@Speed3eak - You bring up a good point that I didn't mention. I've been converting these gas AFR's to E85 AFR's in my head for about a month, so they seem pretty normal to me. For anyone that is confused by my figures, just convert to lambda and you'll be set.

His EGT's are most likely very high but will drop drastically as he gets closer to MBT with his ign. advance.



I have found that a Lambda between .82 and .85 work well for E85 on most.


@phate - too bad your not closer to Plano I would love to do some testing with you.

Calvin.

:You_Rock_Emoticon:

Great thread ! Was fun to read and learn!

I assume that those of us who use a small mix of E85 (I try to do a 1:3 mix - started doing it last weekend while troubleshooting some knock issues during tuning) have nothing to worry about right?

Just read through and wanted to say the guy ->HERE <- is named Chris. He is a genius, seriously. Known around certain communities as "ChrisK" and his shop is called Engine Logics. He does some of the best work in the world, not even exaggerating. He use to build 3sgte's for rally teams.

I am currently running 5.5 gallons of E85 per fillup, and my injectors PW has increased about 13% (in the 7-9 ms range) without issue.

Yeah, I'd bet EGT's are silly high right now. I have an EGT gauge that I could reinstall, I suppose, but it's not one I can log with. When I pulled my downpipe to have it rewelded, I had the EGT port welded shut, as well.

That must be the guy that I talked to there. He was throwing information at me faster than I could absorb it. Very nice guy who was very willing to explain anything and everything about direct injection injectors.

So I haven't had time to get my pump apart and this could just be a horrible coincidence but after running my first tank of E85 (30% mix by volume) my CDFP shit the bed 2 days later. :squintfinger:

The pump was making some strange noises (for the first 20-30 seconds after a cold start) this winter when I parked the car outside, but they all but went away when I parked inside or as the ambient temps went up.

Like I mentioned before, I'm not pointing any fingers at this point, just thought I'd share my experience. And I will update this when I figure out what the inside of the pump looks like.

Oh and this was with KMD internals that were installed 30k+ miles ago.

To be clear you filled your tank up 30% by volume with E85, which resulted in ~25% ethanol in the tank?

I am currently putting 5.5 gallons of E85 in my 14.5 gallon tank resulting in ~32% ethanol.

I am also running an KMD pump with ~30k miles (it is a v2 though).

So far so good...

Exactly on the mix. And I was also using KMD v2 internals. I'm taking the pump apart tomorrow so I'll let you guys know. Could have nothing to do with the E85.

Just to clarify, is this on a DI or a PI platform? I would imagine if direct injection can run leaner AFRs on petrol, then it would stand to reason that it can run leaner on ethanol as well - would this be the case?

Remember that phate's spill valve was clogged with junk when he first switched to 100% e85 - my guess is something similar is happening to you in terms of gunk clogging up the various mechanisms of the high pressure fuel system.

So far everything looks a helluva lot cleaner than the OPs pump. Both the spill valve and the internals look pretty clean. My initial feeling is the pump is not gunked up but something else.

My problem is I can't get the 'piston' out of the internals. I can get it to rotate but this thing won't budge. I tried soaking it, I tried oiling it.... shit isn't going anywhere.

Any ideas?
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...k/photo1-2.jpg

Here is a picture from KMD's website showing what it looks like by itself.
http://www.kmdtuning.com/images/uplo...-03021tc_4.jpg

Use a pair of pliers with a soft cloth wrapped around the piece that comes out. Do not clamp onto it very tightly. Twist and pull gently.

What kind of pressures were you seeing when the pump was dropping pressure?

Edit: Looks clean :)

That's pretty much exactly what I was trying.... no go. That bastard is stuck in there!

No real warning of pressure drop but I don't always watch pressure. The last log I did a few weeks back showed no issues.

What was happening with it, then?

It was holding pressure fine but making some strange noises when it was cold. Then the strange noises stopped when it got warmer out. Then I did my partial tank of E85, then the car started driving really rough on the drive home from work one day. I checked fuel pressure with the AP and it would be around 70psi but would still bounce around to about 115psi.

I'd say it's the solenoid sticking. Mine, when it would malfunction, would have little flecks of pressure when it decided to cycle once or twice then stop again. Even after mine started looking better, it would do that. It takes just a little bit of residue for it to stop working properly.

Still bugs me I can't get that other piece to come apart though. I might just try cleaning everything up and putting it back together. Just to see if it was the solenoid.

I've said it before but my friend in the Turbo Cobalt (which is DI) comunity is targeting .89-.91 lambda via a trifecta tune. Thats at WOT on 100% e85.

