These are my rambling thoughts alone and are in reference to the arguement of one nozzle desing being "better" than another. Please discuss

I am one of those guys that believes we may as well use the nozzles from the 70s myself. I personally think all nozzles that are halfway decently built will perform just fine. Be it NX, TNT, NOS, HSW, NW, or CF or other. I think they will all perform within 1% of each other if the parameter of nitrous flow, fuel flow, ratio of that flow, bottle pressure etc are maintained.

I say that because I have yet to see any REAL evidence to the contrary. No one has done a test and posted proof that was not "tainted" in some way. The testing was always stopped short.

I do however think that at very low RPM the nozzle that atomizes better MAY make more power/TQ. I personally think that increased quench action at higher rpm negates any slight differences in atomization between nozzles. It may show up better on a very inefficiant cylinder head as well...so if someone where to do a real test between nozzles...i would think on some old style heads or a hemi style head may show greater differences if there are any.

Again..to me there is no free ride. If you make X amount of TQ at X rpm your cylinder pressures will be the same avg thoughout the piston travel as the next nozzle that makes those same #s. If one actually did make say....5% more power at the same nitrous/fuel flow rate than another nozzle...the only difference would be that operating at the same HP levels the "better" nozzle would consume 5% less nitrous. All else remains the same as far as engine wear and tear and required tune (octane,timing,etc) for a given power level There couild be slight variation of peak cylinder pressures VS pressure throughout the entire power stroke dependant on atomization...but again that seems only likely at lower rpms. So if a nozzle were to be proven more efficiant...the only real benifit would be for racers who are restricted in orifice size or if you were concerned about nitrous usage rate and trying to get the most out of your 10 or 15 lb bottle at a specific HP shot size.

IMO the REAL key to making good..useful power still lies in the overall design of the setup and the "control" of that setup. That will play more into how fast the car can go, how it leaves, and how it gets down the track.

I would be more interested in finding out the maximum useful shot each nozzle can deliver before either maxing out flow wise...or becoming inneffective or untunable if thats possible.

Now I know all the manufacturers will say thier nozzle is best..but I would like to hear more thoughts on this subject. Especially in engine theory.

 

Go ahead try the crappy nozzles from the 70's, not very good at atomization, and thus a lower over all power, compared to modern nozzles.
I like to think of it like Volumetric Effiancy. If you can make a nozzle more efficiant, you'll make more power, given all other parameters are the same. If a nozzle makes more peak hp and sooner, this will in fact be a quicker car compared to the same car with a lesser nozzle. I think it's just basic pyhisics. Now to get into more thoughtfull debating, I will have to do some thinking, and that can be quite a chore. The one thing you may not realise is the (of the unnamed nozzle) is this new nozzle is the first annular at 90*, so yes some will say, no way, but in fact the answer is way. glad to see you back Al.
Robert

 

I started out with a shark nozzle and never had any problems then I went to the MAF kit and still had no problems. I needed to make more power so I went with an SHO nozzle and everything went south from there, started having severe distribution problems leaning out cylinders and fire spotted the D/S side head and then blew out a brand new head gasket. Went to an old school plate set up and have not had a problem since. The design, length and placement of the nozzle are all critcal conciderations in my opinion. I've always and still am a staunch NX supporter and customer but I'd have to say be very carefull when using the SHO nozzle with certain set ups. I'm an old school fan I say if it worked then it will work now.

 

If there is a nozzle that has "issues" thats one thing. But I am talking about properly working nozzles.

Also if the placement is an issue....well then thats a placement issue not necessarily a nozzle issue..especially as it related to atomization of fuel.

Robert...I think most nozzles that are made in recent history all atomize well. I think some may atomize better. But what does that translate to? If it atomizes 10% better does that equate to 10% power? Probably not..especially at higher piston speed. So just say for arguement sake that one nozzle may make 5% better HP at the same exact fuel and nitrous flow rates. On a 200 shot thats 10hp. Not much. 10 HP could easily be negated by one brand kit having a slightly larger diameter feed line of different fittings...even with the same jet orifice size. So its extremely hard to test these nozzles without getting into some serious test parameters. I would really like to see it. As we have said in the past it would have to involve extremely accurate weights and control of time for the test parameters. Only then would there be proof to me one nozzle is significantly better than the next.

And even if one nozzle is shown to be better than the next of say 5%..or even 10%...what does that really mean? If I run a .055 orifice instead of a .053 orifice to achievethe same hp due to a slightly less efficient nozzle....who cares? I say the less efficent nozzle car might just be faster because it loses more wieght during the run

But seriously...what the hell is the difference. Its like saying I use 19 drops of dish soap to do the dishes instead of 20. The dishes still get done. The difference is almost inconsequential and can easily be swayed by other factors that may amount to much larger differences.

Now if there was a nozzle that made 25-50 more HP than the avg of most others at the 150 hp level at the same flow rates...that would be something.

I personally think advancements in nozzle design as far as atomization have hit a platue and its time to look at other innovations.

