We already discovered that the ECU injects fuel during the compression stroke when DJ measured the injectors and superimposed it to the crank position signal.

cld12pk2go, the ECU still uses LTFTs up to around 240 g/s airflow. Are you maintaining the correct AFR even beyond that?

Mustang filter looks like a total winner. I just put the filter and second line on. No leaks with the system pressurized. I'll work on a solid mount tonight, but I need to head to work, right now. [Car is sitting in garage until the filter is mounted.]


Edit: Lex, I experienced the same thing when I was running much less E85. My car goes into OL at 1.10 load, so no trims are used. With a 50% mixture (actual ethanol content, not 50% e85), I did need to change the MAF curve to compensate for the needed fuel.

Yeah, time-warp:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...jectors-39696/

Ok, so if you're running e85, dont rev past 6k under boost. Lol

Here is a log from about a week ago that shows mid 270 g/s (MAF curve properly calibrated for ~+/-2 LFTF on gas):

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...R/051211-2.jpg

AFR flat well beyond 240 g/s...

heres 2 back to back 3rd gear runs, literally no difference between them.


on this one the car freaks out and stutters and sputters like theres blowout but who knows.


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...1/FPlogbad.jpg


normal run right after.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q.../FPloggood.jpg


i dealt with this all day at the track sunday........

Enki,theres your 120% IDC or close anyway


hahahahaha

Yeah and apparently it runs like ass; I read through DJ's oscope tuning thread and didnt see when the injection event actually started. If 100% DC is measured from say 25% into the intake stroke to 25% into the compression stroke, then we are likely fucked as far as that aspect goes :(

That first log looks fucking crazy man. Talk about washing your cyls.

It's in there. You can see the injection event in many of the videos. Under normal light load, the injector opens up some time after the intake valve opens. Then as load increases, the start of the injection event first moves to the left (in time), all the way to the point where spray starts right when the intake valve opens.

As load further increases... the injection window spans outward to the right, as necessary, to meet the fueling demands. Even into the compression stroke, and in some logs, when i would let off the gas after a pull, spray would even barely occur after spark (spark would become much more advanced as load falls off).



IMO, a logical 100% IDC would be from intake valve opening, up until the spark event. As anything before (spraying during exhaust) or after (spraying during combustion) would have greatly diminished fueling characteristics. Ideally all the fuel would be injected during the intake event only.

not sure about us but if you read that god damm bosch book i got you it talks about stratified and homogeneous DI fueling which occurs in the intake and compression stroke.

read that shit!

Forgot to factor in advance.

So, who's got a line on bigger injectors?

Maybe here?

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...jectors-81069/

I'm sure companies are looking into it, but DI injectors aren't the easiest to build IMO.



And lol at the Bosch book. I'm pretty sure we don't use stratified fueling, and Lex seems to think the same. If we did, you'd see injection event very near spark, and it just never happened in the logs i took. Plus, i'd expect that our piston domes would have been shaped quite a bit different, to help "cup" the mix. but ours are pretty damn plain jane.

You gotta have special pistons to run stratified charge, and it is also only for light loads. You would also see very lean AFR (like 20 plus) if we were ever operating in stratified mode.

I would further DJs supposition per the SAE document someone posted awhile back, the injection needs to stop 3ms before the spark to ensure proper atomization and mixing.

This is why I am not a fan of E85 on this platform. Unless you want to get crazy and try out secondary PI fueling, you are just shooting your self in the foot right now trying to use it.

He may have been talking about DI strategies in general, and not our specific platform, cause i'm fairly certain our ecu never uses stratified fueling strategies.


but i'm always happy to be proven wrong!

First of all, I would only be proving that Christian mentioned the ms3 changing from one to another (not that I have knowledge other than what I remember reading) lol, because your brain is moving a million miles an hour faster than mine.

I'll edit this post if / when I can find it...

You (@djuosnteisn , are actually quoting Christian here ... where I believe I read it...)

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...tml#post334676


I would describe this as the logic that switches between or blends from stratified fueling to homogeneous. This is the ECU literally switching fueling strategies back and forth as the engine constantly runs..

I have no doubt Christian was talking about the possibilities of DI in general. We don't use stratified charge and he would know this.

I don't think any DI engines on the market currently use stratified charge. When I was studying it 4 years ago the experimental engines showed a tick up in fuel efficiency, but it is murder on the NOx emissions.

