[Jake@MOTIV]

Just to throw my .02 into the ring.

Through the time and testing I have done with different mixes prior to putting any e85 blend tunes on customer cars - I have found that a 35% total ethanol content is actually pretty efficient. You can go 50/50 or any blend you want - however you would be surprised (this isn't directed at OP or anyone in particular / just a general statement) how far say 5 gallons of e85 and 10 gallons of e10 (93 or 91 octane) will get you.

Even putting the science behind e85 aside - sitting on the dyno and using the tq curve and logs - the car can handle a great power curve starting at even throwing a 20% total ethanol content blend in the car.

EDIT: ONLY REFERENCING STOCK TURBO SETUPS

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by I3ossman

Thank you very much

Would my car (fbo except fmic) benefit much more if i were to run 50% vs. the 30/70 mix i already ran on the stage 2+ fmic sport cobb map? Any obvious reason i couldn't just run the aggressive map, the logs looked perfect on the sport map.

If you are getting some corrections on an aggressive map - throwing 2 gallons of e85 into your tank and filling the rest with 93 octane will rid the corrections and give you the full power a stg2+ OTS map will make. I wouldn't run more than that for an OTS 2+ map. If you want to make table changes to draw more power than you will want a little more e85 but honestly 50/50 is even more than I typically go.

EDIT: ONLY REFERENCING STOCK TURBO SETUPS

[ChuckD05]

sub'd

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Jake@PTF

If you are getting some corrections on an aggressive map - throwing 2 gallons of e85 into your tank and filling the rest with 93 octane will rid the corrections and give you the full power a stg2+ OTS map will make. I wouldn't run more than that for an OTS 2+ map. If you want to make table changes to draw more power than you will want a little more e85 but honestly 50/50 is even more than I typically go.

EDIT: ONLY REFERENCING STOCK TURBO SETUPS

People might infer that PTF is saying 50/50 is higher than "necessary" on stock turbos. You're right that 20% mix will usually allow for a "120 load column" peak timing curve with little or no corrections with an aggressive boost curve on stock turbos.

What you're missing, and may not have had the opportunity to tune for yet, is 20% vs 100% on the same timing and boost. I bet you're leaving about 20-30 wtq on the table with 20% clear across the power band compared to straight corn and the difference in thermal energy as I discussed above. You slid a "on the dyno" comment to imply your real world experience trumps the white paper talk, amiright?

To see this as a quantifiable gain you really need to run say 20%, then 100% back to back which is what I've done, and I saw marked gains in torque (5-8%) but with the lean condition I've stopped in my tracks. I really should post that comparo. Comparing 20% to 50% - you're flying in that margin-of-error altitude where the fuel looks like it's just there to clean up timing.

There's greener pastures at 100% my friends.

[SuPerNeT]

Originally Posted by dfv2

People might infer that PTF is saying 50/50 is higher than "necessary" on stock turbos. You're right that 20% mix will usually allow for a "120 load column" peak timing curve with little or no corrections with an aggressive boost curve on stock turbos.

What you're missing, and may not have had the opportunity to tune for yet, is 20% vs 100% on the same timing and boost. I bet you're leaving about 20-30 wtq on the table with 20% clear across the power band compared to straight corn and the difference in thermal energy as I discussed above. You slid a "on the dyno" comment to imply your real world experience trumps the white paper talk, amiright?

To see this as a quantifiable gain you really need to run say 20%, then 100% back to back which is what I've done, and I saw marked gains in torque (5-8%) but with the lean condition I've stopped in my tracks. I really should post that comparo. Comparing 20% to 50% - you're flying in that margin-of-error altitude where the fuel looks like it's just there to clean up timing.

There's greener pastures at 100% my friends.

I hear that! We should get some Dyno comparo to prove this tho. Pure E85 should put you on a whole different timing strategy compared to the aggressive 93 map.

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by dfv2

People might infer that PTF is saying 50/50 is higher than "necessary" on stock turbos. You're right that 20% mix will usually allow for a "120 load column" peak timing curve with little or no corrections with an aggressive boost curve on stock turbos.

What you're missing, and may not have had the opportunity to tune for yet, is 20% vs 100% on the same timing and boost. I bet you're leaving about 20-30 wtq on the table with 20% clear across the power band compared to straight corn and the difference in thermal energy as I discussed above. You slid a "on the dyno" comment to imply your real world experience trumps the white paper talk, amiright?

