ditchbangr

iTrader: (1)

I did a search but didn't find the info I was looking for. WIth E-85 is there a big difference in jetting for the ethanol, if so how much? I have a 10.7:1 406 I just built and am thinking with the compression I will need to have higher octane fuel, plus all the other benefits of ethanol. Should be 475 horse maybe less maybe more.

327_TPI_77_Maro

iTrader: (8)

Alcohol has to be jetted roughly 200% higher than gasoline. Is E85 85% alcohol? If so you will HUGELY need to rejet. A ton.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

IIRC, E-85 is 15% ethanol, 85% gasoline.

Minor to no rejetting. AKA - normal tuning.

If you switch back and forth between E-85 and full gasoline, you might notice a difference. But, if you jet for the E-85, you'll be slightly rich with gasoline.

99Hawk120

You're thinking of gasohol. I'm pretty sure E-85 is 85% ethanol.

http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/e85.php

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Obviously, I didn't RC. . .

Nice to have a link with real info.

Clicking on the "E85 Vehicles" button produces this statement: "Vehicle listing is below. Unfortunately, if your vehicle is not listed, your vehicle is NOT E85 compatible."

I don't see anything about modifying a vehicle to use it. But, 327_maro is probably right.

Hmmm, looks like there are a couple of stations near me. . .

99Hawk120

Only computer controlled vehicles (specifically EFI) need to be rated "compatible". Any mechanical fuel system that is user-adjustable (such as carburetors) simply must be rejetted.

As far as computer controlled carburetors, I'm not sure. I have never been able to figure out if 450mv from a narrowband O2 simply means "perfect combustion" regardless of the fuel used. After reading this link, I am suspecting it is. This article from Wikipedia also suggests that it is.

If that's the case, the computer should be able to run with E85; you'll simply have to adjust the fuel system to meter more fuel so that it doesn't peg out with a "full rich" commmand. It's unlikely you could tune the carb to run on both simultaneously because the adjustment range is probably too limited to go from a 9:1 AFR to a 14:1 AFR.

I don't have any E85 around, or I'd try it in my Toronado just to see if that's the case.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

a good friend of mine Mike Tritle is doing research with the E85 guys for E85 usage in motorsports applications. he went from a size 70 jet to a size 90 jet to compensate...i've given him a link to this thread so i hope he comes over and helps out...he use to be the head tech representative for AutoMeter, so he has all the data-loggers and stuff already in his 1974 'Cuda and has done EXTENSIVE testing using the E85 fuel.

Vader

200% is WAAAY too much. 327 must be thinking of methanol, not ethanol. There are three types of alcohol used in IC engines - Methanol, ispropyl, and ethanol. Methanol is common in race fuels, and needs to be at about twice the liquid volume of gasoline for correct mixture. Isopropyl is very close to 14.5:1. Ethanol is stoich at about 9.2:1. Mix in a little gasoline, and that increases to well almost 13:1. Most of what you're seeing in E-10, E-20, and E-85 is ethanol. It is a lot less corrosive than methanol.

Compatible? Well, technically, yes. E-85 is not supposed to be used in vehicles not specifically labelled for its use since NOx emissions can be higher if the vehicle is not completely compatible. My '96 half-truck is not designed to use E-85, but it does. I didn't reflash, didn't change anything but plugs. I have a long thread at S-Series.org about my experiment with E-85 in a "regular" fuel vehicle. My mileage has dropped about 11%. I still pay over 28% less PER MILE DRIVEN, which takes into account the lower mileage. With gasoline at 2.29/gallon, (was almost $3) I'd get better mileage but pay 25% more. At $1.72/gallon for E-85, I can afford to stop a little more frequently.

Vader

FWIW, Indy/CART/IRL cars will use ethanol BY RULE starting this year instead of methanol. They've been using methanol for years. They expect only a little better average speed.

ditchbangr

iTrader: (1)

Keep the ideas coming guys. I am just surprised by the general lack of performance use with carb guys. Seems like a good product with the higher octane and cost.

99Hawk120

I don't mean to argue with you, but the numbers I see are 14.7 (gasoline), 14 (10% ethanol) and 13.5 (20% ethanol). Where are you getting 13 for 85% ethanol? I haven't seen anything that supports that. Heck, this graph shows 40% ethanol as 12.5 (at best). According to the article I located in Wikipedia (yeah, yeah) the stoichiometric ratio for E85 is ~9.8.

According to several sources I've dug up, carbureted cars usually require about a 30% increase in jet area (not size) to run properly on ethanol or E85.

Mike Tritle

Hey, guys,

I just spent a half hour writing up the details of extensive research and testing only to have it shucked in sending. Let's make it simple... email me and I'll send you the text copy of the article I wrote for DragNews Magazine that has all the details.

Suffice it to say, if you tune to the info above, you will have some really quiet moments at the starting line when you whack the throttle!

