NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

I've just been informed that the INDEPENDENT TEST carried out on a car fitted with both a Ny-Trex Kit & one of our kits has just been completed.

I wanted to witness the tests myself but somehow the tests have been done without me being informed.

However even without my input the unofficial results (the official results will be published in Performance Ford ASAP) are;

Dyno test
Ny-Trex kit made 40 bhp - Highpower kit made 43 bhp

However the Highpower kit made an ADDITIONAL 50% MORE torque than the Ny-Trex kit. It was also noted that the power delivery was far SMOOTHER!!!!!


Track test
On all roll-on tests the Highpower kit produced times at least 1 second quicker than the Ny-Trex kit.

Furthermore the car bogged badly when using the Ny-Trex kit and when eventually the power did hit, it was so harsh that the clutch slipped.

The Highpower kit on the other hand had NO bog and was so smooth that there was NO clutch slip.


Now this was all done whilst I was too busy to be involved and the fact that I personally didn't tune the system, I think I can confidently say that I could have improved on these figures further.


Since ALL other nitrous kits use the same basic components you can be confident that the results would have been the same regardless of what kit had been used to compare with our Highpower kit.

There is NO QUESTION NOW that;
A Highpower systems will make your car accelerate faster than any other kit.
A Highpower system will be kinder to your vehicle than any other kit.
A Highpower kit makes the nitrous power more manageable than any other kit.
A Highpower system offers you more.
All as INDEPENDENT TESTS have now PROVED!!!!!!

I have noticed huge torque gains over here as well but some NA applications are seeing less than advertised hp numbers but for drag racing the torque is what wins races and the point of nitrous.

Do you think the hp numbers may be up per rated jet once you guys sort out the new flow numbers? For people wondering the hp ratings in the nitrous market are based on a very old equation. We have discovered that since Highpower products are so much more efficient that the open flow equations don't really apply and that's why we aren't having fair comparisons. It's hard for me to even explain at this point until more information is brought to us through testing.

well the proofs in the results need we say anymore
the best system by far as we always said

Very true Tony but I bet they'll be making excuses for why they lost, but as the guy who was mainly in charge of the contest sells both ours & Nytrex systems, I can't see how they could justify any complaints.

I notice nobody's been on here from Ny-Trex!!!!
Yet we couldn't get rid of them at one time.

By the way the report will be in the June issue of Performance Ford which is out in May (strange magazine behaviour), so make sure you get a copy.

Shame we lost the main thread on this subject from the general section (but we hope to recover it if possible), however for now I'd like to get this thread up to date with some views from anyone who has read the magazine.

Im curious to know how the HP kit made 50% more torque. Surely the only way this is possible is if it is activated at lower rpms??

Two words explain that - "efficiency" and "density"

Now before I expand on that we'll have a little test, can anyone (excluding Loopy, Denny, Chip & Brian) explain why my systems are more "efficient" than all other systems and why the nitrous is denser sooner and more dense continually with our systems than all other systems.

ALL Nitrous systems ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!

Just for the record BOTH systems in the test were activated at the same rpm so the differences in torque and power have NOTHING to do with anything EXCEPT the design of the nitrous system components (CONTRARY to what FOOLS elsewhere on the net are claiming).

Smaller bore pipe combined with fittings with a constant bore from bottle to solenoid = less chance of impeded nitrous flow, with its associated problems?

10 out of 10 for that man!

However that's not all the explanation (although it is a major contributor), so there's still plenty more to get the grey matter working on.

Jet positioning is a factor I think as well

Though you might want to edit your excluding before I add more

Yes Gareth (another bulls eye), metering jet location is also a factor in maintaing density and even increasing it!!!

Rather than edit the exclusions, let's see what else you've got

Well another possibility is a smoother flow through the solenoid. The flow path in a standard solenoid is possibly more cluttered than a pulsoid, more "clutter" means turbulence is a distinct possibility. Turbulence in a fluid flow can give us cavitation/phase change and we all know this is a bad thing.

Quick question for Loopy/Trev as well, I have heard cavitation on a propellor/screw on a ship can damage the structure of the prop. Could the occur with nitrous cavitation?

Also I have a feeling the clearances are larger at the plunger section (making for a "cleaner" fit) and again this would help flow ... I think.

Additionally (and I am not sure how much this contributes) Trev's plunger design is lighter than a "standard" solenoid (not gonna mention any company names at any point if I can help it). This means the solenoid/pulsoid as a whole should run cooler than a "standard" one. A cooler solenoid is less capable of transferring this temperature to the liquid nitrous oxide and surely we want the liquid to atomise in the inlet tract as cool as possible.

