BAAAAAAAM!!!!!!!!

kick fucking ass man! very nice curves and I am still not sure I am reading the timing numbers right LOL

so you continued to make power with each timing increase and you are not beyond MBT??

and yes logs to match the runs please when you get a chance.

great work for sure!

Subbed for later... I'm interested in seeing how to cure the gunk issue. I have a feeling those dyno charts will make a lot of people convert to E85... including myself. Good job, man.

phate, did you encounter any KR when you were pushing timing BEYOND peak power?

This makes me wonder if injecting ethanol rather than methanol would be of benefit.

SICK, SICK, SICK.

Thanks Phate, for this thread, and using your car as a guinea pig.

I have had several people mention to me to use ethanol instead when I was looking to but meth locally.

It would be nice to do it that way so you don't have to worry about your primary fuel source getting clogged up or eaten up.

Interested to hear more thoughts on this.

i have had 0 issues with 50% e85 and I wish I had more fuel to run a bigger %. But Im maxed now at 24psi and 50% e85. So looks like I need to hit the dyno soon. Like maybe this weekend and see what I can gain if any with more timing. As of now Im maxed at 17 degrees. But last time I went I didnt play with timing so it looks like I must LOL. 25whp on a maxed out k04 with 10 degrees is pretty good. I made 30whp on my bros going from 30-40 so its about almost identical. Its nice to see even on different platforms we are seeing similar results.

I wanna say thanks to Phate for spending the time and money to verify what all of us on e85 have known, but didnt have any solid proof. Its works great on these cars at the proper levels. I do think if someone was wanting to run straight e85 that doing the 2 gallons of 93 per tank is a very good suggestion, and I would be willing to bet eliminates 90% of Phates build up he is seeing. GReat stuff bud.

Ps. For anyone that still doubts that just running e85 doesnt add power alone, show me one meth or race gas equipped speed3 tuned and almost bone stock making 300+whp!! Shit there isnt many even fully bolted. This is great verification and I hope to see similar results on paper.

Haha ive been playing with e85 on my 2011 gti. The nice thing about my car is that it can manipulate lambda over the full scale, even though in OL i run kinda lean(well within safety) (commanded is 11.8, actual is 12.0-12.1) which is still well withing what most people run on e85 mixes (12.6 is as far as ive seen people go)

Im stuck with cookie cutter chipping for my tune though, so i cant increase timing.
But I keep my full timing damn near all the time(high heat/ humidity). Except with AC on, but thats because the ECU gets its hands in their with it on to keep everything safe. So even for my VW mixing in 3.5-4 gallons of e85 on top of ethanol free 93 has been doing world of benefits for me. Breaking 3rd loose with a little ko3!

If i moved up to a 50/50 mix i could run the race tune with 26 degrees of timing. that would net low-mid 300's wtq while pushing whp closer to 300. (k03 turbo is made for torque and torque alone)

This just goes to show the possibility of E85 in DI FI motors.

Shun the non believers of e85.

Edit: If i had a k04, i would be at mid 300's on pump 93, so id imagine e85 could push that closer to the 360-400 whp/tq and beyond on the race gas timing.

@jmhinkle

I'll post some datalogs from the street. I have like 25 datalogs all called 'datalog1.csv' from the dyno, lol. I was trying not to waste too much time in between runs since the car was staying cool. I tried bumping up timing @ 2500 rpm and it carried KR through the entire rev range. That was the worst KR I saw throughout the day.

If you are going from gas to straight E85, I would initially scale the maf curve by ~30%. I think I ended up scaling it up a little more on the top end, and the lower range (idle and just off idle) down from there. The idle range is a bit finicky.

Boost was pretty much maxed starting at 3700rpm or so. It eclipsed the MAP sensor for a couple lines in each data log and tapered out from there.

Power increased with each addition of timing up to the last curve I posted. I went beyond those numbers by 1° or so and saw no additional gain. I then went another .5-1° (depending on rpm) and saw a decrease in power.

No, the runs actually became cleaner and cleaner as I approached my final timing curve. No significant KR throughout the entire day. Even when I went beyond my final timing curve, no kr was recorded.

That's the scary part of E85.

Methanol is higher octane and has a higher latent heat capacity. I see no reason to substitute eth for meth in any WMI kit.

ouch!

that's gonna leave a mark!

Or the good part depending on how you look at it. LOL

I am curious how much earlier you would have hit MBT if you were not running E85 given that there was no knock.

