E85 whats needed

[utfan98]

Let me clarify for the community here regarding your E85 claims.

1. You must have a twin screw supercharger.

2. Must must run over 20# boost

3. Obviously you must need support, typical is: Fore hat with twin GT pumps, GT 500 BAP, -8 to stock rail, with 80's.

4. Your expected gains are 105HP and 105RWT in the mid range (where ever that is) with a typical peak of 80HP and 80 RWT, over your race gas tune, not 93.

5. You must get tooned @ HPP in Dallas..(joking)

 

[04sleeper]

I know you guys have posted up on the other site as well.

"My SAE rwhp on 100 octane was 626.8, STD 645, and uncorrected at the time was 655".

I would have to agree with James on this one, you sould see a little more SAE peak pre E85, higher 640-ish-50-ish not really the in the 80's, ".....650 to 680 at 21 to 22 psi and 21 degrees, depending on the blower", those 70-80's numbers should be more around 2.6L's, not 2.2L (hence depending on the blower). But what do I know, I ride a bike.

Anyways, that would make more sense if he was say 645 which is "low typical" with 21# 2.2L 23) (I went 650-ish with 22-23# 2.3L 23* 11.4 AFR on a race gas tune precams, so comparable wth your friend an others with a similar set-up) with the 8% gain would be 52 RWHP gain putting you right around 695-700 peak somewhere on the curve. I wouldn't doubt that at all.

I am at 645 right now with 93 19* cams. We increased the timing to 23* for a 110 race gas tune without a dyno pull, I would expect to see 680-ish-90-ish on a cooler day (based on 1* advancement=10 HP gain, 4 x 10= 40, 40 + 645= 685). With the cooling effect of ethanol I would expect to see 10-20 HP more, so yeah 700-ish, too much for a stock short block, I don't care how much you get on it. So the way I look at it is the 10-20 HP "extra" comes from ethanol cooling properties which is the added 3% over 5% (for NA) comes in that that I mentioned earlier.

One last point James makes is, "You seemingly have a huge increase from E85 (~79 rwhp), which minimal spark advancement. This is contrary from what I've seen in testing on various vehicles, and IMO, contrary to physics. As we know, E85 has a lower energy content, and a lower stoich. It's just not going to give more power on its on nor magically. In regards to spark, I again can't see 26 rwhp per degree of spark, and definitely not 79 from 3 degrees". He is scratching his head as well, and is probably the top 5 03-04 Cobra tuners in the nation.

There is one person here in Warren, MI who tunes aftermarket EFI's with E-85. He claims the highest (well less than you), a 10% increase over race gas. He tunes more high boost turbo Chevy's and GN's.

With that said, reverse math with a calculator (626 x .12 = 701) says that you and others in the Dallas area are claiming a 12%-13% gain???

Just like you said hard to believe...

I can't believe how much of a "Bench Racer" you actually are! Give it up already! You give a lot of "What if's"? and "Should's" but agian. No proof, and no experience! You must believe everything you read on the internet!

HPP has dynoed hundreds of twin screw cars with everything from stock to ported heads and cams, etc... NONE have made over 700 RWHP with a 2.3 even on C16 Race Gas and 25* timing! Not even the ones with ported heads and cams! Let me repeat, NONE!!!!!

Typically 2.3 cars running 21-22 psi on the HPP's dyno make EXACTLY what Erik's car made! NO MORE!!! They have NEVER made 650-680 on a stock motor. The highest 2.3 car they had on the dyno had a built stroker motor with ported heads, cams, long tubes and it only made 685 with C16.


Keep believeing what you want about what you have NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH, and make yourself feel better. You are only making yourself look foolish. I will go on ACTUAL FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE and believe what I have seen with my own eyes.

I have no reason to hide anything and have no reason to lie. I just try to help others by learning from my own experiences.

 

[04sleeper]

Let me clarify for the community here regarding your E85 claims.

1. You must have a twin screw supercharger.

2. Must must run over 20# boost

3. Obviously you must need support, typical is: Fore hat with twin GT pumps, GT 500 BAP, -8 to stock rail, with 80's.

4. Your expected gains are 105HP and 105RWT in the mid range (where ever that is) with a typical peak of 80HP and 80 RWT, over your race gas tune, not 93.

5. You must get tooned @ HPP in Dallas..(joking)

Wow! This just goes to show how igorant you really are!