I know that you guys hate when I quote the ATR helpfile, but this is from pg. 15/71

- Some DISI ECUs switches logic and blend fueling strategies in different modes. Fueling can go from stratified to homogeneous, and back. Torque targeting can go from boost targeting to load targeting. Closed-Loop (CL) to Open-Loop (OL) transitions may not be smooth on a vehicle where the turbo spools very
quickly.

The VW TFSI uses stratified injection strategies

RFinkle, alot of that discussion was from a long time ago, when there were still alot of unknowns on the platform. Same goes with some of the verbiage in the ATR helpfile.

Look at the facts and make your own judgement, instead of playing the quote game. Or just email COBB directly, since they are your standard for fact.

/slight sarcasm, only cause i don't want this thread to turn into a quote war and lose focus.

I have nothing but respect for the people posting in this thread, and use multiple sources when determining my "standard of fact".

If i hadn't been persistent in Dano's thread, (whom I cannot thank enough for his help in advancing the platform) people would still be under a false impression that the trl x gear norm bat values do not affect boost tuning.

I will certainly agree to no longer post in this thread.

I was treading as lightly as possible in Dano's thread and this one.

Edit: to reflect the K? part of Dano's post below.

This info may not have helped all of the gen1 guys, but it certainly helped many gen2 guys. I'd call that a light bulb... K?

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...tml#post817570

Please note phate thanked my post before I added the link and highlighted font.

Ugh rfinkle.... don't be so defensive. I'm not asking you to leave the thread or w/e.


I just asked Christian directly if he had seen anything indicating fueling strategies other than homogeneous:



Now we can keep the thread on track lol. This is probably one of the best e85 threads i've read yet, hate to see it get distracted.

Update:

After I got the filter in place last night, I took the car for a drive. Solenoid lasted 68 miles before sticking and causing loss of pressure. I took it home, pulled it, cleaned it up and restored pressure, just like before. [I know some of you guys won't like this, but...] I just drove to Chicago and back - I had to go to O'hare to pick up some family. 310 miles, round trip. The car ran very well, with only a minor blip in pressure at mile 100 or so. I saw pressure drop down to 60psi, as before, but then it came back a few seconds later. It never dropped again.

So the filter has now been in place for just a hair under 400 miles. The car is cooling off in my garage, and I have the rest of the day to myself. I think instead of waiting around for another 100 miles, I'll just pull the filter today and dissect it. I'll also pull the pump to inspect and clean any gunk - which is hopefully only residual gunk in the system.

Now, I know we aren't considering E85 for gas mileage. I don't really care what kind of gas mileage the car gets, as long as it runs well and makes decent power. BUT, I filled up at the edge of town before the trip, and filled up at the same station when I returned. I had the cruise set at 66-67mph for 95% of the trip (Chicago traffic was very light): 308.6 miles, and 11.9 gallons of E85 = 25.9mpg

Edit: I would normally get ~29mpg on that trip at that speed, which gives us a 10% decrease in highway gas mileage.

Fantastic milage. What AFR are you commanding under low load? What kind of timing?

now finkle...that information would have surfaced soon enough and in-fact Dustin had already tuned a number of cars that were having issues following BT logic but just hadn't had the time to correlate nor disseminate the information, or maybe he did but I didn't see it. The poor fucker is burning multiple candles at both ends. :)

I'm sorry but you didn't turn on any magic light bulb. K?

Phate, lovin the excellent work you're doing here. Very thorough process...

ha pretty aggressive move to drive 300 miles. Bet you were feelin a little nervous the few seconds that the FP dropped haha

What prices are you guys seeing e85 sold for, and how much cheaper or otherwise is it compared to 93 octane?

I just located an e85 station ~30 miles away from me so I might try throwing in 3 gallons next tank as a knock suppressant.

Phate, what other modifications have you had to make besides the fuel filter? How much boost were you running when you saw over 100% injector duty cycle?

I fucking <3 this thread.

e85 is around $2.99, and 91 oct is close to $4 here.

my 93 is nearing 4.50 and 100oct is 6 bucks. i really find it hard not just doing straight 100 alot of the time haha

awesome!!!

if only :(

again....if only :(

but on the bright side...I haz plenty of meth :)....about to install an M10 nozzle this weekend.

Seems we may have two E85 testers with differing results on fueling with different blends of E85 and the need, or no need, to adjust the MAF calibration.