Edit: Also, incase its worth anything, I believe he is targeting 22* of timing advance by redline.

A few updates:

I tried out a .86 lambda tune yesterday and today and the car runs very nicely with it. Very smooth and it may pull just a little harder than the .83l tune. Today, I bumped up the timing a bit from 4k+ rpm and the car responded very well. It is still only 12° @ 6k rpm, though.

I bumped up the boost on the 11:1 tune that I was testing, so it would be a similar boost curve to the 12:1 tune that ran well. The car did not like it, for some reason. No significant KR, but the car did not pull smoothly. This doesn't seem to be related to the high injector duty cycle, because the car had small surges all through the rev range at full throttle. I'll do more analysis, but I think I'll use the 12.2:1 tune as the "rich" map, for now. If it ends up making the most power on a dyno, then I'll consider testing richer conditions more thoroughly.

____________________

After messing around with the car last night without any issues, I tried to start my car this morning and the spill valve solenoid was gummed up - only 60psi fuel pressure. I swapped the solenoid with my extra one and drove to and from O'Hare (again). No pressure loss with this solenoid. The solenoid that I pulled looked to have some residue on it, but I haven't inspected it closely.

On this trip to Chicago, I was keeping the speed in the 75-80 mph range. There were also some periods where I didn't have the cruise on because traffic was a little heavier this time. I would typically get 25-26mpg driving that fast on gas. This trip, I recorded 310 miles and 13.9 gallons = 22.3mpg.

[I was a little worried on the drive back that I wouldn't make it back on a single tank, so I stopped and threw in $10 @ 3.59/gal (2.78gal) near Chicago. It's $3.14/gal at home right now...so I filled up when I got back with 11.1 gallons. That's how I got the 'more than capacity' calulation.]

Got 302 miles and took 13.2 gallons to refill today on my 5.5 gallon E85 mix = 22.9 MPG.

I would typically expect ~26-27 MPG on my normal work route on straight 93.

So my decrease in mileage is right in line with my increase in injector pw for this mix of E85 and the expected 14.3% increase in volumetric flow of fueling required to sustain lambda.

I have bumped up my MAF curves in the 0-80 g/s region (only place I am ever in CL) by 7% to help the car behave better on a freshly flashed tune (splitting the different on the gas/E85 mix LTFT's) where the ECU would eventually learn ~+14; however, my untweaked OL WOT AFRs are still dead on at 12:1.

A few more updates:

I have been having a stutter issue in first gear (and sometimes in second gear) when I go full throttle. It happens every time in first gear if I give it hell, no matter the rpm, and it feels like the car is dropping spark. Data logs haven't shown anything that would cause throttle close limit or fuel cut.

When it happens, the car will stutter and go rich: no recorded KR, way less boost than boost limits, and way below any load values that are still in the tune. The plugs are pretty much worthless to read, since I ran them with gas for a few thousand miles and now with the E85. I pulled them, anyway, and swapped to a set of stock heat range plugs I had in my garage. While I was in there, I stretched the coil pack springs, as well. This didn't help. It is, however, idling smoother. All other gears pull smoothly the entire rev range.

I have been working with my .82 and .86 lambda tunes. I have both of them running ~19.5psi @ 3k tapering to just over 16psi @ 6k. Both are eating up timing every time I add a little bit. I've bumped it up to 5° @ 3k and 15° @ 6k. Both of the tunes seem to pull just as hard as the other now that boost and timing are nearly identical. Neither of the tunes are going >100% injector duty cycle, so I may raise my rev limiter back to 6,500 rpm from the current 6,150.

why are your rev limiters so low? to combat IDC > 100? did u play with VVT yet?

5° at 3000 RPMs is super advanced timing (what load?). Are you sure you aren't beyond MBT?

Maybe I am just a wuss, but my 2.0 load at 3k is currently -1.5° (stock is -5.8°).

Yes, and yes. When I first started running E85, I saw really high IDC and it worried me so I lowered it. Now that I've seen >100%, it worries me less.

I played with VVT a few tunes ago, and I didn't like the results. I went from running no advance on the top end (normal) to running ~20° on the top end. The car was much slower, and I didn't gain more than 1 or 2% IDC headroom. Not worth it, to me.

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not beyond MBT, haha. Every time I have added timing, the car is faster over the entire rev range. I have talked to a very reputable person at a very reputable shop (coughcobbcough) and it seems I may still be a few degrees away from optimal. I'm getting to the point where I am leery of adding timing, though.

