Outstanding results, thanks for your time, car and all that was involved into getting this done. If only we had a mid-70's nozzle for the "technology" comparison too

Why on the graphs above does the Ny Trex have a much much leaner AFR than the other?

I can see the SHO nozzle selling like hotcakes now, and the TNT (I Might use TNT nozzle's on my next stepup just because).

 

Yes, would also like to thank mrr23 for providing the test information. Very useful info here. While we weren’t able to participate in the test, I’d still like to discuss some of the results of the test with everyone’s permission. Now keep in mind, these are just peak numbers without the a/f, but none the less…here’s my 2 cents and take it easy on the math fellas, it’s late on the east coast!

Standard deviation for error:
hp - +/- 2.855 hp
tq - +/- 2.36 lb-ft
mass - +/- 0.125oz

Increase in percentage
hp – 8.7%
tq – 10.95%
with the exception of 2 nozzles:
hp – 2.6%
tq – 2.12%

The thing I found most interesting surrounds the NOS silver test…Noted that N&F jets are identical on both runs, yet yielded a 1.4% , 1.13% , and a 2.94% (hp, tq, and m respectively) difference. Which in my opinion is rather on the high side considering that, with the exception of two nozzles, takes a large chunk of change out of the percentage difference of the nozzles, no?

I’d be game to say that the people that stated earlier that there would be a negligible difference between each nozzle were correct. These are all VERY respectable numbers from all mfg’s involved and all very well within each other. Could all of this mean that when a company advertises a higher power generation it might be doing so based off of percentage error alone?!?!?

Concerning mass flow vs. power…this is also a tricky one. Looking at the graph its approx. 5 seconds worth of spray time for 8.75 oz. mass to flow out of the bottle. Converting to lb mass it is 0.546875 lb. For a flow rate it comes out to 6.5625 lbm/min. So does this mean that the nozzle that made the most hp/tq on a given jet size wins? I dunno, maybe nozzle efficiency needs to be looked at as well. How much nitrous did it take to get to that number? I think this is where the focus needs to be swung. To make more power off less nitrous is major kudos. But again most of these nozzles are well within each other that I think error deviation will override. Another factor that will skew results slightly is whether a purge was used, if so, how much mass was lost? If not, how long was the nitrous sitting in the line boiling before nitrous was activated? Might sound a little too picky, but when you’ve got a PD of 2.6% and 2.12% that could potentially be a big thermodynamic deal with density and viscosity changes.

Now by no means am I discrediting mrr23…His tests show quite a lot of information that seems very accurate. And major props for him stepping up and actually doing it. I am just trying to spark some conversation on what people are looking at in these graphs and maybe trying to learn why one nozzle is highlighted in red? What kind of formula was used to come to the conclusion that Nozzle A is better than Nozzle B, C, D, etc? Let’s hear some feedback guys/gals! I think that one thing we all learned for sure is that mrr23 has some interesting taste in his towel décor.

Nick

 

Nick, I understand where your coming from. Let me say, as I scanned across the data, I took note of the highlighted numbers, of course, thats why their red, to draw attention. Why red, they produced the highest yield. Then, look at the mass used for that compared to the next closest.
Maybe add a column of hp (and tq) made per mass. Formula in excel (REDHARDSUPRA where you at?)? I believe the differences list by Nick are notable, but at the same time, there will ALWAYS be some deviation. In this case, power to mass ratio I feel would be very interesting and draw some of the deviation out, maybe.

 

Nick...excellent post to open the discussion and I agree with 100% of what you say. I am anxious to look at the general shape of the curves as well...but I agree that with the error rate factored in the nozzles all performed very close to one another.

The old school NOS was really the only one lacking. But it flowed less juice as well.

And I agree that if we were to pursue this further we need to look very closely at flow rates and ways to measure efficency. However...to me this somewhat validates the theory that most modern nozzles will perform close enough to one another that other factors in a kit may trump those minor nozzle differences....and that each piece in a kit is just as important as the next...nozzle, bottle valve, fittings, lines, solinoids, etc.