Knowing Trev's attention to detail as well the injector design has been checked and rechecked (and revised if necessary) to promote atomisation and reduce fuel drop-out (I can't see liquid nitrous puddling as a liquid but bad atomisation could cause denser pockets of atomised nitrous to gather in the inlet tract).

Well another possibility is a smoother flow through the solenoid. The flow path in a standard solenoid is possibly more cluttered than a pulsoid, more "clutter" means turbulence is a distinct possibility.

Yet another 100% correct answer, the flow path through our Pulsoid is more "direct" and the chamber size is much smaller, resulting in less volume for expansion and less cause for the liquid nitrous to change state (lose density).


Turbulence in a fluid flow can give us cavitation/phase change and we all know this is a bad thing.
Correct again


Quick question for Loopy/Trev as well, I have heard cavitation on a propellor/screw on a ship can damage the structure of the prop. Could the occur with nitrous cavitation?

In my humble opinion (as this is something I don't know for sure), I doubt there is any risk of failure due to cavitation in the solenoid although there are a number of other reasons why inferior solenoids fail.


Also I have a feeling the clearances are larger at the plunger section (making for a "cleaner" fit) and again this would help flow ... I think.

The plunger clearance is larger in a Pulsoid but to be honest, that if anything is detrimental to the density of the nitrous liquid, as it gives the liquid more volume to expand in to. However as this is only a few extra thou it has no noticeable effect and the benefits in other areas (reliabillity) are far more beneficial.

Doing well Gareth, anything else you can think of?

Ah you seem to have replied while I was editing in a couple of other points Trev, have another look at my post as there are another two paragrahs on there that might be relevant.

I assume I am still missing something but as the only kit I have seen is TFS's (and we were more interested in the engine at the time) I might need to have a harder dig through the theory in my head.

Edit: As for cavitation being a cause of failure I assumed that it would fail through other means first. I was more interested if damage (i.e. pitting) could occur meaning those metal fragments have to end up somewhere (such as embedded in a PTFE seal or wedged somewhere in a cylinder head as a "hot spot causing unwated pre-ignition)

Additionally (and I am not sure how much this contributes) Trev's plunger design is lighter than a "standard" solenoid (not gonna mention any company names at any point if I can help it).

That's true but does not affect the particular aspects we're currently discussing but does have other benefits.


This means the solenoid/pulsoid as a whole should run cooler than a "standard" one. A cooler solenoid is less capable of transferring this temperature to the liquid nitrous oxide and surely we want the liquid to atomise in the inlet tract as cool as possible.

It's not the smaller plunger that makes the Pulsoid run cooler than other solenoids, it's the one piece billet alloy body that transfers heat from the core FAR more efficiently than the composite stainless bodies used by other companies but you're right about the end result being beneficial to the density of the liquid nitrous.


Knowing Trev's attention to detail

How true! - But it can be a burden sometimes.


as well the injector design has been checked and rechecked (and revised if necessary) to promote atomisation and reduce fuel drop-out (I can't see liquid nitrous puddling as a liquid but bad atomisation could cause denser pockets of atomised nitrous to gather in the inlet tract).

Correct the injector design promotes better atomisation and minimises fuel drop out, but there is an even bigger benefit from the Crossfire design that influences the low end torque increase.


It's not so much that you're missing anything, it's just that EVERY part of my system is DESIGNED to be better than every part of any other kit and they all contribute to the superior end results. Even the new bottle valve design and even the siphon tube contribute to maximising the density of the nitrous delivery.

Hang on this must all be a load of bullshit because some expert in Watford claims the results in Performance Fords were fixed and that he could easily reproduce the results our system produced, because this isn't rocket science and because it's impossible for one nitrous kit to make more torque than another on the same jets and because my systems are crap!!!!


Some people just don't realise when to admit defeat!

I thought I saw a post about that somewhere complete with an equation. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I am fairly certain that all that equation shows is that the torque and power curves should cross at that point (within the limits of error) and if there is a vast difference in the crossover point then someone is "playing" with the dyno.

Edit: Said person above from the North edge of London probably also believes the same thing about say ... carbs ... so I am wasting my time trying to fit 1990s bike carbs to my car, I guess I should go back to the original 1960s Solex as despite 30 years of development it does the same thing (mixes fuel and air in a metered way) so any better results I get from using "higher developed" carbs would be me lying ... yeah ok

Edit2: Dyslexic moment, thanks for referencing my post so I could check it Trev.

All very true and very good points (in first of last 2 post), it's like the old saying "a little knowledge in the wrong hands can be dangerous".

The carbs are a very good analogy and it's just a shame that the people who need this knowledge most will reject it!!

That is until some time down the line when they'll start using it and claiming it as their own, just like the metering jet location.