Looking forward to helping you all out!
Mike

Vader

No argument. It's always good to question sources of information. Anyone can pull and "data" from out of their butt and post it on any web site. Just look at Fox News, for example. Far too many people read something on the internet and simply regard it as asolute truth, and usually pay the consequences later. It's good that you question it. As it turns out, you are correct.

In this case, I'd question Wilipedia, a web encyclopedia for basic information. I got most of my data from Colorado State University. They have performed extensive study on E-85 and other ethanol blends, and have dyno tested vehicles and engines to gather the empirical data. I'd trust them just a little bit more.

Their site (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05010.html0 lists straight ethanol as being at stioch at 9.0:1. Add fifteen percent octane ( according to them, 15.2:1) and raise that number to 9.93:1. I also know where I got the "almost 13:1" that I previously wrote. I have been experimenting with different blends of ethanol, between 50, 60, 65, 75, and 85%. I've found that 85% is too much for good operation. I've got the best results from 50-60% ethanol after over six months of testing. THAT"S where the "13:1" number comes in. I've found that at that 60% mixture of ethanol, that it's close enough for an OBD-II PCM to survive.

That may be correct, but you need to break down the general data a bit more. Using straight ethanol (9.0:1) would require about a 38% increase in fuel for any given intake of air. However, using 15% octane in that mixture would require only a 31% increase in fuel. (Sorry, I'm rounding since I'm doing the math with a lumber crayon.)

I guess your "30% increase" is a fairly close number if you're rounding. When I saw the "200%" figure posted by someone else, I knew that was wrong, at least for ethanol. It may be about right for methanol.

Thanks for checking me on that one.

Sonix

iTrader: (1)

Interesting thread, not terribly relavent to me, but I always like to learn.

Mike, if you'd like to email me that text file, I can host it and link it in this thread.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

part 1 of Mike's article

“Moonshine” Racing
By Mike Tritle


Looking out a motel window at the corner gas station only to see a higher price every 20 minutes can be quite unnerving for a traveling rep 300 miles from home driving a 12 mile per gallon 4x4 pickup truck. As Katrina remnants passed through Indiana that day, regular unleaded gasoline prices skyrocketed from $2.89 per gallon to $3.59 in just over an hour. Thoughts of the higher cost of my trip to low car counts at events to what would happen to the price of race gas went through the heads of more than a few sportsman competitors during the weeks ahead as evidenced by then very active bandwidth overloaded message boards across the internet. For this racer/sales rep/would be writer, it spawned an idea not only for day to day consumption but for our favorite pastime as well.

For more than a few years some grades of gasoline have been mixed with ethanol, essentially “moonshine” only refined legally for use as motor fuel. When mixed 9 to 1 or 10%, fuel economy is virtually unaffected and in some cases power and mileage actually improve. Add to that the benefit of acting as a fuel system drier and cleaner, the added ethanol eliminates the need for other additives to perform similar functions. Octane is boosted as well which probably contributes to the increased performance of computer controlled fuel injected engines. A word of caution, however, using even 10% in an aged fuel system where it has not been used previously will scrub any varnish and scale out of the tank and into the fuel filter in just a few miles. Be prepared to change that filter soon after the first use of gasohol in an older vehicle!

More recently blends of up to 85% ethanol and 15% regular unleaded gasoline, or E85, have become available, especially in the Midwest agricultural states. Manufactures designated specially equipped models as Flex Fuel Vehicles and made them available in the late 90’s and early 21st century. These cars, vans and small trucks are calibrated and programmed to sense fuel type, or a mixture thereof and run equally well from pure gasoline to E85 blends with only a small drop in mileage as Ethanol content increases. Special components such as fuel tank, lines and injectors are included in the package to protect from potentially corrosive effects of certain alcohol properties.

So the big question is, at 105 octane, (as specified on the pump) why wouldn’t it work in racing engines, especially those built for pump gas as fuel? As prices rose outside the hotel, so did my curiosity as to how this readily available and comparatively lower cost fuel would work on the track.









Properties of Fuels

Property Gasoline Ethanol Methanol No. 2 Diesel Propane CNG Hydrogen
Research Octane 100 108 107 112
Octane (R+M)/2 94 100 100 104 120+ 130+
Cetane 20 55
Viscosity 0.44 1.19 0.59 4.1
Latent Heat of Vaporization
Btu/gal@60 Deg. F 900 2378 3340 700 775
Heating Value
Btu/gal@60 Deg. F 115000 76000 56800 128400 84500 19800
Stoich air/fuel, weight 14.7 9 6.45 14.7 15.7 17.2 34.3
Mixture in Vapor State
Btu/cubic ft.@ 68 Deg. F 95.2 92.9 92.5 96.9
Fig. 1


It is commonly known that ethanol is produced from corn. What is not widely known is that any high starch vegetation can be used to produce high quality ethanol. I researched this through my son, Steve Tritle, Operations Manager for seed corn production at the Monsanto plant in Boone, IA. While corn is the preferred material, sugar beets, potatoes and even wet garbage will produce high quality ethanol for use as motor fuel. A frequent question is, “Are we able to produce enough crops to provide for the fuel thirst of the US without shorting the food supply?” The answer is yes as there are thousands of acres in the southeast sitting idle under government set aside programs that could be turned into fuel crop production within a couple of growing seasons. Government subsidies paid for non production could be redirected temporarily to benefit those farmers and producers to re-equip and build the plants needed for ethanol refining. All this benefits the US agricultural economy while reducing the country’s need for imported oil. This market force could further lower the price of gasoline as demand drops as well.

