Water doping: Rover Montego TD 2L

[elephant]

jime said:

found the consos of my car on the site of a private individual, I do not know what they correspond to, instantaneous or 100 k

Montego 2.0 Turbo Diesel: same as Montego 1.6 except 5 hp tax, Perkins Prima engine, diesel cycle, 1994 cc (3 x 84,46 mm), mechanical injection, rotary pump, turbocharger, 89 hp at 81 rpm, 4500 Nm at 158 rpm. Weight 3000 kg. Speed ​​1120 km / h (station wagon 165), 163 to 0 in 100s13 (station wagon 5s14). consumption at 2 km / h 90l3, at 8 km / h 120l5, urban circuit 5l5.

These figures are strange: I owned a car of this type (station wagon 2.0 turoD) until 1998, my consumption, considered satisfactory for the time was around 8 liters per 100, many highways and clear roads , few traffic jams in town. I am not the type to crush a poor accelerator who did nothing to be the first at the next red light.

[jime]

You reassure me, I also noticed a consumption of 7-8L / 100 on road and highway.

[Other]

Hello

to control the water I use the small solenoid valves from Mercedes (those on the vacuum circuits, I use them with hot water) this gives me better regularity I had problems with the oxidation of the probes in water I test nickel electrodes .. for the time being this will last over time.

Andre

[lio74]

Air inlet nozzle: 4mm
0 to 1mm drip nozzle for gvi
Gvi steam outlet nozzle 4mm

Tube 10x12 outlet reactor to air intake

good evening jime and the company,

I haven't finished reading all the pages,
but I note that you have opted for the drip, more reliable than the float ... this is the option I had taken for the electro group (my 2nd assembly) with a tap to adjust the flow and a 1/4 turn valve (not at all precise) to regulate the air / steam mixture before the reactor.

good in any case we can see that this type of mounting for cars works well !! (Anyway well done )
the last 2 montages that we made in Africa, we returned to the bubbler technique, better control, which works rather well for stable regime (tractor and electro group) and less problem of fouling of small holes, but there you made me want to redo the GV hihihi

in any case, it seems to me that everything (GV or bubbler) can be adjusted without high tech electronics, good proportions for the diameters that's all ...

I read a little further:

Hi Flytox

I would say 30 to 50% of volume maybe a little more, on just 1cm considering the rounded shape of the reactor outlet elbow, there is no plane on which the air comes up against but a rounding of the elbow which accompanies the path hence the variable volume of the restriction

are you talking about the ends of the reactor? ... but if not the "body" of the reactor in the exhaust ... what are the diameters ???
I was advised not to exceed the 25% restriction to avoid the famous bridle of the escapement!

come on, I would read Andre's wise advice

@+

[jime]

hello lio74

Hat for your project in Africa !!

are you talking about the ends of the reactor? ... but if not the "body" of the reactor in the exhaust ... what are the diameters ???
I was advised not to exceed the 25% restriction to avoid the famous bridle of the escapement!

yes I am talking about the end of the reactor, the outlet, I used a 1/2 inch elbow inserted in the exhaust (50mm) otherwise the reactor tube is 16/21

so the restriction is based on the outlet elbow and its curved shape just over 1cm in length since just after I widened my exhaust tube, this is not a plan like the restriction that I tried lately flytox but rather a funnel shape

just after the bend I opened the exhaust to enlarge its diameter all along the reactor until its entry, therefore on all the length, there is no restriction, the tube enlarges with the reactor with interior retains approximately the same volume as original

at the next disassembly, I would measure it more precisely, I can enlarge it with a drill if it gets too close to 50%

[Other]

Hello

the restriction to the exhaust is a necessary evil to have heat at low speeds, the throttling also, it becomes penalizing at full power.

Normally the catalytic converter, intake and air filter ducts are designed so as not to penalize cruising regimes.
With use 50% of the power it is the same conduits for this engine however it passes 50% of less gas
Our engines are not designed to compete or seek to maximize power, in our cases we seek to maximize the hard operation doping with water and to make the most km with a liter of diesel.

Andre










It's just my opinion, but a road test says more

[jime]

It's just my opinion, but a road test says more

that's right, on the road I have not felt a lack of power or a loss of top speed since I modified the line with my restriction, so I guess it does not cause a big discomfort otherwise I would have felt my engine become winded while it has not been since the assembly, I had the opportunity to try it in different circumstances and it responds as at the origin, even in overtaking where I shoot the 3rd and 4th

[Dudule]

The reactor: tube 16/21 rod 14mm
Anteroom 90mm
stem 135mm
50mm trigger

Hello,

Why not take a 300mm long rod?
This corresponds to the optimal length and 22 times the diameter of the rod.

Why not put 3, 4 or 5 reactors?
A Gillier's tractor 22 has 7, it is a 95hp and must be around 3litres while the Mondego is 2litres.

In terms of the Pantone 5kw ( https://www.econologie.com/photo/howto_pantone_plan.gif ) the rod is in the other direction (beveled part at the entrance). Is it important or a mistake on your diagram?

[jime]

Hello

Why not take a 300mm long rod?
This corresponds to the optimal length and 22 times the diameter of the rod.

first of all for a reason of space, and by making a research on this forum you will find plans, from these plans, I adapted the system to the needs
https://www.econologie.com/plan-et-conse ... -3727.html
more I imagine that a rod of 300mm is more difficult to heat, my reactor is not as close to the collector, it would not be optimal enough

Why not put 3, 4 or 5 reactors?
A Gillier's tractor 22 has 7, it is a 95hp and must be around 3litres while the Mondego is 2litres.

is it really useful, with my single reactor has as much output as the 4 camel1 reactors for example,

On the plan of the Pantone 5kw the rod is in the other direction (beveled part at the entrance). Is it important or a mistake on your diagram?

no error I followed the reactor plan available here, the bizarre part is on the side of the trigger, the gzas must not hang out of the reactor

[Other]

Hello

Why not take a 300mm long rod?
This corresponds to the optimal length and 22 times the diameter of the rod.

The 22 times the diameter of the rod? optimal length. Could you tell us a little bit more.

the original panton measurements are quite questionable ..
as luck would have it, the diameter was 1/2 inch 12,7 mm and the length 1 foot.

Andre