Hello everybody
I am a new member on this forum that I had been following for some time as a "ghost".
I have known the Pantone system for a long time already, to be part of the family of the founders of the quanthomme site. So I had done a Pantone edit on my mower with good results, but switching to the car then seemed very complicated in managing variations in speed.
Since the development of "Gillier" editing, the temptation has taken hold of me.
For the needs of the family equine breeding, I have a patrol GR Y60 from 1993 (the 1 series) with the 2,8l 6-cylinder Nissan engine, big devourer of fuel, but which I cannot do without immediately .
Determined to do something to reduce its consumption and its impact on the environment, I am about to install a "Gillier - Pantone" system.
Of course, I browse the experiences and testimonials published everywhere in search of information allowing me to choose the options that seem best suited to my vehicle.
However, at the back of the wall, I still have questions about certain conceptual choices. I am well aware that there is not necessarily a universal answer in this matter, but gathering some experienced opinions would not be useless.
Also, here are some questions I ask myself:
1 / THE REACTOR: I am thinking of installing 1, because several do not always seem to rhyme with success ... or 2 small diameter reactors. in fact I do not really know because, in the advice heard, there is often common sense, but in practice, the accumulation and conjunction of factors blur the conclusion that can be drawn. For example, I heard that it was about 1 reactor per 100hp. (my engine is given for 115hp ...). But some attempts with 2 reactors seem to give results on small engines while others do not.
Unless I am mistaken, multiplying their number amounts to dividing the quantity of thermal energy that each of them receives, ditto for the depression and the speed of circulation .... And what to think of the functional assembly on a ZX with 2 long reactors and especially bypass on the exhaust?
Another subject of doubt: the length of the reaction rod. Even if it seems that on the average the assemblies work with rather short rods (12 / 15cm), there are always some giving satisfaction with 30cm! Given the short vertical length I have under the turbo, a 15cm rod would suit me well, but will it be functional?
Finally, there is a great disparity in the solutions for mounting / centering the rod. Does a tendency emerge?
BULLEUR / GV: Since I saw the GV assemblies made of copper tubes included in the exhaust, I think a priori that this solution is more reactive and less bulky. Am I wrong ?
The idea is not to be too “off the hook” so as not to immobilize this vehicle for too long because it is really essential on a daily basis.
Thank you for your help.
Nissan Patrol in pantone G
Nissan Patrol in pantone G
0 x
"Forecasting is difficult especially when it concerns the future." P. Dac.
the ideal would be that you buy a part of escape or pipe in duplicate, to make your assembly quietly, after you see ... I have an idea, but nothing certain, waits for a response from André, if he knows the vehicle. with a more delicate turbo c, for me I would lean gv with dual exhaust circulation (toy hilux) and 2 reactor, bizzard on your site I had read 1 / 40hp for tractors
0 x
Thanks Denis,
In fact, the idea of the duplicate pipe, I had it too. but Nissan is not giving it away, and as on occasion I did not find any, I fell back on a variant: install the reactor and the mainsail each on a section of tube connected by welded flanges, so in case of modif., I could still drive by installing a simple joint section. It will cost me nothing or almost nothing, just make the 8 brackets in all.
As a bonus, if I have the courage and the time, it would still be possible to manufacture different configurations to evaluate the best one.
At first, I would have to choose between a reactor (with a 14mm diameter rod for example) or 2 smaller reactors, to know which hypothesis seems more suited to my case.
I don't know if the presence of a turbo is a nuisance, apart from removing the assembly. but I will wait for opinions on the subject.
Thank you
In fact, the idea of the duplicate pipe, I had it too. but Nissan is not giving it away, and as on occasion I did not find any, I fell back on a variant: install the reactor and the mainsail each on a section of tube connected by welded flanges, so in case of modif., I could still drive by installing a simple joint section. It will cost me nothing or almost nothing, just make the 8 brackets in all.
As a bonus, if I have the courage and the time, it would still be possible to manufacture different configurations to evaluate the best one.
At first, I would have to choose between a reactor (with a 14mm diameter rod for example) or 2 smaller reactors, to know which hypothesis seems more suited to my case.
I don't know if the presence of a turbo is a nuisance, apart from removing the assembly. but I will wait for opinions on the subject.
Thank you
0 x
"Forecasting is difficult especially when it concerns the future." P. Dac.
