Ah, thanks. That's the sheet I remembered seeing, but I was thinking it was 255lph. Oh well.

BUT, the point still stands. The in tank was keeping up. I have a good number of logs showing fuel pressure staying steady. I will only consider changing the OE pump to aftermarket if it is the ethanol doing the damage to it. I hate butchering cars up for no good reason.

yea, i only did it because i was running nitrous, and tapping into the low pressure line going to the high pressure fuel pump. i wanted security that i wasnt going to bleed the primary fuel system with the nitrous.

@socks ... oh shit I didn't know anyone has used nitrous on this platform! How the fuck do you tune for that? I'm guessing you changed the temperature for the low BAT power curve to whatever the nitrous brings it down to????

Well I used a wet kit. This kept tuning necessary limited to timing for the most part. I was using a standback at the time. it required a big reduction in timing. I was using a 100-125 shot typically.

made 433whp/440wtq. that was before the big tuning evolutions were made, so i think the ecu was still tying me down. I was putting 100+ shot on a 355whp/360wtq car. I expected more.... but i also expected more at the time from the big turbo.

later on i took off the nitrous and made 430whp/380wtq after the ecu was a little better figured out

Here is the question that i have and maybe some of you "old timers" may know.

When cobb set the max timing values....What did they do to determine that?

I've been doing LOTS of testing on timing I'm real curious as to what they did to say this is the max you can run.


ALSO is it possible to create knock due to too little of timing?

I thought they just unlocked the stock max ignition tables (made visible what was always there).

My standard practice is to copy my OL timing table into the max tables starting at 0.31 load.

They probably pulled it out of the stock ECU.

Cobb didnt create those. They found them. You may or may not have to modify them, just as they may or may not have had to modify them for their OTS maps.

the max timing tables should be used like a limiting table, just like the other limiting tables.

man im all about using references today:

Source:
Sensitivity and Effect of Ignition Timing on the Performance of a Spark Ignition Engine: An Experimental and Modeling Study

Oh im not modifying them....I was just wondering if they took those from testing or if it was just a value found in the ecu.

Tested the car with another set of aftermarket internals and they held pressure just fine. Will be talking to KMD for warranty work on these.

We unhooked the Steering Wheel Angle Sensor on Saturday (thanks, @Metal409) and the car seems to be rid of the 1st gear stutter. I'll test this more once I have fuel pressure, again.

I would still like to pull the in tank pump, since it does seem to be whining pretty loudly. Once I get the SST and finish moving, I'll check things out back there.

Already shipped it last week sometime. You'll have it today or tomorrow.



On the fuel pump topic:

At 16 volts, the oem pump will flow as much as a 255 though

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...oosh_/ron1.gif

I knew I wasn't crazy!!!

I don't know what kind of space you have down in Champaign, but you're welcome to come back up to my place this weekend and I can help you drop the tank.


Tapadatass

Thanks for the offer, but I won't be able to this weekend. I'm boxing up my apartment this week and moving this weekend. I'm moving into a house with a 3 car garage :)

Maybe we can have a central Illinois meet sometime in the future. An autocross weekend where we could race during the day and work on cars/drink/cook out that night???

I went ahead and ordered a new fuel pump assembly. I would hate to drop the tank and need one, just to put a shitty one back in. If it turns out the ethanol really is eating something, then this should buy me a few miles to figure out a better alternative, anyway.

I just talked to KMD and I'll be sending out the internals, tomorrow. They said they will run a diag test on them and send out replacements if they don't hold pressure.

I'd think some of us stl guys would make the voyage up for that!

Sorry for derail!

I'm definitely down for that.




Tapadatass

Phate,

A couple of thoughts if your ITFP is bad or even if its not.

It could be that DISI doesn't need to run 100% E85 that PI cars need to, in order to reach the full benefit.

Perhaps we need an additive for lubrication when running high concentrations of E85. I guess if your ITFP is scarred you will know we need lube :)

Just thinking out loud here. I think you, 12pk and others have already determined that without supplemental fueling, or new injectors, high concentrations of E85 will not work on a BT setup and on a K04 setup can drive IPW up to its limits.

thoughts anyone?

