E85 Discussion - HPFP lubrication and Flow issues

[Dano]

haha all that logging adds up.


I think I can now actually see my gas gauge move while at WOT on E35...i aint kidding...lol...well maybe but shit goes fast...and it goes fast too!

[Nataphen]

When I dedicate a weekend to tuning, I pretty much set $50 aside for gas money to do it, LOL. I usually go through a tank a weekend on nothing but logging.

[Evan@COBB]

Running an E66 blend these days. Needless to say, between stomping on the go pedal for logs and/or a nice adrenaline rush, my gas gauge doesn't stay put very long.

However, pretty sure I need to do a compression and leak-down test in the very near future so maybe I'll go easy on her for a little bit...



Who am I kidding. No I wont...

[phate]

Originally Posted by Evan@COBB Running an E66 blend these days. Needless to say, between stomping on the go pedal for logs and/or a nice adrenaline rush, my gas gauge doesn't stay put very long. However, pretty sure I need to do a compression and leak-down test in the very near future so maybe I'll go easy on her for a little bit... Who am I kidding. No I wont...

Hehe, yeah. I feel like my mileage has skyrocketed since back on on 93. But, it is more because the car is way less fun, so I'm not hammer down near as much.

[GLORIFIEDBOZO]

Originally Posted by phate Hehe, yeah. I feel like my mileage has skyrocketed since back on on 93. But, it is more because the car is way less fun, so I'm not hammer down near as much.

I got 15mpg on my last tank without any WOT pulls for logs

[Dano]

35* + E35 + FFS into 4th = no traction anymore...This was after a burn out in 2nd to get the 235-40 Advan A048s heated up...lol

note to self...purchase MS6 use MS3 for DD duties....seems somebody has already done just that...haha

[bewsted]

Originally Posted by phate Hehe, yeah. I feel like my mileage has skyrocketed since back on on 93. But, it is more because the car is way less fun, so I'm not hammer down near as much.

LOL....i remember someone around here said

@cld12pk2go

"I get more smiles per gallon on e85"

"Who cares about mpg"

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by bewsted LOL....i remember someone around here said @cld12pk2go "I get more smiles per gallon on e85" "Who cares about mpg"

LOL...yeah that was me.

It is still completely accurate IMHO.

[Nataphen]

Take Action – Propel Fuels

Everyone needs to get in on this. Try to stop an additional tax of $.38 per gallon on E85.
Tell anyone and everyone that you know to send letters. It's all automated and only takes 15-20 seconds.

@phate
@Dano
@cld12pk2go
@JacksonMS30
@rfinkle2

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Take Action – Propel Fuels Everyone needs to get in on this. Try to stop an additional tax of $.38 per gallon on E85. Tell anyone and everyone that you know to send letters. It's all automated and only takes 15-20 seconds. @phate @Dano @cld12pk2go @JacksonMS30 @rfinkle2

It's not an additional tax; it's the ending of a subsidy that already exists.

I got 255 miles out of 14 gallons on this last tank of E85. Wowza!


Tapadatass

[wolly6973]

Originally Posted by silvapain I got 255 miles out of 14 gallons on this last tank of E85. Wowza!

Please share your secrets!

[zenger]

Anyone seeing poor driveability in the cold weather with E85? Hard starts, dying, rough idles, stumbling under non WOT acceleration?

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by zenger Anyone seeing poor driveability in the cold weather with E85? Hard starts, dying, rough idles, stumbling under non WOT acceleration?

Hard starts for sure.


Tapadatass

[mrmonk7663]

@silvapain @phate
In my Load section, under Calculated Load Max A and B, cobb has these values set as
0.80 0.84 0.95 2.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

From my understanding this is essentially the load cap table, and does not directly interface with the other load tables like the tri x tables.

My tri X tables have higher values from 500rpm to 1500rpm. My question is do I need to insert my tri X values from 500-1500 in the Calculated Load Max A/B tables or do I leave that as it is? Also, Cobb has the Max A values set DIFFERNTLY from Table A to Tabl B from 500-1500...why is that?

Thanks guys!!!

[Enki]

Originally Posted by zenger Anyone seeing poor driveability in the cold weather with E85? Hard starts, dying, rough idles, stumbling under non WOT acceleration?

