NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

We finally got to do our Dyno Session that I'm to have been trying to do for ages.

A quick bit of back ground. When I discussed the spider system with Trev we talked about doing a Dyno session with the spider in and out. But that was a couple of years ago and I had just had my 460 (7.5L) set up. Fast forward, the engine was bored and stroked to what it is now 545 (9.0L). As I wasn't Racing this year I decided to do a bit of head work and change cams. Engine's out Ideal time to do our long overdue Dyno. Everything was set up for Friday. Unfortunatly Trev had something else on so of I go, And What a day i had.

First pull saw 690 bhp @ 5500 rpm and 668lb tq @ 4900 thats up 75 bhp and 90lb tq more that the 460 at its peak.

We ended up with 767 bhp @ 6500 rpm and 683 lb tq @ 4800 without the Spider.

Now with the spider In place we pulled 770 bhp @ 6500 and 688lb tq with the Spider.

Next we went for the gas I decided to go as small as I could only having 2 jets per size I went for 50/50 gas and fuel using 1 x 150 and 1 x 200 in either set of pulsoids. + 175 bhp gas 972 bhp @ 5900 and 920lb tq with no timing taken out.

last run 1 x 200 and 1 x 300 in either + 250 bhp extra 1024 bhp @ 6000 rpm and 969lb tq @ 5300

So I broke the 1000 bhp mark.

I will post the dyno sheets so you can all have a good look.

Thanks again to Trev and team for your support

The dyno guys were as good as gold. When I did the last pull and said about the bigger jets he just laughed and said he new what I was after 1000 bhp then he said go for it.http://www.knightracingservices.co.uk/





I hope these have come out

OUTSTANDING!!!!!

Those figures are FAR AND BEYOND even what I was expecting from the Spider and they give a STRONG INDICATION that the Spider concept will outperform ANY alternative arrangement, whether it be ANY other plate or ANY direct port set up.

Anyone who doesn't see why that is the case should consider the following;

1) In the VAST MAJORITY of NA applications, it's EXTREMELY UNUSUAL to see an engine make any more than 70% of the theoretical power of the nitrous jets used, even when everything is optimised.
2) Ron has just seen over 100% of the theoretical power from the engine
3) These results are FAR FROM BEING OPTIMUM, because from what I can gather so far, there was very little if any time available to try different mixture ratios or timing settings
4) The mixture on these runs was FAR TOO RICH at 0.74 and a leaner setting would have increased the power by as much as another 50 hp in my estimate.
5) I'm also quite sure that there was no need to retard the timing by 5 degrees and even on smaller engines I've seen 50 hp gains just by optimising the timing by ONE DEGREE.

Ron's intentions were to see what he could achieve with what he had and to make sure the settings were safe (which he did), they were not to squeeze every ounce of power from the Spider. Had they been to optimise the results and get the best from the combination, I'm CERTAIN that there would have been between 50 and 100 hp MORE from the same combination/nitrous jet size.

Anyone who doesn't appreciate the MAGNITUDE of the figures Ron produced, whilst using such safe settings is a FOOL, just as anyone who doubts the superiority of the Spider is.

Since seeing the above figures for the first time, I've got 2 more comments to make;

1) The Lambda on the SPIDER is TRULY AMAZING!!!!! It's THE MOST CONSISTENT result I've ever seen from a nitrous system!!!!!! It's even more consistent than the NA results by a HUGE margin.

2) The torque and therefore the power NOSE DIVE by a HUGE amount after peak torque and that can ONLY be due to the excessive richness of the mix. As a consequence of seeing these figures I'd like to revise my estimation of how much power (and torque) has not been realised during these tests (as a consequence of the tune being out), up to 100 to 150 hp.

3) I challenge ANY other nitrous company to make ANYWHERE NEAR 400 hp from ANY of their kits using JUST 250 hp worth of nitrous - IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

I take it you happy with the results then Trev. Pete did say that if we had taken the vacumm pump with we could have put around another 30 bhp on top of what we did, he also liked the look of the system
They were suprised at the power figures for both N/A and with the gas Roll on next weekend and lets see what it does on the track.

Am I on your Christmas card list yet Trev

Top of the list now Ron.

All I need you to do now is get yourself an engine that can handle the full 700 hp that the Spider can deliver and get your chassis uprated, so you can run some 7s.

Great results man!!!!

This car is gonna fly!!!!

What I forgot to mention this was on normal unleaded and the car is MOT'd and Taxed
is it possible to push and old estate into the 8's

Very nice!

What heads/intake/carb?

TFS A-460 heads with 91cc chambers 2.3" inlet,1.88" exhaust
TFS A-460 matched sigle plain inlet
1250 Dominator downjetted with 96 jets all round

If you stop breaking bits due to all that torque I'm sure it has to be on the cards.

awesome result ron great to see the old ford almost there after a long break

WOW awsome gain on the nitrous! I can't wait to get my car back from the paint shop and spray my lil spider plate! Just curious if you did an n/a pull with the plate out and a pull with the plate in but not used? To see how much power, if at all the plate takes away by possibly taking up a lil room in the intake tract. It probably doesn't matter though as it more than makes up the difference when its on!

The following are figures from Ron's first post;
We ended up with 767 bhp @ 6500 rpm and 683 lb tq @ 4800 without the Spider.
This result was WITH A BARE SPIDER PLATE (NO SPIDER INTERNALS) and I asked Ron to do that to make sure the spacer plate itself didn't influence the results.