Again, great work pushing the envelope man!

does KMD know you were running 100% E85 and do they support it?

Dano, I think we will see the most benefit with the maximum amount of ethanol we can run reliably. I think 12pk mentioned this earlier in the thread, and I want to echo this idea. Even though I don't think Driver311 is comparing apples to apples, I do think he is right that E85 will offer more power over gas.

This has been proven in many engines and platforms. BUT, many times people will exaggerate the claims simply because they were knock limited before the E85. It's very hard to obtain controlled/objective data because of this. There is a lot of bs out there about ethanol/E85 and its benefits...

I believe we will be limited to the K04 (or only slightly bigger) if running straight E85. We don't know exactly how far we can push the injectors beyond 100%, but I doubt it is too much further. I never intend to go BT with my MS3, so if I can run it reliably, I will. [Once I feel the K04 isn't enough, I'm getting a vette or a new mustang ;)]

We will see how the ITFP (new acronym!!) is holding up probably the weekend of August 6th. I doubt I have time before then. The lubrication idea is interesting. I have not been running any sort of additive since way back in May after my spill valve quit working the first time. I only used it for the tank immediately after that. It was just adding another variable to the equation.

KMD has said ethanol will not affect their internals...

Eeeeenteresting. This thread is continuing to be a good read.

Not sure if you got my point or just disagreed with it. Good discussion either way.

I wasn't trying to say that no gains could be made with E85 but saying that perhaps running 100% E85 isn't necessary to reach the full potential on our platform. i.e. 100% is overkill. :)

This in the context of the possible negative affects/requirements of running 100% E85. IIRC 12PK is somewhere around E40 and has seen no ill affects compared to your results. I'm not 100% sure where Driver is but he certainly believes his car is much faster and I THINK he is around 50% E85. so maybe 50% is all we need to remove any knock limitation on our platform.

We already need bigger injectors on pump gas for the uber BT guys so that is just a matter of time and that hurdle will be overcome just like all the others, so at some point it would make this aspect of the discussion moot :)

oh and ITFP was not coined by me LOL

edit: I would guess none of the aftermarket internal vendors would have issues with E85 so the next question, that perhaps you will be able to answer for us, is if the ITFP and sock [if we have one?] can handle it.

I'm sort of agreeing and disagreeing ;) I think we'll be able to optimize timing with just a mix of E85. In that regard, we wouldn't need more ethanol. Beyond that, though, the gain comes from the ethanol, itself. It ends up being about the same amount of available BTU, but it absorbs a ton of heat and the flame propagation/rate should give us different/better burn characteristics which typically results in more power.

Edit: I've been looking for this chart for a while now: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fueltable.pdf

roger that...I wasn't considering the other potential benefits beyond removing knock limitation to optimize timing.

I suppose an entire thread could be created to discuss timing changes/requirements when running corn. i.e. slower, more controlled flame travel on E85, right? so more IGN advance needed on corn vs pump just to get started and optimize flame front expansion in relation to piston location. Or do I have the burn characteristics backward?

Well, I'll just test it and leave the "why" question up to the smart folk here, haha.

hahah

we'll just wait for the Chem Engineer to chime in ala 12pk.....

Agreed!!

I don't mind being the test dummy.

I am finding power with the k04 on 50/50 that most people were saying you don't get out of the k04.

I think there is still a little more to squeeze out but only the dyno can tell.

I can say this. I am currently running the supposed OEM max timing from 3k-5k and the car is a beast.

Hoping like phate says some of the big dogs shed light on the things that us dummies aren't figuring out or seeing.

Can you post a log with your timing/load/rpm?


Yeah, lots of good discussion here.

I personally do not know the relative flame front propagation rates on Gas vs Ethanol vs blends...however, they are probably somewhat different.

I am very curious in what Phate will dyno as I will probably dyno again before too much longer now that my clutch isn't slipping...

I definitely wouldn't want to go through pulling the fuel pumps and tank to run more E85 than I am now, but I am glad Phate is pushing the boundries for us. My last fill up was 6.25 gallons E85 with 6.7 gallons of 93 and it seems to run awesome.