 

Predator 10.57487179 11.0125641
Predator 11.43138889 11.97444444

Dynotune 10.32219512 10.68804878
Dynotune 10.62051282 11.18358974

NOS Black 11.79727273 11.97878788
NOS Black 11.37764706 11.55294118

NOS Silver 11.87852941 12.26058824
NOS Silver 11.70285714 12.04514286

NX Shark 12.70818182 13.15030303
NX Shark 13.56645161 14.00741935

NX SHO 11.05421053 11.47894737
NX SHO 12.13771429 12.63457143

NX Vortech 11.94285714 12.388
NX Vortech 12.15 12.54470588

Ny-trex 11.88085714 12.37714286
Ny-Trex 12.26636364 12.80848485

TNT 10.83384615 11.24615385
TNT 11.39837838 11.94027027

 

Good job mrr23. I would like to see the a/f posted besides each jet combo, for a better comparison?
Robert

 

Sorry, I was editing the data I just posted. What you see is the result of my excel class in work I got an "Incomplete" for that class too. I broke the results down, and used .25 oz (took the mass reocred, divided by .25 and called it "M") as the unit of mass to measure from, since the mass was all at 1/4oz tolerance. The formula for dividing hp and tq repsectively by "M". Results are as you see. Shows a little different view of the results. Have a nice one. Thanks much lots to all those delivering the goods and the shop for the dyno time for mrr23 to conduct this test.

Looking at this data, the Shark nozzle looks to be the most efficient with its higher hp and tq per .25oz used

peace.

 

here is a screen with every dyno on it. keep in mind this not only includes the ones that have the target AF...but also the initial "62/33" runs.

Even including the "62/33" runs that are all over for air fuel...the general shape of the graphs are very very similair overall.

If one nozzle would have stood out..I would expect to see it here. Dont forget...as Nick pointed out. The one nozzle that required NO pill changes between two runs had a difference of 6 hp. So an overall difference at the point the cursor is of 16 hp is not real substantial IMO. If I can figure out which graphs are the ones that are run at the targeted Af I will select only those and graph those. That may shed more light.


The spikes on some graphs near the activation point may just be anomolies associated with not quite enough purge time after bottle change. We will have to ask MRR23 about that. That may warrant a closer looking at.


I still maintain my initial assumption that nozzle difference FOR THE MOST PART is negligable. But what it does show me is that there are quite a few damn good nozzles on the market

 

ahhemm,

STICKY WORTHY!

 

MRR23, I would just like to thank you again for taking it upon yourself to complete this test. It's very interesting to me how the amount of nitrous used correlates to the hp/tq output for each nozzle.

CAT3, your chart is also very interesting comparing the amount of hp/tq produced per .25oz. of nitrous used. Thanks for putting that out there.

Well, I guess now we'll need to start testing all of the other components in a nitrous system, lol. These tests raise a lot of questions for me, but I think I will do some more studying of the data before asking them.

Again, this is some great data and thanks to all that were involved in making this happen.

 

Ok been looking this over and found a ery interesting part that might point to + - performance per nozzle. The Dynotune, NOS Silver, and Vortec are all the same nozzle. YET yeild some different number across the range, small numbers but still different. What this shows me is @ any given point in time a nozzle or system can delivery differently. Causes could be anything from dyno variances, trany, Heat soak, oil temps, the list goes on and on.
Some results came true and some did not, but this is only one test, and a DAMM good one if you ask me.
Keep spraying, put the cranks on the ground if you HAVE to win and have fun.
Ricky

 

or maybe they all SUCK































jk. great info!!!
i guess my thoughts are tuning is a must. not all the nozzle worked the same with the same variable. it looks like some just work better without tuning. but all are very close.


top HP should be next, same jetting on the spray side, but adjust the fuel side to get say a 13-1 af and see who makes the most at the same air fuel.
come on do it, that poor test car must have a few more runs in here. lol

great info tho!

 

Noyzee, I think that pretty is what the chart on mrr23's page shows. He used the same nitrous jet and adjusted the fuel jet to reach the same a/f for each nozzle. The number that is highlighted in red was the highest peak hp made. The NX SHO came out on top as far as peak hp. However, if you take into account the +/- deviation errors then it is definately debatable as to which nozzle makes the most power.


Although this test is a good one, I still believe that a complete system is better than the sum of the parts used.

