fuel coolers ?????

true
would suit track days too .. drain/top up before every session .

keep it simple just run an air cooler on return line under the car as I'm going to ..

although that morosso could fit next to my surgetank in the spare wheel well ..hmmm

 

air cooled fuel is what I'm mainly looking at and its use woud be on 2 of my toys..... obviously the zed and the supercharged beastie....

the main one is the supercharged beastie, we are getting very high temps from the blower that are radiating into the fuel rails and subsquently dramatically increasing fuel temps as a result....

Cry02 cooling system for those not up with it .....

http://www.designengineering.com/category/catalog/cryo2-system-components/cryo2-fuel-chilling-system





with the "over crowded" Zed's enginebay, the temps are also very high so it was my 2nd choice to have a play with.....


research...... research.... and research some more....

 

Someting like this

could made to fit under the car inside the rail where the lines are.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fuel%20rail%20cooling%20system&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flex-a-lite.com%2Fauto%2Fhtml%2Ffuel-coolers.html&ei=puRbT6OFEqHKmAWR8J2yDw&usg=AFQjCNE_sAIBg06cuSr2vU_6Bx-19qyuzg&cad=rja

 

Waiting for your reply here Brisz

 

STILL waiting for your reply Brisz

You have gone off to another thread and started bashing away there but still no reply here.

You seem to have the impression I have claimed there is HEAPS of extra power available from fuel coolers and that it is worth while on a street car.

I've not said either anywhere at any time.

You write that I am hard work, why? is it hard for you to read and understand what I have written? you seem to have an issue - maybe jealousy

THE OP asked if fuel coolers worked, they do end of story, because I defended that fact you have gone off and attacked me personally in another thread based on the wrongful assumption that I claimed they make heaps more power and are worth fitting to a street Z32. FAIL.

 

Ideally, youd fit coolers (of choice) to both pressure and return sides of the system. One to lower fuel density at the engine, other to help lower fuel tak temps.
You could even go one better and fit a third, dedicated loop with a lift pump just to continuoulsly recirc fuel from the tank only. Or just run the return to tank line from a surge tank via a cooler making the extra pump redundat!!!
Around and around it goes!

The finned ally tube had probably no worse or better value than a simple tube and fin style single pass cooler so popular in the power steering and auto trans cooling games. Even an AC condenser core, either a Modine stye or tube and fin. Actually, these would be excellent and are built to take very high pressures and mechanical punishment!

Anyway, straighten out that tube and fin cooler core and what do you have? Bugger me, Yep a long(ish) finned tube no? Its just when its wrapped up in a nice little square package it makes it easy to mount and direct air to.
Usually quite a bit of airflow running around under a car but unfortunately, a lot of it is heated, drawn down from the engine bay due to the lower pressure induced under even the most clunky of old utes!!! However, enough air movemnent to remove a fair amount of stored heat in those fins so in theory, its all good.

However, and its a big however, are the actual gians in horsepower worth the added complexity and importantly, weight, in a track oriented car???
Dyno figures a few percent higher rarely equate to anything consistent on the track.

Bottom line is the theory and practise is perfectly sound but whether it actually equates to more than just bragging rights...................

L8r
E

 

What else matters?

 

There is one other thing to consider:

SAFETY with cooler fuel helping to cool the intake charge it just might make the difference between a detonation disco on the top of your pistons or not.

As you say though bragging rights come in to it & at the end of the day the entertainment for the person wanting to tinker just for the sake of it.

Who cares if it doesn't make a lot more power, it gives someone the chance to have a play & piss about testing etc and figure out for themselves exactly what they can get (or loose) from it :zlove:

I wish I had a dyno to put some of these things to the test & post results specific to the good ole VG30.

 

Running fuel lines into the frontal area of the car is extremely dangerous.

To do so dramatically increase the risk of fire from chafed lines, split coolers from road debris strike etc, and small frontal impacts at very low speeds.

If the ignition is on and the engine is running, fuel is continuously pumped, Nissan has designed the ECU to stop pumping fuel in 1.5 seconds if the engine stops.

