Nitrous Oxide, Methanol, and Water Injection for Automobile Engines?

Delta Force

Banned
Mercedes-Benz used direct fuel injection technology derived from the Bf-109 on the 300 SL. Could something similar have been done with technology derived from the GM-1 nitrous oxide and MW methanol-water systems? What about simply using water injection, since water is readily available at most automobile service stations?
 
Oldsmobile used Turbo Rocket Fluid injection in their turbo V8s in the 60s, a mix of distilled water, methanol abd a corrosion inhibtor. IIUC methanol can be a pain in the arse, it turns into a gel if let sit for too long which is probabaly why manufacturers mixed it with water.

Nitrous would be an even bigger pain in the arse, sure it gives a massive power boost but only for short periods and is somewhat complex. Even in racing it is little used and I'd suggest practicality is a culprit.
 
Could MW or water injection have been a route for improving the performance of internal combustion engine automobiles before/without the use of TEL and other anti-knock agents?

What about using MW or water injection to help automobiles maintain performance in the 1970s? In addition to allowing higher compression, it also helps reduce nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions, which became regulated by the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

It's a possibility, but the water idea runs into a simple problem - most American drivers don't pay much attention to the condition of their vehicle unless absolutely necessary (and sometimes not even then), which means regular water fillups, however simple they would be to implement (you'd want distilled water for such systems, but that's not hard to supply really) would require people to pay far more attention to the vehicles. Methanol-water has the same issues in addition to the methanol being extremely toxic (methanol ingestion in even small amounts can cause blindness) if ingested.

On top of that, the tuning of the vehicle would need to be adjusted for atmospheric conditions, which for methanol injection systems is a problem before the advent of electronic fuel injection - a car at higher altitudes has to deal with less air intake due to the lower ambient pressure, not a problem for a fuel injected or carbureted automobile because the lower air density also means less of a venturi effect, but for a methanol injection system you're still adding the same amount of methanol in, which would cause the car to run rich at best, at worst it could cause mechanical damage.
 
Could MW or water injection have been a route for improving the performance of internal combustion engine automobiles before/without the use of TEL and other anti-knock agents?

...

Some people involved in the automotive, aircraft, and fuel industry in the 1920s & 30s have commented on this tangentally. The simple version is the fuel and engine makers were refusing to move forward on high performance unless the other did first. The engine manufactors refused to build motors capable of using high performance fuels, because such fuel was not available. The fuel manufactors refused to mix fuels useful for high performance engines, because such motors were not available. Jimmy Dolittle who worked for one of the oil companies describes in his auto biography how when acquiring a aircraft it was common to instal custom built high performance parts, then carry ones own witches brew of fuel additives to hop up the 65 octane gas available at the airports. It appears many professional pilots or airline flight engineers kept containers of custom mixes in the tool compartment or behind the cockpit seat.

As Dolittle indicated no one in the fuel industry would invest in any additives, TEL, Methonal, or whatever, because the lack of appropriate engines meant there was not a clear market. Selling additives seperately was a niche market for the chemical industry
 

Delta Force

Banned
Some people involved in the automotive, aircraft, and fuel industry in the 1920s & 30s have commented on this tangentally. The simple version is the fuel and engine makers were refusing to move forward on high performance unless the other did first. The engine manufactors refused to build motors capable of using high performance fuels, because such fuel was not available. The fuel manufactors refused to mix fuels useful for high performance engines, because such motors were not available. Jimmy Dolittle who worked for one of the oil companies describes in his auto biography how when acquiring a aircraft it was common to instal custom built high performance parts, then carry ones own witches brew of fuel additives to hop up the 65 octane gas available at the airports. It appears many professional pilots or airline flight engineers kept containers of custom mixes in the tool compartment or behind the cockpit seat.

As Dolittle indicated no one in the fuel industry would invest in any additives, TEL, Methonal, or whatever, because the lack of appropriate engines meant there was not a clear market. Selling additives seperately was a niche market for the chemical industry

Did it require the military getting involved and essentially making guaranteed purchases of higher octane engines and fuel to get the market going?

It's interesting that by the 1960s things had reversed, and fuel companies were selling gasoline of such high octanes that non-standard engines were required to use it.
 