I saw similar issues (no dying, but delayed starting and stumbling under light throttle). I assumed it was injector related, but I'm not so sure now. Does your issue go away around 140 degree ECT? That's right about when mine cleared up.

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 @silvapain @phate In my Load section, under Calculated Load Max A and B, cobb has these values set as 0.80 0.84 0.95 2.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 From my understanding this is essentially the load cap table, and does not directly interface with the other load tables like the tri x tables. My tri X tables have higher values from 500rpm to 1500rpm. My question is do I need to insert my tri X values from 500-1500 in the Calculated Load Max A/B tables or do I leave that as it is? Also, Cobb has the Max A values set DIFFERNTLY from Table A to Tabl B from 500-1500...why is that? Thanks guys!!!

You shouldn't need to set your TRL tables higher than the calculated max tables as shown above.


Tapadatass

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by silvapain You shouldn't need to set your TRL tables higher than the calculated max tables as shown above. Tapadatass

They are that way ots. (trl-x gear tables) @ least on gen2.

[mrmonk7663]

The reason i'm asking about te tri x vs. Calculated Load Max tables is because of E85. The values above are what Cobb commanded for 93 octane. The 5.0 load is obviously way high and doesn't need to be adjusted, but the load from 500-1500 rpm makes me wonder if we shouldn't bump it up due to the E85 and scaled maf which means higher logged loads.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 The reason i'm asking about te tri x vs. Calculated Load Max tables is because of E85. The values above are what Cobb commanded for 93 octane. The 5.0 load is obviously way high and doesn't need to be adjusted, but the load from 500-1500 rpm makes me wonder if we shouldn't bump it up due to the E85 and scaled maf which means higher logged loads.

The only reason I would bump any load table up would be in the event that your logs are nearing exceeding a table value, or seem to be inhibiting the car in some way.

The project that David and Evan are working on makes things much more straightforward, and hopefully soon, "tricking" the tables will be a thing of the past.

[kritz]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Take Action – Propel Fuels Everyone needs to get in on this. Try to stop an additional tax of $.38 per gallon on E85. Tell anyone and everyone that you know to send letters. It's all automated and only takes 15-20 seconds. @phate @Dano @cld12pk2go @JacksonMS30 @rfinkle2

Sent to my Reps!

[mrmonk7663]

All I know is this rfinkle2 Last night when I made my throttle requested abc start from a lower load and move to a higher (stock does not do this at low throttle position) and I increased my Calc load max table to reflect my Tri X table from 500-1500, the car was like a rocket at light part throttle. I had to readjust my driving. The thing just wanted to go. No delay, no sluggishness, just go.

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 The reason i'm asking about te tri x vs. Calculated Load Max tables is because of E85. The values above are what Cobb commanded for 93 octane. The 5.0 load is obviously way high and doesn't need to be adjusted, but the load from 500-1500 rpm makes me wonder if we shouldn't bump it up due to the E85 and scaled maf which means higher logged loads.

My TRLxgear tables:

0.94 1.22 1.35 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

I boost as low as 2000 RPM.

[mrmonk7663]

@silvapain What does your Calc max load A B say?

silvapain, see this is my point. Your trx tables are higher than the calculated max load tables. Just like mine. I'm trying to determine if we should raise the calc load max a/b to match the trl tables...hell i'm trying to determine if there is a relationship between the calc max and the trx or not.

Yesterday when my car was moving with barely any throttle input, it was NOT with boost. I was negative vaccum. It was almost like I installed a super light weight flywheel...so responsive.

[mrmonk7663]

Look at these 2 tables. Modifying these two tables made the car react like I've never seen before in the low throttle areas. No timing increases and no boost or wgdc changes ever got the car even close to what these two tables did. I am hybrid tuned, load dynamics is zeroed but Load error comp has values on the right side, underside is at 0.

The changes in calc load were simply increased a few tenths over the trx gear tables from 500-1500 rpms.

The changes in throttle requested were simply going up from 500 rpms increasingly...stock starts with a higher number, goes lower, goes higher, goes lower.

The Cobb values in the Throttle Requested tables follow the stock values. The values I used, going from least to greatest, took away any low end hesitation/wall that is normally felt.

I don't know if i'm making sense, someone try this and see if they understand what I mean.

[silvapain]

Your requested load A-C need to be upped to 5.00 as well. My calculated load hits ~3.6 at WOT.