Fitting coolers as per the UAS example will be exposed to under vehicle debris, stones, tyre casings and other vehicle debris on the track. Although you are afforded the safety of fire teams at the race track.

Fuel lines are specifically routed to be as well protected as possible by the manufacturer, apparently cars bursting into flames like in Hollywood is bad for business.

More so concerning is that vehicles with such modifications are sold on to unsuspecting new owners. Passing inspections etc and owners probably oblivious to potentially life threatening modifications.

One administrator suggesting it and another actually fitting it, and possibly on selling the car, is extremely disappointing.

What is even more disappointing is I have had to take a copy of this, as I expect it to be deleted.

 

I so agree with you John,
A fuel cooler mounted up front is EXTREEMLY Dangerous.
These sort of practices are why the police are so down on modifications.
If you want to cool the fuel use a dry ice esky coil, or go with a super cooler nitros injected.

 

If you got the fuel too cold it wouldn't evaporate/aspirate properly right?
There'd be more fuel molecules per cm3 but cold fuel burns longer rather than exploding.
Could have some issues with cold fuel at high rpms?


Had a carby Ra40 celica and although its light years behind in tech to the vg30
The ra40 had the exhaust headers connected to the intake manifold to warm the fuel and vaporize it properly.

 

Looking at the fuel itself as far as temperature, yes the fuel has more energy per volume when cooler, but has less viscosity at higher temperatures, apparently the increased injector flow at higher temps due to lower viscosity evens out the energy per volume question.

But you could move it on to, more volume at higher temperatures means a larger collective surface area of droplets for the fuel to react, vaporise and mix with oxygen during combustion.

But you will come back to the limitation of the engine, getting air in and out of it, fuel is not a problem, that is why turbo's work compared to an NA it pressurises the intake charge availing combustion with a bigger "bang" with more air and more fuel provided by larger injectors on the TT.

The effect of fuel cooling the intake charge as it enters the chamber comes under the heading of chemical intercooling.

Some other chemical intercooling agents are alcohol/methanol injection and nitrous oxide, although NO2 is primarily a chemical supercharging option.

We are all familiar with air/air intercoolers and there importance in assisting power production, working like a radiator they transfer the heat from the hotter than ambient intake charge, cooling the intake charge reduces the chance of detonation.

Reducing intake charge temperatures is a worthwhile exercise at many levels, in context of the vehicle and its use with consideration to legality, safety and effectiveness.

IMO fuel coolers will offer very little return, and when taken into account weight, cost and safety, they will be a big lose.

An F1 tech site quoted that each 10C equaled 0.5% in power, sounds OK hey ?

Firstly you must realise that this is a result (Possibly from Honda F1 whitepaper) on a highly tuned engine with the injector spray mixing in mid air at intake entry, the tune is that tight without the correct fuel temperature the engine would probably detonate (without advanced det retard type control), that is what is required to extract the benefit. In relation to our street cars, having much lower levels of fueling and performance and tune, we would be lucky to see a single HP on an NA IMO.

IF you could drop fuel temperatures from 60C odd degrees to around 30C on a HIGLY tuned F1 engine you will see 1.5% power, on a NA that would represent about 2.5 RWHP IF you had comparable setup to an F1.

Now let us consider what it takes to drop 36L (half tank of fuel) 30C AND maintain it thermostatically to obtain the 1.5%, you will have a system that would probably weight 10-15KG's (PLUS) AND require safe fitment out of the cabin IMO, where the fook do you put it ? Maybe you could pump it through the air brake control surfaces ?

15KG's will cost you .07 of a second on a quarter mile for a 225 BHP 1500Kg car, it would require nearly 3HP to recoupe that lose. (approx)

Safety FAIL
Performance FAIL
Cost FAIL
Legality FAIL

But hey you will have bragging rights !

Anodised shinny stuff, they are often like stickers but cost more.




Unload your spare and jack set and you will probably be further in front. :br:

The only reason you would cool your fuel is if you want to drink it. SUP UP !