There is no "Must" on anything. Just giving what was used in this combo and sharing the results with others.

Again! If you have NO EXPERIENCE THEN DON'T POST!

Go back to "Bench Racing" your much better at it.

Edit: Sorry to the OP for throwing this thread way of topic.

 

[Smacked_in_ATL]

If you run out of gas running E85 then your dumb. Sorry. There's no excuse. It's just like running out of gas with gasoline. It's the same thing. Piss poor planning. Sounds like an excuse to me. And you know what they say about excuses.

It's OK. Keep running your Fossil Fuel and making no power with no octane and I'll keep running my Corn making more power and high octane.

Oh, I'm burning cleaner and helping the enviorment too. :burnout:

Cheers. :beer:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahha, get em.:lol::beer:

 

[03cobra#694]

This has been a very good read.

 

[utfan98]

LOL......2.3 cars running 21-22 psi on the HPP's dyno make EXACTLY what Erik's car made! NO MORE!!! They have NEVER made 650-680 on a stock motor.


I am living proof, I left the bench one day, 651 RWHP 110 tune 22-23 boost gen 1 Whipple, LT's no cats, 110mm MAF, BF throttle body, stock block and heads, 11.6 AFR before I did cams in mid Sept.....got get to get back to my bench.

When I was reading an article the author said this......
Verdict's in......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Had the new cammed now 20 lbs Whipple 93 octane "Termi" dynoed at Lidio's yesterday. Boost dropped from 23 to 20-21.

After the drivabilty issues were figured out, the first true pull made 656.1/618.1 @ 11.5 AFR 18 degrees timing

Richened it up to 11.2 AFR made 659.7/616.1 17 degrees of timing

To be really safe the timing was brought down to 16 degrees 645.5/634 and that is where she sits.

Race gas timing was set to 22 degrees (added 6), probably seeing around 680-690 (put 651 to the wheel with race gas tuned to 11.6 AFR).

So am seeing roughly the same HP/TQ with 93 pump + cams as I saw with race gas without cams with all else equal (5 degrees weather difference). The cams are worth 20-30 RWHP difference give or take a few.


Lope is bad ass, mild classical cam sound that shakes the engine and car at idle. SOB pulls like a frieght train between 2500-5500....

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/motor-city-terminators-185/643018-verdicts.html

 

[GodStang]

LOL......2.3 cars running 21-22 psi on the HPP's dyno make EXACTLY what Erik's car made! NO MORE!!! They have NEVER made 650-680 on a stock motor.


I am living proof, I left the bench one day, 651 RWHP 110 tune 22-23 boost gen 1 Whipple, LT's no cats, 110mm MAF, BF throttle body, stock block and heads, 11.6 AFR before I did cams in mid Sept.....got get to get back to my bench.

When I was reading an article the author said this......
Verdict's in......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Had the new cammed now 20 lbs Whipple 93 octane "Termi" dynoed at Lidio's yesterday. Boost dropped from 23 to 20-21.

After the drivabilty issues were figured out, the first true pull made 656.1/618.1 @ 11.5 AFR 18 degrees timing

Richened it up to 11.2 AFR made 659.7/616.1 17 degrees of timing

To be really safe the timing was brought down to 16 degrees 645.5/634 and that is where she sits.

Race gas timing was set to 22 degrees (added 6), probably seeing around 680-690 (put 651 to the wheel with race gas tuned to 11.6 AFR).

So am seeing roughly the same HP/TQ with 93 pump + cams as I saw with race gas without cams with all else equal (5 degrees weather difference). The cams are worth 20-30 RWHP difference give or take a few.


Lope is bad ass, mild classical cam sound that shakes the engine and car at idle. SOB pulls like a frieght train between 2500-5500....

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/motor-city-terminators-185/643018-verdicts.html

Was this on HPP's dyno? 04Sleepers statement was "Typically 2.3 cars running 21-22 psi on the HPP's dyno make EXACTLY what Erik's car made! NO MORE!!! They have NEVER made 650-680 on a stock motor. The highest 2.3 car they had on the dyno had a built stroker motor with ported heads, cams, long tubes and it only made 685 with C16."

He is giving us real people data. You are giving us semi-make believe math...you even threw in an Evo somewhere... I am glad that you are here to debate but you are not bring any evidence to the table. If you do know of cars on the same dyno with before and after numbers then please post them up.