I only have one line of resolution for timing in ATR, as my load is >2.0 for the entire range. The load values are skewed due to my scaling of the MAF curve to compensate for the E85's stoich ratio. I am seeing something like 3.6 load @ 3k tapering to ~2.6 load @ 6k.

I've been constantly monitoring how long it takes to do a 4th gear pull from 3k to 6k rpm, and I've dropped ~1.5 seconds off of it with the added timing. The car pulls pretty linearly through the entire gear. It's really nice.

I ran a moderately modified and tuned WRX Saturday night (in Mexico!) and for S's and G's I told him to start in whatever gear he wanted from a 50mph roll. I, of course, just stuck it in 4th gear and put it to the floor. While he was banging gears, I just walked away from him and put a few lengths between us, haha.

Is your traction control off? Dumb question, but it'll make you go pig rich. And if your turning, the steering angle sensor will do the same. You have to actually unplug that one to defeat it.

Yeah, it's definitely off and I wasn't turning at all when this happens. If I get tire spin before it starts to stutter, it won't stutter at all...

Here's a log from a little bit ago of me attempting to glean some knowledge of why first gear hates me so much right now. It seems to happen right around 2.5 load...Then it is just like hitting the rev limiter. It's not a violent cut like fuel cut, it just feels like its dropping spark.

The car goes way beyond my max enrichment tables (set to 11.25:1 in this tune) when this happens - to about 9.5:1 as logged/.64 lambda/6.3:1 actual AFR.

There's no significant KR when this happens, the spark advance seems pretty normal for the rpm I'm at, the boost is even about right for first gear. I've attached the log, pared of any worthless data, so if you decide to take a peek you don't have to sift through it.

Anyone have an idea?

Can you post your tune?

this sounds EXACTLY what i went through all winter. car would freak the fuck out after ~5500 and i had flashing cel and traction lights.

what are you gapped at? and do u have a log with IDC?

Attached to this post.

Note: I played with all of the load values last night, just in case the ECU was still trying to use them for some reason. I increased the max values and limiter values to way more than what the ecu is achieving - >4.0. It didn't help, so I've attached the tune I used prior to that.

I am using .030" gap. I have triple checked this gap with both sets of plugs.

I have many logs with IDC - but not one of the first gear issue. I'll grab it later tonight if it's not raining.

and this only happens in first?

Almost always in first if I have some semblance of traction. Sometimes in second it will do the same. 3rd-6th are fine.

i would try the VVT trick again just for kicks to see if it gets rid of your issue.

Are you saying advance it on the top end, or retard it on the low(er) end?

add VVT values where ever your getting your studder (i think you said top end). i did a little experiment here:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...testing-81524/

where i did all 0's (stock) and all 30's. the higher the # you put in the lower the power output (read less g/s) but also lower IDC. i found that i only needed to use 5's to make my injection window large enough to overcome the problem.

Yeah, that's where I got the idea to test VVT, originally. I tried 20° and the car was much slower and I didn't gain much IDC headroom. I'll go ahead and throw 5° or 10° at it this evening, we'll see what happens.

In the tune I posted above (.86 lambda), I am only seeing ~93% IDC on the top end in 4th gear. With my .82 lambda, I see ~97%. Both tunes do the stutter in first/second gear thing.

My observations:

1.) There is some variability in your fuel table targets (12.1:1 for knocking, 12.6:1 for no knocking). It would be easier to control your fueling and not have to wonder which table the ECU is using if you set all of your fuel tables to some target like the following:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...08ffuelmap.jpg

This can de-muddle lots of what is going on with fueling and I would recommend it as a general best practice.

I have all 9 of my fuel tables targeting the same AFR above ~1.13 load (all execept max enrich). My experience is that the ecu will still go richer during KR events even with the knock tables set the same as no knock tables.

2.) You are targeting DI fuel pressure in several tables above the 1885 PSI set pressure on the fuel rail RV. I would recommend to drop all of your fuel pressures to the stock values except for the > 1.5 load rows, which I would recommend setting to ~1750 PSI. I would also set the Max A/B to ~1750 PSI.

3.) Your logged ignition timing doesn't appear to match any table. Since your OL tables are very different from each other I can only assume the ECU is doing some type of interpolating between them. I personally set both the knocking and no knock tables the same and then the ignition does exactly what I want.

4.) Abs Load Targets Table: I typically copy/paste my Throttle - Requested Loads A/C into this table to make sure nothing funny is going on with table jumping.

5.) You are targeting loads in your TRL 1st gear (norm BAT) table of up to 4.5, which is greater than your identified Calc Max load values of 4. This could be potentially causing your 1st gear anomalies.

