E85 Discussion - HPFP lubrication and Flow issues

[Calvin@COBB]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Did you push timing to MBT at 3000-6500 at each 500 RPM break point? It looks like you are running way less timing than Phate's identified MBT from 5500-6500 RPMs, but very similar below that: RPM 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 Phate E85 MBT 8 10 11.5 13 16.5 19.5 22 24 Calvin E85 9 10.5 12.0 13.5 15.0 16.5 18.0 19.0 Delta -1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 1.5 3 4 5 Also, what mods? Very nicely done BTW!

Didn't get to spend much time tuning ignition timing so I sure Im not at MBT.

Mods:
Built motor with CP pistons and Pauter rods, COBB FMIC, COBB SF Intake, COBB TIP, COBB Turbo back, COBB BPV, Stock Turbo, Stock Ext. Manifold. KMD HPFP.

[Dano]

its really beneficial to see ign numbers from the various mixes of E. I wish we had dyno numbers on a 2-3 gallon mix.

I just got my first request for an e-tune with E and there really isn't enough data to justify much timing advance without a knock sensor to tune from.

its def a dark art at this point.

[Dano]

just put in a set of OE heat range plugs and changed my gap from .030 [ivt22] to .025.

took the car out tonight and ran it while the engine was barely at operating temp at AMB 70 and no blowout noted in 4 runs whereas before I would have occurred in the 1st 2 runs for sure.

havent' looked at logs yet to see if those .35 KR readings are gone now but will take a look tomorrow and report back.

I think the E likes the hotter plugs, which in my mind, makes perfect sense. Now in the dead of summer I'll likely put the 22s back in IDK.

all this is so new.

[phate]

I pulled my ITV20's tonight and closed the gap to .024". Car runs much smoother on the top end in cold weather, no blowout tonight when it's about 52° out.

Porcelain on the plugs showed no signs of detonation and no discoloring. The ground straps had just a touch of carbon buildup on them and the outer ring had a light layer of soot (not oily soot like when I was on 93, just a nice thin layer).

I took some pretty silly videos that I'll post after some editing.

[sleepyspeed6]

If no one has dyno'd by Oct 29 on 2-3 gallons, I will I'll make sure to get some logs too i am going to a dyno day.

[phate]

Originally Posted by sleepyspeed6 If no one has dyno'd by Oct 29 on 2-3 gallons, I will I'll make sure to get some logs too i am going to a dyno day.

We need someone to dial in timing on that mix ratio. Are you just doing pulls without any tuning?

I have a couple of people who I will be tuning on mix very shortly. I will also have 1, if not 2 other people running straight E85 who I am tuning, as well.

[Dano]

now I'm getting somewhere with my E85 Tune. I am down a bit on power with this one but my boost/power curve is smoothed out and AF is flat-lined at ~12

3/9 gallon mix

time to add more timing:

Current advance from 2500

1.00	2.00	6.50	9.00	10.50	11.50	13.50	15.00	17.00	18.00

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Dano its really beneficial to see ign numbers from the various mixes of E. I wish we had dyno numbers on a 2-3 gallon mix. I just got my first request for an e-tune with E and there really isn't enough data to justify much timing advance without a knock sensor to tune from. its def a dark art at this point.

Ahhhhhh the benefits of being part of a tuning network

I have a ton of data on 2-3 mixes. We'll talk soon amigo.






On other news... i'm pretty sure e85 just saved me a lot of headache last night at the track.

I figured i'd go enjoy a masochistic night at the 1/4 mile, completely not achieving what should be very simple for me at this point lol. My meth quit spraying on the 3rd run i think (not sure when it happened), a d07 nozzle with 100% meth, so a significant percentage of my fueling... and i saw quite a bit of KR, plus tanking fuel pressure. I was running 2 gal e85 to a tank... purely for the octane benefits....

And imo... considering i was tuned for ~12 AFRs with the meth, had BATs in the 150's at the tree... and significantly dropping fuel pressure.... a single cell of 5.95 KR is more than acceptable hahaha. From what i've seen, the ECU can pull over 6* in the higher rpms... so i doubt i ever even experienced any "real" deto... in a pretty much worst case scenario.


Thanks e85


@Calvin@COBB... you should nudge David to look for the "max timing retard allowed" tables for KR. I'd love to let the ecu pull up to 10* if that's what it takes to avoid detonation. This is the last table we'd need to have complete control over the knock sensor behavior on these cars, and it would be pretty damn sweet

And... why are you stock turbo with a built motor? Previous motor let go?

[djuosnteisn]

*edit* to attach the KR data log:

[phate]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Calvin@COBB... you should nudge David to look for the "max timing retard allowed" tables for KR. I'd love to let the ecu pull up to 10* if that's what it takes to avoid detonation. This is the last table we'd need to have complete control over the knock sensor behavior on these cars, and it would be pretty damn sweet And... why are you stock turbo with a built motor? Previous motor let go?

