# Nozzle flow test results



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

Here are some nozzle flow test results that I got after running a bunch of nozzles through my ghetto test bench that I setup.

here's the test bench that I setup. I ran the pump at 13.8v for 60 seconds each, spraying into graduated cylinders to measure the milileters of fluid that each sprayed










and here are the results. (I'm Cryptic1911 on golfmkv and golfmk6). If you have any nozzles that I haven't tested, and wouldn't mind letting me borrow them for a test, let me know.


----------



## ocshaman (Nov 18, 2006)

If I hadn't sold most of my nozzles, with only the new ones left, I would send you some. If you could do 4mm hose, I could send you several Aquamist nozzles.


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

I can make an adapter and pick up some line if you'd be willing to send them!


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

I did a test very similar to this last year but I only tested 200,220 and 250 psi. Ineteresting that your results agree with mine with this exception:

I have two 175ml nozzles that spray:
200psi = 360
220psi = 380
250psi = 410

I have two 225ml nozzles that spray:
200psi = 450
220psi = 475
250psi = 500

I have two other 225ml nozzles that agree with your results. I have removed the filter screen from the 225ml nozzles to compare the insides and have found the "pill" that sits on top of the spring is different. The two 225ml nozzles that spray more have deeper "cuts" in the "pill" than the other two. This is why they are spraying more but I do not know why they are different. All of the nozzles where purchased from Snow directly but the two that spray more are several years older. Perhaps they where changed?


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

I'd guess the ones with the smaller cuts keep the pressure up in the nozzle more, thus spray less, but atomize better. Nice to see that the numbers jive though


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

I should have also included; Nice work and thanks for posting the info. Knowing the actual flow rates makes tuning much easier. :beer:


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

Thanks to ocshaman, I have some Aquamist nozzles to test out

I cut up 10ft of 4mm nylon tube and put 2ft sections on 5 of Aquamist the nozzles (have 6, but one is a dupe). I rigged it up with my 1/4npt to 4mm right angle adapter, and ran a test on the green .5mm /M2.6 nozzle, and it flowed a bit more than Aquamist has on their own chart at 160psi. Their chart shows ~210cc/ml, and I flowed 285ml at 160psi. I don't know what voltage they were testing at, but probably 12v rather than the 13.8v I'm using. I'll probably do the rest of them tomorrow and make some charts


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

So essentially the number on the nozzle means nothing but small medium and large / XL


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

yeah pretty much!


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Well, I'm glad you're doing this:thumbup: 

Some of those numbers are pretty drastic depending on your setup. I could potentially be running almost twice as much meth as I need depending on nozzle selection.


----------



## Vee-DubbVR6 (Jul 31, 2007)

wow - thanks for taking this on and posting some hard facts! Definitely some good info to have!:thumbup::beer:


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

No problem. I wish someone had done this a while ago!

Anyways, I picked up some clr to clean the aquamist nozzles that I have on loan, just been being lazy. I had already run them once, but the results weren't what I was expecting, so I figured I should clean them since they are used. I did however find that the aquamist nozzles that I have are older versions, and not the ones that are currently on the market, and actually two of the ones that I have (two red .7mm) are different. I disassembled them, and the insides are different, as well as the part with the barb on it, so it appears that there were maybe 3 iterations of the aquamist nozzles, of which I have an example of 2


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

Here's the results including the Aquamist nozzles that I was loaned. Sorry for not getting it uploaded sooner, just had to retest those nozzles a bunch of times and then average them since they were a bit inconsistent compared to the DO and Snow nozzles. They were all older designs of the Aquamist nozzles, so they may not represent what they are selling now, but it was interesting to see for a comparison. Thanks to ocshaman for loaning them to me for testing


----------



## iowarabbit (Mar 29, 2007)

Have you tried different w/m ratios? Fluid viscosity might have an impact on flow.


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

what I used was 42% meth right out of the jug, so I didn't figure another 10-15% would make a whole lot of difference. I don't know **** about fluid dynamics, so I could be wrong


----------



## pootey (Nov 12, 2006)

im new to the whole w/m thing, and trying to do the research before i buy a kit, so the question is from your test results, which one is the best. I dont know if more spray is better, or whats the deal? someone please school me.


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

You need to find out what amount of spray is proper for your engine / horsepower levels, and go from there. Check with Scott or someone at USRT, they can point you in the right direction


----------



## Slayer (Aug 8, 2000)

Ok, so here are some other tests that I should have had up forever ago.. I was sent a pile of brand new DO microdroplet nozzles, and a bag of random older Aquamist nozzles, some of which were older with the round flanges, and some newer with the hexagon flanges. I found that I don't really care for the way the Aquamist nozzles are two pieces with a thin o-ring in the middle. Some of them were slightly loose, and threw off the readings, so I had to tighten them down and retest, but it's very hard to do when you have nothing to grab onto (the round flange version). As I had said in the last test, there are a lot of different revisions of AM nozzles, so I can't be sure which these were, so don't take the AM numbers as gospel. The DO nozzles on the other hand were in the same ballpark as the couple that I had previously tested. I did however have a new pressure gauge that was a bit higher quality than the last one, and on the larger nozzles, I couldn't quite get 250psi, so I didn't include the results on those couple tests. The old gauge had an open vent, so I think it was a tiny bit easier to make 250psi on the large nozzles, vs this new one. I did retest some other nozzles that I had done with the old gauge, and the numbers were right on, so it appears to be the same, except for at the highest pressure, where I think the new one reads a bit more accurately. 

Anyways, I want to thank ocshaman for loaning these nozzles










Oh, and I also found with these nozzles that the DO2 flowed more than the DO3 again.. and these were two different nozzles this time


----------



## Pcampbell (Dec 21, 2018)

This is great info. So, based on above results, if going from a Snow #5 to Devil's own (Micro droplet), would you recommend also going to Devil's own #5?


----------