These results also really make me wonder about the original Predator dyno results. I'm assuming that the big differences are due to the car, converter, and testing paremeters. And before anyone wants to start bitching and saying that I'm just trying to start ****, lets all be adults AND be honest as to the reasons that this test was originally brought up. It was because of all of the talk about nozzles that followed the original Predator tests.

I am merely saying that there is considerable difference between the two tests and that it just shows how different nitrous can respond to different vehicles.

 

Along the lines of deviation.....ok, not the hotel story again....

I would be interested to see max flow potential of each nozzle. How to test that, not sure, other than of course put it on a dyno and run it to the ground. I think it would be nice to see something other than 100shot being used. Say, 200 shot or something. I dont think atomization will remain constant at varying levels of consumption. Much like cylinder heads, at some point there could be stalling, or whatnot. Maybe just using the scale, one bottle per nozzle and a bench prepped noid and line set, spraying into the atmosphere, watching the plume (maybe having a spatter wall it sprays on to check for droplets vs gaseous cloud), and measuring how much nitrous is effectively passed thru each given nozzle.

I agree with Al, when looking at the data, there are some very small difference b/w whats available now, and much of that could be from other sources. Even the nitrous used per hp/tq could be from purge difference, or scale tolerance of accuracy (was the mass used recorded pre- or post- purge? if it is post then the results are more accurate obviously as the scales margin of error will sway to the lighter (or heavier) side for each nozzle).

 

We've never developed a fogger nozzle from the ground up for use as a single nozzle. Both the "soft plume" and "B" nozzle were originally designed for a direct port application where jet sizes rarely exceed .040. That is why the orifice in both nozzles is small. The "B" nozzle is also designed to concentrate the spray. Racers like to point these nozzles so the spray directly hit the valve. They actually don't spray at a 90degree which could have effected its results.

Thanks for the test. I bet you had a headache from the nitrous fumes.

 

Thats interesting, I didn't realize that.

 

I impressed with the TNT kit. I never saw the nozzle end before and was surprised to see how well it did with such a different design. I always liked the look of the kit. Glad to see it's very functional to. I can't wait to see a test on the nitrous plates.

 

Red...I Probably shouldnt have said "lacking". I wasnt implying that the NOS nozzle was inferior. Just flowed a lil less as compared to the others.

And as CAT3 brought up...i think all the nozzles are close enough to say that at level below 150 or so...they are pretty much equal. Becuase you could get the same HP from the black NOS as the others with a slight jet change. And what would be the difference? At that point the nozzle would probably flow the same.
What would be a more significant test would be to find out the total range of a nozzles flow capabilty before it gets funky. But again...whats the point? If a nozzle stalls at 175...and you want 250....back the one nozzle down to 125 and buy another one for a dual nozzle setup and run 125 each?
Or as you say....for a direct port nozzles wont be flowing much more than 50 hp.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

If I were aiming for a 150 shot on my LS1 and I had brand XXXX nitrous kit. And that kit made 135 rwhp with those 150 pills...this shows me that to get to the 150 mark that you want....the last thing your should do is buy another nozzle. A simple jet change is in order.

I am still, and even more so a firm believer that the nozzle is just one of many components to a nitrous system...and that the nozzle only need be "adequate". The entire component selection to a nitrous kit is whats important IMO. Including the overall design. Such as DP, dual nozzle, Ts, line size, fittings, sloinoids, bottle valves, and feed line.

And then the tune!

 

BTW..this will be stickied. I justwant people to see it in the regular list for a few days. I know that when I log on...I pass right by the sticky threads...lol. That is unless I need to check something.

 

you like that, don't cha??? did it just for you. guys, i appreciate the thanks being handed out. i'd like to thank the sponsors that actually donated parts for the testing. without them, it would've taken longer to get this done and not have had as many to compare. i'll work some more tonight on the webpage and graphs. what i'll do is put a column with average a/f ratio. it was late and i didn't have the graphs in front of me at the time. so, i didn't want to put the wrong info up.


one nozzle that surprised me was the dynotune nozzle. it was right up there with the SHO and TNT. for a tiny nozzle, it put up a good fight. as far as the predator goes, well, maybe it's just my car. who knows. they are supposed to have another test performed shortly.