I should have something very interesting to post up for your guys reading later tonight so stay tuned. After this is over everyone will run E85 Complient 240s MU HAHAHAHA.
Modified by S13FX at 1:11 PM 12/12/2006

The starting problem comes from the fuel not wanting to vapor below 60'F, not by not vaporing enough like gasoline. Running rich would not solve the problem unless it were very rich.

Chezedik wrote:The starting problem comes from the fuel not wanting to vapor below 60'F, not by not vaporing enough like gasoline. Running rich would not solve the problem unless it were very rich.

True. And E85 get thick if you cool it down a lot, hard to get good injector spray pattern.

But this is nothing you have to worry about at summer or warm winters, only here where the polar bears rule.

I bet it will work...we did it in Iceland, what now Cheze??

Especially not in AZ, right? Here in KS, we could use heated fuel lines. Also, why doesn't Toyota still use cold start injectors? Cold Start Emissions, heated lines will solve that. It would, afterall, be a concern with E85 still since it is part Gasoline and the rest is C2H6O or C2H5OH depending on notation (Ethane is a hydrocarbon). Also, there would be concerns over NOx emissions.

I am not saying it is not viable. Also, with the right advances, it could be where we go (afterall, we lost power/mileage at first with injection too), but we are just not there yet. The people who make the advances will be those who have done so for years - the oil companies. And they are going to do so on their schedule, not ours.

I however, am excited to see the day when I can pull into an E85 station, but that is not happening tommorrow.
Modified by Chezedik at 1:06 PM 12/14/2006

Chezedik wrote:Especially not in AZ, right? Here in KS, we could use heated fuel lines. Also, why doesn't Toyota still use cold start injectors? Cold Start Emissions, heated lines will solve that. It would, afterall, be a concern with E85 still since it is part Gasoline and the rest is C2H6OH (Ethane is a hydrocarbon). Also, there would be concerns over NOx emissions.

I am not saying it is not viable. Also, with the right advances, it could be where we go (afterall, we lost power/mileage at first with injection too), but we are just not there yet. The people who make the advances will be those who have done so for years - the oil companies. And they are going to do so on their schedule, not ours.

I however, am excited to see the day when I can pull into an E85 station, but that is not happening tommorrow.

Where do you guys buy E85? Not gas stations?

Price per gallon?

Ok, I don't care wbout emmissions personally. So a cold start injector will work just fine for me. I suppose if I ever run into starting issues I could install a fuel line heater. Or I could run a can of ether like diesels do. That would actually be pretty simple to install as well...I dunno.

We get our E85 right from the gas station Mike. I think its ranging from $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon. Which is cheap in comparison to 105 Octane race gas.

I'm getting stoked about this project.

WD

You cannot get E85 at pumps everywhere though. In KS, it can be very difficult to find, I think we have only about 10-15 in the whole state.

isn't it a little early over there to be posting pics like that?

anyway, I have never seen an E85 pump on the east coast, I think right now its mostly a mid-west type thing.

Nice find heh. Now we should all input this data in the GPS hehe.

Saw a crazy 952 hp Audi S2 (2.2 litre) a few months ago, E85 power! His buddy had a 788 hp one and made a nice 9.27 sec run. Crazy cars and nice smell when they give full throttle, gotta love it...

Really nice to read about E85 at a US forum, I thought we were the only fans.

Hey Mike. What kind of fuel pump set ups do you guys use out there? I plan on using two MSD external pumps?

S13FX wrote:Hey Mike. What kind of fuel pump set ups do you guys use out there? I plan on using two MSD external pumps?

The big hp guys use Mallory or MSD external pumps and the 500 hp guys normally use dual internal Bosch 040 or external 044 pumps.

OOO goodies Im gonna try runing only one pump in that case for right now if anything I have an extra one heh.

Right on man this is going to be very interesting

WDRacing wrote:

I am not retarded, just realistic. I love the idea of the stuff, and to be honest, if I could find E55 then I would run it, maybe even E85. But the fact that I cannot find it makes this whole conversation theoretical. Also, it would have to be economic. Here is Pitt, we have E15, and I run it all of the time. Why? Because 89 octance is cheaper than 87 octane. Also, since it is such a low concentration of Ethanol it IMPROVES mileage on cars that run rich.