KR is only damage control, lol. When I was on 93 octane I was out doing back to back 4th/5th gear pulls and had real, audible pinging. If I remember right, ecu pulled over 7° of timing and dumped a fuck ton of fuel. No worries about that on E85

Calvin had an injector stick open shortly after he switched back from E85 to gas (this is on page 2 of the thread, lol). Honestly, this story scared me more than anything. For months I didn't have much concern about serious failure due to E85, but I was dreading the switch back to gas. No problems here, luckily.

[Enki]

Hey Phate, have you checked the status of your oil recently? I know these cars like to wash the walls and most times the oil starts to smell of fuel; wondering if you've seen any issues with the oil or anything like that worth mentioning.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Enki Hey Phate, have you checked the status of your oil recently? I know these cars like to wash the walls and most times the oil starts to smell of fuel; wondering if you've seen any issues with the oil or anything like that worth mentioning.

I posted a UOA somewhere in this thread, lol. I have another oil sample sitting in my car waiting to be mailed. This interval, though, had the tail of the dragon trip which had some very, very hard miles on 93 octane. Probably ~4k miles on E85 and ~1800 miles on 93, so we'll see how it held up.

[jonspeed3]

I wish i could understand all this wealth of info. You guys are too smart. All i know is here on post they sell E85, and idk if simply adding it to my car will be beneficial with no tune. =O

FML IM A NUB.

[event]

Originally Posted by jonspeed3 I wish i could understand all this wealth of info. You guys are too smart. All i know is here on post they sell E85, and idk if simply adding it to my car will be beneficial with no tune. =O FML IM A NUB.

FWIW, I Threw in 4 gallons of E85 tonight (E28 equivalent, MS6 has 16 gallon tank) and did some before and after logs and might have actually lost an insignificant amount of power and tq (according to VD), even after scaling the WOT portion of the MAF cal. But even attempting to do the same thing before each run, there was still a variation in the starting BAT that might have skewed the results. The initial 93 octane run was the coolest run by 7-10 degrees so it might have set the bar too high. I think you really need a tune to take any advantage. Going to start adding some timing and hope for some nominal results!

[phate]

Originally Posted by event I think you really need a tune to take any advantage.

Of course.

@jonspeed3 - I can't stop watching your avatar.

[bewsted]

Good work dano...

Phate good job...

Bucker brick that ecu...

I feel like i need to goto meetings to talk about how bad i want to put corn in my tank.... LOL


I like how smooth that AFR curve is on your VD graph @Dano...You can dial in E85 just like anything else as long as you keep your mixing legit....

[Fatguy729]

Hmmm... So I was reading that sticky on e85 that was posted... The most interesting thing I found was that e actually likes richer afr's?!?! I noticed phate was leaning his out and having better results... The sticky said e85 afr should be more around 9.something?

Discuss... Or did I read it wrong?

[silvapain]

Stoichometric ratio (the ideal air to fuel ratio for complete burn) is different for every fuel. It's 14.68ish for gasoline, and 9.xx for E85.

I'm too lazy to look up the stoich for E85 myself; someone else can add it or link it if they care.

EDIT: the logged AFR's won't be actual for E85 if the MAF has been rescaled. Remember that when looking at logs in this thread. Scaling the MAF skews the reported AFR values to satisfy the PCM, which is expecting gasoline.


Tapadatass

[phate]

O2 sensors read lambda, then convert to whatever scale you tell it to. Since we can't reprogram this scale (which is the stoich ratio for whatever fuel you are using), we are stuck with the gas scale - 14.68:1 = 1.0 lambda.

Meaning at 1.0l with any fuel or fuel mix you are using, we will see 14.68 reported from our ecu.

I think I explained this already?

Anyway, stoich ratio for ethanol is like 9.7:1 or something like that. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, cause the tuning is very similar and we're getting a readout based on lambda.

[J-Liss]

fatguy- your making my wife mad, i love your avy and she keeps yelling quit lookin at that stuff lol

also.....almost time for me to be PHATE TUNNED!

[phate]

This was like the 5th or 6th post in this thread, lol:

Originally Posted by phate Lambda for these cars is 14.7:1, no matter what fuel you use. That is how wideband O2 sensors work: they just convert lambda to whatever you tell it to. .78 Lamda (which is about right for ethanol), works out to ~11.45:1 on our readout, but it is really ~7.5 actual ethanol AFR. There is some good discussion about this in Driver's E85 thread, starting on the third page: Drivers attempt at E85

[rfinkle2]

here are the e-85 equiv.

[superskaterxes]

i just stuck this as a great read for you gents.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...uel-faq-92889/

as soon as i get my FP issue sorted out im going right to 2 gallons to see where i am at.......