Hello
My assembly is on a 3 liter 5 cylinder turbo engine
monoreactor
It depends on your tools and your ability to build and how far you want to invest
A single reactor is easier to achieve, I could not tell you if you have more performance with two reactors?
rod length around 150mm the 1mm clearances these measurements are not rigorous, at least for the length of the rod depending on the space available, 1,2 mm clearances also work
With a turbo the lack of heat is to be feared, so channel the heat well on the reactor even if this causes a certain restriction in the exhaust
The reactor must be permanently designed with accessibility to remove and replace the rod, although the reactor itself has little modification once installed.
Provide simple connections between the inlet and outlet of the reactor so as to have latitude for a mainsail, a bubbler or other, in case you want to experiment
The water doping manufacturers we are never satisfied (we always want more)
That the outlet and inlet of the reactor are not too far from the nose of the turbo or the bubbler or the mainsail.
the exhaust around the reactor must be insulated with ceramic wool.
the option of the mainsail like Michel seems easier to achieve
heating with bubbler and water from the engine and valid for consistent journeys, but journeys of 40km the mainsail is preferable.
Now if you pull a trailer often and you live in the mountains you will have good results in water doping
With experience what I have modified the most is what has before the reactor most of the gains obtained have been at this level and in the water / diesel consumed ratio.
Andre
My assembly is on a 3 liter 5 cylinder turbo engine
monoreactor
It depends on your tools and your ability to build and how far you want to invest
A single reactor is easier to achieve, I could not tell you if you have more performance with two reactors?
rod length around 150mm the 1mm clearances these measurements are not rigorous, at least for the length of the rod depending on the space available, 1,2 mm clearances also work
With a turbo the lack of heat is to be feared, so channel the heat well on the reactor even if this causes a certain restriction in the exhaust
The reactor must be permanently designed with accessibility to remove and replace the rod, although the reactor itself has little modification once installed.
Provide simple connections between the inlet and outlet of the reactor so as to have latitude for a mainsail, a bubbler or other, in case you want to experiment
The water doping manufacturers we are never satisfied (we always want more)
That the outlet and inlet of the reactor are not too far from the nose of the turbo or the bubbler or the mainsail.
the exhaust around the reactor must be insulated with ceramic wool.
the option of the mainsail like Michel seems easier to achieve
heating with bubbler and water from the engine and valid for consistent journeys, but journeys of 40km the mainsail is preferable.
Now if you pull a trailer often and you live in the mountains you will have good results in water doping
With experience what I have modified the most is what has before the reactor most of the gains obtained have been at this level and in the water / diesel consumed ratio.
Andre
0 x
Thank you André for your advice,
Level of financial investment that will block rather quickly because poorly installed breeder + agricultural year 2007 rotten in all points of view + full of breakdowns on the two vehicles that we have (1 gearbox, 2 clutches, 1 cylinder head gasket, all the brakes, the 2 distributions, the shock absorbers and I still forget some ...), no, at the beginning of the year I am not very in funds (and it is chronic).
For stainless steel, I have a friend who will probably get some bits from me so that the reactor is made in a sustainable way.
Regarding my investment in the implementation, on the other hand, I always liked to do mechanics, at my level of course, because unfortunately it is not my training. Despite everything, I have a little experience to have, by force of circumstances, had to manage for 22 years to do almost all the repairs of our old vehicles.
That doesn't make me a mechanic for all that, but taught me a little to observe, also to manage with the little material I have. I only have a supermarket arc post that narrowly takes 2,5 electrodes. I already made him swallow a few kilos of solder for having made boxing gates, barriers, etc ...
I was assured that with stainless steel electrodes we could make good welds anyway, so here is my means of assembly.
I know how to work with copper having done a few installations.
On the interest of 1 or more reactors I see that this is not a decided question yet. I hope I get a chance to test both, but I think I start with one.
On your 3l, what are the dimensions of the reactor?
Concerning the channeling of the heat on the reactor I had my little idea last night: would it not be valid, before welding the reactor in the exhaust tube, to weld fins to it on the outside in order to improve heat exchange?