According to Mark Thomas, owner and driver of the Ohio Corn Growers sponsored Ethanol Performs IHRA Funny Car, Ethanol works quite well as a race fuel. Thomas has fueled his championship winning race car to ET and Speed Records and National Championships with “corn licker” flowing through its pumps and lines for several seasons now. When I asked him how it worked compared to the seemingly preferred but far more dangerous Methanol, he spoke freely of the mathematical formula used to compensate for the different characteristics of the otherwise related compounds.







It’s all in the chemistry. Taking a quick course in Fuel Injection 101 with Camp Stanley, 2005 NSCA Champion Pro Outlaw car owner, I learned that fuel mixture is calculated by comparing the area in square inches of the jets used in the inlet and return functions of the system used in Blown Alcohol Racing Engines. Applying this to a gasoline carburetor should yield similar results, I concluded, so I set about dredging up formulas unused since my classes at Lewis College School of Aviation in the early 70’s. I also searched the internet for comparison charts of fuel substance properties which was provided by one of the many of the Ethanol Industry’s websites. Specs are found at the two links here.

http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/Fuels%20Chart%20pg%201.PDF http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/Fuels%20Chart%20pg%202.PDF

Unlike Methanol the corrosive properties of Ethanol aren’t nearly as severe. To confirm this I soaked a piece of AQP hose, a viton needle and seat, an accelerator pump diaphragm and a power valve submerged in pure ethanol provided by Thomas for several weeks. There was no deterioration of any of the component parts. Ethanol seems to be no more corrosive than gasoline to the carburetor.

The major downside of Ethanol is, like Methanol, its affinity to absorb moisture. While this is a plus in keeping a daily driver’s fuel system dry, as a race fuel it must be properly handled to prevent water absorption. Unlike gas, alcohol absorbs humidity directly out of surrounding air into solution so it doesn’t settle to the bottom of the container, tank or cell. However, excess water results in a lean condition, inconsistency in performance and a potential for engine disaster.

The most important of these properties is the stoichiometric mixture ratios of Gasoline, Ethanol and Methanol which are 14.7, 9 and 7 to one respectively. Stoichiometric is the term for the exact amount of air to fuel required for complete combustion of the fuel and complete consumption of the oxygen within that air within the mixture. Of course if a race engine is run that lean it tends to perform an auto unscheduled disassembly so we run our engines in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 to one ratios with race gas. However, the stoich ratios provide a basis from which to calculate baseline jets sized for the ultimate mixture required for specific fuel.

Another critical factor to be dealt with is the heat required to evaporate each fuel. Gasoline will absorb only 700 BTU while ethanol sucks up 2140 BTU for gaseous state conversion. That’s why gas racers can ice down the intake manifold and make more power. Alcohol racers need hot engines and seldom use intercoolers as the fuel is its own mixture cooling agent. Engine temperature would be critical but just opposite of what was accustomed. (See Fig. 1.)







The Holley catalog provides jetting area numbers, though somewhat nominal. Several sizes are listed with the same numbers but close enough is the key word for establishing the base. Using the area of the current optimum jetting for gasoline will calculate up to the required base jetting for the alternative fuel. In this case, the target fuel being E85 also required factoring a different stoich ratio than pure ethanol. This is done by averaging the ratios of the two fuels. Multiplying 14.7 x 15% produces a factor of 2.205, and then 9 x 85% equals 7.65. Adding the two together sums up to 9.855 which was confirmed by another source indicating 10-1 was the nominal stoich for E85 fuel. Dividing 14.7 by 10 produces a factor of 1.47 which when applied to the base jet area would give the required upsize area for E85 jetting.

Here’s the really great part. Fuel for testing was purchased in Rockford, IL for $1.999 per gallon. The engine used approximately 20% more by volume per run over gasoline, then priced at 3.699 per gallon for Premium Unleaded. Factored cost calculates to 2.399 per gallon. As this is written, gasoline prices have dropped more rapidly than E85 but the cost savings is still substantial.

