Guilt-toy Now Running On E85 !

[gtr jet]

It's not that simple with a Power FC is it?

[Piggaz]

Nah easy. I just carry a laptop with a 98 tune on it in case I have to stop for 98. It never fusses over a few litres of E85 left in the tank, and vice versa.

You'd be very surprised at just how long it takes to flush out the little bits of 98/E85. After having the sensor with the display, there would be no way in the world I'd have the "two tune/flick a switch" junk.

[Birds]

It's not that simple with a Power FC is it?

PFC is what I have and it is that simple. You just need an FC Hako or datalogit cable to connect to a laptop...but it takes me 1 minute from plugging that in, to up and running on either fuel. Ethanol tune will idle either fuel safely before switching over. For the rare times I need to switch to 98, it works a treat.

Can also run FC Co-pilot if you want some funky gauges / danger to manifold shit on your laptop.

[Birds]

You'd be very surprised at just how long it takes to flush out the little bits of 98/E85. After having the sensor with the display, there would be no way in the world I'd have the "two tune/flick a switch" junk.

Never had an issue with it. But I've also never fanged my car out of the servo straight after filling up. As long as both your tunes aren't knife edge, I don't see the problem. Tank of 98 will run a tiny bit lean and a tank of E will run a tad rich (sometimes a good thing). I was going to get an E-content sensor, but my tuner said I would be okay if I was sourcing only from United. I also had my E85 tune done with a few litres of 98 left in the tank, so the tune is technically made for it. Hasn't leaned out on me after several tanks of E85.

Flex fuel sensor is no doubt easier but I can't justify the ECU change and extra expense for how convenient I find my setup.

[Piggaz]

Never had an issue with it. But I've also never fanged my car out of the servo straight after filling up. As long as both your tunes aren't knife edge, I don't see the problem. Tank of 98 will run a tiny bit lean and a tank of E will run a tad rich (sometimes a good thing). I was going to get an E-content sensor, but my tuner said I would be okay if I was sourcing only from United. I also had my E85 tune done with a few litres of 98 left in the tank, so the tune is technically made for it. Hasn't leaned out on me after several tanks of E85.

Flex fuel sensor is no doubt easier but I can't justify the ECU change and extra expense for how convenient I find my setup.

See, there's Is a few issues here.

How do you know what E% you're actually getting out of the pump. It varies quite a lot. I've personally had e63 from Caltex and e93 from United.

The other week after busting second gear at the track I wanted to get all the E85 out of the tank. I drained the tank and put 23 litres of 98 in, that took it down e33. Drove around till it was "low", another 30 litres, that was e12. More driving, another 20 litres, that was e6. More driving, another 20, e4 then the final 30 litres was e1.

It took the best bit of 500 kms to really dilute it.

Going back to the E%, Matty from NSW copped a E35 tank from United's E85 bowser - wont happen often, but it could and has! The only way he knew was he had the sensor and display (although not a flex tune). Without it how would you know? Well you would, when you're picking up bits of piston off the road.

[Mick_o]

Id have to agree with the piggy as I have seen it 1st hand in his car the E% just doesn't move like you think/expect it to especially with the how much fuel his car requires!

Owning an evo 9 I had the option of the duel map tune on the stock ecu and was very dubious about it so I purchased a Link G4 to eventually go flex fuel and do away with the pesky AFM..

I'm currently on E85 only till the $$$ permit for the flex sensor and tune time she needs to sort the maps out.

I agree that not tuning on the edge will see you safe 99% of the time but there is always that chance of shit happening.

I also believe that tuning conservatively (to a certain degree) is not a good thing as it doesn't give you the best fuel economy or the best out of your setup. This can also still be done reliably IMO as both my cars have proven it.

Ive always had amazingly good fuel economy on E85 on both my R33 and my Evo with around the 10-15% MAX increase in consumption over 98 and even in a lot of cases my cars have been better on E85 than other guys on 98 with very similar setups.

[Birds]

See, there's Is a few issues here.

How do you know what E% you're actually getting out of the pump. It varies quite a lot. I've personally had e63 from Caltex and e93 from United.