 

Well, I think if you already have a kit set-up and just a nozzle change can give a 25hp gain with no other changes, this may be the best bang for the buck on buying hp. Furthermore, if you are going to purchase a kit, why would you not want to get the leader of the pack? the shark nozzle as per Ricky was claimed to be the top HP maker for the last 9 years, and i don't doubt it, as it has it's own design parameters which have proven to work well. Annular discharge has been a leading engineering marvel in it's own right, and now in 90* config. I see, win, win for everyone in the n2o field/hobby.
Robert

 

I dont think youll see 25 hp on any nozzle..especially at the hp levels we usually use around here. But even if it was....can you tell me a good reason why you wouldnt just buy two more $5 jets to make up for that extra 25 hp? instead of $50 or more for a new nozzle?

You have always been a proponent of "build your kit and jet accordingly" as much as I have. So dont give me any lip!

Again...I still have yet to see any proof that anything more than a negligiable difference exists between any halfway decent nozzle....and if it was proven...that it really matters???

 

Well there is a claim of of 18hp gain from a new nozzle over the hp leader of past. this is 18hp for under 50 bucks? now i wonder what the hp gain was on lesser nozzles, more hp is the answer, so the bang for the buck starts looking better. This coming from a diehard dry guy, it's almost like, I embrace wet kits now, hmmm... Yea, jetting for what you want has been my motto for sure, but that's mostly dry based, as it really doesn't matter on dry much if you even use a nozzle, or a jet for that matter.
Robert

 

Yes, a good reason, Volumetric efficancy. Meaning, if you can make more power, with less cosumable product, it will in fact be cheaper in the long run to use the more efficiant nozzle.
Robert

 

So if a nozzle is 3% more efficient due to better atomization you would save about $.75 per 10 lb bottle at $2.50 lb. It would take about 60 bottles at that rate to make up the difference in savings from just swapping out or drilling jets vs purchase a new nozzle to make that 3% more HP. But that would be 1 valid reason. Can you think of any others?


If you could PROVE a given nozzle was more like 8-10%+ more efficiant...that would be a good reason....among others. I still dont think it will happen though.

There is sooo much to actually testing a nozzle to prove efficiancy I dont know if it can be done. The difference would have to be a substantial avg to really prove anything. And it would have to be repeatable, and nitrous and fuel weights very accurately measured, timing equipment that is highly repeatable, rpm activation repeatabilty, AFR accuracy, weather conditions remaining constant during testing. And even then you may have to plot averages because what might be good for one nozzle may not be the best for the next.
Again...I just see this as being a nightmare to actually prove....I think the margins will be too close to call.

I would love to see someone step up and REALLY test some nozzles. It will take some effort and money to do...along with alot of time and enginuity. A lot more than you may think.

 

Yes, good atomization equals ,
and poor atomization can lead to
By the way who dosen't use 60 bottles or more per season.

Robert

 

From just the weekend warrior standpoint (which I think a vast majority of members are) If I can simply swap a nozzle and maintain a safe AFR and drop my track times, it is money well spent. I also have a second reason for why I purchased one. I have a LT1 that has a problem with the fuel making the turn to front cylinders, if I can get better atomization won't this improve or better balance my AFR among the cylinders and be safer in the long run?? I haven't even gotten mine yet and it will be about a month before I get to test it but there will be some board members there to witness my not so scientic test. But remeber this is how probably more than half the people out there run there cars. I thinbk all the big scientific testing is great but if I get the same results when using the procduct as I normally will who cares what the lab testing says?? I fill my 2 bottles and head to the track, If I can do something as small as change a nozzle and be faster why not??

 

Thats just it...I dont believe you can swap out a nozzle and go faster. If you do and you do go faster....you are likley just spraying a tad more than the previous setup due to less restriction or changes in the tune that had a positve impact on power. The same could have been achieved with a pill swap or better tuning.
Once agin though...I dont believe any nozzle out there currently in production is more than 1-2% better than the next if all things remain equal.


You would be better off going up 25 hp on your jet sizes IMO on the nozzle you have.

I am not argueing for or against any nozzle manufacturer. What I am saying is for you guys to use your heads when it comes to understanding power increases made when using nitrous.

Someday someone should prove the claim that they have the best nozzle and it will make more power than the next guys. I have seen ZERO evidence of this yet.

 

All current manufactured nozzles that I mentioned have excellent atomization.

I still have no proof that one is better than the next.

 

because you can simply change jets and do the same thing.
If you are trying to go faster why dont you just currently spray more right now with a jet change? Do you think if the new nozzle makes more power that that power is "free power" as far as you motor is concerned?

If you are at say 500 rwhp with a 150 shot...and afraid to go to 525 rwhp with a pill change to a 175 shot due to stress on your motor....what makes you think if you pick up 25 hp from a nozzle change has any less effect on your motor? It doesnt. So again..other than the actual consumption of nitrous...there is little reasion to make changes like nozzle changes when running a nitrous setup IMO.

And again...I dont believe there will be any substantial efficiency or power differences when tested properly.