The test mule for this experiment was my 74 Plymouth Cuda. This one owner (me) car has been campaigned in NSCA/NMCA index footbrake competition since 2001 with a mild 360, built to run on 97 octane unleaded premium fuel. The low, 9.8-1 compression is slightly deficient for full utilization of the increased octane and the flat top piston design and stock heads already require 36 degrees of total ignition timing just off idle for optimum burn, less in certain weather conditions. Sealing is accomplished with Total Seal Gapless Top Rings and the engine has over 300 runs on it. A Holley HP 650 double pumper carburetor with 85 power valves, jetted 70 square and number 27 squirters off the 50 cc accelerator pumps feed through an Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap manifold to a mild lift and duration cam and 1 5/8” primary tube headers for the exit path from the port matched stock cylinder heads. Intake valves are 1.880 with exhaust measuring 1.600. With a 904 Torqueflite transmission and 3.55 gears the 3700 lb. car has run a best of 12.805 and 103.89 at 84 feet above sea level corrected altitude this season in Belle Rose, LA.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

part 2!

Part II


Moonshine Racing, Part 11
(Not the Sequel)

We left off last month at Belle Rose, LA setting ET and speed records on unleaded premium gasoline. In review, we determined the up jetting area factor to be 147% from gasoline. It was also learned from the Top Alcohol guys that the cylinder head temp would have to be much higher for a good launch than the average gasoline fueled race engine. With the evaporative cooling effect 85% ethanol would have on the intake manifold, it was determined that an over rich mixture to compensate for air density would be the better way to go. There was still much to learn as we found out quickly on the track! With the numbers crunched and carburetor set up for the much richer mixture, a new set of Accel 116 plugs were screwed into the heads. The Cuda was then loaded on the stretcher and hauled off to Byron Dragway for some serious testing.

The math indicated jetting for E85 needed to go from 70 to 80. Squirters were increased to 31 and the power valves were unchanged. Initial runs during testing at Byron Dragway produced a minor bog, enough to increase the 60’ time substantially and result in the loss of .15 sec overall ¼ mile elapsed time with close to 2 mph drop in speed. (See Fig. 2) Historically this car would bog with too much fuel so jetting was reduced to 78, squirters returned to 27 and the result was a very quiet period of time upon launch. (Fig. 3) The engine simply died when the throttle was whacked. It was quite clear at that point that more fuel was needed all around so jetting was increased to the biggest in the box at the time, 82 in the front and 84 rear as the EGT readings indicated the rear of the engine was running hotter. A pair of 37 squirters was installed and back to back runs resulted in the best ET and speed of the day, 12.997 and 101.45. Air hovered from 700’-1100’ most of the day. It was apparent, however that more fuel jetting was needed as there still remained the slightest hint of a bog on launch. Unlike Belle Rose, testing was done with open exhaust.

Timing was also increased to 38 degrees in an attempt to utilize the higher octane, and then decreased to 34 with a corresponding increase in ET and drastic loss of speed. All further testing was performed at 36 degrees.

When jet area was initially calculated, the power valve circuit was not factored into the final formula. It goes to say that initial testing produced less than stellar ET and Speed results, though the spark plugs were clean enough to use as dinner utensils. Gradually increasing jet size decreased ET with speed results mirrored. Back to back runs confirmed the need for higher engine temps as each time, regardless of mixture; the second run was quicker and/or faster than the previous. Reasoning for this can be seen in the Fig. 1 (Jan. 1 issue) comparison of Latent Heat of Vaporization. Using the 10 size jet increase rule of thumb for power valve elimination, and then factoring in 15% Gasoline to the mix, a jet size of 86 to 88 was indicated.

With a waiver of rules granted for the NSCA Finals in Columbus, further testing was performed at the event with jetting at 86 square. For direct comparison with Belle Rose, the exhaust system was reinstalled as well. Performance returned to a best ET of 12.847 @102.57 at 412’ proving that while no remarkable performance was gained as yet, none was lost either. Through all of this, the spark plugs still remain cleaner, 60’ times quite consistent and overall performance on par with previous gasoline tune up. Further testing with 88 and 90 jets and ultimately increasing the compression ratio in the engine should lower ET and increase speed. There simply was no time to try this in Columbus as it soon came time for backing up to the index for qualifying. The current set up allowed for that very well so it was not changed. The carburetor was refitted with the gas set up as a back up test at the NMCA Finals in Memphis. The outcome was similar ET and Speed performance as in Columbus. The baselines were established and confirmed.

After returning home from Memphis the engine was leaked and all cylinders netted less than 1% loss. The cleaner burning E85 actually helped seal the rings and valves as previous testing produced a 1%-2.5% loss at the end of the 2004 season.

What is the next step? As E85 becomes more popular more sportsman racers may look to it as an alternative to high cost gasoline. Also, each gallon burned is 85% fewer gallons of imported petroleum product used, thereby lessening the country’s dependence on imported oil. Sanction rules are being modified or under consideration for changes in many cases to allow for its use. Many classes specifically prohibit alcohol as a fuel though I believe my testing indicates there is no unfair advantage and there is great economic benefit to its use. In fact, as of this writing, NSCA (National Street Car Association) has written E85 into the rules for it’s American Muscle and their new Street Machine (Formerly EFI) classes and NMCA (National Muscle Car Association) is also considering it’s use in their Nostalgia Muscle Car class. There is no current required or limiting fuel rule against E85 in NMCA or NMRA Open Comp Classes.