Now with the spider In place we pulled 770 bhp @ 6500 and 688lb tq with the Spider.
This result was with the FULL SPIDER but not in use.

THEREFORE rather than the Spider causing the LOSS IN POWER certain US "experts" were predicting, it actually INCREASED POWER by 3 bhp and more importantly by 5 ftlbs of torque.

This means that the "experts" were not only WRONG but wrong by a HUGE margin.

Exactly how many times I have to PROVE THOSE FOOLS WRONG before they accept who it is that KNOWS THEIR STUFF I don't know but the longer it takes, the BIGGER FOOLS they look.

OH i see.... thanks for breking it down for me wizard! Good to see it's not going to cost me any power day to day while i'm out cruzing around!.... 2 more weeks i'll post some pics

I'm sure we're all as interested in seeing how well your project goes, as we've been in Ron's and our other customers results and we look forward to reading your reports.

Do you think its because the spider may cause some turbulence in the manifold that aids more even distribution Trev?

Great to see that result isnt it

There are a number of potential reasons for the power increase but before I deal with those I should mention that it's common on open plenum manifolds, to add a cone shaped spike centrally to the base and this is claimed to increase power. Now although the Spider isn't as conical shaped as these spikes, it is close and it's possible that it has the same or similar effects.

The conical spikes and the Spider could be beneficial because;
1) They fill the dead volume beneath the center of a 4 barrel carb
2) They reduce the volume of the manifold
3) They aid in directing the flow towards the runners

Just one final point, I wouldn't have been concerned if the Spider had reduced the NA power but the fact that it actually increased it, is a double smack in the face for the US 'experts' who predicted the Spider would cause a loss in power due to obstructing airflow.
In fact make that a triple smack in the face, because they also predicted that the Spider wouldn't make good power and by making more than the theoretical power rating of the jets they've been proven to be WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

All we need now is for a customer with a super strong engine that can handle the full 700hp that the Spider can flow, to prove that it's not only the most efficient plate in the world but also the most powerful. If there's anyone reading this post that thinks they have a car with an engine that fits that bill, I will supply a Spider on a FULL REFUND basis when they get the car on the dyno and make the numbers.

Hey Ron, do you have the print out for the run with the blank Spider plate that I could see please?

Ron had some NEW rocker studs break yesterday which meant he spent most of the day waiting for replacements to arrive. However, once he was up and running again he managed to post a new NA PB of 10.1 @ 132 so BIG CONGRATS to big Ron on overcoming all the shit and failures to get back on track.

Great N/A e.t, can't wait to see the numbers on the bottle. IF you don't mind me asking, whats the specs on the cam? Must have some helfty lift, with some high spring pressures over the nose of the rocker to be breaking studs!

I've split the post as promised and the latest news is that Ron has just run a new PB of 9.14 @ 150 so 8s have got to be on the cards. That's an improvement of 0.4 secs on his previous time but please make note I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS 'SPECIFIC' IMPROVEMENT IS DIRECTLY DUE TO THE NITROUS (even though OBVIOUSLY the improvement over his recent NA PB is due to my system), because Ron has done some mods to the engine since he ran his previous PB.

Update - Ron has improved to 9.0 & 153, so as long as he doesn't try TOO HARD (as he's prone to do) we should see his first 8 later today.

I was chering you on Ron:)
Just as i was for Ian!

I saw the 9.0 live and on scene which was great.
Good to chat you as well.
PS
Dont worry!
I'm not trying to start a fan club

Regards
Perry

Thanks everyone for taking an interest in this little thread.

Firstly Trev you were wrong on one point the only thing we changed from last year is the converter and we went up on the cam lift a little.

But you were right on me trying to hard. After we ran the 9.0 with big wheel spin the shake as the tyres stuggled for grip,(i wasn't going to lift for anything) I put a slightly longer ramp in but still blew the tyres away. so this time I had to lift 3 times to calm it down. After all I was against Fatty but we still ran 9.4 @ 152 mph

we used 300 jets with 6 degrees out on all runs apart from the last 2 with a curve on the Extreme of 1.5 secs varing how steep the curve was.

The last 2 We went 400 jets with 8 degrees out. First run 9.0 with 2 second buid time with no gas in the first sector. The last run was exactly the same but with a 2.5 second build time.

We pulled the plugs after every run and perfect if a little on the fat side

When I find the other coments I will try and answer any of the question posed.

As far as our timing settings this was all worked out with Knight Racing Services who did the Dyno session although he did say this was on the safe side

All the brakes are now fitted and plumed in. The engine now has water All the fuel lines are done. Most of the wiring is loomed up. The entire interior is in including the seats and belts. Tomorrow I'm going to set the lash and fill it with oil and maybe just maybe try to fire it up.
Engine is full of oil and primed. Valve lash is set. Brakes are now bleed and I finished of the tunnel along with the shifter.
Another couple of days of progress. I had the engine turning over and making good oil pressure. We put some fuel in 1 little leak. The back axle is in and a base setting was used on the 4 link. I have found 1 issue that needs sorting and that is the weight of the brake pedal activates the brake and you can't move the car.
Tomorrow I'm off to the post office I have a parcel; I hope it’s my new crew shirts and fleeces. Tomorrow's plan is to finish the hand brake and fit the silencers, set the timing and maybe try to fire it up fingers crossed.
At last. The car has finally made some noise. After checking the ignition and spark, it fired into life without any effort at all. We had it ticking over for a good couple of minutes before switching it off. No leaks good oil pressure. I must be getting old or deaf as it didn't seem as loud as it use too but I'll leave that to the neighbors to decide.