what ever happened to water injection??

[Zivic]

E85 here too...prices aren't as low as I'd like, less than 20 cents less than 87. However, it is much easier to find than race fuel, and $3.20/gal vs $8-10. 280whp on 91, 330+whp on E85. Worth it to me, for sure.

I don't have a tune optimized for leaner cruise and idle, though, so I took roughly a 30% mpg hit.

I was expecting much worse.... but ran through a few tanks and never saw more than 2mpg difference.

 

[JCH13]

We saw a bump in price as some subsidies ended earlier in the year.... the trick will be when we find a decent source of ethanol, ie not corn.

I only lose about 1-2 mpg on about a 17-18 mpg base. so you can do the math.

lancer evo with an FP red. Limited to 26 psi on pump, can run 33 psi on e85 with more agressive timing and slightly leaner AFRs.

You run leaner AFRs with E85 than gasoline?

 

[Zivic]

You run leaner AFRs with E85 than gasoline?

Yes... it runs cooler, higher octane,

 

[JCH13]

So you're running 10:1 or 11:1 with e85?

Edit: seems some people don't bother changing their WB sensor from a gasoline calibration to an E85 calibration, causing erroneous readings. I would be shocked if someone actually ran E85 with leaner AFRs than gasoline considering their respective stoichiometric ratios are around 9.7:1 and 14.7:1.

 

[skyking]

Us diesel folk still use it to cool and add power on harder pulls when towing, and for fuel economy.
I have an AEM controller that I set at the highest start point, 11 PSI. Under normal conditions with just the truck I rarely see over 10 PSI unless I'm passing. Towing, the numbers just about double so it does reduce EGTs and add a little fuel to the fire at the same time.

 

[Zivic]

So you're running 10:1 or 11:1 with e85?

Edit: seems some people don't bother changing their WB sensor from a gasoline calibration to an E85 calibration, causing erroneous readings. I would be shocked if someone actually ran E85 with leaner AFRs than gasoline considering their respective stoichiometric ratios are around 9.7:1 and 14.7:1.

in the 10's with gas

mid 11's with e85. some run into the mid 12s

 

[jlee]

in the 10's with gas

mid 11's with e85. some run into the mid 12s

On a wideband scaled for gasoline, right? More info

 

[Zivic]

On a wideband scaled for gasoline, right? More info

you would have to ask my tuner...

DB peformance

 

[Zivic]

On a wideband scaled for gasoline, right? More info

I am reading what you linked... it all works off a base lambda...so vs the base, you can run leaner AFRs with E85 vs pump even if you are reading AFR. Directly comparing lambda would be a better way to talk about it.

My point being, even though you need more fuel to get the same miles, you can lean out the e85 in the tune to make up for some of the power loss inherent in the fuel

 

[JCH13]

I am reading what you linked... it all works off a base lambda...so vs the base, you can run leaner AFRs with E85 vs pump even if you are reading AFR. Directly comparing lambda would be a better way to talk about it.

My point being, even though you need more fuel to get the same miles, you can lean out the e85 in the tune to make up for some of the power loss inherent in the fuel

Leaning fuel from stoichiometric out helps fuel economy, but not power...

Still though, E85 is a 30-50% bump in fuel consumption for the same power level... you've claimed a 10-12% bump in fuel consumption with 100 more horse-ponies, I find that every hard to believe. I suppose it's possible if your gasoline tune is horribly rich.

 

[exdeath]

You're talking WOT if you are saying you run 10:1 on gas. Gasoline idle and cruise should still be 14.7:1 regardless if you are making 100 HP or 1000 HP. If your wideband says 10:1 while idling and cruising in closed loop, your car is broken.

WOT AFR doesn't significantly affect MPG because you spend so little time there.

Even for WOT mid 10s is pretty fat on gasoline even on a turbo car. My tune with a hot and stressful positive displacement blower is mid 11s.

 

[Zivic]

You're talking WOT if you are saying you run 10:1 on gas. Gasoline idle and cruise should still be 14.7:1 regardless if you are making 100 HP or 1000 HP. If your wideband says 10:1 while idling and cruising in closed loop, your car is broken.

WOT AFR doesn't significantly affect MPG because you spend so little time there.

Even for WOT mid 10s is pretty fat on gasoline even on a turbo car. My tune with a hot and stressful positive displacement blower is mid 11s.

at cruise, yes 14.7. WOT is what I am refering to for 10's.

10s really aren't that rich under full throttle/boost

 

[exdeath]

10s WOT sounds more like a canned tune to me than a proper dyno tune. /shrug

 

[Zivic]

10s WOT sounds more like a canned tune to me than a proper dyno tune. /shrug

two different tuners for my setups and both show similar AFRs under wot using completely different EMs.

My z was tuned by Tuan @ GRD peformance in chicago area. HKS Fcon Vpro. Only a handful of certified tuners for this EMS in the country. At the time, it was 'the' very best. Now we have haltech which is comparable...

My evo was tuned by shane at DB peformance in MN.... with stock ecu

tuan is an asian guy tuning with dynapak.... shane is a white guy tuning on a dyno dynamics. very different tuners

 

[Zivic]

Leaning fuel from stoichiometric out helps fuel economy, but not power...

Still though, E85 is a 30-50% bump in fuel consumption for the same power level... you've claimed a 10-12% bump in fuel consumption with 100 more horse-ponies, I find that every hard to believe. I suppose it's possible if your gasoline tune is horribly rich.

well, if you want to come up, hang out for a couple of days, pay for fuel, we can do some comparison mileage tests with pump vs e85 on my specific car. I'll have some free time the end of october. I am about 15 miles south of st paul mn if you're interested

 

[JCH13]

well, if you want to come up, hang out for a couple of days, pay for fuel, we can do some comparison mileage tests with pump vs e85 on my specific car. I'll have some free time the end of october. I am about 15 miles south of st paul mn if you're interested

That sounds awfully practical...