 

So much on here form people who think they know a lot about fuels systems etc.

Yet the OBVIOUS deliberate error slides right on by without any comment from someone dead keen to pick at anyones posts who suggests cooling the fuel on a petrol turbo engine might help in some way.

You don't cool nitrous oxide bottles, you warm them to maintain the desired pressure in the bottle.

The effects of cooled fuel for a turbo charged engine go far beyond just trying to squeeze in more air and fuel like the F1 boys were trying to do.
With a cooler charge there is room for more spark advance, anyone want to doubt that just a couple of degrees more spark advance will make more power? - would be a silly thing to do, there are dozens of us here who will have seen it first hand on the dyno.

Think of the gains had from running Avgas in a turbo engine Vs an NA version, the turbo/forced induction engine sees a significantly higher percentage in power gain. We all should know those gains are realised from less potential for detonation & so advanced spark timing etc etc etc.

I suggest anyone who wants to try tinkering with fuel coolers should have a go, do some research, install quality gear in a safe way & test results accurately.

 

Kingy , have you thought of moving the air evaporator closer to the motor ( don't know where you will find the room ) then making a box to mount it in with a fuel line running thru the box. Wala just turn the air con on and start cooling your fuel. Although turning the air con on will zap a bit of power having lower fuel temp might still give more power. I'm guessing with the standard fuel rails you get heat soak into the fuel via the rails so that may need looking at. Even the fuel running thru the electric pump will raise temps about. To me it sounds like something worth trying ( cooling fuel ) and i don't see any thing wrong with people trying ideas that others feel is a waste of time. At least it keeps the brain active and if you don't try things you will never know.
Cheers Dave

 

At first glance, TT's post could seem laughable but in fact there is considerable merit in it!!
Particularly if the heat exchanger was able to store sufficient temp and fuel volume could be interfaced with the AC evap. return line.
This keeps petrol away from the car interior in event of a leak if a simple cooler core was placed after the AC evap core.

Dont forget, the engine ECU actually controls the operation of the AC pump under high power conditions. The function is usually called AC interrupt. When the ecu determines that the driver is asking a big question of the engine, the ECU cuts the AC pump. So, voila! No AC pump power loss which is very large. In excess of 10 hp.

There should be enough stored cool in the heat exchanger to do the fuel cooling business for the duration of the AC shutdown.

Hell, why not? Of course, a working AC system is a given!!!!!!!

L8r
E

 

one step ahead of you mate


NB:
before the smartasses start with their B/S that I'm neither interested in nor can be bothered in replying too ......

Ambient temp on the day of "tinkering" was a steady 25degrees

Tinkering (driving the track) commenced at 11.00am and ceased at 4.00pm


temp recordings were taken every 5mins with a infrared temp gun

temp recordings taken at idle were all done inside a "closed" shed and at a set distance at the same point on the tank as the outdoor temps were taken.

30 temp readings were taken for each setup at preset points in both the shed and along the chosen route, these included the ambient temp.


playing with the supercharged beastie, I did a quick setup of wrapping a copper pipe around the aircon pipe that usually frosts up heavily when the climate controll is on....... heat wrap was then placed over the area to prevent 'enginebay temps' from interfering too much....
bypassed the return line for the first test so that the fuel was being chilled on its way back to the tank.


After 20mins of running and playing with 1/2 a tank of fuel the temp drop was 12degrees
Engine was far more responsive down low in the rpm range .... really crisp accelleration and a much sweeter note aswell.
ecconomy didnt alter over the usual test track run I do...... its usual shyte ecconomy
:rofl:



I then swapped the hoses over so the injector supply line was being cooled before it went to the fuel rails.......

sweet puck all change..... even the tanks temperature didnt really change with any noticable significance, 5degree drop was the biggest change I measured with a majority being in the low 4degree mark.




mmmmmmmmm

swapped the hoses back .... added an extra 2metres of copper pipe and a canvas bag with dry ice to the equasion ......
I got the tanks remaining contents (just over the 1/4 mark) down to 2degress in just under 15mins