[Fatguy729]

Originally Posted by phate This was like the 5th or 6th post in this thread, lol:

My bad.... I've been subscribed to this thread since the beginning, but post 5 was ALONG time ago LOL

[Dano]

is it covered anywhere in this thread or another what WOT target AF should be on different blends?

Example:

on petrol I targeted 12.0

I now run a 3/9 gallon mix and still target 12.0, with no MAF scaling.

Should my target change for WOT?

Should we modify our fuel tables for CL operation to be richer than 14.7?

am I just dumb...

that last question was rhetorical and doesn't require an answer.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Dano is it covered anywhere in this thread or another what WOT target AF should be on different blends? Example: on petrol I targeted 12.0 I now run a 3/9 gallon mix and still target 12.0, with no MAF scaling. Should my target change for WOT? Should we modify our fuel tables for CL operation to be richer than 14.7? am I just dumb... that last question was rhetorical and doesn't require an answer.

Hmmmmm.....

It has been covered in this thread and in Driver311's thread, but here goes with some extra info:

Tuning AFR's is essentially the same as on gas. Since the stoich ratio will always read as 14.68:1 (1.0 lambda), you will always be on this scale. Targeting 12.0 is really just saying "target .817 lambda for this MAF curve".



The real issue that I find when running E85 or mix is the scaling of the MAF curve also scales the load by the same amount. Meaning all tables using a load axis need to be "stretched" downward towards the max load value.

So, in my case, my old 1.00 load values are now at ~1.35 load, 1.50 is now at 2.00, and so on. This is especially important for ignition and fueling maps, since you would be running in richer areas and areas of retarded timing, causing excess fuel consumption

Said another way, when I see 1.35 load, I'm at a "real" load of 1.00 since the number is inflated by the amount the MAF is scaled. So when I see 1.35 load, I really want to be using the 1.00 load targets, so I move my 1.00 load targets to my 1.35 load line. Hence the "stretch" method.



For a mix, just figure out what you scaled the maf curve by, and you'll be set. For E50, it's ~17%, so you need to scale/stretch everything by 1.17.

Clear as mud, eh?

[Dano]

Thanks Phate

With lower concentrations of E is there really a need to scale the MAF?

so on petrol if my target is 12.0 and at WOT I hit 12.0 my maf is spot on.

Add in a mix of E/93 and no maf scale and I still hit my 12.0 target, Seems to me,unless I am missing something, as long as you are hitting your commanded AF targets there is no reason to scale the MAF?


oh and I know all about MAF/Load scaling....I lived through the "load cap" days and scaled my maf down by 30% in the WOT range to stay under the cap...thus scaling every load based table in the ECU as well.

Its no fun and the reason I have not scaled my MAF this time.

[GLORIFIEDBOZO]

Alright so the plan, I will create a thread when I actually start the work on Friday.

Friday I will pull the tank pump and inspect the filter and replace as nessecary. I'll makes sure to get lots of pictures of the pump, filter, and tank as best I can. If at this point I have the fuel line and filter I will install these and gets pics of where I mount the filter. At this point if I also have the base tune I will swap over to 100% E85, and start taking some logs.

[Fatguy729]

man, 31 pages is alot to read through and I forget shit... someone should create a summed up version of everything we have learned and make a new thread... with everything in the OP




eh uh huh... phate... cough cough LOL

[Dano]

as nice as that would it is a PITA...I have a few threads that could use a "summary" but I aint doin it...LOL

[GLORIFIEDBOZO]

Originally Posted by Fatguy729 man, 31 pages is alot to read through and I forget shit... someone should create a summed up version of everything we have learned and make a new thread... with everything in the OP eh uh huh... phate... cough cough LOL

Since I printed out 300 fucking pages of this thread yesterday I might just do that

Edit: only on like page 50ish currently so I have to get through the whole thing, and I owuld only use it as reference to copy and paste

[phate]

Originally Posted by Dano Thanks Phate With lower concentrations of E is there really a need to scale the MAF? so on petrol if my target is 12.0 and at WOT I hit 12.0 my maf is spot on. Add in a mix of E/93 and no maf scale and I still hit my 12.0 target, Seems to me,unless I am missing something, as long as you are hitting your commanded AF targets there is no reason to scale the MAF? oh and I know all about MAF/Load scaling....I lived through the "load cap" days and scaled my maf down by 30% in the WOT range to stay under the cap...thus scaling every load based table in the ECU as well. Its no fun and the reason I have not scaled my MAF this time.

With lower concentrations, I don't know if there is a benefit. This is where the long term testing will come into play, as the "driving" range could take months to really dial in on the street.

For MAF scaling, if you are hitting your target AFR's, then there is nothing to worry about, no matter what the mix. It is only the scaling affecting the other tables which I am concerned with. Getting the car to run proper AFR's is easy

Ah, yes, load cap...wasn't that fun?




