[410BN]

I'm about to order the BMS 2.3 gallon trunk meth kit. I have a FBO RB turbo 335i. I'm planning on running one nozzle. After doing some reading, it seems like the CM10 nozzle that comes with the kit by default may be too small. Would a CM12 or CM14 be better for my setup?

Also, I have an older design BMS charge pipe which has the meth bung pretty close to the throttle body (picture attached). I'd like to use this bung rather than having to remove and tap the lower charge pipe. What is the consensus on this? Has anyone had meth distribution issues with a large nozzle spraying close to the throttle body? Would this be an "unsafe" setup?

I'm using it more for the octane rather than IAT cooling. I already have a 7" FMIC.

Thanks in advance for feedback!

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

I would avoid using the one by the throttle body as it will result in poor atomization. You will get large droplets into the intake manifold and you will NOT get even distribution of meth to each cylinder.

CM10 is the largest nozzle you should go with, any larger will not atomize and you will get large droplets and again, not get even distribution of meth to cylinders.

It's also important at this stage to log all 6 cylinders if you intend on continuing this path and disregarding my concerns based on personal experience and the experience of others who have had bad results.

If you intend on not needing methanol for octane then a CM10 should suffice in offering plenty of cooling and still offering a bump in octane.

If you for some reason need more then a CM10 then I suggest two nozzles like two CM7's.

My recommendation is to sell the charge pipe and get the right setup.

If you talk to the few guys that blew their motors, a majority blew because of poor meth atomization and unequal distribution to cylinders.

[PR3CI5N]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

I would avoid using the one by the throttle body as it will result in poor atomization. You will get large droplets into the intake manifold and you will NOT get even distribution of meth to each cylinder.

CM10 is the largest nozzle you should go with, any larger will not atomize and you will get large droplets and again, not get even distribution of meth to cylinders.

It's also important at this stage to log all 6 cylinders if you intend on continuing this path and disregarding my concerns based on personal experience and the experience of others who have had bad results.

If you intend on not needing methanol for octane then a CM10 should suffice in offering plenty of cooling and still offering a bump in octane.

If you for some reason need more then a CM10 then I suggest two nozzles like two CM7's.

My recommendation is to sell the charge pipe and get the right setup.

If you talk to the few guys that blew their motors, a majority blew because of poor meth atomization and unequal distribution to cylinders.

I'm running dual nozzles (cm10/cm7). Do you think thats to much? I've been debating on switching the cm10 to a cm7.

[410BN]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

I would avoid using the one by the throttle body as it will result in poor atomization. You will get large droplets into the intake manifold and you will NOT get even distribution of meth to each cylinder.

CM10 is the largest nozzle you should go with, any larger will not atomize and you will get large droplets and again, not get even distribution of meth to cylinders.

It's also important at this stage to log all 6 cylinders if you intend on continuing this path and disregarding my concerns based on personal experience and the experience of others who have had bad results.

If you intend on not needing methanol for octane then a CM10 should suffice in offering plenty of cooling and still offering a bump in octane.

If you for some reason need more then a CM10 then I suggest two nozzles like two CM7's.

My recommendation is to sell the charge pipe and get the right setup.

If you talk to the few guys that blew their motors, a majority blew because of poor meth atomization and unequal distribution to cylinders.

Thanks for the input. I DO intend on mainly using it for octane. Do you think 2 CM7s in the lower charge pipe or upper charge pipe would be adequate for my setup?

It may be worth it for me to tap my current charge pipe instead of spending the money on a new charge pipe, just for the bungs. What would ideal spacing between the nozzles be?

Another concern I had with mounting nozzle(s) downstream is that I currently have blow off valves. I wasn't sure if I would need to convert back to diverter valves if I chose to do that. The blow off valves do have small filters on them.

[Surquhar]

You should either buy a different CP - I have the ER which I really like - or tap your's with a bung as far as you can from the TB. I have a similar set up as you and I have been running a single CM14 for 2 years/30K miles with great results. I personally dont think a 10 and 7 or whatever combo over a single nozzle makes that big of a difference in regards to atomization if its far enough away from the TB, but thats up for you to decide. No worries with the BOV, it wont vent enough meth to be worried about.

[FRMTL2_335i]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

I would avoid using the one by the throttle body as it will result in poor atomization. You will get large droplets into the intake manifold and you will NOT get even distribution of meth to each cylinder.

CM10 is the largest nozzle you should go with, any larger will not atomize and you will get large droplets and again, not get even distribution of meth to cylinders.

It's also important at this stage to log all 6 cylinders if you intend on continuing this path and disregarding my concerns based on personal experience and the experience of others who have had bad results.