Imagine the day in the not too distant future that we tow our trailers using Bio Diesel and run a race with 85% Ethanol from US grown renewable sources! What is Bio Diesel? Well, that’s a whole ‘nother article!

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

As I headed out of town today on I-76, I passed a truck with "This truck burns E-85" all over it.

If not for this thread, I probably wouldn't have looked twice.

Makes me wonder about giving it a shot. I'd be fuel-source limited, but what the hey, may have some nice benefits.

(The part about advancing the timing to take advantage of the extra octane is a common misconception.)

Sonix

iTrader: (1)

that makes sense, potatoes are used to make vodka typically. hmm, I think the wet garbage would be the tequila then...


Very interesting article indeed, hop up the compression and burn more fuel. Kinda like what i've heard/read about propane, but this is simpler... hmmm

Vader

I've been using it since last summer in lower concentrations with no real problems in an MPFI engine. Oddly, I get my fuel at the same station as "Mike" but I haven't run the truck at Byron. I just drive past the track... And the story is a bit misleading. The price there was $1.99 for about a week (during the peak of the "Katrina Krisis", then it fell back to its customary $1.72/gallon. And the pump there reads "106 Octane", not 105. And I wouldn't know "Mike" if I met him.

I'm sure I could run better with a reflash, but I don't have the programming tools/cable/mask file for the PCM. A carburetor and plain distributor would be much easier to convert. I've had no trouble with the fuel pump, filter, tank, etcetera. I changed the filter about two years ago. The truck has used 10% ethanol from day one, so the system is probably already fairly clean.

**** and wheat can also be used to produce ethanol, as well as many other materials. Actually, there is a small plant in central Wisconsin using waste paper pulp to produce ethanol. Corn and many grains contain more sugars, which more readily convert to alcohol. Brazil is using a lot of sugar cane and its waste, as well as other grains. Almost any bio material can be used, including human waste - which is about what I think of imported oil.

Mike Tritle

You nailed it, Vader. This thing is far bigger than most realize and has way more potential as well.

Price here in DeKalb has fluctuated from $1.809 to $1.901 for the past few months. Unfortunately, magazine lead times made it look more expensive in the article. During that post Katrina period I did pay as much as $2.499/gal. at a Sapp Bros in Utica, IL. Have also bought in Morris and Bloomington.

Check out this link for some progress in racing:http://www.nsca-racing.net/news020906.html

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

i'm sorry, while Mike will probably not take offense to this post, i will! i asked mike to come over to this board to help out. he is a BUSY BUSY man. i don't care if you know or don't know the frickin' Pope man, you oughta be alittle more accepting of people who have done an enourmous amount of research in this area who take time out of their busy day to answer questions.

Mike Tritle

No sweat, Matt. He pointed out some true stuff.

I would be careful, however, recommending E85 use to just any Tom, Richard or Harry in a non flex fuel vehicle. E10 works in anything but going for too high concentration of ethanol will increase certain emissions and could cause engine damage if the mixture goes too lean under loaded conditions. I haven't had guts enough to pull my loaded trailer as yet because I'm unsure of the flow capacity of the injectors as well as the PROM. Can't afford to cause engine damage, besides, that contradicts one of the reasons for using E85 anyway.

I will say this, when the time comes for a new truck if it's a gasser it just could be a GM because of their flex capability. Ford is working on it too. Dodge doesn't seem to have a handle on it yet but a fuel injected Hemi Challenger would be tops in my book!

Sorry, I forgot for a minute that this is a Camaro board!

Matt, you in Valdosta with the Preacher Man? Stay warm, buddy! Could be worse, it's 22 here!

Vader

mw66,

I'm not arguing. That's why I corrected/retracted what I posted earlier. I agree fully that a lot of questions need to be asked, and a lot of perceptions and ideas need to be revisited. A lot of research has been done, and more needs to be done. In the region Mike an I live, E-10 has been in use since the late '70s. There were a lot of misconceptions and and preconceived notions about how the earth would stop spinning if we started replacing gasoline with alcohol. I'd LOVE to see Mike's (or anyone's) research and empirical data on experimentation with alternate fuels. Top Fuel and even some Pro Stock guys have been accustomed to playing with fuel mix for a long time. This is a relatively new animal to the street, and conventional wisdom may not fly. So, I'm experimenting in a practical, daily driver mode.

Precisely. I am not recommending that anyone just dump in a different fuel and start driving. The latest schools of though in some of the university studies say that most OBD-II vehicles could probably safely use and effectively manage 20% ethanol with no problems.