6.) Your TRL Max Load A/B tables are below your 1st gear loads. This could be potentially causing your 1st gear anomalies.

7.) You do not appear to be achieving either your boost targets or load targets. Your map is configured for boost targeting, but you are not within ~5 PSI of your targets (just a 1st/2nd gear thing?).

what he said haha

Notes in quote! Thanks for looking through all of that, i know it takes some time.

I've been meaning to clean up the ignition tables, as they are quite a bit different between the knock/no knock, and probably the OL/CL tables for the same rpm and load. This could very well be causing it.

It's raining like hell here right now, so I'll sort through the ignition tables.

i have my knock/no knock tables always set the same for fuel/ign. not even cobb is 100% sure if "no knock" is used when not knocking. i just tune them to what i need and if i see knock i adjust either (usually ign) accordingly keeping both tables the same.

Well, my 'No Knock' ignition and fueling tables are being used under normal conditions. This, I know for sure. Whether it switches to the 'Knocking' tables or not is questionable. I have the fueling tables offset using a consistent method between the knock/no knock tables, so I can identify when/if the ecu targets them.

The problem here, though, is that the ecu is going wwwaaaaaaayyyyyy beyond any of my targeted fueling, and a full two points beyond my max enrichment, even.

Edit: The attached picture shows my fueling notes and how I methodically change each table (because I'm anal).

Edit 2: I've been planning on coming up with some sort of similar strategy to keep the ignition changes in line between the tweaks. I just haven't done it yet.

i had the same silly problem and dustin clued me into better transitions between my OL and CL fuel tables. i had never touched the CL ones but it turned out i would target rich right as i got on it (like 11.5) and then all of a sudden my WOT AFR's are commanding 12.3. so 14.7 > 11.5 > 12.3 and it was throwing all sorts of shit off like you were seeing.

just another thing to take note of.

long shot here....but do you have FFS/LC enabled?

it is a known fact it will cause the car to go way rich and retard ign during a normal shift. I know you aren't seeing this post shift but who knows what logic the ECU will use with such a skewed MAF.

What do you mean by 'transitions between my OL and CL fuel tables'? Do you mean the Exit Delay values, or the OL/CL tables matching? If the latter, that is exactly why I use an excel file to match values between all tables for fueling.

Haha, true. This happens in first gear no matter what: roll into the throttle, brake boosting: but it doesn't happen if I get tire spin. Presumably because the load/boost aren't as high when this occurs.

My FFS is set to 4800 rpm and it works well between shifts. It does, however, line up with when I have seen the stutter a good number of times. First gear goes by so damn fast its hard to pinpoint when something is actually happening. I'll try moving this up, to equal my normal rev limiter. The LC is set to 6500rpm and 3mph, already, so I doubt it is interfering.

the latter correct, disregard if this is already true.

do your FFS first gear? does it happen FFS and not?

It happens when I'm totally off of the clutch^^

You seem like a logical, detail oriented guy. The target in troubleshooting and math is to eliminate the variables....IMO set your LC/FFC back to OE so its completely disabled and out of the picture. :)

my car ran like complete shit with either enabled....even mid gear stabbing at times, so its worth a try.

fuck dude im sorry its late haha, i need to get out of this thread. ill be back with much better input when i get to work tomm haha

No, this is all good information. It's nice to have a few pairs of eyes looking at what is happening, I know I'll overlook something somewhere.

I think there are two good methods I will try: the LC/FFS is the easiest, so I'll try it first. Then the OL/CL ignition tables will be matched (which needs to happen, anyway)

man I don't guarantee anything I post but disabling FFS/LC gave me a brand new car... now to be sure...when I FFS it ran great but otherwise...pure shit.

keep up the good work man!

I started logging injector duty cycle...

Looks like I am < 70% with a maxed out K04 in ~85°F ambient temps with 6.0 gallons of E85...

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...R/062211-2.jpg

I'm really starting to love e85. Purely from the tuning perspective.


I see huge improvements in knock resistance with even very small mixes. 2.5 - 3 gallons to a full tank really allow most (if not all) cars to run significantly more timing. While 100% e85 is a hell of an endeavor, i'm not sure how necessary it is.


Do you guys think running the minimum e85 necessary to hit MBT is a better strategy than running more e85? 12pack, do you see / feel any additional gains with 6 gal vs 3?

I think that we will make the most power with the max E85 we can inject without maxing out the injectors.

The reasons are both the ability to run close to or at MBT coupled with the basic chemistry of ethanol carrying some of its own oxygen, which supports more power than gas alone.