I will post up some logs later....I too just went to 6.5 gallons as well....

Even if we knew a burn rate, it probably wouldn't help us much. That is not a static number, as I'm sure you know, depending on temp/AFR/flame stretch/point of time in burn/etc. Way beyond me, haha.

I would suspect you can run more timing than Cobb OTS...much more.

in for logs with load and IGN advance recorded.

Yep, in this case the Physical Chemistry of the situation might be damn interesting; however, the only thing we really care about is how much power can we make without detonation or going past MBT.

Going to a dyno is a shit-ton easier than the crazy combustion modeling you are describing.

I am all for understanding theoretical models, but I am more of a data guy when it comes to something like this.

:burnout:

Its pretty beastly...I'll go log now....I usually hit around 2.7-2.9 load @ 3700 ish...

1.8-2 @ RL BRB!

so you're basically at the 2.0 load point as far as ign advance is concerned and barely drop out of it. Sounds like all you need to modify are the last 5 rows of the IGN HT and limiter tables.

Here she be....its too fucking hot outside....Car runs like poo poo in the heat.

Here is one of mine from today. My MAF curve is scaled up 7% from 0-80 g/s. The rest is identical to my non E85 curve. What is your MAF scaling for E85?

You appear to be running about 2° less than me at 3500, then about 2.5° more than me at 4000, 3.5° more than me at 4500, 2.5° more than me at 5000, and about 0.5° more than me at 5500.

My question would be are you sure you aren't past MBT as you are more aggressive than anyone I have seen from 4000-5000 RPMs.

Nope not sure....This was just a test map i am running just to see what the "max ign" values did for the car.

This is the only thing I have to go off ATM.

When I dynod a few weeks back. I was running a degree and a half less than I am currently from 3k-5k.

The spot where I assume I went past MBT was in the upper RPM (5500-6300). As I dropped a stupid amount (10-12 hp) within a few hundred RPM range. So we were assuming that I had the timing so advance at that range that I was pushing when I should have been pulling (Excuse my poor lack of technological terming).

So i am running more timing down bottom and a little less upto then i was when I dynod.

In the same weather setting as the dyno I am seeing 10-15 more G/S than I was then.

I may be wrong but again I don't want to assume anything till i get on the dyno to get numbers that will back up or destory my thoughts.

As far as my MAF scaling. To be completely honest I started with a base scale taken from my 93 tune. Then adjusted it just like I did a standard maf cal. I wish I knew the exact %. Weather dependent I am usually +- 3 to 4.

I use the afr's to determine weather my cal is right. If your cal is off your AFR's will be wacked the fuck out. If your cal is right then you should see your targets. At least that has been my findings.


Again I am by far no expert I am just reporting stuff that I have found.

Take this with a grain of salt until I get on a dyno: My car likes more timing than bewsted's, especially on the low end.

My car is pulling REAL hard with this timing ATM!

Got a datalog handy? I am working on tomorrow's tune...

cld i want your weather thats all i can say LOL!

It was ~107°F heat index this weekend. I am enjoying it merely being mid 90's heat index today.

Same over here in St. Louis.

So in this log were you on the e85 and meth or just e85?

Always both.

Why are ur maf g/s so low?

tapa dat ass

I have zero scaling to account for the E40 above 80g/s. So my g/s have not been artificially inflated anywhere I am logging over 80g/s.

I was just curious because I'm pretty sure I was seeing higher than those numbers on a 93 tune.

I know when I attempted to calibrate mine using the 93 maf cal the car felt like a turd.

The log I posted was with 91°F ambient temp, where I will usually peak in the mid 260 g/s. I can get 290-300g/s when it is 20°F out.

You going to be leaning out soon?

I'm at 12.6 ATM and the car loves it. Especially with the timing the way it is.

Were you running E85 when you dynod last?

Wow, advance, AFR and pegging the MAP.

You like pushing the limits much? :)

but on a serious note, FWIW I'd be careful with all of that esp on E85 mix. That is some serious advance in the meat of the curve compared to 93 + 100% meth.