I've taken my "expendable" half truck into an experiment, mainly for data to support the argument that more ethanol in "regular" gasoline is a very viable option. 85% is not for your run-of-the-mill vehicle, however. Aside from the tendencied for increased NOx, there are many injectors and fuel pumps out there that wouldn't last a week with a lot of alcohol exposure. Some cat converters will fry. Every time I get a lean O² error code (always a PO131) I retrive and archive the freeze frame data and analyze it. Coolant temperatures are acceptable, knock counts are low, ignition advance is high, PW is within the normal/long range, and it always occurs at light throttle, high speed cruise, and frequently on low throttle angles at decel (DFCO in play).

The leaning tendency is another danger. My S-truck has the "massive" 134-inch four banger. The truck has a manual crash box, and weighs about as much as a big box of feathers. About the heaviest load it pulls is the tonneau cover. If I hole out a piston from going lean, that means I have another project and get to drive something else for a week or two. And that would be an expensive way to gather empirical data. My saving grace may be the lower combustion temperatures and increased fuel pressure, coupled with the negligible load.

That's a prudent call. If you could increase compression, advance the timing more, and map the PCM for more fuel, you might be safer pulling a load. As it stands, with stock (gasoline) programming, I wouldn't personally recommend it. The PROMs I've burned for cars that are using E-10 are getting a slightly lower (about 7%) injector constant programmed to compensate for the 10% ethanol.


Toyota has one flex truck. Ford has a couple. Almost all the medium and full size GM gasoline engine trucks are flexed. If you could pull a car hauler with a Dodge Intrepid, you could have your wish. If you get a decent Dodge truck, you're getting a GM transmission, anyway. At least, you should HOPE so.

Vader

By the way, Mike, Welcome Aboard!

Mike Tritle

Thanks, I'm having fun with this discussion...and learning some stuff too.

BTW, have you checked this out?
http://www.abcesso.com/

Vader

No, I hadn't stumbled across that one before. Interesting translations for Portugese/Spanish to English.

It appears that they have used a regular aftermarket injector driver output system and used the OEM injector outputs as input signals to drive the package. A bit of creative timing based on the operator inputs (switch positions) and it should be fairly easy. It also appears that they are leaving the ignition timing and detonation sensing to the OEM PCM. That may not be the most effective, since the alcohol should allow more spark advance and dynamic compression. Still, it would get the system to at least work with more alcohol and prevent leaning so long as the injectors are capable of adequate peak flow. I'd feel a bit more "warm and fuzzy" about a complete reprogram, along with altered spark tables, a bit higher coolant/fan temperatures, less DFCO, wider O² tolerance, Highway modes enabled, cold start enrichment improved, and a few other refinements.

It looks like it would at least address the main issue, however.

Mike Tritle

Just a quick note to say thanks to all who emailed me for more information. I hope you all got what you were looking for and more.

BTW, Part II of Moonshine Racing is slated for the March 1 issue of DragNews. Its been reported to me that they've had more orders for back issues of January 1 (where part 1 was included) than any issue they can remember for some time. They told me it was for my article, so again, THANKS!

Mike

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I created a little chart to show approximate conversion jetting as a starting point for Holley carbs. Note that there is some overlap, since jetting is not exact.

Mike Tritle

That's a cool tool! Did you program the computer to calculate or sit with the calculator for hours like I did? My Holley catalog is a mess of handwritten numbers, etc.

Would you mind if I used it in a DragNews Update?

Thanks,
Mike

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Excel. I got the diameters from the Holley website, entered area & 147% formulas to make the calculations on the top line, then copied the formulas down to the rest of the jet sizes. To get the resultant jet size, I just looked for a close flow area from the jet size flow area column.

Feel free to use it.
----------
I found the Holley diameter data for 79, 80, and 84 "interesting".

Mike Tritle

Thanks, I'll put an update together and try to get it into the May 1 issue.

I found the same "interesting" data as you. Holley is up front about the sizes not being high tollerance. They do have high tollerance jets, though. Add an "H" to the number and they're supposed to be right on compared to each other. I have some but my set up doesn't know the difference.

Drop me an email at <cuda474@msn.com> with your real name and I'll credit your work. If you would rather remain anonymous, that's ok too. I'll use your handle and link to this thread anyway.

Have you run the car on moonshine yet? Keep in mind that "Winter Blend" can be as low as 70% Ethanol. We're at 75% until May here. Ran some through the 85% jetting and it STINKS! Definately rich!

Ran my 01 Ram 360 on 50% for a hundred miles last night. Slight tailwind but got just over 12 mpg. Seems the Electronic Fuel Injection is correcting things well. That's about 1.5 MPG less than gas.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I haven't run it yet - working too much overtime lately. I think I have all the things together that I'll need - already had the #66-#99 jet kit, picked up some .037 squirters (I got tube type) last week, and some different pump cams tonight.

The '57 is nice because the gas tank has a drain plug on it. Hopefully, tomorrow afternoon I'll get off work in time to pull the carb and go through it with the rejetting & squiters changes, get the rear end up in the air and drain the gasoline out of the tank. The remaining gas in the lines shouldn't be a problem - since the Proform main body doesn't have a choke, the extra richness will help it start cold that much easier (of course, that will only work once ).