Don't know what the percentages would work out to be with 12pks 5 gallons per tank E85 and phate's 50% ethanol content estimate but....

I think it would be interesting to have some more information about the differing setups.

What year model ECUs do you guys both have?

Is your commanded AFR = to actual AFR?

If you were to log LTFT after hundreds of miles on a map [ or equivalent time in the upper volt ranges] what do your OL trims look like?

My car is an 08 MS3.

I am only running ~30% ethanol, I have never gotten remotely close to 50%...

So I do not have any direct experience in his range of E85 concentration.

My MPG seems to have decreased approx the ~10-12% that would be logical with the LTFT shift. I am getting ~310-320 miles per tank vs the 350ish I would typically get on non-winter blend 93 octane gas.


Phate,

Have you tried running ~5 gallons E85 on a tank and if so what results did you observe with respect to shifts in LTFT from standard?

I just finished up a tank with a 5gal blend of e85 and have a few logs. I can post them if anybody is interested but they are just WOT pulls.
DJ tuned my car for E85.

For those using E-85 blends, what were you looking to accomplish by doing so? Are you noticing your desired results from it?

Blended, I can only see it basically giving you a bigger cushion for KR. Were you able to increase timing any signification amount because of the head room a 30% ethanol mix gave you?

Even with only a 3 gallon mix, i've noticed you can push timing well beyond what you could on pump, probably too far. Even with blended, IMO, it's still best practice to dial timing in on the dyno.

I am running 3 gal of e85 every fill up.

My goal was to help with KR, but it did not solve my problems. I still have it (even after seals). I am still trying to chase down the KR before I increase timing any more.

Well from the sounds of things, you either have false KR or a really big problem.

That's starting to sound like BlackBeast's car. We took out 3* of timing across the board from a Cobb 91 oct map and reduced the KR but its still there. We are currently ruling out a mis aligned crank angle sensor and/or KR sensor as the culprit. Since the KR did go down for the most part it looks like real KR which points to the crank sensor [ effectively adding a certain degree of timing with hardware before the ECU advances it netting much higher timing than what it looks like] but the KR sensor is much easier to rule out.

do your results mimic 12pks? Meaning AFRs remained on target without changing the MAF and no apparent trimming going on?

Didn't log without first changing the MAF. I believe DJ scaled my MAF by 10%. I then put 5 gallons in my tank before filling up the rest of the way with 93 and hitting the road to do some map bouncing.

Also, I tried out a log where the timing was advanced 2* over my normal map and then a log where the timing was the same as my non e85 map and the map with out any extra timing felt noticeably faster.

For giggles I used the ap dyno feature and it says I have 335 hp and 357 tq. I suppose, as inaccurate as that probably is, it could still be a good tool to compare different maps without getting on the dyno.
Hmm... DJ we will have to try out the ap dyno to see if advancing the timing anymore makes a difference on my car or not...

I typically get less than 1* of KR. It is usually in the 3200 - 4k rpm range, but it has happened everywhere.

Does BlackBeast have a thread tracking his hunt for KR? It would be a good read for me.

oh 1* isn't even close to his 3-4* issues...LOL

PM sent.

I've tuned a couple e85 mixes, and if i don't scale the maf, i notice an increase in AFR. On small mixes, like 3 gallons, some may choose not to scale the maf, and just let it run leaner cause it can.

Yup, the fact that 2* advanced felt slower is the primary reason i don't want to go further without a dyno.

I'm definitely game to do some dyno bouncing though, whenever you are. I just need a lil bit of headsup to make time for it. We could probably just tele-conference the whole time, or even skype. It would be best if it were done on a dynojet, so you could email me runfiles real time, and i could open em in winpep.

Or, even simpler, i could just give you an assortment of maps, and you could start on one, and progressively flash your way up to more timing.



But that all belongs in it's own thread lol. Lemme know if / when you wanna do it :rambo:

Ok, guys, I just cut up the fuel filter. I had to find a pair of tin snips, which is why I didn't post the findings last night. [I don't have all of my tools at my apartment.] It wasn't close to as dirty as I expected. There were definitely specks of dirt, but not like I expected. There is a ton more surface area in the filter element compared to the pump internals, though. I don't think we can rule it out, just yet, but it's a little concerning.