The AFR is skewed somewhat I suppose due to the E85 mix so that's hard to determine just how lean it is. I suppose the 12.4 isn't that bad but the 12.7 above 5K @ 120* BAT has got to be too lean, no?

The 22.63 PSI could be anywhere above that and you'd never know it with no safeguard. Its only for a second but that's all it takes LOL.

bewested, what are your mods?

you need to get rid of that dip in AFR as you come on to boost. it has to do with your transition from CL to OL fueling tables but i would def address it.

FWIW my timing looks the same dano with about 3 more degrees by RL and 100 more g/s lolol

Actual AFR reading is skewed, but lambda is still correct :)

Mods: Fully bolted - FMIC. (Gutted stock dp)(Testpipe) 6.5 Gallons E85 (Stock turbo)

All of my tables match....OL and CL.

My guess is something with the MAF cal.

As far as pushing the limits?
Isn't that what we are here to do?

And the pushing the map? 23 psi is set for boost cut. The stock map sensor stops collection data past 23 psi if i understand correctly. So i don't really see my boost pushing as being a problem.


BTW Dano I in no way am trying to be a smartass. Just wanted to say that ahead of time.

Are you saying i finally got it right LMAO? JK

hahah I didn't think you were being a smartass.

the sensor "reads" to 23PSI but IIRC its accepted knowledge it isn't accurate above 22.

So your 22.63 could be 24.

The actual PSI isn't as alarming as the fact that you will never see boost cut unless you set it to 22, I doubt the 23 limit will ever be seen by the MAP.

sorry to get so far OT Phate :)

Well i suppose a lil WG dip could solve that LOL.

I will say this....I can't believe how ALIVE the car has become.....

I ran next to a gsx-r 650 or 750.....from 50 - 110 he didnt even get a bike on me.,.......It made my peen hard LMAO

hhaha

I love beating up on the smaller bikes....they're like WTF just happened....that wagon just hung with me or, sometimes I pull them a bit. :)

good times!

Running bikes is fun. I got the best "WTF IS IN THAT THING!!!" look a couple of weeks ago from a biker.

I got the thumbs up from this guy...i about shat when i heard him shift twice and i was next to him still

Im anxious to spend some time on the dyno dialing this in

My last dyno (results in my sig) were from about 17 months ago with 1.5 PSI less boost, 2-3° less timing, and no E85 compared to where I am now.

I have been slowly leaning out over the past few months from 11.8:1 to my current 12.2:1.

Awesome thread!! great job all around guys

12.4-12.5 is where the car came unglued if you will...With very similar timing to what I'm running now.

But I know @phate will be getting on the dyno soon and I am trying to follow suit and get that done soon.

I plan to kick all the timing values down a couple 2 or 3 degrees and make a pull with each timing setting and will have the logs as well for the results.

So we can figure out what ranges could use less or more timing and what the gains are after adjust them...

I don't know everything nor do i claim to. I am just going to attempt to contribute something useful here......I may fail LOL

What mods did you have and what kind of tune were you running for you 288/340 or whatever is in your sig? Were you running any EtOH at that point?

I was just looking at your log again compared to one I just took on the way home. Yours is fucking crazy man. Pushing a lot of numbers and oh so lean. Makes my car look like a civic or something lol. You really make me want to run down the street and put 4 gallons in my shit. How long have you been running the ~50% mixture? Any adverse affects yet?

Either way, keep it up. Looking forward to when you can get on the dyno.

Step Colder Plugs..Pump Internals..Crushed DSM BOV..Gutted Stock DP..Test Pipe..Res Delete...HTP Inlet...Custom SRI...Self Tuned on 5.5-6.5 Gallons...

The car runs like a raped ape.. For sure. I've been running this setup for a couple months now.


Not that it really matters but it was 100 degrees out the day I dnynoed with UBER humidity...

Just compared my log from today vs my March 2010 dyno (in sig)...

Here are the differences in timing:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...Dynotiming.jpg

More than I thought...I really need to get back on the dyno...

My table calls for 16.5° at 6500 RPMs today, but I got 1° of KR.

Guess its time to knock that bitch back down a degree....

Only if it repeats. I need some more datalogs first.