If I eventually go to a BNR S3, I will likely have to limit my E85 to ~3 gal/tank; but with the K04 I can obviously go considerably higher.

My car seems to like the 6 gal E85 a bit more than the 3 gal. However, this is a very subjective thing which I have no hard data to backup.

i still dont see E85 as anything special on this platform. dustin can attest to the boost levels, AFR, and timing i run on my car with pump gas an i have little to no knock.

i literally have nothing left on the table that could be gained by running straight race gas on my setup, so what would E85 do for me?

For you the benefit might be inconsequential, but that doesn't equate to a general rule for our platform.

For people like me that are knock limited (stupid high pre-turbine backpressure resulting in lots of hot exhaust staying in the cylinder after the exhaust valve closes), the massively increased evaporative cooling (80% more for 6 gal out of 14.5 in my current case) is quite helpful for extracting max power.

The fact that the ethanol is also allowing another path for oxygen to get to the combustion chamber is another benefit if your turbo's compressor is out of umph...this isn't a huge benefit, but it isn't trivial either. This is why tuners often say that they can get ~5% more power with E85 than 116 race gas if I am not mistaken.

i suppose your right im just sad to see our gains arent as pronounced as on most platforms. i wonder if any BMW's or VW's are running E85?

On one hand E85 doesn't have the cleaning capabilities for our intake like a WMI kit. But on the other, its alot easier and cheaper to just pump a few gallons of E85 into your tank. I'm all for giving this a shot, with Dustin's help of course lol

What he said.

Its early of course but it seems there may not be a need to run 100% e85 to make the most gains possible on our platform. There are def some drawbacks as phate has encountered and on the other hand 12pk hasn't seen the CDFP issues that phate has.

BT car is going to have injector DC issues and if you can reach MBT with only 3-6 gallons of the juice and still have a margin of safety with IDC then at this point at least, it looks like a mix may be the ticket for those who have access to the stuff.

I=jealous...no access so I'll remain a meth head 4life....:)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The capabilities of 100% E85 on this platform are limited till someone can design injectors large enough. Phate has proven that the stock injectors are damn near maxed out on the little K04.

BTW: Sick thread Phate and mad props

I tried disabling the LC/FFS to no avail. Still stutters in first gear and sometimes second.

I must have loaded the wrong tune into ATR when I made the LC/FFS changes. My ignition Max A/B tables were way low, so it was holding back timing in every other gear. Oh well, I really need to fix all of those tables, anyway.

____________________

We don't really know this yet. We have no idea how the car really needs or likes to run on E85. I could be running it rich, I could be running it lean. Hell, I could be another 20° away from optimal timing! I'm exaggerating here, of course, but the point remains: we haven't seen the potential of E85 yet.

Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm defending E85. At the end of the day if it doesn't turn out to make more power, then that's the end of the story. I'm not worried about it either way. Discounting it at this point is a bit premature, though.

:( sorry that didn't work out.

No worries, it was worth trying and it removes one variable from the equation.

:yup:

Agreed... Although I truely appreciate EVERYTHING phate has done here, I personally don't think there is any way in hell that I will be dismantling my entire fuel system every other day to run 100% e85. ESPECIALLY because I am not all for running the engine (injectors) at its max all the time!









I'm in the opposite situation... No one in my area sells meth, but I live about .3 miles away from a gas station that sells e85... The same gas station sells 94 octane gas as well! But personally I usually get the good old V-Power 93 cuz I've always been a Shell gas guy. I don't know if I can trust McClure's!?!?!?

To clarify, he will probably not have to clean that much if any anymore. Once the residue from Petrol is removed by the E85 the system should stay clean, and in-fact cleaner than with the petrol. The transition to 100% E85 will for sure require a few cycles of dismantling the CDFP [unless the filter would catch all of the residue] and I don't remember if Phate has pulled his injectors yet but I bet they don't look great. The filter should probably be the first step for the next guy that wants to test things out and see if all the gunk can be caught by it and maybe only it will need to be changed a few times during the transition.

Not sure how Flex fuel cars deal with going back an forth so maybe the gunk isn't petrol after all and is in-fact part of the fuel system breaking down...IDK

Just one other note about e85... As long as hpfp issues like phates aren't common, e85 is much more reliable than a wmi setup IMO. No fear of a pump going bad, or a check valve sticking open, or nozzle clogging, etc.

So that's one of the upsides. No necessary hardware, little to no maintenance (phate is figuring this out for us), and reliable. Only down sides.... accessibility, gas mileage, and inconvenience when gassing up (multiple stations often, gas tanks etc).


