Happy to help where I can.
You will need 4x600cc+ injectors to make good power and have some reserve using E85.
The single injector i'm using is 2200cc and running at about 60% duty cycle at 120Kw, and .79 Lambda

I was still thinking about this last night, what's limiting the amount of boost without the intercooler? If it's the heat, from memory, vapourising water drops the air temp by 1 degree C for every gram of water in a kg of air. i.e. 20 degree drop, 20g of water per kilogram of air, or a 50:1 mix.

Putting the injector before the turbo doesnt that then make it a drawthrough setup? Any issues you see leaving it there apart from aesthetics or location space problems? If 5% efficiency is reduced from each 90 degree turn then does this setup have 1 x 180 and 1 x 90 degree turn? that would mean 15% inefficiency overall?
Making the current throttle body face as a sidedraft in another custom manifold could improve efficiency if making it drawthrough?

I'm not sure what the maximum boost would be. I didn't log the air temp before I switched to the pre compressor injection. The Air temp sensor had fried when I over boosted it. I did the same thing to a pre cooler sensor on the race car, it died at 185deg c and is the same sensor.
The air temps were only at 45Deg c at 22psi with the ambient at 27deg, so the E85 is already getting the charge to within 18c of ambient. I cant log the charge temps without E85 unless I move the injector again. I'd be guessing the charge temp would be over 120c without the aid of the E85.

I think the advantage of water inj comes from being able to run leaner mixtures to gain Hp, rather than letting the fuel do the job. It also would enable you to run unleaded to very high boosts without det.

I did a lot of testing with water injection on my race car. I logged 4 temps and 4 pressures . Ambient, pre ic, post ic and in the exhaust manifold. I felt I was quite methodical with it.
I also tried different water jet locations and sizes including intercooler sprayers.

I concluded that although the water did drop intake temps(up to 70c pre ic when sprayed pre compressor) and egts, NO extra power was made in any of the tests, in fact, power was lost in every test.

I put this down to the fact that the intake temps were already within 15c of ambient in the plenum (before injecting the E85), that any colder, it wouldn't vaporize the fuel properly.
I have all the paperwork from the testing if you are keen to see it sometime.

D, It's not going to make any difference to power output buy getting rid of the bends in the crossover pipe. That tube is 42mm inside diameter compared to 26mm id of the inlet manifold. Yes, getting rid of the bends in the crossover pipe might allow it to flow about 15% more, but it already flows enough to support over 400Hp.

Improving power is about reducing restrictions to allow the engine to shift more air.

The power might rise if the bends in the standard manifold weren't there or if it was re made using larger diameter tube. but it could be the head/valves that are stopping it making more power.

I suppose some might call it draw through. Although, with the throttle plate the other side of the compressor, the carbon seal turbo mods wouldn't be required.

You do start to lose power with water injection when you use too much. The technical paper I read suggested a maximum of 0.7 times the fuel flow (gasoline in this case). After that the combustion rate slows down. Just a curiosity.

D, for your bends the losses depends heavily on the nature of the bend. As a general rule of thumb if the bend radius is larger than 1.5 times the pipe radius the losses are fairly negligible/ approaching that of straight pipe. Mitre bends have significant losses but can be overcome with turning vanes. There's actually a lot to losses in bends in duct flow.

I didn't realize that good bends have little losses. I'm not sure where I got the 5% loss in flow capability from, but was sure it was in one of my books.. Doesn't make it right I suppose.

Edit, just thinking about it some more.. I can imagine there would be some losses as air has mass and changing its direction would take energy. If the flow becomes turbulent as the air separates on the short side, I can imagine the losses would be high.

I'll see if I can find my reference.

Probably about right for a 90deg mitre but it also depends a lot on flow speed (Reynolds number). A long radius butt weld fitting has it's bend radius based on minimal losses so you can't really go wrong with them.

Its all interesting and I like the idea of the throttle where it is
to avoid using carbon sealed old turbos and instead use BB beauties.
Im just wondering if those bends werent there would response be better
and still make the same hp? will prob never know but I remember some1
saying for a drawthrough setup the shorter the distance the flow with
the charge needs to travel the more hp and the better the response.
Just theoretically if those bends werent there so atomised fuel has
a more direct passaged from turbine into the head even with 26mm id
manifold would the response be improved especially with high psi?

Lets say the inlet manifold has the ideal ID so increased mani capacity
but without the big 42mm tubing its using atm and instead the compressor
feeds this inlet manifold more directly like a shorter version of this mani
http://www.maniflow.co.uk/uploads/617 ... 321b1213733751e926350.jpg


to some factory datsun A12 GX twin SU manifolds instead.
Wouldnt that get PSIs faster than this current setup therefore be more
responsive yet make just as much or more hp?

Come on guys back on track now.This gig of Simons is to do a system under $1200 and as far as i'm concirned he has achieved the result.The pro;s and con's of bigger pipe/bends in manifolds versus straight is a no brainer but take time/money to produce,mine took weeks to fabricate!!and thus takes us in a differant direction.
I say All Hale Simon for what he's done and how he's done it,now how about a few of you put your hand in your pockets and buy a few kits from him to help cover his out of pocket expenses