The other week after busting second gear at the track I wanted to get all the E85 out of the tank. I drained the tank and put 23 litres of 98 in, that took it down e33. Drove around till it was "low", another 30 litres, that was e12. More driving, another 20 litres, that was e6. More driving, another 20, e4 then the final 30 litres was e1.

It took the best bit of 500 kms to really dilute it.

Going back to the E%, Matty from NSW copped a E35 tank from United's E85 bowser - wont happen often, but it could and has! The only way he knew was he had the sensor and display (although not a flex tune). Without it how would you know? Well you would, when you're picking up bits of piston off the road.

Non-issues for me. Here's why:

In your situation, I would have just filled the tank to the top with 98. Simple estimations: 5 litres of E85 left, fill the tank with 55 litres of 98. With this, it's impossible for there to be more than ~8% ethanol in the whole tank. My safe/rich 98 tune easily allows for that kind of variance; it won't lean out on <8% ethanol, which is why I've never had an issue diluting the E content in my tank and switching back to 98. You were diluting it bit by bit, and yes, that probably does take 500km (it's also a fallacy to think you're clearing ethanol from the tank any quicker that way, than just filling it to the top with 98); my method is spontaneous.

As for content at the bowser, it's true that it can never be guaranteed. But again, largely a non-issue with a safe ethanol tune and here's why: fill up with E95, my rich tune runs a little leaner than normal. Fill up with E15, my car runs too rich to even drive away from the servo (drain tank, switch back to 98, assuming that ever even happens to me). You're not going to blow engines this way and that's the reason I haven't had any problems so far. Yes, flex fuel is superior and I would do that if I didn't already have a PFC...but this way works just fine

[Birds]

Id have to agree with the piggy as I have seen it 1st hand in his car the E% just doesn't move like you think/expect it to especially with the how much fuel his car requires!

Owning an evo 9 I had the option of the duel map tune on the stock ecu and was very dubious about it so I purchased a Link G4 to eventually go flex fuel and do away with the pesky AFM..

I'm currently on E85 only till the $$$ permit for the flex sensor and tune time she needs to sort the maps out.

I agree that not tuning on the edge will see you safe 99% of the time but there is always that chance of shit happening.

I also believe that tuning conservatively (to a certain degree) is not a good thing as it doesn't give you the best fuel economy or the best out of your setup. This can also still be done reliably IMO as both my cars have proven it.

Ive always had amazingly good fuel economy on E85 on both my R33 and my Evo with around the 10-15% MAX increase in consumption over 98 and even in a lot of cases my cars have been better on E85 than other guys on 98 with very similar setups.

Mick, I don't see the point of pushing every last kw out of an engine in a daily driver. I mean each to their own and all that - bit different for track cars. A tune will forever be a compromise between power and reliability. Yes you can make a powerful tune reliable, for sure, but it will never be as reliable as actually tuning for reliability and allowing for that bigger margin of error. I gained 40rwkw in my midrange, at the same boost, with just a bit of timing when I switched to E85. That's enough for me to warrant switching over to this fuel and my economy is on par with 98, dollar for dollar. Happy camper

And yes, as said in post before this, if I was back to buying ECUs, I would likely do the flex thing just for pure convenience...so I think you made the right choice there. It's just not worth me swapping out ECUs and buying more components for an R33 GTS-T that I've already over-capitalized on haha. I don't want to spend anymore on it!

[discopotato03]

I think it comes down to having a wide band 02 sensor system at least when playing with fuels/tunes because without it you haven't got a clue what's actually going on at the time . If it was a choice of 02 or E% I'd go 02 because it well tell you rich or lean instantly and you can then do temporary map mods enough to get around . If you have both you can make modified maps to suit blend variations and then just load them to suit .

I went with Caltex E70 because it's more widely available and I'm not looking for every last wasp and Nm . probably easier to get acceptable consumption from too .

As I've said in the past I believe the only safe way to make a reliable flex tune is to blend the ethanol with ordinary 91ULP , reason being that United and Caltex won't be blending alcohol with 98 ULP and the nock rating will drop as the ULP percentage rises . I think tuners fear flex tunes because they know detonation will be a problem if they tune for E + Pulp and some idiot gasses up partly with 91/95 ULP . If The blend is E + some 91ULP percentage using higher octane ULP isn't an issue but at least you can use anything that isn't diesel if caught out . Blown engines don't give tuners good reputations so the only way they are going to be able to tune closer to the fuel in the tank is to have a known petrol content octane characteristics .