I'm still a fan of water injection, cause it cleans the valves. Best setup would be PI e85, lol.

or a tank emptying into your IM over the weekend eh?

Hahahahahaha, did i skip that one? Hmmm.... peculiar.

My definition of best of both worlds:

Lots of meth injection to keep the IM clean and lessen the fuel injector load coupled with the most E85 you can get away with...

I aligned my ignition tables in my .86 lambda tune, tonight, along with keeping all rev limiters at 6,500rpm. No dice on the first gear stutter, but the car does drive smoother, all around.

Edit: I'm packing for a camping trip tonight and leaving tomorrow, so I won't be posting much (if any) from here until Sunday.

After my June 12th episode of fuel pressure loss, I drove 925 miles without a problem. I tried starting the car Saturday morning (while on camping trip) and only had 60psi. I brought my extra solenoid along and the tools to fix it, so I swapped it while I was out there. We'll see how long this one goes for.

I haven't pulled my fuel pump apart in ~1,500 miles, so I'll go ahead and pull it apart this week. If anything looks out of the ordinary, I'll grab some pictures.

I can't remember if I have mentioned my uneducated theory on the "gunk" but here goes.

I tend to agree with Lex in that the deposits you are getting are not petrol impurities dissolved by the E85 but are part of the fuel system itself. Again, my only knowledge of E85 is limited to this thread and a very few others on the EVO forums.

If these deposits were petrol then how do flex fuel vehicles deal with it? They have the ability to switch all the time and nothing gets clogged up. I would think the amount of deposits you have encountered would clog a filter very fast. Do flex fuel cars have a filter maintenance plan of some kind where they replace fuel filters?

I am aware that a some point in time there was a "guideline" implemented to dictate that all cars produced after a certain date should support the use of E85 but that doesn't mean that all manufactures adhered to that guideline.

Some EVOs that were produced after that time have had to replace some sort of intank filter/sock because the E85 dissolved it, right?

Anyway, I am not trying to state fact here but it seems like a logical conclusion considering the evidence I am aware of.

I certainly may be missing some important facts and if so please clue me in.

Thanks again Phate for all the hard work.

Dano, you reiterated one of my concerns, almost exactly. We pretty much know this is not a reaction between gasoline and ethanol - we wouldn't have flex fuel vehicles if this was the case (and the flex fuel direct injected engines shoot this theory down even further). It is more likely to be a problem with something in the lines being dissolved. If that is the lines themselves, or something deposited by gas in the past, I will continue to contend that we really don't know. A more scientific test than I can perform is really in order. Second to that, we need a long term E85 tester.

When I put the fuel filter in place, I used the original fuel hose prior to the fuel filter. Meaning the brand new fuel line is in front of the filter, connected to the HPFP. If something is being broken down, it is after the filter or too small to be filtered by my filter. I hoped this filter would immediately resolve the issue, but it obviously has not. I have driven a total of ~3,000 miles now, and probably 2,500 of those are with a filter. This could mean the soft line is suspect, since there are identical pieces before and after the filter, and the post-filter line shouldn't have had any debris in it (it was sealed in multiple plastic bags when I received it).

The amount of deposits I get are significantly reduced compared to the first pictures I posted. Again, though, the intervals have become longer and longer, so I believe there has been a reduction in volume of 'gunk'. I am doubtful there has been enough to clog the filter I am using, I would guess there is approximately 36in^2 of filter surface area in the filter I am using - it's not a small filter.

I don't think I have accurately conveyed how little of the residue it takes to gum up the spill valve solenoid. It is like when you spill soda on a smooth surface, soak it up a bit with a paper towel, and then let it dry. It's like that very thin gummy residue that I am seeing. I'll take a picture of the spill valve solenoid I pulled this past Saturday - I haven't cleaned it up yet.

____________________

I have been thinking about something else every time I have pulled the pump and put it back together (Lex mentioned this way back in the thread). Each time, I have used oil (5W-40) to coat the pump internals. Could it be a reaction with oil and ethanol? Could the oil/ethanol/pressure/heat create just the right conditions for a reaction to occur? I don't know - I'm no chemist or engineer. When I pull it all apart this time, though, I will not use oil on the parts and see where that gets us. One less variable to deal with, anyway...

would taking a piece of our fuel line and soaking it in E85 for several days be good a test to see if the fuel line breaks down ??
maybe two test- one piece in gasoline and one piece in E85

It is a good test, but I already have two lines soaking in E85 ;) [And we know they are good in gas.]