Here's the most recent UOA:

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...50050Miles.jpg

Note: This is NOT with Mobil 1 0W/40. This is Rotella T6 5W-40. For some reason, they still have the 0-40 on file from my Mercedes...

That rotella is the tits...Thats all i ever use.

i switched to penzoil ultra as its cheaper then the rotella yet is passing tests ahead of RL and amsoil which are true full synthetics (not that mobile 1 garbage)

Where the hell did you find Pennzoil Ultra Euro 5w-40 for less than T6?

Please do not turn this into an oil discussion/debate. There are plenty of other threads for this...I only posted the UOA to show it is not damaging anything.

What's all this talk about running and beating bikes?

If anyone pulled a 600cc sport bike, I can't believe it or you raced a fella that was 400 lbs on it.

Hey Phate, I know it's only been a few days but any word on the KMD internals? Did they look scuffed or anything compared to when they were installed originally?

I'm about due for some internals myself and want to make sure I get something that will hold up to anything I throw at it.

I ran right next to a newer gsx-r 600 from 50 -110

@Enki - I just sent them out yesterday. They didn't look any different than they have. Thinking about this now, I should have gotten some close up shots, similar to the beginning of the thread :/

ps - I won't reinstall internals until after I drop the tank and check out the ITFP situation.

I raced a 600 just a few weeks ago twice and put a few cars on him. 30-120ish. Several .org members witnessed the race. The guy on the 600 was really confused on how I pulled him. LOL

My buddy has 07gsxr 600 and he runs consistant 11.0-11.2@122-124 on it at 2900ft track. If you are beating him thats pretty impressive.

My car also gains a bunch of power going from 12.0 afr to 12.5. Its in the logs and I can straight up feel the difference. Back in the day when I was running 12.7 on just testpipe, intake and bc my afrs were mid 12s and the car ran sooo good. These disi motors dont wanna be rich. 11s is to rich and people keep associating rich with safe. Its not true. Look at all the guys running low 11s afr and seeing knock all the time. I never saw knock in my car running mid low 12s afr. All cars are different and thats the benefit of directly shooting fuel into the combustion chamber.

I think you're on the right track, I see less "phantom" knock (<1.05 KR) with the leaner tunes on E85.

I heard 2 shifts from 50-110...He didn't get a full bike on me when i let off.

its troof....normal weight guy....done it a few times to 600cc bikes and I didn't say I dropped them. I stayed even with one bike and slightly pulled another...maybe 1/2 car length before we let off....raced an 1100cc but it didn't go so well LOL Those are better left to the S2K from Hell :)

I can see BT cars pulling or hanging but the stock k04 idk lol

I know when I'd phuck with a car on my 600 I would never even down shift really, unless it was a vette. So maybe didn't feel threatened then was like ut oh lol

We haz trq monsters on e85.....Thats prolly the only reason i was able to hang

the corn does stretch the capability of the K04.

I wish I had corn....30 mins one way from me.

No corn in Cincinnati.....damn it !!

Although, good job guys with your success!! :arms:

Sooooo I've read through the whole thing & felt like contributing.

Observations & opinions:

The 'gunk,' has to be material break-down in the fuel system. I can't see ethanol turning steel into goo so I'm betting some rubber somewhere is getting eaten away.

E85's real octane rating is 94-96 [(R+M)/2.] The oxygen-transporting feature & significant cooling effect, however, make it 'act,' more like traditional fuels rated at 105-115 octane in a standard engine. Having said that, it really does seem like a 'tune by ear,' fuel. Agreed?

Do we know if the DI system on the Ecotec is in any way compatible? I ask because the Regal will be E85 compatible so that fueling system is looking mighty tasty.

Ethanol is the future of internal combustion, just not from corn. It's in F1 & Le Mans already... NASCAR needs to get on the boat since they're so "grass-roots," and "American." I love how grass-roots its development has become. Reading this thread is like reading how rockets were invented.

Questions:

Assuming it's 94 octane (and we ignore how overly-simplistic this question is,) couldn't you do half a tank of E85 and half a tank of 89 gas and land roughly at 91 octane on a stock tune while the ECU compensates for fueling needs or would it be too taxed?