Anyone else think it's strange that I've been the ONLY person using jets located at the solenoid outlet for 25 years, yet these thieving cowboys think it's a good enough idea to steal but reckon everything else I do is shit???? If all the US stuff and ideas are so good why didn't they fit the jets at the nozzle like everyone else does????

But how can you make 50% more torque yet only produce 3bhp more???

The maths doesn't work.

Gareth, you are correct that ALL torque/power curves crossing at the same point, 5252 to be exact. This is due to the fact that Horsepower=Torque*RPM/5252.

Simon, I say "supposed to" as I have seen a fair few dyno charts where they crossed at wildly inappropriate places and read (I think in CCC) that this can be done by unscrupulous use of the controls to make the power figure look better.

I am guessing the disproportionate seeming increase in torque is due to increased dynamic compression and/or volumetric efficiency in some way.

By the time the motor revs higher in the rpm band to show peak hp the Ny-Trex kit is cleared of gas and delivering dense liquid, so the peak power figures are almost the same. The problem with all our US made kits is all the INefficiency at the start which losses all the torque that the WON kits deliver and in a 1/4 mile race you don't have much time to spare.

Whilst I'm proud to be American, I'm far from proud of our nitrous companies here.

People are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

Torque is what an engine "generates", the power figure is the result of a mathematical calculation based on the dynos measurement of that torque. The dyno doesn't measure power it measures torque and calculates power by multiplying the torque figure by rpm. Therefore there is no question about the authenticity of the torque figures and if anything it's the power figures that should be in question.

Furthermore peak torque and peak power seldom if ever happen at the same rpm and if you look at the graphs, you'll see that by peak rpm the torque figures for both systems is almost identical which is why the peak power figures are likewise.

Like Denny pointed out (and what most people are ignorant of) is the fact that "TIME" plays a huge part in how a nitrous system performs.

Here's an analogy for you;
Take 2 cars (no nitrous, just basic road cars), both have the same peak power but one is tuned to perfection across the whole rpm range whilst the other has a huge flat spot due to being badly tuned. Put them both on a dyno and they both make the same peak power numbers but the torque and power "CURVES" would be totally different (except at peak power). Now take the cars on the road and would you expect them both to accelerate at the same rate - certainly not, the well tuned car would leave the badly tuned car in it's dust.

It's the same with nitrous systems, ours is "designed" to perform efficiently and is "well tuned" - the rest are just bits thrown together by people who have no idea that you can even tune a nitrous system never mind know how to actually do it!!!

If anyone doubts this fact, just take a "good" look at a Pulsoid and compare it to all other solenoids. Even a blind man could appreciate that the nitrous has an easier path through the Pulsoid than it does through any other solenoid. Therefore EVERYONE who uses conventional solenoids in their kits either does not appreciate the importance of this fact or they are happy selling their customers inferior and inadequate components. Either way I wouldn't be buying products from them!!!

Here's another point to keep in mind, the more efficient the system works the less nitrous you use to achieve a given performance result. Therefore whilst you "might" save a few £££s on the purchase price of any other kit, the extra cost of nitrous wasted through inefficiency will soon eat up that saving, so not only would you have bought an inferior system that wouldn't make your car perform as quick as ours but you'd also be paying more to run it!!!

Well i'm banned from the rest of the thread but not this bit !
Propeller cavitation damage is widely documented, in fact a good summers use out of one outboard prop on something with 125hp or so would be pretty good going. (tip, ceramic coating cost a lot, but it's cheaper in the long run)
Now i've never seen it in a nitrous component, thats not to say there isn't any cavitation going on, a couple of hours on a dyno would show you there is. Just that there isn't enough of it to cause damage.
(it's caused by supersonic bubbles bursting basically)
Now the Cryo-cutting industry knows all about cavitation. When one cryo-cutting machine was scaled up beyond the "bench mounted" size the sheer amount of cavitation created by the fittings meant the liquid nitrogen being super cooled and then pumped at about 6000 psi was actually cutting the ends off the fittings in less than 8 hours.
How's that for a graphic example of the effects of cavitation ?

Guess what they use now ?

P.S. Not understanding why the power and torque curves don't intercect at the right RPM when on nitrous is like wearing a badge saying "I've never done any nitrous development of my own, i'm just flogging junk bits and pieces on Ebay and calling them a nitrous kit"

Loopy,

Your PS is oh so TRUE!!!!

Oh and by the way Simon I'm sure it's not aimed at you.

Just for the record I am more interested in the torque figure an engine gives and the shape of the torque curve. One saying I have heard over and over:

"Torque wins races, BHP sells engines"

You've heard it before and you'll hear it again simply because its true.
Torque is what does the work, horsepower is torque multiplied by the number of times you make torque.
Without torque, horsepower is nothing. (literally)

I love torque, i could talk torque all night long