I hadn't heard about winter & summer E85. I don't know when they switch over here, I just picked up 5 gallons worth tonight. Guess I'll give them a call tomorrow and find out what their blend is right now. It got up to 87 degrees F here today, hopefully they aren't still running winter blend.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Well, as usual, these things aren't completely straight-forward. I was running 73/83 jets, which a straight 147% conversion translated to 82/95 jets. Since the power circuit is not improved just by rejetting, I added a little to compensate for it, or 84/95. (I also discovered I only had about a quart of gas left in the tank - must have made it back to the garage on fumes.)

Saturday afternoon we headed for test & tune. On the first run, it was okay when I first hit it, but as RPMs started to rise, it was obviously lacking. So, I went to 87/95 jets (for some reason, my kit only had one 86 jet), and it was still weak. Next step was 90/95, much better but still not crisp through the RPM range, so I finally ended up 90/97 before I had to call it a day. The result, with really crappy weather (30 mph head winds, 8400' density altitude), was best at altitude ET & MPH, 13.40 & 100.46, respectively.

I also had a best-ever-at-any-altitude 60', 1.708. Previous altitude 60's were in the 1.85 range, sea level 1.75. However, that 1.708 was the first run, the engine temp was about 190 degrees (I always ran at 160 with gas, any higher than 170 and it was DOA), but that was also the first run and the worst ET & MPH of the day (and the strongest head wind). I'd blame the wind, but it was obviously laboring to gain RPMs in 1st gear before wind would become a factor. After that, I fell back into old habits and had it around 160-170 degrees, and 60's were consistent 1.85-1.86. If I can get it through my head that ethanol likes heat, perhaps the 60' will drop back down there.

Disclaimer: The gasoline jetting was probably a little lean as well, since I also changed from a 270 hydraulic .510 lift cam to a 282 solid .598 lift cam. This translates roughly as going from a 396 to a 427, all other things being equal. So, my jetting issues can't all be blamed on the E85.

Mike Tritle

Your experience was quite similar to my first test session. Confirms every combination is different!

Did you do anything with ignition timing? What compression are you running? Also, are you sure the fuel you got was indeed 85% or the lesser winter blend of 70%-75%?

I suspect you got the good stuff as the winter blend would have caused you to be richer. Also you've learned that the CHT absolutely MUST be hotter than with gas. The evaporative cooling effect on the intake along with the high oxygen content of ethanol also affects the actual air/fuel ratio requirement.

I have 90's in my carb ready for the next test soon as we have real 85%. Suppliers say May 1. I started with 72 on gas. (650 CFM, 365 CID)

Sounds like you're getting on to it!

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I kept timing where it was before (38 total mechanical). I didn't try adjusting that. Although I'll have to admit I know exactly where TDC is on this new damper, but never verified it with the original 1966 damper that had been on it before. It might want more advance.

Compression is about 10:1, something that I haven't rigorously verified, either.

I'm assuming, from the way it ran, that the fuel is 85%. Plugs stayed clean. It also got cooler on the return road, even with a tail wind (on the return road - that's a head wind on the track), which it has never done before. How much alcohol it takes to do that, I don't know. But, it's nice.

It seemed a little flat in the last two runs from about 4500-5500 RPMs, then was picking back up again before the shift at 6200. I don't know if that's because I didn't have it warm enough, or if it still wants more fuel. Guess we'll find that out next time.

Mike Tritle

Timing would be good if that's actually where it was. Alcohol is a slower burning fuel so you can advance until it slows down or won't start.

10-1 is, believe it or not, a bit low. If I were to build one specifically for E85 I would go 12 or 12.5 minimum.

Keep after it, you'll get there!

ditchbangr

iTrader: (1)

Five7kid, were the air temps quite a bit cooler with your testing with the e85 vs. gasoline? Maybe a reason you needed more than the 147%.

There has been alot of good info in this thread.

Mike Tritle

Density altitude:412'
Ambient Temp: 66F
Humidity: 51%
Barometer: 30.1

Jetting: 86 Square (w/power valves at both ends)
Squirter: 37
Ttl Advance: 36@1800

I use this site for density altitude calculation: Engine Tuning Calculator - absolute pressure

How close was your weather to this?

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I didn't record all of the data because I was fairly certain with the winds that were blowing that day that it wouldn't mean much in the future. I did check the weather station when we got there, it was 8400', and before we left, when it was 8200'. The temp was about 55-60 degrees, the BP was probably low because of the weather system that blew through overnight, and the humidity was high for here for the same reason.

The last gasoline run last fall was ~6700' DA, temp around 50 degrees, humidity low, BP up.

Teeleton

What about spraying nitrous on an E85 tune? I assume you would need a bigger fuel pill, but would the same 147% ratio work?