Also you asked what midrange is "in the mid range (where ever that is) with a typical peak of 80HP and 80 RWT,", that is the middle range. If you are spinning to say 7000rpms mid range would be around 3000-4000 rpms or so. So the gains of 100rwhp are typically seen in that area, but going off his dyno sheets the big gains where seen in the 4500-5500 area.

 

[plan b]

It made over 100 RWHP and 100 RWTQ in the midrange. (Not Peak) And what you also need to remember is that he made this much more OVER 100 Octane Race Gas! Not 93. If he was running 93 to begin with the gains would be even greater!


I do not think there are many twin screws runnind E85 yet, so you will not get much response here. But gaining 100 RWHP and RWTQ in the midrange OVER 93 I will say is typical with running a twin screw over 20 psi.


I never said I am trying to save the Earth. E85 is 15% Gasoline, not 25%. (Hence the name "E85" meaning 85% Ethanol, 15% Gasoline) Guess you are not good with math either.

LOL. I'll leave you to tend to the Prius owners. I never said I am doing this to save the palnet. That never came from me. I am doing this for Performance and Saftey Margin on a boosted engine. Plain and simple!

Does it help the enviorment? Sure. It does burn cleaner. Fact! But this is NOT the reason why I am running E85.

:bs: e85 is not always e85. Sometimes it is more like e70. If you're car isn't tuned for the lower grade e-fuel you may be risking some detonation. It's not advertised as e-70 at the pump either so I guess it's a roll of the dice.

 

[96stanggt]

:bs: e85 is not always e85. Sometimes it is more like e70. That's another fail for e-fuel.

And 93 isn't always 93, sometimes its more like 91-92 octane. Same goes for any gas, that's why you measure it like Kevin does. He has the car tuned safely where if there was a bit less ethanol he'll be safe, but if you read earlier he measures his gas quality and has always found it to be E85.

 

[plan b]

Was this on HPP's dyno? 04Sleepers statement was "Typically 2.3 cars running 21-22 psi on the HPP's dyno make EXACTLY what Erik's car made! NO MORE!!! They have NEVER made 650-680 on a stock motor. The highest 2.3 car they had on the dyno had a built stroker motor with ported heads, cams, long tubes and it only made 685 with C16."

He is giving us real people data. You are giving us semi-make believe math...you even threw in an Evo somewhere... I am glad that you are here to debate but you are not bring any evidence to the table. If you do know of cars on the same dyno with before and after numbers then please post them up.

Also you asked what midrange is "in the mid range (where ever that is) with a typical peak of 80HP and 80 RWT,", that is the middle range. If you are spinning to say 7000rpms mid range would be around 3000-4000 rpms or so. So the gains of 100rwhp are typically seen in that area, but going off his dyno sheets the big gains where seen in the 4500-5500 area.

You pay too much attention to dyno numbers, take it to the track.

 

[GodStang]

:bs: e85 is not always e85. Sometimes it is more like e70. That's another fail for e-fuel.

I think you missed the point where he said with him in texas he has tested many times and every time his has come out to E85. Not every state is the same. States in the south are Class 1 and/or 2 all year there for we will have closer to E85. ( http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/41853.pdf ) go to Appendix A. He is only going on what he knows.

 

[GodStang]

You pay too much attention to dyno numbers, take it to the track.

Two things first I never said any thing about numbers. numbers where being thrown out there from two different dynos. I said if you are going to compare them they need to be on the same dyno. Second track is not as accurate as you think. Just changing tires without any other mods and you can knock off a second on your time if your old tires are crappy enough. Also if your driving is weak, weather changes, or different track prep can all change times a good amount.

Also removing weight will make you run faster times not make more safe power which this thread is about. I am not saying E85 is great. I am still doing research on it. You people bashing it are not presenting any info just saying it sucks. I am not trying to bash yall.


The big reason I am looking at E85 is we can only get race fuel two days a week at the local track. The next closest place is an hour away. E85 I have 5 station in 1 mile of my house. Therefor I can run it at any time. Also it is usually $0.50 /gal cheaper than 93 and the gas mileage I get on my car I break out ahead.

 

[utfan98]

They have NEVER made 650-680 on a stock motor....what a statement.


You are giving us semi-make believe math...you even threw in an Evo somewhere... I am glad that you are here to debate but you are not bring any evidence to the table......Godstang.....:read:. It is for comparison, a statement. The point is E85 is going to have a relative added effect, the fuel doesn't know that it's going in an Evo, turbo Chevy, or a terminator.