I am just saying that an E85 future looks great, but it isn't in the US just yet. I find the arguement slightly less useless then the discussions over Hydrogen (which is 50-100 years out, at best). Basically, people have been talking about using Ethanol since the first Oil Chrisis, but when the price of gas went down/availability went up, support all but dried up. As we all know, history repeats itself.

That time Arabs were to blame, and this time they may not be, but the result will be the same, we are talking about something that is another 10-15 years out, if we are lucky.

You and I (and everyone else in here) knows this will happen, the question is when. The answer to that question is when the $G > or = $E * .8. That is, when the price of gasoline is greater than or equal to the price of Ethanol minus the expected economy loss of 20%. It will not happen a day sooner. This may be through improvements in process, or more likely, when the cost of fuel becomes unreasonable. Why would the oil companies or anyone else for that matter spend money researching improvements in Ethanol production when Gasoline is cheaper.

Humans are not a group of people to be proactive, as a rule. I do not know what would be different about this situation, unless either the price of Gasoline becomes an issue, or the EPA's emissions regs become so stringent that it can no longer be done without Alcohol.

The reason you all even know about this (with the exception of Swedish Mike) is because the media has been making a big deal of it, in a rather uniformed way. The reason you see it in Cali is because of new regs requiring the removal of MTBE from fuel, and the need for a new 'oxygen adder'.

WD, I understand that you are new to the topic, but try to be more realistic. It is good that people are getting on board, but it will take more than that. If this is something you are TRULY ready for, then put your money where your mouth is. Buy more expensive fuel ($.75 to the gallon more in most places with a 20% decrease in mileage, remind you), and/or donate money to research more cost effective ways to produce it. Otherwise, everyone here is just blowing smoke.

If you still think my point retarded, feel free to Hasselhoff me.

Check it out bro you can't say we are not ready for it. people in Europe like Poland which is where I came from, convert thier cars to propane or E85 All the time cause it is a lot cheaper fuel for them. This thing is only new to the US cause this country is so big and oil was already here it was easier for them to stick with it. And contrary to belife I see cars on the road here with the Flex Fuel compatible sticker all over the place and I mean everywhere. There is fuel stations all over in Chicago and Chicago land area with E85 too.

So E85 is not that new and I think its going to make a big hit a lot sooner then anyone thinks. And when it hits, well Il be ready for it.

Oh and the compatiblity issues with E85 of everyone saying how corosive it is and this and that thats all ****in BS. Unless your car stands around for a long time with that **** in the lines then yes you will be in trouble but if you let it evap you are good to go and when I mean long time I mean like a year at a time. Next time you go to a liquer store get some everclear, get a rubber hose pour it in there let it stand for 2 weeks and tell me what happend. Also to make a car E85 compatible is a LOOOT easier then everyone thinks.

Sorry to say well Im not, but E85 is here and it's here to stay, I dont know where you are from but here every one knows about it and talks about.

Yo Cheze, I was only messin with ya by postin the retard pic. You know I love you man.

I'm not entirely new to Ethonal, granted my knowledge is mostly related to running eother a full methonal system or a methonal injection. But they are very similar.

My main goal with the ethonal is only to run it in my car and make alot of power doing so. I could really care less if the country end ups going with. Would it be nice, hell yes it would, but I'm not holding my breath.

I love the fact that I can run 105 octane fuel in my car for a fairly cheap price compared to 105 octane race fuel. Hell, If I run a pump gas combo, it won't corrode anything, it will start fine, I won't have to swap anything and I'll still have like 98-99 octane. For every octane point you increase, you can raise your boost about 1 psi. I know thats not alot, but it could end up being 50WHP or so...

Thats quite a bit in the grand scheme of things.

WD

Brian you should start a company so I can come work for you haha, seriously you do some cool ****. It would also be interesting to see the effects of the marvel mystery oil you were talking about, and if that would help with storage, etc. Maybe they would start making that an addative, in which case im buying stock in Marvel Mystery oil. I can't wait til I'm rich so I can donate to stuff like this. Hell, I'd shoot some of you guys a grand or 2 if I was loaded.