I actually had condensation drips on the shed floor from the underbody fuel lines
:rofl:

Again we had the better low rpm response but not quite as good as just using the aircon pipe , the exhaust note was entirely differant ..... even at idle there was a distinct crack

Obviously the 'overcooled fuel' wasnt quite as good as the chilled fuel, even the plugs didnt look that good in comparision...... as a result I didnt bother to 'bag n ice' the supplyline





so......



cooling the tanks contents made a "noticable' differance in the S/C beastie but to what extent I'm unsure of at the moment.....
(not even remotely interested in testing the idea on the zed at the moment untill I have some more knowlege on the subject...... )


currently learning about flash temps and the optimum fuel temps for the best burn ...... not much info out there on this subject unless your a physic's nerd and can understand much of the mumbojumbo that these guys are sprouting.... a little above my head at the moment but I'm learning .......





I plan to keep tinkering with the idea once I have some more knowlege on fuel temps and burn rates and the weather settles a bit, bloody hard when one day is 27 and the next is 11...... its a snug 7degrees here at the moment, leccky blanket is on






where did summer go


Kingy



PS





incase you missed it.......



tests were done on a

SUPERCHARGED ENGINE ..... NOT A TWIN TURBO ENGINE

& I'll bet some twit still misses it


:br:

 

Good work and thanks for posting useful information - actual testing and results.
There is some info out there posted by a chap who did some testing with a nitro methane RC car engine on a proper mini dyno. He saw a ~15% gain in HP from fuel at around two degrees c in comparison to fuel at around 15 degrees c.
Not a TT Zed but just an interesting result.

Some of the teams in the V8 Supercars dabbled in cooling the fuel with chiller boxes etc - it got banned there as well, you have to ask why it has been banned if it has no beneficial results, surely if it's worthless and wont help then the governing bodies would not bother to ban it.

 

F1 banned it too ......

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/5267/fia.html



specifically ........ rules 6.5.4 and 6.5.5

The old 2007 wording:-
6.5.4 No fuel on board the car may be more than ten degrees
centigrade below ambient temperature.


The new wording:-
6.5.4 No fuel intended for immediate use in a car may be more than ten degrees centigrade below ambient temperature. When assessing compliance the ambient temperature will be that recorded one hour before any practice session or the race by the FIA appointed weather service provider. This information will also be displayed on the timing monitors.
The temperature of fuel intended for use in a car must be measured via an FIA approved and sealed sensor.


more importantly......


6.5.5 The use of any device on board the car to decrease the temperature of the fuel is forbidden.



and yet..... the fueling rigs.....



so much heat wrap.........
and an impressive portable fridge setup.....



and people say there's no gain in cooled fuel ....


I'm so glad there are members here that have a far greater knowlege base than them dumbphuckers playing with the F1 cars


:W:

 

biggest problem on forums with subjects like this is that there are 2 types of people debating .

street performance people that use the term "hair splitting"
(and wont see any benefits from these mods and frankly wont need them )

race performance people that use the term "mathematical calculation"
(who realise one "hair splitting" mod wont see much results but put a handful of these mods together will add up to a significant % gain

 

to be truthfull.... I havent really posted any of my notes, more my conclusions going on both what I'm seeing in black n white and the 'feel' of the car during drives.



there's so much more involved then just dropping the fuel temp......
ambient temps , humidity, other heat issues in both the fuel system and enginebay, even the temps both pre and post the blower are of a significant differance which I had allowed for but an oversight on my behalf (and a very basic simple mistake it was too) may explain why I got such dissapointing results from the 'overcooled fuel' ..... I need to reset a couple of things and re-test again, hopefully with better results

two of my other stuff ups......
didnt allow for humidity changes during the day (significant effect)
&
bloody bad choice in the heat range of the sparkplugs, they were not altered for the overcooled fuel run and should have been



local aircon joint has an old portable beer chiller thats destined for our scrap bin......... negotiations happening





long way from finishing this.................



Kingy