So the gains of 100rwhp are typically seen in that area, but going off his dyno sheets the big gains where seen in the 4500-5500 area.....:idea:

I am still doing research on it. You people bashing it are not presenting any info just saying it sucks. I am not trying to bash yall. You must be a bench racer as well...welcome to the club. When did i say it sucks? I am saying the opposite, that you will see gains...Godstang....:read: now what I question are gains of 100-110 HP ? 100-110 torque? and now a tuner who has NEVER seen 650 stock block Terminator on the rollers :uh oh:.....and all of the garbage that goes along with this off-topic thread from the orginial post.

How many people are going to go out do these "must" upgrades or add to their already "musts" like you have Godstang for E85? If you do change E85, anywhere in the world, I encourage you to post up before and after COMPARABLE sheets.

There may be merit in this, I am not saying someone is lying. Need more testers, differerent dynos, different tuners, boosted Eatons (which may perform like lower boosted TS i.e 550-560 becasue of the heat generated), KB's, Whipples, 2.3L, 2.6L, 2.8L (E85 may not have such an effect because of already lower intake temps and physical limited capacity of the clylinder filling/VE), different locations and have REPRODUCIABLE (bench racing again) numbers. 04 sleeper wound get my Nobel Prize vote if 110 HP gains are expected past the mid-range LOL.

 

[plan b]

I fill up my fuel tank enough already, 5-6 gallons of 110 to 9-10 gallons of 93. The one time I measured fuel economy since it's been back on the road it was roughly 15 mpg and thats not driving like granny going to the grocery store. That's roughly 200 to 225 miles per tank just driving around town and a little freeway driving mixed in and greasing the tires in the first 3 gears every once in a while. Why don't you e85 guys post up you're driving habits and mpg for comparison's sake. I would not want to switch if I would only get 160 or less miles per tank of fuel. It doesn't seem so green to me. I didn't buy this car so I could go "green" anyway.

 

[serper3]

I know you guys have posted up on the other site as well.

"My SAE rwhp on 100 octane was 626.8, STD 645, and uncorrected at the time was 655".

I would have to agree with James on this one, you sould see a little more SAE peak pre E85, higher 640-ish-50-ish not really the in the 80's, ".....650 to 680 at 21 to 22 psi and 21 degrees, depending on the blower", those 70-80's numbers should be more around 2.6L's, not 2.2L (hence depending on the blower). But what do I know, I ride a bike.

Anyways, that would make more sense if he was say 645 which is "low typical" with 21# 2.2L 23) (I went 650-ish with 22-23# 2.3L 23* 11.4 AFR on a race gas tune precams, so comparable wth your friend an others with a similar set-up) with the 8% gain would be 52 RWHP gain putting you right around 695-700 peak somewhere on the curve. I wouldn't doubt that at all.

I am at 645 right now with 93 19* cams. We increased the timing to 23* for a 110 race gas tune without a dyno pull, I would expect to see 680-ish-90-ish on a cooler day (based on 1* advancement=10 HP gain, 4 x 10= 40, 40 + 645= 685). With the cooling effect of ethanol I would expect to see 10-20 HP more, so yeah 700-ish, too much for a stock short block, I don't care how much you get on it. So the way I look at it is the 10-20 HP "extra" comes from ethanol cooling properties which is the added 3% over 5% (for NA) comes in that that I mentioned earlier.

One last point James makes is, "You seemingly have a huge increase from E85 (~79 rwhp), which minimal spark advancement. This is contrary from what I've seen in testing on various vehicles, and IMO, contrary to physics. As we know, E85 has a lower energy content, and a lower stoich. It's just not going to give more power on its on nor magically. In regards to spark, I again can't see 26 rwhp per degree of spark, and definitely not 79 from 3 degrees". He is scratching his head as well, and is probably the top 5 03-04 Cobra tuners in the nation.

There is one person here in Warren, MI who tunes aftermarket EFI's with E-85. He claims the highest (well less than you), a 10% increase over race gas. He tunes more high boost turbo Chevy's and GN's.

With that said, reverse math with a calculator (626 x .12 = 701) says that you and others in the Dallas area are claiming a 12%-13% gain???

Just like you said hard to believe...