Teeleton

Mike Tritle

You got it. I would start at 150% and round up just to be conservatve. Nitrous would remain same as gas.

I've also thought that perhaps less nitrous could be used because of the oxygen carried by the Ethanol.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I actually had 89's in the primaries. I put jet extensions in the secondaries, jetted up to 92 in the primaries, fixed a vacuum leak. It seems happier, but 4-corner idle would probably help with this cam.

I hope to get back to T&T Saturday for another shot at it.

CamaroRog

I am about to begin building a mild 350 and all of this is really interesting. If I built the motor with a 12.0:1 CR and ran E85 how much more actual power would I get as opposed to running a 9.0:1 CR on pump gas? I was thinking maybe just 300 to 350hp due to mileage concerns as I will drive it often. So how much would E85 up the power on the same motor but with 12:1 CR as opposed to a 9.0:1? I'm really thinking of this since the stuff is so cheap around here and if it offers more power for the buck then its a great deal too. Thanks.

Mike Tritle

Given the energy content of Ethanol vs. Gas, the physics show you will see a tad more HP with E85 over gas with the higher compression. How much will depend on the rest of the combination but you can see why you'll increase power by looking at the specs. I'm only at 9.8 and my corrected numbers indicated an increase in power and I haven't optomized the tune up yet.

BTU/Gallon is the measure of energy in a specific quantitiy of a substance.
Gasoline: 115,000
E85: 81,850
E85 @ 147% quantity for comparison to gasoline
120,320

That means comparing stoich mixtures for gas and E85, you will have 5320 BTU more stored energy with E85 than gasoline. More BTU = more potential HP and TQ.

Also, ethanol requires more heat to vaporize.
Gasoline: 900 BTU/Gal
E85: 2100 BTU/Gal
What this means is ethanol absorbs 2.33 times as much heat from the intake than gasoline. Your engine will see a much colder, denser air charge than with gas. Also, ethanol contains oxygen so as you enrichen the mixture you add combustion supporting oxygen. This explains why my jetting is now ridiculously richer than the 147% baseline.

I have spoken with a racer who is running 16-1 compression and is having no problems with detonation. The slow burning caracteristics of Ethanol seem to belie the octane numbers in the specs.

Build it and go for it!

CamaroRog

well since im building the motor anyway I thought I could just have the heads machined down for proper compression if I wanted to go the e85 route. Obviously its not quite that simple but I havent ordered any parts for it yet anyways. Basically I'm trying to see the feasability here, is it really worth it since I now have the choice beforehand to go e85 or regular. Lets say i make 300hp with the unmachined heads and a 9:1 CR what will happen if I machine the heads down to make 14:1 or 15:1 CR. How much more power is involved there, just a ballpark, because obviously i cant drive pump gas on a 15:1 CR so I just want to make sure its worth it before I go too crazy.

Mike Tritle

The increase in available energy (BTU) is 4.6% so you should expect a 4.6% increase in power. It could be more if your combination allows for more fuel (richer mixture) then the baseline 147% over gas. I think mine will and I've already seen an increase in power based on the corrected ET numbers based on weather.

For a street engine, however, I would stay conservative unless you are sure to have a steady supply of E85 and you plan to stay local for now. E85 will become more and more available in time so the odds of running low on fuel and having to take chances with pump gas with high compression will get lower with time as well.

If I were doing what I did in winter 00 I would have gone with the compression around 12.5-1 and dedicated the engine to E85 fuel.

CamaroRog

I understand the 4.6% increse in btu due to the jetting, but how much more power does going from 9.0:1 CR to 15:1 CR using E85 give, doesnt need to be exact just a ballpark.

Mike Tritle

Hmmm, not sure. Now I understand the question better. I do know this, the increase is dependent on the efficiency of the total combination. Cam profiles, rod ratio, bore/stroke ratio, etc. All contribute to the ability to utilize the capability of the fuel to make heat at the right time for best power.

Simply stated, however, with high octane fuel, higher compression will make higher cylinder pressure and make more power.

CamaroRog

Does anyone else have any idea? I dont want to waste money and time building a motor with an extremely high CR that can only use 100 octane race fuel or E85 unless i get a significant amount of extra power out of it. What kind of power is gained by raising compression from say 9:1 to 14:1 assuming you use a fuel to prevent knocking like race gas or E85, all i need is a ballpark here so I can decide weather its worth the money or not. I dont want to waste moeny on something that will only give me 20hp, but if it gives significantly more I may go for it, all I need is a ballpark figure here.

theboilermaker

Not sure on the power gains, but I would expect to see alot more E85 stations in the area soon. At least I am hoping good ole indiana pulls through for us. With premium going above 3.20 today this thread went from interesting to feasable. I am thinkning about buying a salvage cc qjet and getting it ready to run e85. Then when I buy new heads I will get something with a nice small chamber for 12-13:1 CR. I'm seeing the extra power as a bonus to paying only ~2.00 for a gallon