If you intend on not needing methanol for octane then a CM10 should suffice in offering plenty of cooling and still offering a bump in octane.

If you for some reason need more then a CM10 then I suggest two nozzles like two CM7's.

My recommendation is to sell the charge pipe and get the right setup.

If you talk to the few guys that blew their motors, a majority blew because of poor meth atomization and unequal distribution to cylinders.

+1

never go bigger than cm10
go as far away from TB as possible.

i have one cm10 tapped BEFORE the IC
AND a cm7 right after the IC
stealth mode! lol....
but works great!

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by 410BN

Thanks for the input. I DO intend on mainly using it for octane. Do you think 2 CM7s in the lower charge pipe or upper charge pipe would be adequate for my setup?

It may be worth it for me to tap my current charge pipe instead of spending the money on a new charge pipe, just for the bungs. What would ideal spacing between the nozzles be?

Another concern I had with mounting nozzle(s) downstream is that I currently have blow off valves. I wasn't sure if I would need to convert back to diverter valves if I chose to do that. The blow off valves do have small filters on them.

The BOV is not too much of a concern despite popular belief. The main hazard with methanol was people storing methanol in their windshield washer tank as it was prone to leak and cause a fire.

However, since my recommendation is on "paper" you may want to consider a DV setup.

Two CM7 or a CM5 and 7 should be sufficient for any setup.

Although the important question in regards to nozzle size is always how much percentage of methanol do you intend on running with water.

Too large of a nozzle and too much water can be bad also.

If you intend on just bumping octane and not running methanol to maximize HP you can stay on the side of smaller nozzles.

FYI you can sell your charge pipe you currently have to offset some cost in case you want to get a new CP.

I personally had the ER Long Version, Anodized Black ,Tial BOV 2 Meth Bung.

If you intend on making your own meth bungs set them up staggered about 4 inches away.

Originally Posted by Boost Tampa

You should either buy a different CP - I have the ER which I really like - or tap your's with a bung as far as you can from the TB. I have a similar set up as you and I have been running a single CM14 for 2 years/30K miles with great results. I personally dont think a 10 and 7 or whatever combo over a single nozzle makes that big of a difference in regards to atomization if its far enough away from the TB, but thats up for you to decide. No worries with the BOV, it wont vent enough meth to be worried about.

Have you tried running 2 nozzles?

I personally ran a single 7, 10, 12, and 14 back in the day and only when I went to a dual nozzle did I realize the benefits. My logs improved greatly as well as the responsiveness of power. Those large nozzles take to long to atomize and as a result during it's opening transition and closing transition you are not running efficiently.

Can it work with a 14 nozzle, sure, but it's not ideal and not worth the risk. If you talk to the guys who had their motors blow while running methanol, their vehicles "appeared" to run great for years and one day they just popped and the culprit was always poor atomization, lack of equal distribution and big nozzles.

[brewnami]

Originally Posted by 410BN

Thanks for the input. I DO intend on mainly using it for octane. Do you think 2 CM7s in the lower charge pipe or upper charge pipe would be adequate for my setup?

It may be worth it for me to tap my current charge pipe instead of spending the money on a new charge pipe, just for the bungs. What would ideal spacing between the nozzles be?

Another concern I had with mounting nozzle(s) downstream is that I currently have blow off valves. I wasn't sure if I would need to convert back to diverter valves if I chose to do that. The blow off valves do have small filters on them.

I run a CM10 on an ER charge pipe with two bungs and a Tial BOV. Venting methanol into the engine bay was a concern of mine too, but the amount of methanol vented is very minimal. Not enough to cause any problems as it pretty much evaporates immediately.

Also, tapping a hole in the charge pipe is pretty pricey. To have them done at a machine shop would probably cost more considering the price you paid originally for the pipe than simply selling your current pipe and buying a new one.

Also, at true FBO and high E85 usage, methanol will have a much larger effect on the IAT's than actual octane boosting. Still loads of power to be had as you will be running close to ambient IATs when spraying (unless of course its cold out).

[135Pats]

FWIW I've had meth twice now, both times spraying through a single AM jet. I had it tapped in the cold side end tank, this time around i'm just using the ER's single bung.

I'm not spraying for octane or fuel, so volume is not of particular importance to me. Proper atomization and distribution, on the other hand is quite important to me.

If you are spraying for octane/fuel, you need to be VERY careful about the quality of atomization and distribution.

[Surquhar]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

The BOV is not too much of a concern despite popular belief. The main hazard with methanol was people storing methanol in their windshield washer tank as it was prone to leak and cause a fire.

However, since my recommendation is on "paper" you may want to consider a DV setup.

Two CM7 or a CM5 and 7 should be sufficient for any setup.

