Anyone tried E85 yet?

[enginjoe]

Originally Posted by Tommyatomic

It maddens me that people think higher octane = more power. When infact it only equals less volatility and in many cases less stored chemical energy.

Many forums need to have mandatory stickies regarding what fuel octane actually means to engine performance.

E85 Very plainly is 85% ethanol and 15% petrol. There is not to my knowledge any significant regulation on the octane rating of the 15% of E85 that is petrol.

According to wikipedia there is also E85 winter blend, which is actually E70 (70% ethanol, 30% gasoline). It makes a note (that I find ironic) that because
Winter E85 (E70) contains more petrol that MPG is much higher than with E85 so for once a winter blend fuel with beter MPG than its non-seasonal counterpart.

Wikipedia also states that E85 is mistakenly though to be 105 octane when it is infact 94-96 octane (R+M/2). It also states that E85's use in racing applications First because of its 94-96 octane rating is higher than most premium pump fuel 91-94 octane; and second because of lower intake charge temps.

I would like to point out that water/meth injection is much cheaper and far more effective than e85.

E85 would be a great performance fuel choice for ethanol purpose built engines with closer 14:1 compression and fuel-injection control systems that have a wider range of pulse widths to inject approximately 34% more fuel than a non e85 engine. E85 has a different stoichiometric ratio than pump petrol.

E85 would not be my first choice for a little bit more pep in an inline4 engine.

Glad to hear you have such good luck in your SRT4. I wonder how awesome that would have gone with 94octane and meth injection.

It's already been proven that E85 is better than pump plus meth on that platform. There is no such thing as 93 or 94 here either. 91 is it. 93 would be a nice DD fuel if it was available and common.

And it's not a little bit more power either.

[Tommyatomic]

Originally Posted by enginjoe

It's already been proven that E85 is better than pump plus meth on that platform. There is no such thing as 93 or 94 here either. 91 is it. 93 would be a nice DD fuel if it was available and common.

And it's not a little bit more power either.

I"m in British Columbia and we have 94 octane ethanol free fuel @ every single chevron. I know, I run it in my WRX.

Im looking forward to what the Focus will put out when tuned for 94 as soon as tuning is available.

[enginjoe]

:jealous:

[1turbofocus]

Tommy ... your on the right track

Tom

[inis]

Man, How did I know Tom would be in this thread lol

[shineboy]

No E85, at least not in mine... has E20-E85 with a nice little red circle around it with line through it on the gas filler neck inlet.

[..:: sleestak ::..]

I run both e85 and 93 in my forester. I have deatchworks 305 fuel pump and 850cc injectors plus a tune. For the most part I run 93 because it is more efficient for day to day driving, but e85 is just cheap racegas and should be thought of as such. I make considerably more power on my e85 tune at 20psi than I do on 93....much more. In fact we had to dial things back to 16psi because the clutch was slipping at 20...16psi still makes more than my 93oct tune. So for the money - hell yes, get the addl tune for e85 but dont rely on it day to day.

As for the argument that wmi and pump gas is better than e85 , I will say this: I dont have to worry about running a wmi tank dry when my foot is in it. And if you arent tuning for the wmi and using it as a safety, you arent going to even come close to e85.

The different classes of e85 are there for temperatures and startup. More fuel for winter, hence the e70. This is on caveat of having an e85 tune. Your tuner has to leave you that margin and cant go tuning you on the ragged edge using class1. You should never use a pump that says "Minimum 55% ethanol" unless you test it and know what you are getting, plain and simple. So there are reasons its just not practical day to day but no reason not to pay the extra $100 for the addl tune while you are on the rollers.

[vanace]

enginejoe... I am really tired of reading your lust for ethonol. Read this. It is old... but accurate. I really think your a corn farmer in disguise.
http://zfacts.com/p/436.html
1turbofocus is too profesional to say it so I will.... ethonol is a pink elephant. You get less energy per gallon, cost is high... and you need to modify existing platforms to make it work. Geez get a clue! It isn't even close to being worth the cost involved. Plus it uses up our FOOD source for crying out loud. AND it produces more smog.

[enginjoe]

1turbofocus has business doing what he does; in short, something to sell. I don't. I'm not a corn farmer. I live in Tucson, AZ and enginjoe = engineer joe. I'm a scientist and I live to learn and try new things. I've forgotten more about science than most normal people know, and I understand the chemistry of the energy we can get from gas and ethanol. I'm also a car guy, and whatever I can find to make my car better, faster or cooler, I'll try if it fits what I'm doing with that car. The politicians gave us lemons (ethanol in our fuel) and I choose to make lemonade (cheap race gas in my daily driver).

I understand that no one has done it with the ST yet and it may prove to not be very worthwhile. Until someone does, I'm interested in the outcome of the testing.

[Racing Mind]

Interesting article. http://saefuel.saejournals.org/content/2/1/670.abstract I'd be curious to learn more about e85 injected directly into the cylinder vs. the port.