I also pulled the fuel pump and completely disassembled it. It was dirty, but not as dirty as the pictures I posted before. The gunk seemed more dense this time, but not as widespread. Weird.

I will leave the fuel filter in place, but pull the fuel pump every once in a while to monitor any buildup.

Somewhat separate subject: I found out the spill valve solenoid comes even further apart, last night. The threaded part of the solenoid is just like a sleeve, it's a really cool design. I'll take one of them apart, totally, this weekend and take some pictures for you guys.

____________________

For cruising, it runs at 14.6-14.7 AFR. I'll have to check out timing some time, since the car adjusts timing in closed loop. I haven't been running E85 long enough, and the car hasn't run well enough for me to really dial in the low load, closed loop ranges. I am running identical closed loop timing to what I was with 93 octane

I am paying $3.25-3.35/gal for E85. Gas just dropped to ~$4.10/gal for 93 (from ~$4.30), so I expect E85 will drop a few cents in the next couple of days, as well.

As for other modifications - none, really. I made the tune "safe" by lowering boost as much as I could and adjusted the MAF curve, but that's a given when doing something like this. I had to get the extra fuel line in order to incorporate the filter as easily as I did, but that's about it. Boost was around 15psi @ 6k rpm when I saw the high duty cycle.

Mine is a 2007. My commanded and actuals are dead on in the high range. Light load trims are decent, but my idle range is rich.

My OL "trims" are always -.16. I have the ECU going into open loop at 1.10 load, which is just above cruising. From there on, the AFR's are dead on. This is the range that I always work on, first.


I went from running 2-3 gallons of E85 per tank to 7.9 gallons of E85 in a tank. With the 2-3 gallons, I didn't tweak anything and the car seemed to compensate fine. I really didn't run this mixture for very long, so take it with a grain of salt. With the 7.9 gallons of E85 (~50% ethanol in the tank) I had to adjust the MAF curve.

excellent!

So far so good.

Once you get your tune ironed out, are you going to go to a dyno? Perhaps post changes in MAF g/s? I'd be curious to see what kind of power increase you see from running e85.

IMO, 300 whp @ 15 psi > 300 whp @ 18 psi. Well, except for what dano says about boost > timing in terms of safety of your tune haha.

Phate, I really cannot thank you enough for taking the plunge and running 100% e85. Especially considering nobody had run it straight before this (I'm pretty sure). You should still be able to run 93 octane on this setup with minimal modifications, right? Or has your MAF curve changed too drastically for you to go back?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you kept the car in closed loop 100% of the time, so it could adjust timing and such for WOT conditions to compensate for different blends of e85 - only thing is I feel like there's no way you could have an ecu that self-tunes for optimal power while still keeping the timing threshold low enough to prevent knock on the more 93-intensive blends.

Still, great stuff. Really, truly good.

You are braver than me...I started at 1 gallon, then, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5...

This is my daily driver, so I didn't want to get stranded...

I ran a map with all the OL transitions set so high as to stay in CL all the time...it appeared to change some of the timing maps that were used...for example I had never had the MAX ignition tables come into play before, but they certainly did on a few of the pulls on that map.

But it seemed to work...

I eventually chickened out after blowing my hot pipe off at the turbo and having to limp home...

So, quick question. I ran 3 gallons of e85 over the course of the day yesterday and I saw some higher RPM knock. My AFRs were in the 12.5 range (without MAF recal). Boost temps were lower and G/S were around 230. Changing back to 91 removed the knock in the higher RPM band (now zero). Could it be my injector seals as opposed to running lean? I was only seeing .8 to 1.3 KR.

I am pretty sure that knock less than 1* is insignificant. I am running a few gallons of E-85 per fill up so that I can run 93 maps without knock. I still get a .3 or .7 knock here and there on an average drive but I ignore it unless hangs or jumps over 1* @ WOT. Don't think I have ever seen it go over 1* while running the E-85 mix.

While it may not be significant to you, usually the threshold for the ECU is .7.
Anything at or above that the ECU starts to add fuel and pull timing.
(Trying to sound smart here, but Dano just told me that the other day, lol)

Word.

In the .7 range sometimes the ECU will make adjustments and sometimes it takes a 1.0 KR count before it intervenes.

Seems on my car, spraying meth it takes 1.0 before any protective measures occur but on cars w/o wmi, I have seen the ECU take action at .7. May have nothing to do w WMI though.

