E85 Discussion - HPFP lubrication and Flow issues

[Lex]

Originally Posted by phate Some of this seems to be temperature related. The cold starts being a bitch is definitely temp related. But at the same time, I've had the car stop building fuel pressure when under 3k rpm after driving it for hours, so no temp dependency in that case. I think there is a temperature variable associated with how much gunk is in the spill valve.

Have you experimented with how much E85 mixture % wise is required for these issues to rear their head?

[phate]

Nope, I've been having too much fun when everything does work properly, which is the majority of the time

[rfinkle2]

I think that people have gone as high as 50/50, or jump straight to 100%.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) it may be relatively safe to say any mixture up to 50% has been tested, but somewhere between 50% and 100% is the gray area of spill valve fail.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I think that people have gone as high as 50/50, or jump straight to 100%. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong), but it may be relatively safe to say any mixture up to 50% has been tested, but somewhere between 50% and 100% is the gray area of spill valve fail.

25% worked great for me. 2.5 gallon gas tanks are also MUCH easier to work with than 5 gallon tanks IME. You only need so much to reap the benefits.

[dougefresh_]

It would be nice to consolidate all of the E85 issues (or lack thereof) in a spreadsheet or something, with people stating what percentage(s) E85 they run, for how many miles, what problems they've encountered and when, and what they have tried to address them. It would also be a good way to track LT issues that may arise later for guys only running 2-3 gallons/tank. Just some food for thought.

[Enki]

50/50 mix cleared up ALL of my fueling issues.

[phate]

Originally Posted by dougefresh_ It would be nice to consolidate all of the E85 issues (or lack thereof) in a spreadsheet or something, with people stating what percentage(s) E85 they run, for how many miles, what problems they've encountered and when, and what they have tried to address them. It would also be a good way to track LT issues that may arise later for guys only running 2-3 gallons/tank. Just some food for thought.

I do love Excel...

[Boost_creep]

I have been thinking about trying only 1-2 gallons, after I'm all done tuning with Dano. I say 2 gallons max because I really don't want to run into any issues or alter my maf table. I really just want to run it as a knock deterent.

I figured that on the straight pump gas, it will be easier to find mbt, then once were done tuning throw in a gallon per fill up.

Opinions?

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by Boost_creep I have been thinking about trying only 1-2 gallons, after I'm all done tuning with Dano. I say 2 gallons max because I really don't want to run into any issues or alter my maf table. I really just want to run it as a knock deterent. I figured that on the straight pump gas, it will be easier to find mbt, then once were done tuning throw in a gallon per fill up. Opinions?

You won't hit MBT on pump gas; you'll hit knock well before then. The benefit of E85 mixes is to let you run more timing, so if you want to run a mix you should put it in now and have Dano tune for it.

[Evan@COBB]

Well, I tested my car on the dyno today with a 75/25 mix of E85/93.

With 50/50 mix, I ran a 1.2 fuel adjustment scalar (you guys don't have this yet) and did about 305WHP/385WTQ.

With a 75/25 mix, i ran a 1.3 fuel adjustment scalar and did the same 305/385 pulls.

Just if you guys were wondering if going full E85 over a 50/50 was worth the issues you're currently seeing...

My money, as it stands now, is that it isn't worth it. You can run timing all the way to MBT on just a 50/50 mix and have none of the problems associated with running higher corn content. (spill valve issues, black gunk, etc)

Now, if we can figure out what the cause of the issues really are, I'd run full E85 just so I didn't have to fill up on two different pumps and because E85 is cheaper. Other than that, I'm going to stick with 50/50.

[Enki]

So you did muck with timing and didn't see any gains above 50/50?

[Boost_creep]

Originally Posted by silvapain You won't hit MBT on pump gas; you'll hit knock well before then. The benefit of E85 mixes is to let you run more timing, so if you want to run a mix you should put it in now and have Dano tune for it.

Hmm. Thanks for that info.

I was just under the impression that tuning with e85 is kinda hard because you will not even get a hint of knock, and cause you to overshoot mbt.

[Evan@COBB]

Originally Posted by Enki So you did muck with timing and didn't see any gains above 50/50?