My max load tables are the same as my TRL tables.

[rfinkle2]

@mrmonk7663... The ecu will target the lowest load per throttle position in all of the available load tables.

[mrmonk7663]

@silvapain Would you mind posting a screenshot of Your Calc Load Max A and B table, a normal trx table, and a throttle requested table.? I know its a pain in the ass to post those screenshots and I know you stated the values are the same, but it would help me a ton if you could do that.

Thanks!!!

@rfinkle2 yes I know it uses the lowest value but the Calc Max Load tables per the Cobb Helpfile do not disclose a relationship between these tables and all other tables. It discusses the Calc Max Load tables having a direct and seperate relationship on fueling.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 Would you mind posting a screenshot of Your Calc Load Max A and B table, a normal trx table, and a throttle requested table.? I know its a pain in the ass to post those screenshots and I know you stated the values are the same, but it would help me a ton if you could do that. Thanks!!! @rfinkle2 yes I know it uses the lowest value but the Calc Max Load tables per the Cobb Helpfile do not disclose a relationship between these tables and all other tables. It discusses the Calc Max Load tables having a direct and seperate relationship on fueling.

If you think about it, under certain throttle positions, your car was always using those tables (throttle requested table) at lower than wot throttle positions, but now that the values are higher, it is natural your car feels more powerful there.

It isn't my intention to insult your intelligence in any way, I was simply posting the logic behind what you are seeing now since altering those table.

[silvapain]

Max calculated load (both the same):



TRL x Gear (all the same):



Requested load (again, all three the same):



I checked, and you're right in that the max calc load is less than the OTS BT targets. In that case, I wouldn't worry about having them set to 4.05; I changed mine back to OTS values and will test it myself.

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 yes I know it uses the lowest value but the Calc Max Load tables per the Cobb Helpfile do not disclose a relationship between these tables and all other tables. It discusses the Calc Max Load tables having a direct and seperate relationship on fueling.

The max calculated load is the limit the ECU will calculate load values, i.e. that's the "load cap" and the calculated load will never exceed the values in those tables.

[mrmonk7663]

Thank you guys. Both of you. This clears things up for met

[mrmonk7663]

@silvapain, is it safe to assume you have bumped your Throttle Requested Load Max B (the single input cell table) to 5.0 as well?

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 @silvapain, is it safe to assume you have bumped your Throttle Requested Load Max B (the single input cell table) to 5.0 as well?

Correct. It's 5.00

[mrmonk7663]

Load adjusted, car responds very well at part throttle now. Starting in 2nd is really easy now...before the car would lug around below 2000 rpms. Other than this, I notice when I use cruise control I get a small surge in power then it sets. This happened the other day when I raised the load. It does not do this on loads modeled after OTS maps. It holds my cruise just fine though, just when I push the "set" button it jumps ahead.

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 Load adjusted, car responds very well at part throttle now. Starting in 2nd is really easy now...before the car would lug around below 2000 rpms. Other than this, I notice when I use cruise control I get a small surge in power then it sets. This happened the other day when I raised the load. It does not do this on loads modeled after OTS maps. It holds my cruise just fine though, just when I push the "set" button it jumps ahead.

I have that issue with cruise as well. I always drive 1 MPH slower than where I want my cruise speed to be. I'm guessing it's due to the target load adjustments that have to be made for E85.

[mrmonk7663]

Guys is there a plug and play 3bar map sensor I can order? I need to order something this week.

[phate]

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 Guys is there a plug and play 3bar map sensor I can order? I need to order something this week.

Not total plug and play. You still have to cut and solder the 4 wires.

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by phate Not total plug and play. You still have to cut and solder the 4 wires.

Exactly. Be sure to cut the old plug off one at a time as you solder the new plug in, too. I got impatient and cut them all at once; big mistake. Two of them are exactly the same color, but are NOT the same signal. Had to bust out the multimeter to figure which is which.


Tapadatass

[mrmonk7663]

Is this the part number yall are running? 0 281 002 845 3 bar or are yall running the 437?

[silvapain]

I'm running the 845 one.


Tapadatass

[Dano]

anyone know where the thread is with the 3 different 3 bar sensors P/N and associated ATR scalars?

IIRC it was started by JumpinJackson and I thought I had it in my tech folder but can't find it.