S13FX wrote:Oh and the compatiblity issues with E85 of everyone saying how corosive it is and this and that thats all ****in BS. Unless your car stands around for a long time with that **** in the lines then yes you will be in trouble but if you let it evap you are good to go and when I mean long time I mean like a year at a time. Next time you go to a liquer store get some everclear, get a rubber hose pour it in there let it stand for 2 weeks and tell me what happend. Also to make a car E85 compatible is a LOOOT easier then everyone thinks.

well yeah, nothing happens over night. i'm assuming everyone interested in this project wants it to run for over a year though.

what do you mean "let it evap"? if you have ethanol in the lines, it will corrode. it's not like the gas magically leaves the lines when you turn the car off.

replacing fuel lines isn't really difficult either, so it's not a big deal, but it's still something that needs to be done.

WD, I know you are ****ing with me, and I only wonder if you have one of those cameras with the 10 sec delay, so you could get into the shot.

The point I was making is that I spent some serious time studying this, and so I think it is worth considering my point of view.

There are many nations using it, and for various reasons. I am just saying, this is how the free market will work. It will only get used when it is economically feasible or ecologically necessary. This is the reality of the American Free Market Economy, sorry.

Also, you will LOSE HP when using it. This is at least initially, like my point of EFI, eventually technology will provide us with solutions that will fix this. Example 1988 Honda Civic SI HP = 96chp, 2007 Honda Civic SI HP = 197chp. Technology made EFI the obvious choice, but at first there was a serious loss of power.

Eventually, we will find E85 to be a better solution, but there are many factors, not just because it is the right thing to do. Which we all know that it is.

Also, I feel like the octane argument is flawed because that is not the only key characteristic of fuels. One of the most important to us is that of power content (AKA BTU's). As Cav or Two40 (one of you guys) pointed out, ethanol has 76K BTU per lb, and gasoline is about 115K depending on the contents (which hydrocarbons). Also, given that a gallon of gas is 5.8-6.5lbs (depending on the level of cycloparrifins C6 or higher - typically a product of it's octane level) vs. 6.5lbs for ethanol.

This means that a gallon of ethanol can yield 6.5 * 76000 = 494000/2542.5 (constant for converting BTU's/hr to HP) = 194.3HP5.8 * 115000 = 667000/2542.5 = 262.34HP. This is a power loss of about 26%.

So you have to run about 2.276 lbs more mass to make ethanol make the same power (about 35% more fuel). Compound that with the fact that the stoich ratio is 9:1 means that you may be running more fuel just to make stoich, running rich may work similarly to fuel, where an overly rich mixture causes a further power loss.

More to come.

It will happen, but it will be a series of baby steps not the performance gain you were looking for.

If you want higher octane, the most economical answer is to get Xylene or Toulene from the paint store, and mix it with your fuel. It has an AKI (anti-knock index) of 107 or so. This means something in the 120+ octane range. Mixed with fuel, it can create a great increase in octane, for only $10 or so a gallon. Also, since it has a higher specific gravity, you can lean out further to achieve a stoich ratio. There is your performance answer.

What you need to ask yourself, is with a BTU content of about 135K per lbs in Diesel, why isn't it your performance choice?

I think everyone is more interested in making progress in this area in general, not just looking for specific reasons why. Sure we could buy Toulene, but what if we drive cross state or something, its kindof a pain. Its also neat to think that NICO would be at the forefront of E85 technology and experimentation/research.

Chezedik wrote:Eventually, we will find E85 to be a better solution, but there are many factors, not just because it is the right thing to do. Which we all know that it is.

Also, I feel like the octane argument is flawed because that is not the only key characteristic of fuels. One of the most important to us is that of power content (AKA BTU's). As Cav or Two40 (one of you guys) pointed out, ethanol has 76K BTU per lb, and gasoline is about 115K depending on the contents (which hydrocarbons). Also, given that a gallon of gas is 5.8-6.5lbs (depending on the level of cycloparrifins C6 or higher - typically a product of it's octane level) vs. 6.5lbs for ethanol.

This means that a gallon of ethanol can yield 6.5 * 76000 = 494000/2542.5 (constant for converting BTU's/hr to HP) = 194.3HP5.8 * 115000 = 667000/2542.5 = 262.34HP. This is a power loss of about 26%.

So you have to run about 2.276 lbs more mass to make ethanol make the same power (about 35% more fuel). Compound that with the fact that the stoich ratio is 9:1 means that you may be running more fuel just to make stoich, running rich may work similarly to fuel, where an overly rich mixture causes a further power loss.

I think this argument is a little misleading or incorrect altogether.