I didn't mess with the timing when moving from 50/50 to 75/25.

On a 50/50 mix, I can push timing all the way up to MBT, no problem, without knock. What this showed was that by simply increasing the ethanol content on the same map, no gains were found. I can still push up to MBT no problem but don't gain anything by it.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Boost_creep Hmm. Thanks for that info. I was just under the impression that tuning with e85 is kinda hard because you will not even get a hint of knock, and cause you to overshoot mbt.

we would just need to get your VD plots to work which probably means you would need to find a better location but we could put together a conservative E25 tune. easy peasy and it would be a different car.....but we currently have bigger fish to fry

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB I didn't mess with the timing when moving from 50/50 to 75/25. On a 50/50 mix, I can push timing all the way up to MBT, no problem, without knock. What this showed was that by simply increasing the ethanol content on the same map, no gains were found. I can still push up to MBT no problem but don't gain anything by it.

but by making that change you moved MBT, no? so you need more timing to find it.

i agree that there is probably little gain for all the trouble.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB I didn't mess with the timing when moving from 50/50 to 75/25. On a 50/50 mix, I can push timing all the way up to MBT, no problem, without knock. What this showed was that by simply increasing the ethanol content on the same map, no gains were found. I can still push up to MBT no problem but don't gain anything by it.

Man... that's weird. As i understand it... ethanol has 2 benefits: 1) the obvious increase in octane (which is actually higher when mixed with petrol than pure e85) and 2) the fact that it's oxygenated... which means it offers more power potential when mixed with the same amount of oxygen as petrol.

I wonder if there are 2 opposing forces at hand... like the power gained from additional e85 was negated from the necessary longer IPW and shittier burn in the cylinder.


Hard to say... but very interesting comparison man.

[superskaterxes]

FUEL INJECTOR SCALAR!!!!!!!!!!

[phate]

I'm not terribly surprised you didn't see any change without changing timing. My power changed very little the closer I got to MBT. SO, even if MBT moved going from 50/50 to your higher mixture, the resultant change in power would be miniscule. From the low eth mixes I've tuned, I don't think we're looking at more than a 5-10hp advantage from 50/50 to straight E85. It is, as you said, much simpler at the pump.


Another note: From some of the eth tunes I have done, I noticed that switching to ethanol with the same boost and timing actually resulted in slightly less power. It did take a little more timing to even things out. And of course, the ethanol allowed us to take timing well beyond what 93 allows. That's just my general observation from a few cars - but the conditions are, of course, not controlled like on a real dyno.

Evan, what sort of timing curve were you running, if you don't mind divulging some secrets

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by phate I'm not terribly surprised you didn't see any change without changing timing. My power changed very little the closer I got to MBT. SO, even if MBT moved going from 50/50 to your higher mixture, the resultant change in power would be miniscule. From the low eth mixes I've tuned, I don't think we're looking at more than a 5-10hp advantage from 50/50 to straight E85. It is, as you said, much simpler at the pump. Another note: From some of the eth tunes I have done, I noticed that switching to ethanol with the same boost and timing actually resulted in slightly less power. It did take a little more timing to even things out. And of course, the ethanol allowed us to take timing well beyond what 93 allows. That's just my general observation from a few cars - but the conditions are, of course, not controlled like on a real dyno. Evan, what sort of timing curve were you running, if you don't mind divulging some secrets

Evan's timing curve (as posted in user name xlt_66's thread)

edit : Atvfreek linked to the thread below

[atvfreek]

276HP/318TQ - Cobb AWD Mustang Dyno

This is the timing table he was running before.

Edit. Finkle beat me to it. Lol

[superskaterxes]

holy mid-range timing batman haha

[phate]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes holy mid-range timing batman haha

lol, my car and the other full E85 car I had on the dyno both run more timing over the entire rpm range

[dougefresh_]

Damn, I wish I could run that last line of timing. I don't spend enough time under a load of 2.0 to care about the rest, lol.

[phate]

Originally Posted by dougefresh_ Damn, I wish I could run that last line of timing. I don't spend enough time under a load of 2.0 to care about the rest, lol.