10:1 is insanely rich, even at WOT. 11s and 12s would be more like it. 10:1 is just dumping in tons of fuel in an attempt to stop knock when instead timing should be pulled. Besides, most AFR gauges peg low at 10:1, so you might be running even richer than than 10:1. Maybe there's some detail and I'm not appreciating here, but the numbers aren't adding up without the explanation of a poor tune.

 

[skyking]

well, if you want to come up, hang out for a couple of days, pay for fuel, we can do some comparison mileage tests with pump vs e85 on my specific car. I'll have some free time the end of october. I am about 15 miles south of st paul mn if you're interested

We'll stop by next time we are on vacation with the 5th wheel and diesel truck. I always wanted to run my truck at the drag strip

 

[jlee]

at cruise, yes 14.7. WOT is what I am refering to for 10's.

10s really aren't that rich under full throttle/boost

Yeah, it is..here's my AFR/wideband plot for race gas, and it's a modified stock ECU (not a standalone):

 

[Zivic]

Yeah, it is..here's my AFR/wideband plot for race gas, and it's a modified stock ECU (not a standalone):

I appreciate everyone's concern with my tunes....

here's one of my dyno runs with my evo... not sure what boost level, but it's the only one with AFRs shown... it is in the mid to upper 11's.

I can't seem to find a AFR chart for my Z, but If I see a 10.7-10.9:1 AFR under WOT at full boost, I am not concerned. I have seen numerous factory boosted cars touching 9.X:1 AFRs...

I think you guys are being a bit over dramatic about a 10-something:1 ARF being too rich. You have to remember my z is not a factory boosted car. it is an open deck motor, not originally designed for boost. Of course there is some added margin for safety on such a setup

Heck, my z gets about the same mileage now as it did stock. I have seen over 26 mpg highway and usually average over 20 in mixed driving. That's not to say I couldn't empty the tank in a 30-40 minutes beating on it, to the tune of 6-8 mpg.

 

[Zivic]

That sounds awfully practical...

10:1 is insanely rich, even at WOT. 11s and 12s would be more like it. 10:1 is just dumping in tons of fuel in an attempt to stop knock when instead timing should be pulled. Besides, most AFR gauges peg low at 10:1, so you might be running even richer than than 10:1. Maybe there's some detail and I'm not appreciating here, but the numbers aren't adding up without the explanation of a poor tune.

just throwing it out there as you kind of called me out about the mileage....

and from my limited knowledge... after all, I am just a polish farmer.... most target WOT AFRs are in the low to mid 11's (11.3 - 11.5) so I would say if you are in the 12's, you are running a bit lean, and on the opposite side, if you dip into the 10's, a bit rich. tons of other other factors to consider, but just generalizing.

 

[exdeath]

Your Evo tune looks spot on at 11.6-11.7 on boost.

Factory tunes play it SUPER SUPER safe for warranty and maintenance reasons for the average Joe who can't take care of a high performance car, who will put 87 in it, etc. Part of the reason why it's easy to get so much power out of a factory boosted car even with just a tune.

Plus the factory tune is calibrated based on the manufacturers validation testing with the engine being abused screaming away WOT in a dyno cell for hundreds of hours, not what the car will really see on the street.

I'll admit I'm not versed on VQ tuning specifics and open deck blocks, it's entirely feasible that upper 10s would be desired to keep the cylinders cooler to reduce risk of liner distortion, etc. You running a block guard?

Also there is a huge difference between 10.0:1 and "almost 11:1"

 

[Zivic]

Your Evo tune looks spot on at 11.6-11.7 on boost.

Factory tunes play it SUPER SUPER safe for warranty and maintenance reasons for the average Joe who can't take care of a high performance car, who will put 87 in it, etc. Part of the reason why it's easy to get so much power out of a factory boosted car even with just a tune.

Plus the factory tune is calibrated based on the manufacturers validation testing with the engine being abused screaming away WOT in a dyno cell for hundreds of hours, not what the car will really see on the street.

I'll admit I'm not versed on VQ tuning specifics and open deck blocks, it's entirely feasible that upper 10s would be desired to keep the cylinders cooler to reduce risk of liner distortion, etc. You running a block guard?



Also there is a huge difference between 10.0:1 and "almost 11:1"

block guards have been used by people that have sleeved their blocks. from my limited experience with them, they can cause coolant flow issues. I am not aware of anyone running them on a stock block... so no, I am not running one

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Back to Water injection - anyone know the name of the engineer who played a role in it's implementation? Also tested out the various blends of 150 grade aviation fuel from what I recall. I read an "unsung hero's of WWII" article years ago and have never been able to remember who it was about...

 

[jlee]

I can't seem to find a AFR chart for my Z, but If I see a 10.7-10.9:1 AFR under WOT at full boost, I am not concerned. I have seen numerous factory boosted cars touching 9.X:1 AFRs...

I think you guys are being a bit over dramatic about a 10-something:1 ARF being too rich. You have to remember my z is not a factory boosted car. it is an open deck motor, not originally designed for boost. Of course there is some added margin for safety on such a setup

We're not saying it's unsafe or anything...MR2 Turbos run into the 9:1 range from the factory. It's just far from ideal for a custom tune. You're far safer running on the rich side vs lean.

Back to Water injection - anyone know the name of the engineer who played a role in it's implementation? Also tested out the various blends of 150 grade aviation fuel from what I recall. I read an "unsung hero's of WWII" article years ago and have never been able to remember who it was about...

No..but I just learned that water/meth and nitrous oxide were also used in WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I think I finally found it, the guys name was Frank Walker...

So if you fancy it's worth a read.