Edit: The condition of my filter should give us a much better idea of what and where this is occurring. I would like to get more miles on it before I open it up, because the first filter only had ~400 miles on it when I cut it open. So this filter has ~2,000 miles on it, right now.

I pulled the fuel pump Monday night to inspect and clean everything. This round had ~1500 miles on it. It was definitely dirty. There were specks of deposit on everything except the spill valve solenoid, since I swapped it out two days prior.

The piston had residue buildup where it is cut to the smaller diameter for the shaft to go through the housing. The 'barrel' had gummy deposits on the outside of it, but not the inside. Spill valve parts (not the solenoid) had residue buildup, but not terrible. The piston housing had buildup similar to my original pictures, it was the worst of all the pump pieces.

This time I opened up the flat plate with the two torx screw on it (not the piece with the two line attachments). It was pretty dirty in there, as I've never opened it up before. There was some serious buildup on those pieces. My torx bit got stripped in the process, so I didn't pull the fuel inlet/return piece.

I cleaned everything, again, and reassembled without any oil on the pump parts.

I did this and went cruising around for a while. Met up with some friends and then had the Camaro incident (see Bench Racing forum). The car is still running very well.

You should replace the torx bolts with something a lil more reliable.

<---- headed to bench racing section right now.

Update time:

Boost is cranked - ~22psi tapering to 16.5-17 (depends on temp). .82l tune is hitting ~100% IDC, .86l tune is just over 94%. This is definitely the fastest the car has ever been.

Since the new ATR update (which is awesome), the car is over boosting on the .86l tune, so I'm trying to tame it again. It's taking less WGDC on the low end to hit the boost targets, compared to the .82l tune. Both tunes are running a touch lean in spots, but nothing I'm worrying about right now.

I played with the WGDC Compensation tables tonight, to try to tame the overboosting. I pretty much disallowed any WGDC compensation in any of the tables. As a by-product, the 1st and 2nd gear stutter have been lessened (gone in second gear, completely). I need to do more investigating as to why, but it is definitely better than it was.

I'm setting up some dyno time later this month to dial it in. Probably around July 20-22. I should be able to smooth the tunes out, by then, and just test timing and fueling to see where we end up!

Edit: I'm running mostly new Ventus V12's (~1k miles on them) and I can spin them in third gear with ease. It's pretty silly :)

Can't wait to see some numbers man. Disgusting.

ever think about going with an upgraded RV? would def help out your IDC problems tremendously

Welcome to the smoking 3rd club. :banana:

In my experience, traction in 3rd gear is typically on the very edge around ~350fwtq. So you are probably at or above that in your latest tune.

Before the latest maps and firmware I would sometimes get a stutter in 1st and 2nd gears [very infrequent] but that appears to be gone now. Running the same map but zeroed out the WG load error table. I am thinking that load targeting was coming into play still on the older maps and the ECU would get confused as to what it was supposed to do and just screw things up for a second. on my older AP the logging res wasn't high enough to capture any strangeness.

oh and if you really care to eliminate that wheel spin, have money to throw away [$300 each], get you some Yoko Advan A048s. Your Hancooks have a tread wear of 280...the A048 like 64 and they are SUPER sticky...DOT track tires but i have no spin in 2nd upward. Really nice to actually lay the power down and get forward movement...LOL

Yeah, I considered it. I've seen higher IDC without any ill effect on the car. If it gets to a point where I need it or I just have cash laying around for nothing else, I'll try one.

@Dano2010, yeah, I need some sticky tires. Some sort of drag radial would be ideal. I'm going to pick up a set of wheels, first.

2 hours of dyno time scheduled for the 20th of July

groan me if you want, but I was trying to find a place with FP internals in stock, and found these injectors for VW's... I notice how similar they are to our injectors, and wonder if would be an option? they're make by KMD!

Audi - A3 - 2.0T FSI - Engine - OEM - Set of 4 Audi S3 2.0T FSI Injectors - KMD Tuning


The KMD VW injectors....

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...1&d=1310496433







ours....


http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...1&d=1310496526



Here's the forums I originally found the injectors on... All these VW's talking about going BT with K04's LOL

S3 Injectors from KMD Tuning!!!! - AudiWorld Forums

Are they cheaper than ours or what? Otherwise why do we need an aftermarket OEM injector?

have you read any of this thread? and they are upgraded OEM injectors


quote from the site since you obviously didn't click

Product Information


These injectors flow 13% more the factory A3/MKV 2.0T FSI injectors.
They bolt on with no modding and are the perfect upgrade to anyone going to a bigger turbo.