How does the burn rate of E85 compare to gasoline? Intuition tells me it is slower - so a gas car would hit MBT earlier.

EDIT: Looks like MBT timing for gas and E85 should be quite similar. E85 actually takes a bit more advance to reach MBT but it should only be a few degrees.

This exactly....

Guess its safe to say that we are a ways behind the timing game even with 50%

@driver311

You too big boy!

Correct; and for meth vs eth, you'd want eth in the tank, and meth for spray as eth is just a little less corrosive than meth, so this is already pretty much the ideal setup.

I think it also safe to say that your not gaining an astronomical decrease in bats due to e85 so the meth would still help improve bats.

Good until you bend a rod LOL

WOO! Just got some logs on a timing map similar to yours @phate and its looking good on the e85 mix. I love you man.

@bewsted

Dont forget your not running 100% e85 like him LOL...

This is my big question as well

Yes you do, but it happens in the cylinder; this is why motors running E85 flow more air than the same engine on regular pump gas.

Wouldn't that be a decrease in combustion temps not boosted air temps?

I get what your saying....I completely understand it...the heat the turbo pulls from the motor is cooler than it is on pump.

Which would mean less heat exchange occuring in the turbo itself.

Edit: Maybe less heat soak. LOL

@phate can you do a log with the same tune and run it through Virtual Dyno? I'd really like to see how close it would be to your Dyno runs.


Tapadatass

Actually, alochol as a fuel pulls massive amounts of heat from the air as it evaporates; an example of this is my dad's friend whom has an alcohol powered small block in his race car. After he does a run down the quarter, they pop his hood and put their drinks on his frosted over intake manifold.

I have mine at 14-16% running ~E40-45. Sounds like everyone is responding in a very similar manner.

Did I mention that this thread is made of pure WIN? :popcorn:

Of course. That is one reason why I want to get a non-dyno pull to post.

Just to give you an idea about heat absorption, running E85 absorbs almost 3 times as much heat as a typical WMI setup (offsetting AFR by ~.5). The amount of heat absorbed is ridiculous. That's all heat absorption before combustion :)

We can run through some hypothetical scenarios to show this. The math is fairly straight forward, and should give us a good approximation.

Yep, by my calcs running E40 results in a little over 2x the latent heat of evaporation of gas considering the increased volumetric flow coupled with the higher latent heat of evaporation from the ethanol.

This naturally means way cooler cylinder temps prior to the spark event.

Yeah, here are the latent heat values for gas/eth/meth for everyone:

Gas: 900 btu/gal
Ethanol: 2,378 btu/gal
Methanol: 3,340 btu/gal

This coupled with the increased octane rating is the entire benefit of running alcohol. Cooler cylinder temps make BATs less important and knock less likely, the higher octane even further increases the resistance to detonation and allows for a fuck ton of timing.

Right.....But cooler = stiffer nipples

Not to thread jack, but see the linked post for my current e85 mix update.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...ml#post1016018

The other massive benefit is ethanol is ~35% oxygen by weight. On E85 this is reduced somewhat, but still significant especially for a system (like a stock k04) that is airflow limited.

Doesn't help the folks that are already maxing the stock injectors though.


Zigatapatalka

All i have to say is...


WTB fall weather for winning BAT's!

The benefit of lower BATs that you don't get with E85 is the cooler (and therefore denser) air charge. For that reason I would like to run a small amount of 100% meth (don't need H2O for knock prevention with E85).


Tapadatass

The idea is that gasoline is much more sensitive to BATs compared to E85. I would say that in a gas powered car - WMI and good intercooling are essential. If you run E85, the cooling requirements significantly drop ... so a stock TMIC will do.

Further, E85 is actually less sensitive to timing that is not at MBT. You will lose more power per degree of timing away from MBT on gas compared to E85.

If you really want to increase the efficiency of the turbo, inject WMI before the turbo inlet. Yes, it will wear your compressor blades over time but it will make the K04 grow a little :)

Damn phate, nice job on the tune, and the mazdaspeed breakthrough! What was the leanest afr you could run without an increase in power?

Where did you get those numbers? My stuff says

Gas: 150btu/gal
E85: 359btu/gal
Methanol: 503btu/gal

Regarding the burn rates which are specific to AFR, but the percentages are comparable at similar lambda values:

Pump: 34ms
E85: 38ms

Thus E85 is ~12% slower than gasoline, requiring 12% more time/spark advance. At 6500rpm, assuming gasoline was at 15* "comparable" timing for E85 would be 19* seeing as you went well beyond that, maybe we really are knock limited in gasoline more than I thought.