At first, I also was blown away by the difference e85 could make, especially compared to 100. In the past however I have seen a lot of 4g63 cars; stis push crazy numbers with e85 and I do remember them saying how e85 compares to c16. Just an example, evo 9 made 380 awhp with fuel mods obviously swissed intake box and a turbo back. (On a mustang dyno) that's pretty crazy if u ask me, I can elaberate what other friends of mine push with other mods no e85 a lot less hp.
Really the big difference in hp is not all that crazy. You are using a completely different fuel and a lot more of it!

 

[plan b]

Food for thought..................How is the e85 made? What is the alcohol in the e85 derived from? Corn mostly, but also other materials. Whatever it is derived from, farmers have to use heavy farm equipment to harvest it. What do tractors run on? Mostly diesel which is derived from crude oil and is more heavily refined than gasoline. Don't believe me, do a search. I didn't believe it either until I read up on it. So that means a shit ton of fossil fuel has to be burned in order to bring the corn to harvest in order for the tree huggers to go green. It's a crock of shit just like buying carbon credits. In the end, going green with e85 doesn't make sense in the "green" aspect of things:beer:

 

[GodStang]

Food for thought..................How is the e85 made? What is the alcohol in the e85 derived from? Corn mostly, but also other materials. Whatever it is derived from, farmers have to use heavy farm equipment to harvest it. What do tractors run on? Mostly diesel which is derived from crude oil and is more heavily refined than gasoline. Don't believe me, do a search. I didn't believe it either until I read up on it. So that means a shit ton of fossil fuel has to be burned in order to bring the corn to harvest in order for the tree huggers to go green. It's a crock of shit just like buying carbon credits. In the end, going green with e85 doesn't make sense in the "green" aspect of things:beer:

**** the Trees I want it cause its cheaper in the long run here for me than 93 and like I said before its almost impossible for me to get race fuel unless I want to drive an hour away. 1 mile for E85 or 1hr for race fuel. Yall do the math. Oh and if I do get power gains over my 18psi and 16degrees timing than I will be very very happy.

 

[vadorsnake04]

Wow! This just goes to show how igorant you really are!

There is no "Must" on anything. Just giving what was used in this combo and sharing the results with others.

Again! If you have NO EXPERIENCE THEN DON'T POST!

Go back to "Bench Racing" your much better at it.

Edit: Sorry to the OP for throwing this thread way of topic.

Hope none of this is getting to you kevin:banana:. You are the main reason i decided to switch lol. Plus the fact that leaded 110 octane cost $6.50 a gallon!:nonono:

I am switching to E85 this month and getting retuned probably next month on my setup. If you guys are seeing 100/100 gain on 100 octane at 22psi on a stock block with a 2.3 whipple i can't wait to see what i gain. I will be running 25-26psi, kb 2.8H-stock inlet, built teksid aluminum block, ported heads, custom ground cams.

I made 753rwhp on a loaded dyno so i am thinking 800+ no problem(that would be sweet!), definately 800+ on a regular dynojet, but realistically anything over 700rwhp would be great.

 

[plan b]

**** the Trees I want it cause its cheaper in the long run here for me than 93 and like I said before its almost impossible for me to get race fuel unless I want to drive an hour away. 1 mile for E85 or 1hr for race fuel. Yall do the math. Oh and if I do get power gains over my 18psi and 16degrees timing than I will be very very happy.

I'm not bashing, just pointing out the situation. Like I said, post up you're driving habits and mileage. I have a friend that owns a truck stop that has 110 at the pump but he will deliver me a 55 gallon drum of 110 with a hand pump. That's how I'm gonna roll next summer. Make sure you post up if you switch over as it will be interesting to see how you're car responds. It's not saving anything in my case to switch over is my point.

 

[vadorsnake04]

I'm not bashing, just pointing out the situation. Like I said, post up you're driving habits and mileage. I have a friend that owns a truck stop that has 110 at the pump but he will deliver me a 55 gallon drum of 110 with a hand pump. That's how I'm gonna roll next summer. Make sure you post up if you switch over as it will be interesting to see how you're car responds. It's not saving anything in my case to switch over is my point.

that would be a good deal. But another thing to remember about running 110(if it is leaded which i am assuming it is) is that it will destroy your wideband sensor in about 2 minutes of idling and it ruin's your exhaust tips, and also makes a mess of your bumper. Which is another few reasons i am switching over to E85.