It's the power of the E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[silvapain]

Got a datalog of my fuel pressure issues tonight. Note this is with the COBB beta map, so the MAF is NOT scaled, and g/s are actual values.

[hamptotl]

Wow I am a little late to post this but what the hell.

I run a 5/7 mix of 85/93. Ewhatever the fuck that equates to lol. Anyways I have been working with Dustin on my tune for a while now.

We are at a point of 20* at redline number before that really arent important as of now LOL. My local pump was out of E85 and I was curious. I do run 100% meth and a DO7 so I wasnt to scared but still concerned and said what the hell.

I did three WOT runs with no E85 on my VD road to see what happened. When I compared the pulls to my E85 maps I lost an average 20 hp and 35ft/lbs.

I didnt have an ounce of knock and the car felt slow as shit lol. But the e85 on the exact same map netted much more power.

At this point I am thinking that Dustin kind of hit the Nail on the head. I think 100% e85 would be awesome for ease of fill ups, but I believe that for the most reliable and powerful tune we need to find that happy medium. Where can we get the highest power and no issues. I dont know just throwing it out there.

[silvapain]

Cleaned my spill valve twice last night. Seems to have fixed my issues for now.

By the way, preliminary results on the new COBB global fuel scalar are promising.


Tapadatass

[Evan@COBB]

Originally Posted by silvapain Cleaned my spill valve twice last night. Seems to have fixed my issues for now. By the way, preliminary results on the new COBB global fuel scalar are promising. Tapadatass

What are your trims looking like? Did David send you several versions of the scalar to try out?

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB What are your trims looking like? Did David send you several versions of the scalar to try out?

Yes, David sent me a 40% and 45% scalar map. I'm using the 40% one right now.

My LTFTs are a bit jacked up due to my spill valve issues, but I've been watching my STFTs as well and it's looking really good. I need to adjust my MAF a bit, as E85 seems to be much more sensitive to small deviations in the MAF scale (saw this on my previous tunes as well). What looks promising is that my idle AFRs are dead on 1.0 lambda, and idle AFR is a value that hasn't been revealed for us to modify yet. This makes me confident that my AFRs will be good for any other fuel tables not yet revealed.

David also confirmed for me that as long as I leave the "keep non table values" box checked in ATR, I can modify the beta maps without messing them up.


Tapadatass

[Lex]

Originally Posted by silvapain Yes, David sent me a 40% and 45% scalar map. I'm using the 40% one right now. My LTFTs are a bit jacked up due to my spill valve issues, but I've been watching my STFTs as well and it's looking really good. I need to adjust my MAF a bit, as E85 seems to be much more sensitive to small deviations in the MAF scale (saw this on my previous tunes as well). What looks promising is that my idle AFRs are dead on 1.0 lambda, and idle AFR is a value that hasn't been revealed for us to modify yet. This makes me confident that my AFRs will be good for any other fuel tables not yet revealed. David also confirmed for me that as long as I leave the "keep non table values" box checked in ATR, I can modify the beta maps without messing them up. Tapadatass

Since you are scaling the inj opening time up by 40% then changes in PW are greater per each MAF step change - so basically it's like throwing on larger injectors on a car. Your load sensor resolution drops.

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by Lex Since you are scaling the inj opening time up by 40% then changes in PW are greater per each MAF step change - so basically it's like throwing on larger injectors on a car. Your load sensor resolution drops.

That's essentially what I was thinking. Since I'm running 40% more fuel, I should expect an increase of 40% in all my fuel trims over pump gas.


Tapadatass

[djuosnteisn]

I have 2 maf cal logs, with my previous map and a 20% scaled map, same tank of gas... and the results are almost perfect.... ~-17 LTFT's... ish. I'll compile the data and post up the actual comparisons later today.


I think we need a new thread for the results of the beta scaling stuff, if there isn't one already. Should we keep in the e85 section? Anyone wanna start a thread? If so, add a link here and i'll post my data there. I don't have time right now to start a thread.


Also, soon, i'll be doing some A-B comparisons between the two maps with my oscilloscope on the ms3 (similar to what i did on my 6 a while back), so we can visually see exactly what's going on.

