E85 Discussion - HPFP lubrication and Flow issues

[IshiKage]

im running the standard 2.5 gal of E85 to a full tank of 93. and i put down 274whp 288wtq AWD Mustang Dyno at Performance Race Solutions who said their dyno reads 18% lower than a properly calibrated DynoJet which means id put down 325whp 339wtq Dynojet. Im running 19 degrees of timing up top and im still on stock plugs and turbo with 57k miles on my motor no meth...i still have zero kr with this much timing and only 2.5 gals of e85. when i got dynoed it was well over 100 degrees with the heat index

@djuosnteisn can push the tune even further but he said its uncharted territory and i dont know if i want to take the risk of something going wrong.

here is my thread
PERMED 274whp 288wtg AWD Mustang Dyno

[phate]

Originally Posted by Dano 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.

Yeah, I thought about this earlier but didn't post it. At some point, I just had to stop thinking about it in terms of actual AFR, because I have no way of proving i'm really at xx.xx afr. The only thing I can prove is what lambda I'm at by using:

[Actual AFR] / [14.68] = Lambda

At a point, you'll just start seeing AFR as lambda, cause that's all that matters.


Until then, just use whatever keeps you straight.

[Fatguy729]

so if I were to alter my OTS LOAD tune ( MAF cal'd, haven't come out with BT maps for MS6).... for a 4/12 gallon mix (MS6 haz 16 gallon tank)


All I needz to do is add timing as long as my AFR's arent fucked and LTFT's SUPER out of whack (and KR is not present)? Earlier in the thread I thought I needed to scale my MAF up 20%, than add some timing (see, I have been reading)?????

That seems too damn easy... No changes to VVT? Load tables?.......



I just traded my MS3 for an MS6 and I'm trying to decide if I should wait for the BT maps to be released so I can use those as a base... I've never really tuned shit besides doing a MAF cal and datalogging the fuck out of things making sure nothing blows.



I have read Abilor's tuning guide about 17,000 times,... But I would feel more comfortable with a base map that is already a boost tune.


I have a station literally 30 seconds away that sells E... I WANT E
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
bad.... But I = noob in the tuning department.

[cld12pk2go]

Log from this morning...



Lots of area under the ignition curve these days...

If the weather holds, it looks like I will hit the dyno this weekend.

[phate]

Originally Posted by 240mazspd3 im running the standard 2.5 gal of E85 to a full tank of 93. and i put down 274whp 288wtq AWD Mustang Dyno at Performance Race Solutions who said their dyno reads 18% lower than a properly calibrated DynoJet which means id put down 325whp 339wtq Dynojet. Im running 19 degrees of timing up top and im still on stock plugs and turbo with 57k miles on my motor no meth...i still have zero kr with this much timing and only 2.5 gals of e85. when i got dynoed it was well over 100 degrees with the heat index

LOL, good stuff, Dustin knows what he's doing. I wouldn't go quoting dynojet numbers just on what that guy told you, though. He may have just wanted to make you feel good

Have I told you guys lately that I hate dyno #'s???

[GLORIFIEDBOZO]

Originally Posted by phate 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

AP is on it's way to @Bucker, they said it should arrive Thursday or Friday, so expecting it back Mondayish. Since I am driving down to Deals Gap this weekend this might be best(actually I'm just lazy and don't want to look up the E85 stations on the way) Am still dropping the tank and installing the filters Friday though so it will just be flash, fill and go.

Originally Posted by Dano 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...

Of course your the only one, I would never ever do something like this

[phate]

OK, there's some obvious confusion about how to begin running E85, so let me summarize and take the voodoo out of it. You MUST start with a good MAF cal to do this general outline



If your target AFR's = Actual AFR's, you're good

If your target AFR's <> Actual AFR's, do a maf cal (standard shit for trims and full throttle)

If maf cal was done, figure about how much you scaled it by looking at the change: Average( [New g/s] / [Old g/s] )= [MAF scalar]

If MAF scalar > 1.10, then you might want to consider scaling all other tables which use load on an axis




The point at which you scale the other tables is up to you. 10% is roughly E25 (3 gal E85 with 9 gal 93 octane), and I know most folks are not scaling them at this point.