So while .7 is not signifiant as far as motor damage is concerned it may affect the tune. so if you are dialing in the tune,AFR, timing, etc, any count greater than .3 can skew your logs.

Enki, I would suspect the higher AF was the cause of your KR. If the MAF were dialed in closer maybe it wouldn't have occurred. IMO 12.5 is high for our disi platform and I guess even at the e85 concentration you were running. IDK. Just a guess.

If you're not running a PNP IM, that KR could have been coming from cyl #3 which runs leaner than the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quickie update: After installing the new fuel filter and cleaning the pump out, the solenoid doesn't like to work during a cold start. This makes it a total bitch to start, but once it kicks into fast-idle, the pressure is back to normal. If the rpm's go below ~1200rpm when the car is cold, the solenoid stops working. Once it is warm, everything is peachy down to my 800rpm idle. I put ~250 miles on the car this weekend, with the cold start-ups being the only problem. I'll have the pump out some time this week to see what's going on.

____________________

I did take a look at timing advance cruising at 65-70mph. I saw a minimum of 34* and a max of 42*, with the car hovering in the 37-38* range, mostly.

____________________

I want to get on a dyno to dial in timing. I don't really know where MBT will occur with this setup, so I'm still very conservative with the timing. I will post my before and after MAF curves once it is dialed in across the entire range (it's rich on the bottom end, right now). I didn't have much time to play with it this weekend, but I should have something this week.

I doubt the car would run well on 93 octane on this tune. If it did run, it would be super, super rich. I just have my AP in the car with a 93 octane, my E50 tune, and whatever my latest E85 tune is.

On a somewhat related note - I ran a procharged 4.6L mustang Friday night and was dead nuts even with him up to ~120 from a 30mph roll. Not bad for low boost and low timing :)

I mentioned earlier that just for giggles I used the ap dyno feature while on my 5gal mix of e85 setup and got 335hp/357tq. This morning with the difference in temps being only 1* from the e85 dyno, I did it again and came up with 300hp/334tq. That is my normal tune (tuned by DJ).

I know the ap dyno is probably not very accurate but is it a good enough source to make the comparison valid?

Ah ok I had always thought the threshold was 1*. I found out my TIP was hanging off after the dealership put it back on. Tightened it down and now I haven't seen above .3*. I can see why .7* would be a concern if it does effect the tune. Good to know.

Sorry if am i am reading it wrong but the AP said you made 35hp off 5 gallons of E85 over a 93 tune? That's pretty impressive.

I was tuned for the 5 gallons of e85. The ap said I had a 35hp gain but I question the reliability of the ap's dyno feature. However, it did notice a gain and thats whats important. It might not have acutally been 35hp but at any rate it was more than without the e85.

Was there lots of KR on your non E85 run? Or more uphill?

Who are you asking?
and I get no KR on e85.

You plan on running that % of E85 for daily driving duty?

I think he was asking if you knock on 93 to see if that hurt the calculated power of 93 vs E85.

yes, any KR of possibly .7 or above [90% of the time it takes 1.0] would pull timing and add fuel thus reducing HP.

Not daily as I don't have a station close to me. I bought 15 gallons in 3 5 gallon cans and I have used one so far. Gonna use the 2nd on the drag strip this friday to try and pull out a 12.9 or perhaps a little lower.
I think I would like to run a little bit more per tank but no more than 45% until it is proven a little more.

I do not get any KR on my 93 tune either. I run a 50/50 mix of WMI so no KR. And it was pretty flat both times I used the dyno feature.

Back on track for a second. I pulled the spill valve solenoid last night, and it had a light coating of residue on it. Not black nasty crap, but just enough to make the solenoid malfunction. Cleaned it up, and its running perfectly. The spill valve parts, though, look much, much better after this 250 miles. There was no gunk buildup on them, so I just put them back in without cleaning.

I pulled apart the solenoid and took some pics, but I left my camera in the garage. I'll upload the pics tonight and update this post with them.

____________________

I've never used the AP's dyno feature, but if I remember correctly it only gives you peak numbers. Even if it is dead accurate, peak numbers are not the whole picture, but really just a tiny snippet.

Comparing E85 and gasoline on the same tune is unfair - one may be closer to optimized, the other may run like garbage. The only way to do an apples to apples comparison of gas vs e85 vs eXX would be to optimize each tune and compare. Timing and AFR have to be dialed in for each one, since flame front speed will differ significantly between the mixtures.