Although the important question in regards to nozzle size is always how much percentage of methanol do you intend on running with water.

Too large of a nozzle and too much water can be bad also.

If you intend on just bumping octane and not running methanol to maximize HP you can stay on the side of smaller nozzles.

FYI you can sell your charge pipe you currently have to offset some cost in case you want to get a new CP.

I personally had the ER Long Version, Anodized Black ,Tial BOV 2 Meth Bung.

If you intend on making your own meth bungs set them up staggered about 4 inches away.




Have you tried running 2 nozzles?

I personally ran a single 7, 10, 12, and 14 back in the day and only when I went to a dual nozzle did I realize the benefits. My logs improved greatly as well as the responsiveness of power. Those large nozzles take to long to atomize and as a result during it's opening transition and closing transition you are not running efficiently.

Can it work with a 14 nozzle, sure, but it's not ideal and not worth the risk. If you talk to the guys who had their motors blow while running methanol, their vehicles "appeared" to run great for years and one day they just popped and the culprit was always poor atomization, lack of equal distribution and big nozzles.

Yes I had two nozzles when I first installed the meth kit and eventually went to the single CM14. I couldnt tell the difference in my logs and figured one nozzle was easier to maintain. I guess every car is different and we all have our own opinions. All I know is I have been running 100% meth for two years for octane with a single nozzle without any issues.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Boost Tampa

Yes I had two nozzles when I first installed the meth kit and eventually went to the single CM14. I couldnt tell the difference in my logs and figured one nozzle was easier to maintain. I guess every car is different and we all have our own opinions. All I know is I have been running 100% meth for two years for octane with a single nozzle without any issues.

Well I wish you the best of luck but there is a reason all the big turbo guys go with 2 or more nozzles, just some food for thought. Unfortunately, I don't have any saved data to show you but there was a significant improvement not only on the butt dyno but in the data too.

May I just add that 1 nozzle may be easier to maintain but 1 nozzle clogged does you no good either, at least with an extra nozzle or two you have a fighting chance, keep that in mind. (Of course the line can clog altogether and block all the nozzles but that's a different scenario). Just speaking out loud and playing devils advocate.

Unfortunately, there is no bullet proof methanol system but people can make improvements to limit potential failure in all respects.

I think there is some old data lying around when Shiv was playing with 2 or more nozzles as well.

I try to stay away from opinions and just stick with facts and that's what I'm basing this information on. 2 years may sound like a lot but most failures happened much later, this car can take a lot of abuse.

[410BN]

I'm think I'm going to go with a dual nozzle setup (two CM7s) to be on the safe side. The only two charge pipes that I have found that can be purchased with two meth bungs are the BMS and ER. The BMS is a good amount cheaper but the nozzle placement may not be as ideal as the ER charge pipe. Do you think the nozzle placement on the ER is worth the extra $100 (roughly) or would the atomization quality be similar on both?

[robc1976]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Well I wish you the best of luck but there is a reason all the big turbo guys go with 2 or more nozzles, just some food for thought. Unfortunately, I don't have any saved data to show you but there was a significant improvement not only on the butt dyno but in the data too.

May I just add that 1 nozzle may be easier to maintain but 1 nozzle clogged does you no good either, at least with an extra nozzle or two you have a fighting chance, keep that in mind. (Of course the line can clog altogether and block all the nozzles but that's a different scenario). Just speaking out loud and playing devils advocate.

Unfortunately, there is no bullet proof methanol system but people can make improvements to limit potential failure in all respects.

I think there is some old data lying around when Shiv was playing with 2 or more nozzles as well.

I try to stay away from opinions and just stick with facts and that's what I'm basing this information on. 2 years may sound like a lot but most failures happened much later, this car can take a lot of abuse.

totally true, I wouldn't even consider 1 nozzle setup.

[Rob09msport]

I def agree with the more than 1 nozzle and better location. I am going to be putting a nozzle on my ade 650 cold side outlet and then another in my charge pipe bung so as to stagger them. I figure I'll put the larger one on the fmic outlet and smaller on charge pipe and I may end up going three nozzle so i can have better flow control. Instead of all three at low dc on the fav i can run one at full tilt for med load situations. I wanted dpmi but multiple people talked me out of it due to complexity and maintenance. If you clog a nozzle you have one cyl dead in water and flow wont be perfectly equal. Honestly only way do dpmi right way is with injectors not nozzles.

[gberduc]

According to this post.. which size would you go to for two nozzles..
I have been researching and some people say the smaller nozzle (2gph) should go right after the IC and the power nozzle - 8 gph e.g (closer to the intake manifold).
Some other say it's the other way around.
I have a CP with those two bungs so I would appreciate your opinions.