air fuel and kick the **** out of a dry kit for less money any day of the week. And at the end of the race my car will still have the intake on it.
None of my post have been saying dry kits are bad blah blah blah.But all your post that you post even in new product post are not needed and out of order.Great you dont like wet kits thats your prefrence.THere are several people here that fell the same way you do.Theres nothing wrong with that.
I will ignore the rest of your post.I see no reason to argue over something so STUPID. Have a good day
Dave
Last edited by Nitro Dave's Nitrous Outlet; 09-09-2005 at 11:35 PM.
09-09-2005, 10:03 PM
#25
Originally Posted by SSBLUBYYOU
thanks 860 PERFORMANCE....i think I'm going to go with a NX wet kit...but, a direct port system has crossed my mind since winter isn't to far away and it will be garaged then until spring. I'm not interested in a dry kit for sure...I know some members swear by them but I'd rather go wet or a DP setup. Thanks for the help and keep the ideas coming. They're greatly apreciated!!!
Dave
09-09-2005, 11:06 PM
#27
Originally Posted by oange ss
now I'm thoroughly confused 
You will always find people on this subject that will have there own preference.It is the longest known arguement in the nitrous community.The best thing you can do is read what you can find.Or call the people you feel confortable with and have a one on one chat with them.Both wet and dray have there pros and cons.Both systems will get the job done.The best thing to do is to learn about both then decide which one best fits your needs best.Do not be afraid to ask questions.If I can do anything to help youunderstand let me know.
Thanks
Dave