Zigatapatalka

This sounds like a fun idea! LOL

I didn't lean it out any further than the .86l tune. There were no significant gains/losses when I leaned it out, so I didn't test it any further. You may be able to lean it out further, though, without a drop in power. That could increase the headroom for the injectors...but at the possible expense of increased combustion temps, egt's, valves, etc?


The latent heat capacity comes from "Alcohols: A Technical Assessment of Their Application as Motor Fuels," API Publication No. 4261, July 1976. I posted a link to a site containing "Properties of Fuels" a few pages back, and this was their reference.

This also varies from car to car. I have seen cars run happily at 17 degrees on gas. Anyone want to try 20* advance on gas at redline?

I start knocking at 10* so no, lol


Zigatapatalka

I have to say it.

Happy dyno is Happy dyno :shocked:

haha

good shit.

your such a fag rob...dont be jelly.

How could I be jelly when I made 322/416 :P

oh and i also have a 35r waiting for me at home. :jester:

you and your correction factor....oh i have a present at my house too! :P

Phate, thanks for getting real data to back up the e85 stuff. It really does wonders for these cars.


The only thing i'd be interested in..... is would you be able to make that same power with a lower mix of e85 to petrol. Like 50/50 or even less. From what i've seen, just a few gallons is all it takes to gain the knock protection. So if you could make the same power, with the same hardware, on a lower mix... then that buys you even more headroom in the fueling department.


Would you be willing to go back on a 50/50 tune and see if you could make the same power? I'd be willing to kick some $ to help pay for dyno fees. And all you'd really need to do is recal the maf, and pull like 5* to start from a conservative point, then walk it up like you did this time around.




Thanks for confirming the AFR issue. It's weird.... i know.... but now we have 2 cars (backed up with dyno plots) that show no benefit to leaner afr's, one 100% e85 and the other with only 2.5 gallons. I want to know how much benefit there is on pump gas (if any).

Good weekend for both of us :07:

i like!

I am at 50/50 and have a little bit of dyno time tomorrow. I dont think I will be able to tune much on it, but at least Ill get a few runs with my current tune.

Yeah, I could get some dyno time pretty easily, now. At the earliest, it would be mid September due to my schedule. My first set of pulls with the .83l tune took almost 3 hours and 19 pulls. Once I found I could run as much timing as I threw at it, the .86l tune took less than 45 minutes to top out, lol. I doubt it would take more than 1-2 hours to dial in a 50/50 tune starting, like you said, with a few degrees less timing on the base pull.

I'm sorry that my focus changed a slight bit on this hole deal...hate to spend a bunch of time on the dyno when i got an upgrade coming...

What are you changing now??

Bewsted's fixing his biggest restriction lol.



Let's do it. I'd prefer to see it done with the same car, same dyno. Corrected numbers are fine. That's about as apples to apples as it gets. Lemme know if you want some help on the funds and i'll kick you some.

Dustin i love you.....Please come back and burn me more LOL

But on a side not i bumped my timing a squirt higher than i was running before and running lower boost more timing....Car is definitely happier.

I seriously was considering running an M1 right at the impeller; however, sanity caught up with me and I figured I would be better off with a BNR S3 if I really needed more power on my DD.

I have read an article outlining running a the smallest nozzle one can find about 4" in front the turbo. The article stated as long as it was not a solid stream hitting the turbo, it would not cause a problem....but I have not grown big enough gonads to try it myself... hahaha

anyone planning to go BT should run this for about a year then tell us what happens

K04=disposable...

would not do that to my GT.

Phate, once again MANY THANKS for all the work you have done.

hey phate hit the track pleeeeeeeease.

I actually haven't been to the dragstrip yet this summer so I won't blame you if you don't have the time.

early fall is the best time to race anyway ;) I trapped 107 @ 16psi on a 50degree day haha

I think my car doesn't like the cold weather :/ I went out a little bit ago, it's 60° out, and the car has this very slight on/off surging when at full throttle. No KR, so it could be slight spark blowout. I think I'll order some ITV20's to see if they help. My current plugs are gapped @ .026-.027". During the day when it's warmer, the car pulls beautifully. The moral of that story is that I don't have data logs for you guys, haha.