I'm hoping these adjustments are resulting in the injector actually opening up sooner (into the tail end of the exhaust stroke), rather than simply staying open longer. That could be very promising indeed

[Lex]

What I am hoping to see is the ability to move the opening time (injection timing) so that we can move it further into the intake stroke as increase VVT in the upper/load RPM. 20* of VVT can mean 10% larger injection window which is significant ... unless of course the stock ECU already moves injection timing with VVT.

Waiting for results on this. Dustin, did you ever scope the VVT effect on injector timing?

[Enki]

Made a beta scaling thread here:
COBB AP/ATR Beta Fuel Scaling - Mazdaspeed Forums

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Lex What I am hoping to see is the ability to move the opening time (injection timing) so that we can move it further into the intake stroke as increase VVT in the upper/load RPM. 20* of VVT can mean 10% larger injection window which is significant ... unless of course the stock ECU already moves injection timing with VVT. Waiting for results on this. Dustin, did you ever scope the VVT effect on injector timing?

I scoped the CAM signal.... and as i remember, we surmised that the injection event always started right when the intake valve opened.... so i guess the injection event moved around with VVT.

I'd have to go back and read through our injector thread, or at least watch a few of the videos.

Originally Posted by Enki Made a beta scaling thread here: COBB AP/ATR Beta Fuel Scaling - Mazdaspeed Forums

Thanks

I'll throw my little bit of data together right meow and post it up.

[Evan@COBB]

Have any of you guys running E85 pulled your air filter to have a look at your intake lately?

I just found a puddle of oil that was leaking OUT of my filter, into the engine bay, coated my TIH, turbo, IC piping, etc.

Never seen this before and it smells like corn. Granted, I did just track the crap out of my car and I need an oil change... (That's right, a full track day on E85 and it performed like a champ!)

Just wondering if anyone else has seen an increase in blowby is all...

[kritz]

I'll check it this weekend, I was on the track on Sunday with doublefusher and we got in a dozen runs. I'll be doing an oil change and want to send it to Blackstone for a check. Plan on doing a seafoam treatment prior to the oil change.

[Etipp98]

Sounds like someone needs an occ on thier valve cover breather.

tapatawk

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB Have any of you guys running E85 pulled your air filter to have a look at your intake lately? I just found a puddle of oil that was leaking OUT of my filter, into the engine bay, coated my TIH, turbo, IC piping, etc. Never seen this before and it smells like corn. Granted, I did just track the crap out of my car and I need an oil change... (That's right, a full track day on E85 and it performed like a champ!) Just wondering if anyone else has seen an increase in blowby is all...

I'm running an OCC, and I haven't noticed any E85 in the crap it collects.


Tapadatass

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB Have any of you guys running E85 pulled your air filter to have a look at your intake lately? I just found a puddle of oil that was leaking OUT of my filter, into the engine bay, coated my TIH, turbo, IC piping, etc. Never seen this before and it smells like corn. Granted, I did just track the crap out of my car and I need an oil change... (That's right, a full track day on E85 and it performed like a champ!) Just wondering if anyone else has seen an increase in blowby is all...

Congrats on the new BT Dude!!!




Or should i wait a few more weeks before i say that? Haha. Do you have any increased shaft play in that k04? My guess is it's the source of the oil. And the corn smell is simply from blow by. Just like the oil on non-e85 cars wreaks like fuel.

And i'm still undecided if i like or dislike the smell of e85... but i have to admit, it sure is potent lol.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB Have any of you guys running E85 pulled your air filter to have a look at your intake lately? I just found a puddle of oil that was leaking OUT of my filter, into the engine bay, coated my TIH, turbo, IC piping, etc. Never seen this before and it smells like corn. Granted, I did just track the crap out of my car and I need an oil change... (That's right, a full track day on E85 and it performed like a champ!) Just wondering if anyone else has seen an increase in blowby is all...

No, sir. Almost 18k miles on straight E85 without that issue (knock on wood). 67k miles on the car, and I've never had the issue (no occ, either).

Damn, as I posted that, I realized I started running straight E85 in May with 49k miles.....so 18k miles in about 7 months