Edit: The higher gasoline content mixtures may reach the detonation threshold sooner, preventing a true comparison between the mixtures, also.

Edit 2: When I say same tune, I am considering same timing/AFR/Boost, but with the MAF curve dialed in for each mixture.

He has an e85 tune, but it's a rough street tune. I sent him 3 maps with varying timing advance, and with proper maf calibration for the mix (logged afr's match target).

He tried the 3 and found that the map with the least amount of timing advance resulted in the most butt dyno gains. I told him to stick with that one until we can do a bit of research on the dyno.

I'm not a fan of street tuning for e85, not when there's so little (none??) dyno information about what's typical timing values for various mix ratios. And i'm even more leery of "e-tuning" for it, hahaha.


Eventually i'd like to get some dyno time in with a few of the locals on various mixes.

How many miles total since you started with 100% E-85? Seems like even with the inline filter, for those of us interested in swap, we have a long road of gunk breaking loose and clogging things up before the system is cleaned out.

OK, I reread the posts and figured it out, haha. I thought he was switching between E85 mix and gas on the same tune and noting the difference. I haven't had enough coffee yet, today.

I totally agree here about timing. Going beyond MBT on the street would be quite easy to do with E85.

Edit: you posted while I was posting. @amoosenamedhank, I've run straight E85 for 600-700 miles.

DJ we can get me on the dyno with some E85 so you can learn to tune for it better

I can make an appointment whenever you want. I'd like to setup on the rollers for at least an hour, and go in with a pure petrol tank, and a like 3 gal e85 in a 5 gal tank. Verify timing on the pump first, then add the e85 and re tune the timing.

It's $120 an hour. I'm going out of town both this weekend and the next, but after that, i'm game.

ok just let me know when you book the dyno and I will bring cash.

does this indicate it has a DLC coating already or they are going to investigate adding it ?

Are there any tips for using the AP dyno to show the most accurate results? I run on flat road, but every time I do it, I get stupidly high numbers. This morning, I did one in 4th from 3500-6000, and it said I made 478hp, LOL. That's the kind of results I always get with it, not just this once.

Would it be wise for JacksonMS30 to install a pump filter as phate has done? I know he's not running 100%, but wouldn't SOME of that same gunk still be building up? Just trying to look out for you, man. I wonder what the deal is with the Cobalt SS DI system that seems to make it easier for them to run e85.

I'll probably be installing a filter if e85 ever comes to my area and I can run it more often.

The cobalts are having problems now too though. My buddy with the turbo cobalt on 100% e85 is maxing out his fuel pump (as of this week). He can get halfway through fourth gear before the rest of fourth and all of fith is just sputtering. I pointed him towards autotech and KMD though I know they don't make anything for the cobalt as of yet. But maybe he will be able to get something going with them. This still doesn't change the fact that the cobalt gets much better gains from e85 than what we have seen so far. However, @phate could be about to change that for us. I'm really looking forward to his findings and I really appreciate his efforts.

I found E85 in Tampa

ill post the address when i get it

I talked to a guy with a 500hp evo and he says hes running E85 when he goes to the track and i flip out because i googled every possible search string and cannot find E85 in tampa, but according to him there is a pump by the USF campus on by fletcher and bruce b downs.

I was thinking about this last night, and I'm curious to see how the coating holds up on the fuel pump internals.

I'm also in for some dynos - if phate makes 300+ whp on e85 on the stock turbo on 15-16 psi then I might forgo getting a bigger turbo altogether. Especially considering the fact that he averaged nearly 26 mpg highway. I'm really excited about this, and that's not just because e85 is cheaper than 87 octane (right? I thought it was at least) haha

yes please post info !!

yah this site does not show the station here in tampa, according to that map i would have to drive 100 miles to orlando one way to get it or 40 miles to lakeland, all of which wont work.

or 12 miles Mcdill Airforce base, but i dont think i need to explain why this is no good for me.

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and haven't commented cuz most of you guys > Fatguy in every department dealing with cars. However, I am fucking STOKED to see if we can run a fully bolted K04 MS3 on e85 safely. Especially with all the benifits... and Cobb employees chiming in here (perhaps baseline OTS e85 map?) I am almost fully bolted. I have a CNT catted DP on the way, and saving for internals... I was gonna go protune after that, but e85 may be my next step now!