Would the CDFP benefit in any way from having more fuel / pressure coming from the tank?

Has anyone thought of just getting a Flex Fuel car & logging it on the recommended pump gas & then running on 100% E85 to see how the fueling & timing changes to use as a guideline?

p.s.
Don't forget - You can always distill your own ethanol if you get a license & denature it... for a dollar or two a gallon post-production.

It's something but are we sure on anything no. I switched to e85 after 150k miles of dinosaur remains on my integra. Fuel filter is fine. Rubber gaskets look great. So who knows what this platform's deal is.

The stock tune will try to compensate in closed loop, but open loops it would lean it out a lot. Plus why try to save 20c by buying 89 octane, it's not worth it. 50% imo is too much to add without adjusting your tune. I run about a max of 25% on my car, and have monitored religiously.

And apples to oarnges with the flex fuel vehicle to another vehicle. We already know how to handle fueling.

And I'm pretty sure distilling your own ethanol is not a great idea unless you plan on drinking it. Since alcohol forms azeotropes you might have trouble getting it as dry as manafacturers do and plus you'll still got VOC's from whatever you are distilling from that need to be taken out.

What about a higher-flow ITFP; would that have any benefit to the CDFP?

Ecotec parts compatible at all?

I drink everything I brew :D

Bigger/badder in tank pump will probably help a little bit, but at some point (really soon, actually), we will be right back to the most difficult to surpass fueling limitation we have right now: the stock injectors.

Ditto.

ya thats gonna be a rough one. I think with 50/50 and alot of meth someone could get to 450-475whp probably but thats gonna be about all she wrote. Mines maxed out right now on 24-25psi. I just gotta go dyno and see where im at at 24psi. Ive sure its gotta be up there to beat some of the cars and bikes I have recently. soon.

From Cruz's Dyno...

He was at ~430 whp at 92% injector duty cycle at 12:1 AFR with a D07 at full tilt with 100% meth.

So assuming 100% duty cycle, leaning out to 12.5:1, and a 15% shift in injector pulse width with the 50/50 blend we get power supported at 100% duty cycle of around:

So 430whp *100/92*12.5/12*.85= ~415whp

What assumptions did you use to arrive at the 450-475whp estimate?

Too much ricer math...tuned in for dyno rresults

tapa dat ass

Ricer math, lol, but it's probably close. 100% IDC can be overrun, but I'm not sure by how much. I've seen 108.x% at WOT (not just a sudden spike - I've seen ~120% in that case).

@djuosnteisn, I grabbed the tool today from my parent's place. I haven't opened the box, but I'm lovin' the artwork.

I'm in limbo in terms of housing, so I'm not doing anything with the car, right now. The house I'm moving into, which was supposed to be finished being built May 31st, is still not finished. Project management ftw.

Soooooo, I have internet only at work right now. Everything I own is in boxes, lol. I hope they get this placed finished soon!

_______

I'm running the stock HPFP internals, right now. These are the good ones from the second pump I purchased. There is no way in hell anyone could possibly run this with E85. This thing drops pressure as soon as I get into boost. IDK how the other guy claiming to run E85 would have done this unless he had the most factory freak of a fuel pump to ever leave the Mazda factory.

No real gains to in tank fuel pumps unless the stock system becomes inadequate. Because we have a positive displacement CDFP after the intake pump, it doesn't really matter if it's 80 psi or 5 psi feeding it, as long as it's enough "psi" to fill the CDFP piston chamber in the allowed time. Fuel is in compressible, so the difference in mass between 80psi and 1psi is negligible.

I just learned these lessons a couple months ago lol.



Also, when run at 16 volts, the oem in tank fuel pump will flow as much as a walboro 255.

It's mainly for Daniel hahaha.

subbed, very interested in the progress of this thread.

I figured, hehe. I'll post a pic of it when I can.

UPS site says my new fuel pump assembly was delivered today :)

I havent read through this whole thread, just bits and pieces. but has anyone tried browsing VW forums to see if they have come up with a solution for them to run 100% e85 and try to see if it works on our platform?

The solution for them is to stay slow and not go fast....DUH!

And then blame it flushiness.

herrafrush yo