@opt_ms3 - I'll go to the track, but I don't think it'll work out too well on street tires, haha. A friend of mine is tuning his stupidly large turbo trans am, so we'll probably head over to US41 in September.

Bastard!

I'm seeing some ridiculous numbers on Virtual Dyno, and I want to use your data to get a ballpark as to how far off they might be.

This morning it was 57 out and my car at 24.5psi was getting a tiny bit of spark blow out. Anything above 60 and its all good. I think Im gonna drop mine to 28. If I remember they are at 32 right now. Gotta check that out. I thought about going itv20 also. My car does not like itv24s so it makes sense it doesnt like colder plugs with the e85.

yes makes sense to go back to stock or warmer plugs on corn.

The hotter the spark without causing knock the more power and with no knock on corn...well...there you have it.

I drove to ATL this morning and the temps were mid 60's. My car LOVED it, but I am running ITV22's that I left in from my 93 tune. The thing pulled like a BEAST. Get those plugs, @phate I logged load .3 higher than normal and a bit more g/s.

i've been working with VD [hahahah] and the best way to get accurate numbers it to take the logs in the exact same location each time. The slightest incline or decline will skew the numbers greatly.

I've had trouble getting logs from a dyno run to closely match similar runs on the street as well. My 350WHP run comes out to 497 in VD hahah. I have worked a lil with Brad and uncorrected dyno numbers do fair better when trying to match street logs but I can't get my dyno run to match up. It was a shitty run so that may be the reason.

If you used a dyno without any load added, the rate of acceleration is much higher on the dyno. When I was finalizing my tune, I had Shawn add 8% load to more closely mimic street conditions to be absolutely sure my car wouldn't knock when I pulled it off of the dyno.

Edit: I played with virtual dyno a few times before I actually went to the dyno. It was pretty close to what the car laid down on the first run. Something like 307hp and 410lb/ft, with a very similar curve to what I saw on the dyno.

O I C....makes sense...my dyno operator was a complete idiot....they have since gone out of business....didn't see that coming :)

I live in northern IL, and live out in a ruralesque area, so I have no problem doing my runs on flat, smooth asphalt. I just cant believe I'm getting 315 WHp and 351 WTq with a stock TMIC and HPFP at 18 psi.

Just wait until I go E85; I'm gunning for you phate.


Tapadatass

Yea, Wind resistance and the weight of the car aren't really a factor on the dyno, unless you somehow compensate for them.

I can't take 3rd gear logs nemore because i just spin from 3500-4500 LOL

Yeah, me too.

I have dropped my load target to 2.1 (effective 1.8 after MAF scaling) for 3rd and I am still blowing them away with only ~16-17 PSI as I ratchet up the timing.

In this log from yesterday I spun directly from 3000-5700...

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6.../082911-12.jpg

Ya I know the feeling guys. I spin the tires on the dyno in 4th gear on my first two runs until the tires are heated up. Poor us. LOL

ill try to get some from today...

maybe i need to do a burn out to warm them up before taking logs now LOL.

I spun in third for the first time this morning on the way up here. It was pretty BA.

The trq is craZy....

I remember when I could spin third gear... It was the first morning after I got my car tuned on 50/50 wmi. It was about 42* out and it scared the shit out of me cause I wasn't expecting that when I tried to pass the guy who just pulled out in front of me and made me slam on my brakes.

Then my turbo died so I got a new one. Now I have a sneaky boost leak. FML... I'll never be able to spin third again... :sigh:

lol....one day alan!

This phate guy has inspired ms to increase timing a touch. I just added half a degree from 3500 to 7000 and am getting noticeable more third gear spinning, even w my dying clutch!

I hope all you cats have injector seals. The slower combustion of E85 will suppress the cylinder pressure spikes somewhat, but torque ~= cylinder pressure, and past experience says somewhere north of ~360wtq is when the seals start to let go.


Zigatapatalka

What have you done to fuck up your clutch?!? haha

add another just to be sure LMAO


I haz stock seals...when they go they go....

driver mod fail is how.

We shall see how long mine hold out, haha.

me waiting on SD intake to install:

Seals/studs
Intake
3 bar MAP
HPRV
rail sensor

should make for a great weekend.

@SilverDemon where is that intake?

I have been well above 360 wtq for 18 months on the stock seals.

Of course I never have any significant KR.

I could just be an outlier though...

Where did you get your HPRV from? I've got my intake mani to install but I'm thinking I might go ahead and get a 3 bar MAP and a HPRV so that I can install it all at the same time while the mani is off.