I have e85 stations every 10 miles or so around me! (maybe cuz the plants make it here in Indiana?)


Phate... You are the fucking man!




Edit: any thoughts on how winter would effect a car tuned for e85 if at all?

...

as soon as I get this damned cpe fuel pump I'm tuning my car for E85. Will report findings.

Phate, thanks for pushing the E85 barriers with this platform. I ran E85 for over a year with my Silverado SS and had nothing but good results. I'm a little scared about the fuel goo issues you're having though... :saeek:

i think where its cold enough they will sell a winter blend of E85

As promised, this is the spill valve solenoid taken even further apart. This pic shows the normal position of the solenoid in the background. The foreground picture shows how it pushes out just a little bit.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...d/DSCN3137.jpg

That little groove in the foreground solenoid is where the split ring lock sits. The split ring lock simply keeps the solenoid from pushing back through the sleeve. You can sorta see how the two halves should sit in that groove here:
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...d/DSCN3140.jpg

Once the two lock halves are out, you just push the solenoid back through the sleeve (towards the connector end):
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...d/DSCN3141.jpg

And that's about it. This is the sleeve. You can see where the O-ring on the solenoid sits:
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...d/DSCN3145.jpg

Nothing spectacular, but I thought the overall design of the spill valve and solenoid is pretty neat.

____________________

For the cold weather questions: Even when the car has sufficient fuel pressure when cranking, a totally cold engine (left overnight) is hesitant to start on the first crank. The second crank seems to be sufficient to start the car and get it into the fast idle range. After that, everything seems fine.

Quick question... Do you think gradually switching to e85 by upping the e85 to gas ratio would help with the gunk issue? Maybe to where it would burn up in smaller quantities without having to dismantle the fuel system 20 times? I'm nervous enough to do my internals, and I already helped a friend do his

With that, I'm done with my noobitry... And will bow out till the resolution of this thread

Iirc it's e70 in the winter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, we are supposed to have a minimum of 70% ethanol in the winter for E85 blends in central illinois.

I guess the higher % of petrol helps with the cold starts??

That's tough to say since so few people are trying E85. If any of the guys running partial E85 mixes would pull their pumps, we might see if there is any buildup on the internals. No reason to be worried about the fuel pumps - I no longer subscribe to the idea that these things are as fragile as what some have thought. [Did you see the earlier pictures? haha]

Edit: I've said this a couple of times in the thread - I believe a fuel filter is a good idea for anyone wanting to go this route.

Yep, that's the idea.

riddle me this. Could it be better to run a higher heat range plug when running E85?

This might help to combat cold starts and make more power.

The hotter the plug the more power, considering we run colder plugs to combat knock and there is no such thing with E85.

Good stuff in here. Im gonna get back on board with e85 mixtures here soon. I think Im gonna stick with 50/50. I will probably go to the dyno sometime next month to see what if any gains there is just going from straight 93 to a 50/50 mix. Im guessing there is gonna be a 5% gain with no other changes. My car straight felt faster with it in there.

Phate I sent ya a pm. Thanks for all the work you been doing on this. The srt4 I just converted to e85 straight got me back on board. We gained huge power in his car. I would put 3-4 cars on him easy from a roll before and now at same boost, e85 and more timing he is neck and neck with me. Im gonna go out on a limb and say he gained 30-40whp. His car will hit the dyno next week hopefully. His car dynoed 301whp on pump maxed out before. So we will see.

Oh shit... Cobbs explanation for needing colder plugs is cuz of the extra heat associated with higher k04 boost. With e85 apparently the heat problems are diminished. This is a very valid theory IMO. Touche Sir!

Here is a link to E85 grades by location and month:

E85 Mustangs.com - Regional Fuel Chart by state

They do specifically go to less ethanol to minimize cold start issues during colder months. Of course, with that said, I have had zero issues with up to 5 gallons of E85 and 2 heat range colder plugs even when it is ~20°F outside...

In California (SF Bay Area) I have not seen a test below 80% ethanol, we have consistent 85% year round. We did have one gas station that had 'bad' E-85, but after it re-opened it was around 90%.

The Evo doesn't like cold mornings, but just needs a gentle warm-up.

Car craft had an article about a blown small block chevy running E85. They touched on the spark plug requirements compared to gasoline here: Using E85 Pump Gas - Tech - Carb - Car Craft Magazine

interesting...so even colder plugs may be needed not hotter to prevent pre-ignition.