Get them while the last!!!! Just recent tested on a Audi A4 2.0t FSI APR K04 kit. Just adding on the injectors increase by 10-12HP. Fuel trim wasn't fully adapted yet. We approximate 10-15 HP and 3-5TQ!! From a simple bolt on.

I have read the whole thread but I did not read the discription on KMD's page. I just saw OEM and jumped to conclusions...

my bad... :spankme:

They need to flow more than 1700cc/min at 12MPa IIRC. If not, then our injectors are probably an upgrade for them lol.

Well, considering the k04 is they're BT upgrade, thats probably true. I still don't truely understand how ss's and vw's can pull 350+ whp out of the K04's... I was reading about those injectors in a VWAudi thread, dude was pulling 350 whp 390 wtq on an AWE K04. Seems the K04 was quite possibly the worst choice for this platform!

Hahaha, there are a bazillion different types of k04's. Some are twin scroll, some have bigger hot sides, etc etc. You'd have to compare compressor maps for their k04 vs ours to get a real idea of how they compare.

I don't know much about the vw/audi k04 upgrade though. I wonder if they have seal issues like we do as well.

not sure.... the performance specs don't even mention it Mk6 TSI K04 Turbo Kit - 2.0T - Mk6 G/J (10+) - VW - PRODUCTS

I wish it only cost us $1800 and a tuning solution to get 375 hp!

Alright, I think I have the tunes smoothed out pretty well, now. Boost is running the same curve in both the .82l and .86l tunes, AFR's are pretty much dead on.

2nd gear has no more stutter, and 1st gear only has a slight stumble. For WGDC comp values, I am only using "WG Duty Boost Error Comp" with "Boost Error Ramp Limiters" in play. Every other WGDC comp table has been neutralized.

____________________

Dyno Plans:

1) Test .82l tune, dial timing in once boost/afr's are verified correct.

2) Test .86l tune, dial timing in once boost/afr's are verified correct.

3) Depending on which tune makes more power, I'll either richen it up or lean it out to see if more power can be had. This should give us a good idea of what is optimal.

____________________

Edit: If anyone wants to see something in particular tested, let me know. With the above, I should be able to dial in fueling and timing curves, but beyond that, is there anything else that someone would like to see tested?

Be aware, this is not going to be an "end all" dyno. There will always be room for improvement, and I may simply run out of time.

Finally just read through all of this - amazing work!

Subbing to keep tabs on your progress :beerglass::beerglass:

That sounds solid! This will be excellent proof of gains made on the corn.

i just watched a modern marvels episode dedicated to corn lol

hahaha

I think I saw that one awhile back...1st thing I thought of was moar powa!

I mentioned I would post pictures showing how little residue it takes to gum up the spill valve solenoid, so here we go:

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...5/DSCN3165.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...5/DSCN3163.jpg

As you can see, it's just a thin film on top of the collar piece. On the inside of it, where the plunger sits, is even less :/ That's too tight of a spot to get a picture of, so none of it. You can't even see the residue on the plunger when this happens. It's just a tiny amount on the collar bore where the plunger rides.

____________________

Fuel Filter Update

On a much more important note, I did a little bit of pre-dyno maintenance. Oil and filter, plugs, double checked all intake and boost hoses, and changed my fuel filter.

The fuel filter has been on for ~3500 miles. This one was a Purolator, and the first one was a Motorcraft (the replacement, this time, is a Motorcraft). I didn't see much of anything the first time, so I wanted to put more miles on it, this time around.

Well, not much of anything to see. No mass dirt accumulation, not even a tiny bit of buildup. Sorry for the cell phone pics, but if there was something to see I would have kept the filter and taken pics with my good camera.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...5/SNC00159.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...5/SNC00161.jpg

The black spot in the second picture, on the left of the filter, was on both the Purolator and Motorcraft filters. I'm pretty sure it's some sort of glue used to bind the ends together.

So that's disappointing result. This pretty much rules out dissolved dirt or corrosion of gas tank and fuel lines. I have identical soft lines before and after the filter, so we know it's not the lining or material itself.

And I think that leaves us with some sort of chemical reaction occurring in the pump...Let's discuss!

scientists unite!!!!


phate have u talked to JP@edgemotorsports? they tuned a full E85 car at mac autosports in CO. pretty sure the dude was on stock internals too (CDFP that is) lol.

i can get u the # of the lead tuner there (nick, one of the nations best 240 tuners among other platforms) as he was the one who tuned him. might shed some insight on your problems....

bump for going balls to the wall on this!!!!

I wonder if the same issue would occur in a genpu...