It sounds to me like safe flex tunes with protections built in are a bit self defeating when reliability is the no 1 priority , particularly for a road car .

Ahh also wide bands and E sensors can be removed if the car is bent or sold so not bad investments if you continue to be a petrol/E head .

A .

[Mick_o]

I think you misread what I was getting at. My point is Tuning with good AFR's will make the car nicer to drive and more economical as apposed to tuning for a guesstimate amount of ethanol with big allowances for varying E%.

I agree with you tuning for every last kw is silly for a street car. Probably even more so for a track car thats gunna be getting flogged all day there just has to be that margin for safety.

Mick, I don't see the point of pushing every last kw out of an engine in a daily driver. I mean each to their own and all that - bit different for track cars. A tune will forever be a compromise between power and reliability. Yes you can make a powerful tune reliable, for sure, but it will never be as reliable as actually tuning for reliability and allowing for that bigger margin of error. I gained 40rwkw in my midrange, at the same boost, with just a bit of timing when I switched to E85. That's enough for me to warrant switching over to this fuel and my economy is on par with 98, dollar for dollar. Happy camper

And yes, as said in post before this, if I was back to buying ECUs, I would likely do the flex thing just for pure convenience...so I think you made the right choice there. It's just not worth me swapping out ECUs and buying more components for an R33 GTS-T that I've already over-capitalized on haha. I don't want to spend anymore on it!

[Birds]

I think it comes down to having a wide band 02 sensor system at least when playing with fuels/tunes because without it you haven't got a clue what's actually going on at the time . If it was a choice of 02 or E% I'd go 02 because it well tell you rich or lean instantly and you can then do temporary map mods enough to get around . If you have both you can make modified maps to suit blend variations and then just load them to suit .

I went with Caltex E70 because it's more widely available and I'm not looking for every last wasp and Nm . probably easier to get acceptable consumption from too .

As I've said in the past I believe the only safe way to make a reliable flex tune is to blend the ethanol with ordinary 91ULP , reason being that United and Caltex won't be blending alcohol with 98 ULP and the nock rating will drop as the ULP percentage rises . I think tuners fear flex tunes because they know detonation will be a problem if they tune for E + Pulp and some idiot gasses up partly with 91/95 ULP . If The blend is E + some 91ULP percentage using higher octane ULP isn't an issue but at least you can use anything that isn't diesel if caught out . Blown engines don't give tuners good reputations so the only way they are going to be able to tune closer to the fuel in the tank is to have a known petrol content octane characteristics .

It sounds to me like safe flex tunes with protections built in are a bit self defeating when reliability is the no 1 priority , particularly for a road car .

Ahh also wide bands and E sensors can be removed if the car is bent or sold so not bad investments if you continue to be a petrol/E head .

A .

Wide band is a necessity if you're going to be messing with your tune, yes. Outside of this purpose, you don't really need one.

Why would someone who plans to use United or Caltex on the regular, tune on anything but the mix they get from the servo? The practice of most who want to switch to ethanol, is to get a couple jerry cans from the bowser and hand them over to your tuner. Don't see why you'd bother mixing your own 98/E mix for tuning when you know the servos are using a 91/E mix anyway.

[scotty nm35]

I think you misread what I was getting at. My point is Tuning with good AFR's will make the car nicer to drive and more economical as apposed to tuning for a guesstimate amount of ethanol with big allowances for varying E%.

I agree with you tuning for every last kw is silly for a street car. Probably even more so for a track car thats gunna be getting flogged all day there just has to be that margin for safety.

Big allowances for varying ethanol percentage? It barely makes a difference to AFR's from my experience. You guys worried about e85 quality should be shitting your pants over seasonal petrol variations...

Wide band is a necessity if you're going to be messing with your tune, yes. Outside of this purpose, you don't really need one.