[IshiKage]

Originally Posted by phate LOL, good stuff, Dustin knows what he's doing. I wouldn't go quoting dynojet numbers just on what that guy told you, though. He may have just wanted to make you feel good Have I told you guys lately that I hate dyno #'s???

PRS is a race team as well as a performance shop, he has no reason to stroke my ego. also, he didnt tell me what the dynoJet numbers would be. he just let me know that their MD reads 18% lower than a well calibrated DynoJet plus i know its the lowest reading MD's out of all the MDs here in central florida.

the DynoJet numbers is a result of me and Dustins ricer math

[superskaterxes]

2 gallons in the tank, results to follow......

current 2.0L table timing is as follows on 93:

2500	3000	3500	4000	4500	5000	5500	6000	6500	7000

-5.80	3.00	4.00	6.50	9.00	10.50	12.50	14.00	15.50	16.50

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate The point at which you scale the other tables is up to you. 10% is roughly E25 (3 gal E85 with 9 gal 93 octane), and I know most folks are not scaling them at this point.

@cld12pk2go

at what mix point did you begin to see AF shift at WOT and what were your LTFTs at that point?

[driver311]

Originally Posted by zenger 20# boost, low fuel light had just come on so 2 gal of 93 4 gallons of E85. Maf was hitting 4.8 said he didn't want to push it any further. I told him to be conservative, I couldn't have a blown motor at this time. He felt with 22-23# boost and more timing 380-400 wouldn't have been out of the question. And BTW I'm not a MS3, bewsted

Those are very impressive numbers on a 6 at only 20psi. Very impressed.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Dano @cld12pk2go at what mix point did you begin to see AF shift at WOT and what were your LTFTs at that point?

I never did see my WOT shift even when running ~6 gal out of 12.5 E85.

Since I didn't understand why that was, I elected to scale the MAF up (and every table with load on an axis pretty much) and am now running 7.5 gal E85 and 5 gal 93 a tank (~E50).

[Dano]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go I never did see my WOT shift even when running ~6 gal out of 12.5 E85. Since I didn't understand why that was, I elected to scale the MAF up (and every table with load on an axis pretty much) and am now running 7.5 gal E85 and 5 gal 93 a tank (~E50).

and your LTFTs, did they reflect an expected shift? sorry I know you have already posted that info I just can't remember when or where.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Dano and your LTFTs, did they reflect an expected shift? sorry I know you have already posted that info I just can't remember when or where.

Doah, I meant to answer that...

Yes, I was seeing ~14% LTFT, which is pretty close to the expected since my base MAF curve was pretty much at 0% trims on 93 octane.

[Dano]

hum....WTF?

that makes no sense...so the car has to add fuel in CL to meet AF but without trims it can in OL.

We have one smart ECU

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Dano hum....WTF? that makes no sense...so the car has to add fuel in CL to meet AF but without trims it can in OL. We have one smart ECU

Yeah, I previously moved my 0-60 g/s up ~10% to help with cold starting on a new tune, which obviously dropped the LTFT in those regions. But the unaltered WOT OL areas still were dead on aim.

I have no hypothesis to explain these observations.

[phate]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Yeah, I previously moved my 0-60 g/s up ~10% to help with cold starting on a new tune, which obviously dropped the LTFT in those regions. But the unaltered WOT OL areas still were dead on aim. I have no hypothesis to explain these observations.

Maybe you're really running a 93/93 "mix", and they're just lying to you about the E85

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by phate Maybe you're really running a 93/93 "mix", and they're just lying to you about the E85

I wondered about that...but the LTFT shift and the exhaust smell suggest otherwise. lol

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by Dano 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.

