Haha, not a big deal. I just like to stop conspiracy theories before they start.

What tool do you use to remove the spill valve? Before looking at it I went and bought a 32mm socket but the plug to the connector is in the way. I think it needs a crowsfoot wrench.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...ml#post1092939

hyperlink to post concerning removal^

Personally I've always used a cresent wrench

yeah that's what I am going to do. thanks

took the spill valve off. Didn't want to take the parts from it out to check since everything looked clean.. I guess my car will keep chugging E85 till I see something is wrong... Just need to figure out if I should go 100% or stick with 50%

I bought a 32mm combination wrench from Sears for ~$25. Works great.

Sears: Online department store featuring appliances, tools, fitness equipment and more


Here's the link to my new thread on removing and partially disassembling the spill valve:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...0/#post1123093

I am going to try 1.07 lambda at <3500RPM and <0.56 load for fuel economy. I got an average of 22 MPG on the highway on my trip to St. Louis for the NATOR MO meat on Saturday.

I'm now targeting 0.81 lambda at WOT, by the way.

If anyone is curious that's 15.729 gas AFR and 10.449 on e85.

If only we had straight gas and perfect E85 ;) But yes, 15.7 targeted in ATR.

I noticed this morning that even with all my fuel tables targeting 1.07 lambda at low loads, the ECU was still targeting 1.00 lambda when idle at stop lights. I wonder if it has something to do with the clutch tables...


Tapadatass

I noticed this too, but I doubt it has anything to do with the clutch tables, as they appear to be a ratio. There is probably another table or two Cobb has to unlock.

Yeah, this is what I was alluding to when I didn't want to switch all of the tables to the desired E85 AFR. The ecu still seems to want that 14.68 no matter what. I think we have a LOT of closed loop tables to be released for our use. Fueling and timing for sure, and probably others that control other closed loop functions.

Are you guys trying to maximize gas mileage or something?

IMO, maximizing the timing in the PT / cruise load regions will probably net a better increase in gas mileage than simply leaning out the AFR. Has anyone tried to find MBT in the part throttle regions?

Probably need to steady state load the car via dyno for that.

Surprisingly, based on the prior research I've found on the internet, E85 provides the best fuel economy on lower timing advance than pump gas. The flame speed at lambda in the 1.0-1.1 range is much higher than with regular petrol:

Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...rnvelocity.jpg

Spark Advance vs. Fuel Efficiency & Gasoline vs. E85

I have already done some timing limiting, but I haven't had the time lately to do any solid comparison testing.

Exactly.

@phate, do you think this is something we could do at A-spec on Saturday?

Good info. So you did pull timing across the board in the PT area? Considering the e has nearly twice as fast a flame speed, i seriously doubt you'd want to be running the super advanced factory timing table.

Maybe pull like 6 degrees or something, and just see if it makes a difference over a couple tanks of gas.

I'll have to look at my tune and get back to you on what values I'm actually running.


Tapadatass

Sort of. It seems we don't have much control over the PT closed loop timing. I have been doing some testing with this in my car, and it is still running more than 20° over what I'm commanding, and what is in the Max A/B ignition tables. The car does whatever it feels like.

This is the best way to do it.

Yes, the dynojet we are using is pretty awesome. We can load the car and hold rpms if you want to. I think this will be EXTREMELY time consuming, and something we may want to try later on. We need to figure out how exactly we would quantify the results, and how we would actually go about testing it. We know the fuel injection amount/injector pulsewidth are not accurate, so we can't rely on them for any sort of efficiency calculations. I think if we don't come up with a serious plan, it'll be a lot of cash wasted. I could probably spend days on a dyno doing this, lol.

Tried that. I'm commanding like 20° in my driving range, but the car still runs 40°++. It's frustrating, and a little scary.

i wouldent do any testing till cobb releases the rest of the fuel tables. all in do time.........

There's no harm right now in playing with timing and fuel at low loads. It's just annoying that the ECU isn't running exactly what we're commanding.

However, until COBB can uncover all the fuel tables we won't be able to tune for E85 using fuel instead of MAF scaling. That's just too risky at this point.


Tapadatass

Upped the load values I target 1.07 lambda and lowered Max timing. I'm holding between 20-40 degrees of advance cruising around town now at 1.07 lambda. The car definitely feels less responsive; I may bump advance up a bit to see the affects.


Tapadatass

I've decided that I am trying to test two things at once, which never works.

I put my old timing tables back in, and I'm just going to run the higher cruise lambda values for now. The car is back to feeling more responsive with the old timing values back. It's obvious I also was too drastic with my timing changes.

My timing values before (what I've gone back to now):
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...d3/E85V207.jpg

What I tried that felt sluggish:
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...d3/E85V208.jpg

I tried to get some clean WOT datalogs to put up to show where I'm at, but it's around 45°F right now, and my tires can't grip. I spin in 4th at ~4000 RPM every time.

What tires are you on and what size?

Hankook Ventus V12 K110 215/45 R18.


Tapadatass

This is why I need to get on the dyno saturday.

I don't even spin the tires in 3rd usually, let alone 4th. I am on the V12s also, except I have 225/40/18, and my v-dyno shows that I am making about 310 hp & 350 ft-lbs. Butt dyno also says that it is not that fast.

I'm spinning the clutch on occasion too. Ugh. Looks like a clutch swap is on my schedule for this winter.


Tapadatass

Is that with 1.09CF or lower? Cause if that's at 1.0 or 1.01, that's solid power.

I think Wolly6973 is getting used to having that much hp.

It never ends. LOL.

CF = 1

That is what I am hoping for, but I am definitely not spinning the tires like everyone else.

every once in awhile...i flash an OE map and drive around for a day to see just how far I have come....when you flash back to the power map its violently different lol.

of course I haven't been able to do this with the corn juice but you get the point. Its good to go back and get some perspective once in awhile...keeps you grounded and can keep you from going too far.

just my .02 worth :)

I just barely spin and third also.

It "slips" ocassionally.

Maybe you have particularly clean / grippy roads where you live.

Are you going to dyno your car soon Nate?

Hopefully on Saturday. That is pending weather and closing on my house/wife don't clean my bank account.

At least she will be cleaning SOMETHING.

Sorry for threadjack silvapain, back on the topic of 100% e85 goodness!

No problem.

I had to increase my WOT lambda from .81 to .84 to give me some injector headroom. I was hitting 103% IDC above 5500 RPM. Now at .84 lambda I'm at 96% IDC max.

I'm still running pretty conservative timing at 18.5 degrees advance at RL.


Tapadatass

Think my clutch and/or tires are slipping? Number seem VERY high, but consistent...

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...11-15-2011.jpg

So to the OP, or even to @phate, after this experiment, would you advise against running e-85 on a stock hpfp even if I only had intake with a ap and stock downpipe and exhaust? I live down the street from a Cobb so getting a protune on e-85 wouldn't be a problem.

100% E85 is unadvisable with the stock fuel pump internals.


Tapadatass

Is the drive able with 5xx+ trq to the front wheels?