If you guys didn't catch on to glorifiedbozo's post (because some of you are slower than Dano), he is the next straight E85 tester. I am sending him some hard parts to aid the transition, and also to further our research of what exactly is going on when we convert. I will also be doing the tuning in the beginning, until he is comfortable with everything. We will be documenting as much of this as possible.

[silvapain]

Dano, I would recommend not rescaling your MAF for low E85 mixes.

The problem with rescaling the MAF, as brought up by Phate, is that you run out of resolution on your load-based tables. At WOT you will be exclusively using the max 2.0 load table row. It really limits the ability to tune for dynamic situations.

Your CL AFRs will be fine as long as your LTFT/STFT stay within 25% (the max adjustment the car will allow); to compensate for E85 the OL AFR targets would need to be adjusted to match the stoich skew for Ethanol.


Tapadatass

[bewsted]

Good stuff fellas....

[phate]

Originally Posted by Fatguy729 man, 31 pages is alot to read through and I forget shit... someone should create a summed up version of everything we have learned and make a new thread... with everything in the OP eh uh huh... phate... cough cough LOL

In summary: read the thread.

Every once in a while, I think it's a good idea to re-read what I've posted in this thread. I typically get to around page 3 or 4, sometimes as high as 6 before I call it quits

[silvapain]

I really want to see someone tune for Ethanol by scaling the fuel tables and not the MAF/load tables.

Someone have spare upgraded HPFP internals so I can test this?


Tapadatass

[Fatguy729]

hmmm where's @Abilor when you need him? pretty sure thats what he did with dano's boost tuning thread LOL

[phate]

Originally Posted by silvapain I really want to see someone tune for Ethanol by scaling the fuel tables and not the MAF/load tables. Someone have spare upgraded HPFP internals so I can test this?

I could do this pretty easily, really. Let me work on a tune and I'll see what happens. My priority is getting glorifiedbozo's base map to him (scaling the maf and every other table that needs it). I want to go with a proven method for his car so we can avoid adding variables to this equation. Iwill do some beta-testing with an OTS map.

I may need reminded about this, so Wednesday or Thursday if you want to shoot me a text yelling at me about this, go right ahead

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate With lower concentrations, I don't know if there is a benefit. This is where the long term testing will come into play, as the "driving" range could take months to really dial in on the street. For MAF scaling, if you are hitting your target AFR's, then there is nothing to worry about, no matter what the mix. It is only the scaling affecting the other tables which I am concerned with. Getting the car to run proper AFR's is easy Ah, yes, load cap...wasn't that fun?

not even LOL

Originally Posted by phate If you guys didn't catch on to glorifiedbozo's post (because some of you are slower than Dano), he is the next straight E85 tester. I am sending him some hard parts to aid the transition, and also to further our research of what exactly is going on when we convert. I will also be doing the tuning in the beginning, until he is comfortable with everything. We will be documenting as much of this as possible.

I blame my slowness on my excessive drinking, which is reciprocal in a way...I mod and tune my car...frustration ensues...I drink...tune some more...more frustration....rinse & repeat.

surely I am the only one who follows this approach...

[Dano]

Originally Posted by silvapain Dano, I would recommend not rescaling your MAF for low E85 mixes. The problem with rescaling the MAF, as brought up by Phate, is that you run out of resolution on your load-based tables. At WOT you will be exclusively using the max 2.0 load table row. It really limits the ability to tune for dynamic situations. Your CL AFRs will be fine as long as your LTFT/STFT stay within 25% (the max adjustment the car will allow); to compensate for E85 the OL AFR targets would need to be adjusted to match the stoich skew for Ethanol. Tapadatass

I think I didn't word my questions accurately enough or they were not specific enough.

I do fully understand what scaling the MAF involves thus the reason I keep trying to confirm my thought is correct...that it isn't necessary as long as AF targets are met, and why I don't want to scale mine. Been there done that...got the t-shirt.

I was just side tracked with the whole lambda/stoich ratio thing... thinking that if the car logs AF at 12.0 that it might actually be at 12.2 or 12.5 on E85.

I believe I have it now.

1) no matter what mix you are running if your commanded AF = Target AF at WOT you are gold and no MAF scaling required. This is the same as with petrol...no change
2) That target AF doesn't need to be altered for E85 [i.e. 12.0=12.0 and it doesn't need to be richened up to account for E85]

Does everyone agree with that and that "formula" would hold true even at 100% E85?

so for my setup my WOT AF with a 3/9 mix has shown no AF shift. My CL trims are ~+5 at cruse and +11 at idle...soooo I MIGHT scale my idle area but nothing else.

This keeps my load resolution [as poor as it is for the IGN tables] the same.