In addition, these fins made of flat iron (2mm for example) could be positioned on the envelope tube of the reactor so as to impart to the flow of the exhaust gases a rotary movement similar to that of a Vortex Valve (or WITH ). This could at the same time limit the effect of restricting the presence of the reactor in the exhaust tube by a better flow, but in addition, by the way, the gases by rubbing on each fin would necessarily give it a little more heat than in the finless configuration.
The ideal would be perhaps even to be able to manufacture a continuous "twist" around the reactor, like grain screw, but there I do not know how to do yet.
Regarding the distance between organs, I understood that it was a source of loss of efficiency. So making it compact and insulating well is on the agenda. As soon as possible after the turbo I will place the reactor, and behind it (after another set of assembly flanges) the copper mainsail with perhaps preheating of the water which will feed it by a small section of tube welded to the bottom. outside the exhaust pipe.
I wonder on the other hand if it would be useful or not to preheat the air (coming from the air filter) which is drawn in by the reactor?
Finally, I don't live in the mountains but (for a few more months before getting closer to Laval) between Alençon and Argentan, at an altitude of 400m.
The patrol is mainly used to supply my horses with hay and water, and since they are spread out over a crappy plot spread over 30 km, it almost always has a trailer hooked up. And it is this problem of distance that means that I cannot replace it with a tractor, just as the need to be able to tow in muddy, sloping roads and in very greasy meadows eliminates the possibility of replacing it with a van.
@+
Level of financial investment that will block rather quickly because poorly installed breeder + agricultural year 2007 rotten in all points of view + full of breakdowns on the two vehicles that we have (1 gearbox, 2 clutches, 1 cylinder head gasket, all the brakes, the 2 distributions, the shock absorbers and I still forget some ...), no, at the beginning of the year I am not very in funds (and it is chronic).
For stainless steel, I have a friend who will probably get some bits from me so that the reactor is made in a sustainable way.
Regarding my investment in the implementation, on the other hand, I always liked to do mechanics, at my level of course, because unfortunately it is not my training. Despite everything, I have a little experience to have, by force of circumstances, had to manage for 22 years to do almost all the repairs of our old vehicles.
That doesn't make me a mechanic for all that, but taught me a little to observe, also to manage with the little material I have. I only have a supermarket arc post that narrowly takes 2,5 electrodes. I already made him swallow a few kilos of solder for having made boxing gates, barriers, etc ...
I was assured that with stainless steel electrodes we could make good welds anyway, so here is my means of assembly.
I know how to work with copper having done a few installations.
On the interest of 1 or more reactors I see that this is not a decided question yet. I hope I get a chance to test both, but I think I start with one.
On your 3l, what are the dimensions of the reactor?
Concerning the channeling of the heat on the reactor I had my little idea last night: would it not be valid, before welding the reactor in the exhaust tube, to weld fins to it on the outside in order to improve heat exchange?
In addition, these fins made of flat iron (2mm for example) could be positioned on the envelope tube of the reactor so as to impart to the flow of the exhaust gases a rotary movement similar to that of a Vortex Valve (or WITH ). This could at the same time limit the effect of restricting the presence of the reactor in the exhaust tube by a better flow, but in addition, by the way, the gases by rubbing on each fin would necessarily give it a little more heat than in the finless configuration.
The ideal would be perhaps even to be able to manufacture a continuous "twist" around the reactor, like grain screw, but there I do not know how to do yet.
Regarding the distance between organs, I understood that it was a source of loss of efficiency. So making it compact and insulating well is on the agenda. As soon as possible after the turbo I will place the reactor, and behind it (after another set of assembly flanges) the copper mainsail with perhaps preheating of the water which will feed it by a small section of tube welded to the bottom. outside the exhaust pipe.
I wonder on the other hand if it would be useful or not to preheat the air (coming from the air filter) which is drawn in by the reactor?
Finally, I don't live in the mountains but (for a few more months before getting closer to Laval) between Alençon and Argentan, at an altitude of 400m.
The patrol is mainly used to supply my horses with hay and water, and since they are spread out over a crappy plot spread over 30 km, it almost always has a trailer hooked up. And it is this problem of distance that means that I cannot replace it with a tractor, just as the need to be able to tow in muddy, sloping roads and in very greasy meadows eliminates the possibility of replacing it with a van.
@+
0 x
"Forecasting is difficult especially when it concerns the future." P. Dac.
Back to "Water injection in the engines: the assembly and experimentation"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 97 guests