The military was part of it. The war forced the issue in a very fast way. Ovre the longer term the airlines were forcing change as they required better engine perfomance. If I undertand the bits I've read some were contracting the fuel industry for custom mixes in bulk for their fleets.

There was still resistance in the military. Circa 1941 a senior officer on the logistics/procurement side was arguing the Army Air Corps would have to suck it up and accept lower performance engines as providing a single 65 octane fuel across the board would be a much more efficient way to win the war. Similar arguments were made against buying any diesel engines.

I'll see if I can identify that generals name.

...

It's interesting that by the 1960s things had reversed, and fuel companies were selling gasoline of such high octanes that non-standard engines were required to use it.

I remember companies like TEXACO had five or six grades available at their pumps as late as 1977.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The military was part of it. The war forced the issue in a very fast way. Ovre the longer term the airlines were forcing change as they required better engine perfomance. If I undertand the bits I've read some were contracting the fuel industry for custom mixes in bulk for their fleets.

There was still resistance in the military. Circa 1941 a senior officer on the logistics/procurement side was arguing the Army Air Corps would have to suck it up and accept lower performance engines as providing a single 65 octane fuel across the board would be a much more efficient way to win the war. Similar arguments were made against buying any diesel engines.

I'll see if I can identify that generals name.

Have cetane levels undergone similar improvements?

I remember companies like TEXACO had five or six grades available at their pumps as late as 1977.

What range did they cover?
 
Have cetane levels undergone similar improvements?

I'm not sure, although the move from indirect to direct injection in diesel engines, which reduces the time available for combustion to initiate, would suggest that it has.

What range did they cover?

IIRC before the lead phase-out, up to 104 AKI was available at some station. They still are at some stations in southern California, albeit sold as "race gas" for ~$8/gallon, and it's only available in container, not bulk form.

Water injection wouldn't have been too problematic if it were introduced early enough that everyone perceived it as standard, and cars came with water as well as fuel gauges, and a water fill-up was as standard procedure as fuel fill-up. Perhaps if steam cars remained competitive for longer? Adjusting for altitude wouldn't be that big of a hurdle, since before EFI, one had to adjust or change the metering jets in carburetors or (in the rare mechanical GDI engines) the elements in fuel pumps when driving up and down mountains.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Is there a way to know what ratio of MW or water to fuel would be? What about figuring out what the octane rating and torque and horsepower increase would be?
 
I remember companies like TEXACO had five or six grades available at their pumps as late as 1977.

UK Petrol stations in the Seventies used a star system to indicate fuel grades, with two star to five star being commonly available. I think that three star was the equivalent of 95 octane while four star was the equivalent to 98 octane.


Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Have cetane levels undergone similar improvements?



What range did they cover?
From what I have seen, cetane levels have improved a bit with the lowering of the sulfur content in the fuel. However, the cetane level is lower in the U.S. than in Europe which results in differences in performance.

The U.S. military currently uses JP8 instead of diesel fuel that you would find on the civilian side.
 
Water injection is troublesome in winter months until engine is at regular temperatures, so would be in 'low performance' mode till warm up was complete.

Water injection systems in the '70s were really basic for automobiles.
I tried them for my '60s high compression engines when high octane gas got expensive/scarce.
Many guys did.

There's a reason why they didn't catch on.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Water injection is troublesome in winter months until engine is at regular temperatures, so would be in 'low performance' mode till warm up was complete.

Water injection systems in the '70s were really basic for automobiles.
I tried them for my '60s high compression engines when high octane gas got expensive/scarce.
Many guys did.

There's a reason why they didn't catch on.

Could anything other than methanol be added as an anti-freeze for water injection?
 
Could anything other than methanol be added as an anti-freeze for water injection?

It's not so much the water freezing in the tank, but icing the throttle plates.

Can't avoid that, it's physics. Water spray drops the temp from atomization, and the hot air riser wasn't enough to stop it in cold weather. Gasoline doesn't want to atomize properly in those cold conditions, add in larger than normal water droplets and you will get icing very quickly

Now if every car had a supercharger, like WWII aircraft, the hot compressed air would avoid that, or run high percentage Alcohol.
 
Last edited:
Top