The proof, if you'll take it, may be posted in the next day or so. a new nozzle using the same jets, effectivly had the same a/f, but out performed the others with peak hp and to redline, in my book, proves engineering has come up with somthing. We are talking a single or dual nozzle set-up utilizing a 90* annular discharge, which is a first. Most big time direct port guys have choose straight shot annular discharge for the performance, correct?
Robert

 

Robert if you guys havent recorded the weight of nitrous used over time VS the HP then the tests IMO will be lacking and not proving anything. If your making 18 more HP at the 250+ hp level thats about a 7% gain. Are you absolutly sure that your not flowing 7% more nitrous using the new nozzle? Did you weigh the bottle before and after during each run?

If you show real proof I will certainly accept it. But it should not leave anything to chance or have missing info.

That fine if all the big guys run straight nozzles. But they all run straight nozzles by different manufacturers. And they all work just fine. Same for the people who use 90s. Youll here some racers swear by ProFlow, some still stick with NOS some will have nothing but NX, etc. So which one is best and why? Why is there CLEARLY NO SINGLE NOZZLE that rises to the top or that has been proven to be the best.

 

I was just replying to a PM from Ricky...and had some thoughts on testing.

You guys or manufacturers that want to prove a nozzle is better??

Again....engine dyno with brake, hold engine at 4500 rpm, spray for 10 seconds, check AF, check nitrous and fuel flow rate, recalibrate jetting so flow rates are the same for each nozzle, and measure the TQ output over that 10 seconds. Check peaks if any as well as avg TQ output over that 10 seconds.

I would even say test at more than one rpm to see if the theory that one nozzles atomization may be better...I believe if one atomizes better it may be more apparent at lower rpm. So maybe test at 3000 rpm and at 5500 rpm.

One of the companies that makes the claim of having the best nozzle should prove it IMO.

 

And if you test this setup...and one company actually makes 10 more HP consistantly on a 150 shot...what does that mean. Does it mean someone will win a race? Not at all. Chassis setup, jet changes, driving, tune up, all will have more of an impact on winning or losing that a 3% more efficency.

The point is this: Buy a QUALITY nozzle that you like and works in your setup and stick with it! Tune it up and run it. Then spend more time on chassis setup and other areas. Dont start swapping nozzles and setups looking for some holy grail ...because its not there.

 

I think this nozzle argument is about 95% hype, 5% science. Besides, if you are only shooting a wuss sized shot of 150 hp or less, you shouldn't even worry about the dynamics of nozzle design. Start injecting 500 hp into an engine, then every bit of that testing and design counts. Years ago there were vendors who drilled out their jets a tiny bit bigger and rated them at the same HP rating as other vendors with smaller jets, and claimed their "100 HP" kit made "25 more hp" than the other brand 100 HP kits. Thats the hype factor, and many bought into it.

Hopefully members here learn things and see through the hype enough to make their own judgements.

 

What's hysterical is the same people that promoted and pushed a cvertain nozzle as being the best ever and making all the difference are some of the VERY same people saying the exact opposite now haha now that's HYPE and a Load of it

 

Another top nitrous company just made the statment yesterday, that their Label X nozzle was the hp leader for the last 9 years? hmmm...how could that be if all nozzles are created equal. I don't believe for a minute that they are all the same, not a chance. I do believe this nozzle mentioned above to be what it was claimed, because of it's engineering was in fact the leader of the pack. Now, seems there may be a new leader? to me it's quite simple using basic pyhisics, heavier droplets (read less atomization) will drop quicker, compared to a much finer mist, and thus cause dist problems. This in turn will lower your final volumetric efficiancy. Maybe we can do some testing on a Z06, but how could a wet kit possibly put out better numbers than an already established dry hit.
Robert

 

As long as all other variables (like iat's) are kept 100% the same, it is still next to, if not impossible to fairly state that one product makes 1-4% more power than others.

 

For street-car stuff that won't ever see over 150HP, nozzle design doesn't matter. Tony is absolutely right there.

If you're racing, nozzle design is huge. The bottom-out style nozzles are far superior to 90* nozzles. FAR superior. All of the good nozzles are basically copies of the other. The NOS 'B' Nozzle, the Nitrous Pro-Flow 'V-Force' Nozzle, and the Speedtech 'Tech 1' Nozzle are basically the same. They work off of the same principles, and are the best nozzles available for multiple systems working at once.

 

Al, since you are a rep for NX, how did they do the testing and come to the conclusion that the shark nozzle was the hp leader for the past many years, as claimed? I think when you do a comparison of many diff manufactures nozzles, and one clearly has an edge in the hp dept, through out testing, would you still say the results are meaningless?
On the lsx platform, running the throttle body in the front of manifold, and having a below the runners plenum, I think mixture/atomization plays a bigger role than you guys realize, on a street/strip car. there are many wuss's running smaller shots that will still benifit from advanced engineering. Man you guys are a tuff bunch, that's for sure. Dyno sheets are on the way for all to pick apart. Maybe, we could do this (testing) again and have a rep from each company on hand, so no one can claim invalid/unfair testing? Then we head to the strip for some real world thrashing.
Robert

 

increaseing atomization marginally over an already excellent atomizing nozzle only helps in some instances of engine operation and more specifically certain rpms AND more or less important with certain cylinder head designs. It will have less of an effect at WOT especially at high rpms. The crappier the head design the more benifit atomization may have especially at low rpm or part throttle or warm up. And its not like we are talking about a nozzle that has crappy atomization VS one that has perfect atomization. They will all be fairly close. There will also be a point where atomization beyond a certain point has less of a return on gains. I think atomization is a term way overplayed. Look it up on google and all youll find is articles on Tornado fuel savers.