I already have inj seals/studs installed.

Im going the don't fix it if it aint broke on the seals....

juss saying

Intake mani is in the works... I can not make it go any faster.... @superskaterxes is testing the HPRV kit I built a while back. I have one on mine, but have not played too much with the pressure, the car is running great the way it sits...

Haha, nothing, I don't think. Fourth clutch and never needed to replace one before, and I had 175k on my jetta... And I beat the he'll out of that... I hardly ever launch this car and I don't really ffs so idk. Sorry for thread jack.

I wan to try another 1° or so, but I need to research before to make sure I'm not doing anything dangerous to my engine (I'm sure I'm not, but I is still scurd).

I haz the seals

I wonder how sensitive this car is to timing on gas...

Don't actually have any parts...just outlining my plan.

I'd rather not say where the HPRV MIGHT come from for fear of being ridiculed.....LOL






DFDD HPRV.....this post will self destruct in 5 seconds......


on dino fuel you can safely use the knock sensor for feedback for timing advance....not so of course on corn.


just seeing if you were awake :)

so lets see what has come out of SDR Inc. [SilverDemon Research]

Injector Seals
HPRV
Intake

nice!

@djuosnteisn @superskaterxes - Do you guys want to work out a game plan to test different fuels on the dyno?? Do we want to test 93/race gas/50-50 eth mix/e85 all in the same session?? I think we could make it happen...


Edit: we should probably make a separate thread for this if we want to kick off some discussion.

Yeah dano, that's why I need to draw the line. I am pretty sure I'm safe as .5° made a noticeable difference (or just a weird coincidence... Maybe I'll do a few more pulls to confirm), but I should probably just draw the line and get some dyno time when I get my new clutch in.

link here pls

I would be very interested in seeing how MBT is on 50/50 compared to E85.

I certainly will not be trying to get within ~2-4° of your E85 timing without someone identifying 50/50 MBT first.

I will be incrementally taking up my timing over the next 2 weeks though. I can reasonably safely add 2-3° in places. :silly:

FWIW cobb reached MBT on race gas on their dyno @ 21ish deg. i think this was a pu and it was def stock turbo (most likely fully bolted)

I never would have been able to feel the difference .5° makes. I was gaining ~2hp/1° on the dyno. But it just kept climbing with each addition :)

TRAITOR!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAA!!! Just messin man!!

I have not thought too much about manufacturing the HPRV...... but, if things go well with JM fabrications more things could happen.

Yeah, I found you gained close to 10 ft-lbs/ degree at 4000-4500, about 5 ft-lbs/degree at 5000, and more like 3 ft-lbs/degree from 5500-6500 from looking at your initial/final timing and your dyno plots.

Would you say that the gains were fairly linear as you inched up the timing or did they taper as you got closer to MBT?

I certainly wouldn't be able to tell a ~5-10 ft-lbs difference with my butt dyno...

Yeah phate, maybe it was coincidence, and I never rely on butt dyno, but my tires really have never broken loose that much in third... I'm about to get on the highway, so I'll try again... It's also hot right now and on preious runs where third breaks loose, it had been cooler weather.

Me also. I never have had an issue with them in this 09 motor.

For the most part, it was pretty linear until I got within 1° or so of peak power, which surprised me a little bit. But, as you pointed out, the increase/1° depended upon rpm.

Funny, that's my exact plan as well. Hope to be wrenching on that upgrade sometime early next year. Will be cleaning my valves and disabling EGR\installing catch can at the same time too I figure.

Regarding the seals, I don't think anyone knows that at XXXwtq they are guaranteed to fail, but I do know I have seen them fail at as little as 360wtq, and because I don't plan on buying a new head, I am a bit skittish about it.(but then again I am cautious about everything)

I don't know if any of you have seen them start chewing the head without generating false knock, I have not seen that yet, but I wouldn't want to be the guy that discovered that little nugget.

Zigatapatalka

I am running this currently.....even in the 95 degree weather it was breaking the tires loose in 3rd.


2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

0.00 6.00 9.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 17.50 19.50

this thread continues to win

@SilverDemon.....I'll get you for that one!


I want my mod powers back LOL

@bewsted

r you running 5050 and how are you coming up with that?

6 gallons and 6 gallons at each fillup?

I can only ever get about 12.xx per fillup so I'd go with 6 of each. oh an are you mixing with 93 or 91