 

Thats the thing I think everyone is too hung up on "proper testing" and all the different variables to control. For me I know I will be at the limits as far as what I can spray wet into the intake without having distribution problems, If a nozzle change will give ME a better distribution of the fuel and nitrous then its a good investment IMO. I think people get too hung up on the lab testing, I mean really who gets there bottle pressure to 1000.00psi before making a pass?? Most of us fill the bottle and run the heater in the staging lanes to get around 1000psi and run it. I guess all I am saying is that if I can get better results (for me would be better distribution and better saftey) under the conditions that I use the product, then why not?? I agree with what you are saying that if you want more power to just jet up but if I can make more average power with the same jetting isn't there something else going on to contribute to this??

 

try it, see if it works, that will settle it

 

I would surely get the latest and greatest nozzles (I need 8 of them for my 73 Charger Mopar Small block Direct Port; My lil 318 grew up to be an all Forged 402, with 416 HP/466ft/lbs NA at the crank) because of the fact that they provide higher and quicker HP and Torque. I would not run up and be the first to try I would wait for independent use by other forum members and check there feedback on the product before I took the plunge. I have been on the Computer gaming wagon and it seems Nitrous wagon is just like it. As soon as something comes out and is the latest and greatest, something better will be out shortly after.

Makes perfect sense one nozzle (or say a plate) can be better than another nozzle or (plate). Compare Dave's plate to the NOS plate, he will tell ya his is better based on his distribution pattern verses the single nozzle method NOS chose to use (end result better mixing or volumetric efficiency as Robert calls it). Same item being a plate, but the distribution method is different; therefore different results. Why wouldn't this be true for nozzles??? Based on your philosophy 383, the same jets in the NOS plate and in Dave's plate will = the same values. I don't believe that for an instant (be an interesting test though wouldn't it...).

The dyno may not win at the track (LOL niether do I), but numbers matter to consumers (at least they do to me), but I am careful by nature not to believe everything I read (want a Dynosheet? I can make you whatever you want for numbers in 20 minutes or less). All the supporting vendors here are passionate about their products some more so than others, R and D, and testing is time consuming and expensive. And all the vendors here are doing their best to stay on top. Good thing for us as consumers (bad for our wallets though).

383 you have way more experience than I (and you asked for this discussion, so this is from a newbie perspective), but I believe the mindset of the a nozzle is a nozzle is just plain wrong IMHO as well as X fuel and X Nitrous will always = the same value (yes there is a theoretical maximum, I understand that); this mentality would only lead to no advancement in products. Getting the most of what you can with what you buy is the name of the game.

The only other item other than the HP/Torque numbers I consider with a purchase is the product look; yes I would give up 5-20 HP not to put purple anodized parts on my car...

If the new nozzles work as advertised, we will find out as soon as some are out the door.

For you dyno guys who need to scan your sheets, if your running a Windows based dyno program, just make select the graph window (activate it, by clicking the top color bar on the window) Hit "Alt" and "Print Screen" at the same time, open paint (most windows installations automatically install MS Paint), then select "edit" then "Paste". save the file to disk and you won't have to scan a thing.

Cheers
Beer

 

Hell yes nozzle design matters. Bottom-out style nozzles (NOS 'B' Nozzle, Nitrous Pro-Flow's 'V-Force' Nozzle, Speedtech 'Tech 1', and I'm not sure what NX calls theirs) are far superior to the 90* nozzles. Theses nozzles are self-correcting units that work like a venturi in a carburetor. They're the only way to go for big HP IMHO.

 

...and so far that statement seems to fall into the "it works catagory".


Al, your argument really has me dumbfounded. Why not just buy the cheapest kit on the market and jet it to your desired hp. then it would be equal to the top $$ premier kits, right? See where I am going with this, you want the best performing part/kit, then get the best performing part/kit. we had a thread a while back that one of the other companys had tested some of he nozzles on the market, and some were just spewing rather large droplets of fuel, safe hardly, efficiant no way, top power producer not a chance, however, it was able to make the same hp if jetted high enough. I respectfully disagree with your ascertion that nozzle development is at a stand still, hardly, imo.
Robert

 

then show me proof. I want to see evidence of what everyone claims. I have NEVER seen any proof one way or another. IN any way shape or form. We have regular racers all running good times using all manner of nozzles. We have plenty of other racers that run in professional competition using all manner of nozzles. If one were CLEARLY better than the next...and it gave a REAL advantage....then eventually one nozzle would become the "nozzle to have".
Please show me that nozzle?????
I believe that what you guys see as more HP when you change something is usually just the end result of more nitrous flow.
And I also believe that if someone is having problems with distribution...its usually the result of placement of that specific type nozzle with that specific spray patter not getting along with the intake tract and not nozzle design. Getting a nozzle with a pattern conducive to your intake/manifold setup will have more of an effect than any difference in atomization IMO. And there are different nozzle combos/intake combos that will work better together.

Again...this does not say there are specific nozzles that someone may have had bad experiance with that may be defective...like the batch of NOS nozzles that came out a while back.

Until someone can SHOW me that an NX, TNT, CF, NOS, BG nozzle will outperform the next one...they are all pretty much the same to me.