Yes. The numbers in the ATR table are from COBB; the PCM deals in lambda like Phate said. That's what the WBO2 reads in.

The issue is that the PCM uses petrol's stoich value to determine the amount of fuel to add.

Fuel to add = AFR target (lambda) * MAF g/s * petrol stoich

Until COBB reveals this value for us to edit, we have to compensate by skewing one of the other values. So far everyone has done it by skewing the MAF signal; I'm suggesting we try skewing the AFR target.

Once COBB reveals the stoich constant, all we would have to do to switch to E85 would be to change one single value. Makes me wet just thinking about it.


Tapadatass

[phate]

Originally Posted by silvapain Yes. The numbers in the ATR table are from COBB; the PCM deals in lambda like Phate said. That's what the WBO2 reads in. The issue is that the PCM uses petrol's stoich value to determine the amount of fuel to add. Fuel to add = AFR target (lambda) * MAF g/s * petrol stoich Until COBB reveals this value for us to edit, we have to compensate by skewing one of the other values. So far everyone has done it by skewing the MAF signal; I'm suggesting we try skewing the AFR target. Once COBB reveals the stoich constant, all we would have to do to switch to E85 would be to change one single value. Makes me wet just thinking about it.

mmmmm, global modifier (the stoich constant) would be beautiful. Oh well, I'm going to try it.

Let me tell you, though, the scary part of tweaking only AFR's. Many of us have seen ECU's which like to target a seemingly random AFR despite all attempts to reconcile the difference. What happens when an ecu, now targeting 8:1 targets 13:1...that could lead to some impromptu E85 knock resistance research, lol.

[silvapain]

It won't be any different than it happening on a MAF-skewed tune.


Tapadatass

[phate]

Originally Posted by silvapain It won't be any different than it happening on a MAF-skewed tune.

There could be a significant difference, in some cases. Take Bucker's ecu, for example: Went to 13.4:1 AFR under full boost. That was only a 1 point shift in AFR (8% fuel loss). Going from 8:1 to 13:1 is a totally different story - about a 40% loss of fuel.

His ecu would hit 13.4:1 no matter what his MAF curve said...


My ecu doesn't do this, so I'm not terribly concerned with it. But I don't think I would use this method on someone else's car until I, or someone else, can confirm the logic is sound.

[silvapain]

A shift from 8:1 to 13:1 is a 38.5% reduction in fuel mass entering the combustion chamber, regardless of whether the MAF or lambda is skewed.

EDIT: Oh! I get what you're saying now. You're saying there might be some unknown table in the PCM still that will have the old lambda values based on petrol. Good point.

I haven't heard of any one else's car doing that.


Tapadatass

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by silvapain A shift from 8:1 to 13:1 is a 38.5% reduction in fuel mass entering the combustion chamber, regardless of whether the MAF or lambda is skewed. EDIT: Oh! I get what you're saying now. You're saying there might be some unknown table in the PCM still that will have the old lambda values based on petrol. Good point. I haven't heard of any one else's car doing that. Tapadatass

There have been a few examples of this behavior, but mine for some reason seems to be the most severe.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by silvapain Yes. The numbers in the ATR table are from COBB; the PCM deals in lambda like Phate said. That's what the WBO2 reads in. The issue is that the PCM uses petrol's stoich value to determine the amount of fuel to add. Fuel to add = AFR target (lambda) * MAF g/s * petrol stoich Until COBB reveals this value for us to edit, we have to compensate by skewing one of the other values. So far everyone has done it by skewing the MAF signal; I'm suggesting we try skewing the AFR target. Once COBB reveals the stoich constant, all we would have to do to switch to E85 would be to change one single value. Makes me wet just thinking about it. Tapadatass

I see what you are saying...when I was under the load cap I scaled my maf down by like 20% then commanded 9.8AF which ended up being an actual 11.8 or something like that.

you are suggesting leaving the MAF at petrol calibration and just changing the fuel tables.

to me its robbing peter to pay paul or 1/2 dozen 6 the other...with the mentioned caveat that altering the commanded fuel tables could be much worse if the ECU is pulling AF targets from some hidden table.

global multiplier FTW...but I'd say that is a needle in the proverbial haystack for Cobb to find.