And for the record I have never said NX's nozzle or TNTs or any other nozzles where better than the next. I have always said..."get a good nozzle" and thats the extent of that. I dont care what NX has claimed and just as in the past i dont care what TNT claimed either. It doesnt affect the outcome and actual facts that have always presented itself to me. I am only interested in hard data that is repeatable.
I have used about 75% of the nozzles on the market at one time or another on like systems. And not one has ever performed susbstantially better than the next that made me sit back and say..WOW...I will only run these nozzles from now on. I would expect to see a pattern develop by now...but none exists. If you think so....SHOW ME!

If you tested to a close enough degree to actually uncover the differences...you would find them to be minute and negligable. And as Tony said....2% difference when your running a 150 shot does not amount to anything usable or practical...especially when your kit can be jetted to 300 hp.

As far as running huge shots...to me thats more a function of nozzle behavior and patterns at and near maximum flow levels..which could be quite different at lower flow levels. That may be something worth investigating. Or if you are resticted by class rules to a maximum jet size another 2% could mean something. But again...for the avg 99% of us users....all the good quality nozzles will get the job done. And for the ones that may benifit from squeezing every last drop and might be concerned about effeciency...they should really do thier own testing to back up the claims because no testing has been done to date that is real or convincing.

 

Robert...Im not an NX rep and I think thier nozzles are as good as the next guys quality nozzle. I am a Nitro Dave rep...he carries several brands. I could care less about claims anyone makes including our products. I just want facts.

If one CLEARLY shows repeatable and substantial hp gains at the same nitrous flow rates that would be something to discuss. But to be something other than negligable it would have to be fairly significant imo. Like all systems jetted and flowed for a 150 shot....and one nozzle always making 20-30 hp more than the next. At that point I believe it would clearly show better "something" wether it was atomization or other benifits that casued the increase in power. If you could pin it down to atomization you could make a great case that not only does it make more with less....it would likely have side benifits such as additional detonation resistance, better vaporization, and better distribution. But you would absolutly have to prove that is the case. I still dont think it can be done.


On the LSX platform I think exactly the opposite. I think the excellent and extremely efficient head design will make up for a 2-3% difference in atomization out of the nozzle. Like I said before...maybe at lower rpms...but at WOT and higher rpms where we race I think its insignificant on our power levels.

 

Al, what's up, you seem a little cynical, not your usual self. I didn't say you said, I was asking if you knew how NX had done their testing? for a little insight. I don't disagree with what you say in the big picture, but wonder why we don't preach the same on full kits, get the cheapest and it'll put down the same numbers as the more expensive kits, is there not a correlation between the two? they both get the job done. I am not trying to be an azz, and maybe that's why your mood is a little tempered, sorry.
Robert

 

I am in now way pushing our product, but since we were already mentioned, I have something to say.

A bottom out nozzle is better than a 90* like Ben already said. And a 90* without the notch in the the nozzle for fuel like the speedtech one is junk. Our nozzles are designed to create a low pressure area and the nitrous pulls the fuel out dependent on pressure. Everyone already understands pressure differental.

Also like he said for most guys on this board that will never spray moe than 200 it nozzle probably doesnt matter, but I have been told by many customers and well know engine builders just swapping out other brand nozzles and putting ours in keeping the same jets, ours made more power.
B.E.S has done dyno testing like this and used 90* nozzles and took out Pro Flow nozzles and put our speedtech nozzles in. Call them and ask them and see what they say.

But im not on here to argue about our product our anyone elses. Anyone that has ran our stuff or had a friend run it knows its the best. And thats why every big engine builder sends his manafolds to use to get plumbed ex. Sonny's, BES, Bennett, Shaffroff, Buck , Conrad, there are many more.
And our records prove that they are the best.
What other nitrous car does you know that has went 187 in the eighth. And consumers can still buy the same parts he has.

There are also numerous time people have called and said that they were burning pistons up or couldnt get there car to run on more than 1 or 2 and we fix what they had just changing the nozzles and and a 3rd stage and it goes down the track faster and on more stages than ever.

Also to the LT1 guy that posted earlier, no single nozzle in front of the throttle body will fix the distribution problems in the manafold. Thats a manafold problem not nozzle problem, but a fogger would fix it.

 

No no Robert...Im not in a bad mood. On the contrary...I am back to my old self. I doubt everything and Im a serious skeptic. I have actually been refraining from any real discussion for some time. For I while there I felt like had to watch what i said about certain products. My new attitude is I will say whatever is on my mind and not slant ANYTHING for any reason. And do not think this discussion was directed towards you or CF...as plenty have made nozzle claims in the past. You have just been the one responding the most.

 

I don't know why I was thinking your a NX rep, but rather a Nitro Dave rep.
Robert

 

Feel free to post other questions as I know I have forgot some things as I am getting in on this thread late and I dont get on here very much.

 

And there you have it, straight from the baddest dudes in the N20 industry. Congrats on the 3.99 pass. That is hauling some serious ***. It's good to know the benchmark before we go testing this week though.

 

I definately agree on a 90 vs a straight. Thats a major design difference.

And on the people burning pistons on high HP tune ups and fixing it with a nozzle/setuop change.....that could be problematic characteristic of that nozzle at very high flow rates. It may not exist at slightly less flow rates on that nozzle.

Thats why claiming that one nozzle makes 3% more power at 200 hp is so incomplete. I would like to see real tests at low flow rates, very high flow rates and in between. You may uncover real problems induced near maximum flow...or even minimum flows. These would be areas that atomization may go right in the crapper and it would show the nozzles "effective range". I think most nozzles that operate within thier effective range will perform very close to one another. One nozzle may have a broader range than the next. That info would be nice to know as well.

But just sheer claims that one nozzle will make more on a 150 shot than the next is almost pointless IMO.

 

Thanks for the input BTW