Just from that article, it looks like it. I've put in queries to a couple of the online spark plug retailers to see what they have to say. I'm running ITV-22's, and I'm going to stick with them for now.

lol u might be going to 27's after that haha

It would be interesting to see the original article to see what heat range they started with, my guess they started with a heat range that was way too hot for a high compression super charged engine.

From my experience with Subie's and EVO's a stock heat range plug works best for E85. It helps with cold starts and low load part throttle driveability.

As far as E85 being more pron to pre-ignition than gasoline, all the MSDS sheets I have seen have the auto ignition temp for both fuels being the same >250*c. So I would like to see some factual data to back up that statement other than that some one at Bosch "told them so". Just my .02

Calvin@COBB

From some quick googling, it would appear that the autoignition temp of gasoline is ~250°C and ethanol is ~360°C...

Thus, the E85 should be less susceptible to autoignition especially considering its much higher latent heat of evaporation...

Alright, since I replaced the filter I've driven just over 600 miles. No problems this round - no pressure loss and the car is running very well. I pulled the pump completely apart tonight and there was still some gunk on the internals and spill valve. Less gunk than the original pictures, by far, but with 20x the mileage :)

For everyone's reference, the fuel line I used was L33X-13-49XA and the fuel filter I used was for an 03-04 SVT Cobra.

Ok, guys, I've been driving the car quite a bit lately with nothing unusual to report. No pressure loss and the car seems to run well, overall. I think the MAF scaling has thrown off the tip-in enrichment: in a cruising scenario around 1500-2000 rpm the car hesitates slightly if you give it too much throttle too quickly and it goes a little lean. Nothing I'm worried about, its pretty easy to drive around.

After wasting a bunch of time with load tuning the car, I have switched to boost tuning. I've been slowly (I mean creeping) increasing the boost and watching injector duty cycle/AFR/how the car runs. In the last couple of days I've tried to do some comparative testing of fueling, but just changing the top end fueling and leaving other parameters has proven troublesome.

I have a 12.2:1 AFR tune that pulls hard and smooth all the way up to my rev limiter of 6150rpm. Changing this tune to 11.2:1 (and only changing the fueling tables) results in lower WGDC and ~.5lb less boost over the entire upper rev range (>4k rpm). This occurs even after I increase WGDC targets in the richer map by ~1 point (I will play with this more in the future). Between the fueling and lower boost, the rich(er) tune feels much slower than the 12.2:1 tune. In both tunes, I feel I am running very conservative timing with only 4° @ 3k rpm up to 11° @ 6k rpm.

The 11.2:1 tune has hit an injector duty cycle of 106.09%, but I can't see or feel a difference in how the car runs at >100% duty cycle. The 12.2:1 tune decreases the max injector duty cycle by ~8% to a max of 96.x% (obviously).

The last observation I have with the E85 - high BAT's don't seem to phase how the car runs any more. I have seen ~140* BAT's and the car still pulls damned hard. I've slightly reduced the amount of timing pulled for high BAT's and it runs well.

Anyway, I could continue to ramble about this stuff, but I'll just attach the datalogs so you guys can check it out. [MSF now supports .xlsx files!!]

____________________

Future goals:

-Get different fueling targets dialed in to run similar boost curves. I think the 11.2:1, 12.2:1, and I would like to try a 12.7:1 map. Once they are consistently running well, timing can be tested.

-I still want to get my injectors cleaned. The last time I pulled the pump there was still some residue. I really don't want to pull my injectors until I know the pump is clean. Yes, this is risky.

____________________

My totally subjective opinion of how the car runs: it pulls hard - like 30° weather hard - on the low end up to ~5k rpm (not dependent of tune). After that it seems to fall off a bit, which could be boost related or timing related (probably both). E85 has let me experience something new - 3rd gear tire spin. The car has never done it before and E85/tune is my only recent change.

____________________

Cliff notes because this isn't a terribly worthwhile post:

-No pressure loss since the second filter was put in - about 900 miles worth
-Car pulls hard even with high BAT's
-Going to test different fueling targets, then test timing with said fueling scenarios

-I'm doing all of this very slowly

I'd also like to see how the egt's are on e85 with the 12.7:1 afrs (~.86 lambda), when you do that of course.

For those of you in this thread running e85 on other platforms, what lambdas do you target with e85?