[silvapain]

It's a difference in table resolution and the fixed load axis values in some tables.

When scaling the MAF, some resolution is lost because the fixed number of table values now have to cover a larger range of MAF g/s. This also happens with the fueling tables, but the value range is much smaller so the resolution loss isn't nearly as significant.

Some tables have fixed load values, and skewing the load reduces the amount of table data pounts that are used by the ECU.

Given that, changing the lambda targets is the better choice, again assuming there isn't some undiscovered fueling table.


Tapadatass

[superskaterxes]

have you guys ever seen ATR for the scoobies? if you think this is anywhere NEAR the amount of fuel tables we have your crazy. this may be all we need to work with at this point but i would guarantee there is gona come a time when we need more tables to be discovered.

[cld12pk2go]

Yeah, I believe we are still missing many tables that the ECU hops to under some circumstances.

Hopefully, there aren't any additional MAF curves...

I really wish we had better load axis resolution though...

[superskaterxes]

heres a little snippet of what im talkign about, it would be REALLY nice to have that kind of knock control too.........

[Bucker]

Neat, but I don't think the end user needs access to 50+ fueling tables, especially with some of the redundancy up there. Hell, and "Auto populate" feature would be nice for stuff like the cruise control tables, etc.

[RichieRichness]

This thread has given me confidence to move forward with using e85. great info and some people making gains!

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Bucker Neat, but I don't think the end user needs access to 50+ fueling tables, especially with some of the redundancy up there. Hell, and "Auto populate" feature would be nice for stuff like the cruise control tables, etc.

my head would explode if we had all those tbls...LOL

I kinda help my buddy with an 04 STI using ECUedit/flash and yes they have LOTS of tables.

we prap only have 1/4 of what they have but you don't really touch the majority of them on a day to day basis.

[phate]

We have switched to winter blend E70!!

I filled up Monday when the car was on E. Trims are now between -5 and -10%, where they were close to 0 before. Car is now running ~.5 point richer under boost. I'm pretty confident to say we are on winter blend.

I think I'll pull 1° over the entire range just to be safe. We saw that it doesn't make a huge difference to power, so I'm pretty sure it won't cause my usual withdrawal.

[Dano]

interesting.

12pk posted the geo map of who changes to what blend and when...need to look that up but IIRC we don't change at all down here in the south.

BTW...do they post the blend change on the pump?

[phate]

Originally Posted by Dano interesting. 12pk posted the geo map of who changes to what blend and when...need to look that up but IIRC we don't change at all down here in the south. BTW...do they post the blend change on the pump?

Nope, it's a surprise. Any time I've asked about the change to winter blend they look at me like i've got a dick growing out of my forehead. I haven't been able to catch one of the fuel truck drivers, either, so I've just been watching my trims.

[silvapain]

For those that don't know: Illinois Oxygenates their fuel in the winter - most Northern states do.

I believe Illinois does it mostly with Ethanol, but some states use MTBE.

Correction: Illinois banned MTBE, along with many other states:
http://205.254.135.24/steo/special/mtbeban.html

[Dano]

LOL the attendant doesn't even know what E is!

so if you guys are already switching I got to believe we do as well at some point.

not sure it will matter with 2-3 gallons though.

[Ziggo]

Mmmmmm MTBE. My favorite tasty octane treat.

It's what they use in the 109 I buy at the track, but I am pretty sure its banned everywhere. Groundwater and cancer and all that. I thought all fuels are oxygenated with E these days.


Zigatapatalka

[06Speed6]

Arent the fueling tables in the ecu in lambda? In versatune all of the fueling tables are lambda so its easy to set the proper afr regardless of fuel type.

[superskaterxes]

you can change to lambda if you want