Why would someone who plans to use United or Caltex on the regular, tune on anything but the mix they get from the servo? The practice of most who want to switch to ethanol, is to get a couple jerry cans from the bowser and hand them over to your tuner. Don't see why you'd bother mixing your own 98/E mix for tuning when you know the servos are using a 91/E mix anyway.

^^ This.

[Birds]

I think you misread what I was getting at. My point is Tuning with good AFR's will make the car nicer to drive and more economical as apposed to tuning for a guesstimate amount of ethanol with big allowances for varying E%.

I agree with you tuning for every last kw is silly for a street car. Probably even more so for a track car thats gunna be getting flogged all day there just has to be that margin for safety.

I don't think I read it wrong, as that is exactly the point I was responding to. I don't disagree it will be more economical and more powerful, I just don't agree with doing it. Most reputable tuners will tune with a decent margin of error, because a safe engine is a happy customer and it's not worth giving them a few more kw then having to deal with the aftermath of a popped engine. I'll take a few less kw and a few more dollars at the bowser over a popped engine and I think most would. My tune is very safe, I have another 40rwkw over PULP, and I'm dollar for dollar with PULP economy. Car drives beautifully on E85.

In theory you would want to be more sensible with a track car given the conditions, but in practice, when it comes to some who take Motorsport seriously, they will often do everything they can to get any advantage they can. Particularly in heavily homologated classes. If they can chase an extra 5rwkw out of a tune, they will! I know people who will remove every last unnecessary bolt from a vehicle just to save a a few grams of deadweight! These are the kind of people who don't really blink at the cost of replacing an engine; it's a mere inconvenience/necessity in racing. Pain in the ass when it happens, but worth the risk for the advantage.

[Birds]

I'd also like to think that United, stating the actual percentage of ethanol in the name of their ethanol fuel, will more likely guarantee the mix (save for maybe dropping it down a bit in winter for easier starting).

Caltex on the other hand, were nice enough to brand theirs E-flex aka E-whateverthehellwewant.

You'd at least have a leg to stand on if United were consistently giving you substantially less than E85 content and they were selling a product that stated otherwise in the name.

Really though, it's in the interest of servos to dish up as much ethanol as they can in the mix... It's the cheaper fuel of the two. They aren't trying to rip you off by giving you more percentage of the more expensive one. This is another reason why variance isn't an issue for me, I know corporate interests are looking after me

[Mick_o]

Lol I do think you missed my point cause at no stage did I talk about tuning for absolute power?? My point is that a good tuner knows whats safe and whats not and a good choon will be safe for your engine in all conditions but not to the point of being overly rich and blowing fuel out the ass of the car! Hence you will have reliability and decent economy still.

[discopotato03]

My point is that there are certain AFR and timing settings that will be ideal in any set of circumstances and the further away from them you are the less ideal the engines performance will be . I don't know where tuners draw the line with "safe tunes" as in how rich the actual AFRs get or how retarded the timing is .

Generally road cars with extra performance are not driven flat out often or for any length of time because the system will get you . I am talking about less than WOT driving where you can often "feel" when the fueling/timing isn't on the money . I reckon you get heaps of latitude with high eth fuels to the point where your engine can run like a total bag of shit without hurting itself . IF you can tune close to whatever brew you have at the time you should be getting smooth tractable running and good consumption relative to what's in your tank . I wouldn't be happy with a "fat tune" because I reckon isn't doing the engine any favours and throwing money out the pipe means you're spending some hours at work for zip .

A .

[B-rice]

I asked also i another thread, what filters are people using. im after a 10micron filter compatible with E85 the few ive seen arent compatible with E85.

[scotty nm35]

The last one I bought was an SX filter, 10 micron paper element.

I know Moran sell a large 2000+hp filter with 10 micron paper element, but it was around $600 when I asked the wholesaler

[B-rice]

The last one I bought was an SX filter, 10 micron paper element.

I know Moran sell a large 2000+hp filter with 10 micron paper element, but it was around $600 when I asked the wholesaler

found this on ebay i know lol. he says its a stainless steel filter capable of 10microns and thoughts or experiences?

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200968280640

[Birds]

Did I miss something...is there a special filter needed for E85?