Your argument seems to imply that ethanol will make less because it has lower BTU/gallon. However, you only consider the power output per gallon of fuel, and you tie it into engine output, but your comparison is flawed. You compare the hp differences at the same fuel flow rate(1 gallon/1 hour), which is is not possible because of the different stoich ratios.

What I tried to point out in my initial post was that although E85 has fewer BTU's per gallon, it also has a much richer stoich ratio(which you pointed out as a flaw..?), so you will be able to make up for the fact that ethanol is "less potent" by adding more of it in each engine cycle - making up for its lack of quality(in the BTU dept. anyway) with sheer quantity.

This in itself might make up for BTU/engine cycle difference, but coupled with the fact that higher octane will allow you to run more boost, tune ignition closer to MBT, and run higher compression, E85 as a performance fuel is a no-brainer.

However, I do agree with your economics argument.. but that's the only reason why I won't be using it for my next project. There just aren't enough gas stations with E85.

Modified by crzycav86 at 12:24 AM 12/14/2006
Modified by crzycav86 at 12:27 AM 12/14/2006

Do we have a comparision of the potential power output of ethanol v. gasoline at stoich? I might see if I could find one. That might make me a believer. maybe I can get my notes out and do some math.

You lose power with Ethanol because of the BTU difference, but you also lose power with Methonal because of the same reason, thats why you have to inject so much more of both. Per capita, gasoline has more bang for the volume used. But Ethanol has equal gains when injected in more quantity...if that makes sense. Point being, you need to use 30% more Ethanol to get the same amount of BTU output as gasoline.

WD

Yes, Ethanol and Methanol both have 76K per lbs. But you actually make more power with methanol injection because detonation causes a severe spike and subsequent drop in combustion chamber pressures (spike before piston is on downstroke, and low press during downstroke) causing a huge power loss. While Methanol may not have the BTU output, it will prevent ping due to it's relatively high specific heat, and high octane. So by preventing knock, you may lose a little power to the Meth, but you are saving a ton due to knock.

I think the jury is still out that you can inject a more and get the same power (meaning to reach a stoich ratio). From what I am finding, there is a very slight power loss, which as everyone pointed out can be offset by more aggressive tuning measures. So it seems the principle drawbacks are lack of availability, and price per mile.

So I have said it a dozen times already, when it becomes available and cheaper than gasoline I will use it.

BTW, it's not about high boost for me, but higher compression and relatively high boost, FTW. <= Better Thermal Efficiency

Well for now I don't plan on running anymore then 20psi, which on a T3/TO4E is pretty much in its sweet spot. I just don't plan on retarding the timing at all. Which will make huge leaps in power band. I'll just richen it up just before peak torque and lean it back out after. I think I should be ok. But I have the knock meter to assist. I'll have the MSD installed still, I'll just steadily decrease the amount og timing being pulled out after I have my fuel curve where I want it.

I ran a ton of Meth on my Skyline over in Oki. I wouldn't have been able to hit 498whp without it. The intake manifold was alot better designed though. The TB is placed in the center of the intake runners, so methonal injection is evenly dispersed...I worry about that on the KA. Atleast I worry about running such a high boost and relying on the methonal as a fuel source, not just detonation prevention.

What are you're thoughts on the initial timing map. I was thinking I'll advance it 5 degree's, then have it pull .5 out per lb of boost to start my tuning. Maybe a full degree to start the tuning, then bring it back. I was only retarding it .5 while running pump gas though...

Good times ahead.

I still like the idea of a hole in the high throttle/low MAFV part of the map for better spool, some serious timing pull, but maybe for only a 2x2 of the map. No smoothing from there, and then I wouldn't pull any timing unless you just want to be safe. 104 octane > 91 octane so you should be gravy. What are you controlling your tune with? Also, how far is Phoenix from Tuscon (I may be moving in a few months).

Dude...awsome. Depending on how I drive, I've made it up there in just over an hour. But I figure 1.5 to be safe.

My timing is only being contrlled by the BTM, which sucks, but I already have it installed so...

I have a boost controller installed inline, so I can limit the amount of boost the unit see's. That allows me a tiny bit more flexibilty. I'll start at pulling .5 per lb and work back from there.

I need to go grab a new motor so I can actually begin working on this.

Let me know when you arrive man, first round is on me.

WD