To see this as a quantifiable gain you really need to run say 20%, then 100% back to back which is what I've done, and I saw marked gains in torque (5-8%) but with the lean condition I've stopped in my tracks. I really should post that comparo. Comparing 20% to 50% - you're flying in that margin-of-error altitude where the fuel looks like it's just there to clean up timing.

There's greener pastures at 100% my friends.

My apologies for coming off as though I was ignoring many white paper issues. The benefits of e85 are far beyond my quick and dirty explanations up top. I can get into detail with the benefits of e85 beyond what I mentioned, how on a direct injection motor the benefits are even greater beyond a port injection motor (mostly just amplifying the cooling and precision of how DI works more efficiently over PI to begin with), etc. I was simply stating that for the daily user running an OTS map, or a slightly modified map it works great at low mixes.

There are alot of things to consider when running e85. A lot of the community has cars that are already seeing higher mileage. There are lots of things to consider when going above a moderate blend. I wasn't trying to spark an argument, was not trying to be rude, simply expressing that for the majority of the everyday person looking to make a little more power - you don't need much. For the person looking to run 100% (and this is pure opinion) it may not be the best idea. Now I base this off the notion that a lot of the community has vehicles that have seen 50000+ miles and the fact that our fuel lines, pumps, etc are not technically built for ethanol. On top of that - they have been worn down and aged. Exposing them to ethanol at this point is fairly different than exposing them when they were still in new condition.

I commend you for your time, research, willingness, etc. to go into depth on this. You are definately a smart guy. I have ZERO negatives or criticisms towards you at all. It is a welcomed relief to see someone think for themselves and venture into new territory for this specific platform. I was simply trying to ground some of the readers so that they understood that small blends are okay, there are issues that come with running moderate to high blends or straight e85. The amount of power I have been extracting with 35% or less blends seems to impress everyone who has gotten these tunes from me. 40, 50, 60+whp gains over OTS 1+ and 2+ maps simply by custom tuning for such mild blends (and many with lower boost across the curve).

I promise I have not missed anything in my testing. I simply did not go into detail. I have been working with e85 on multiple platforms including other DI based vehicles as well as PI vehicles.

Hope this clears up everything. I wasn't coming in here to disagree or argue - simply express my opinions.

[dfv2]

Good deal Jake. Consummate pro! Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail and I of course have a ton of respect for you and Dz. I'm a stickler for OP topic continuity, and when a well-respected tuner drops a "20%-is-enough" bomb in my 100% ATR thread I get all "don't talk to my kid like that".

I do however fully encourage some 100% E85 research talk. Got logs, dyno plots, tuning strategy, LPFP opinions, etc, to share regarding straight corn?

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by dfv2

Good deal Jake. Consummate pro! Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail and I of course have a ton of respect for you and Dz. I'm a stickler for OP topic continuity, and when a well-respected tuner drops a "20%-is-enough" bomb in my 100% ATR thread I get all "don't talk to my kid like that".

I do however fully encourage some 100% E85 research talk. Got logs, dyno plots, tuning strategy, LPFP opinions, etc, to share regarding straight corn?

Shoot me an email jhershorin@protuningfreaks.com. It is all for public knowledge I just prefer most of these things come out from members and not vendors as we all know what happens when a vendor posts things up.

[805beemer]

Originally Posted by Jake@PTF

Just to throw my .02 into the ring.

Through the time and testing I have done with different mixes prior to putting any e85 blend tunes on customer cars - I have found that a 35% total ethanol content is actually pretty efficient. You can go 50/50 or any blend you want - however you would be surprised (this isn't directed at OP or anyone in particular / just a general statement) how far say 5 gallons of e85 and 10 gallons of e10 (93 or 91 octane) will get you.

Even putting the science behind e85 aside - sitting on the dyno and using the tq curve and logs - the car can handle a great power curve starting at even throwing a 20% total ethanol content blend in the car.

EDIT: ONLY REFERENCING STOCK TURBO SETUPS

Can you elaborate on why you say "only referencing stock turbo setups" Is that because you have yet to test higher concentrations of e85 on rb's, asr, or td turbos? If you could run 100% e85 successfully what is the max timing someone could run. I see shiv is now running 15-16 degrees at redline on a 60% ethanol content, could one go higher than that with 100%?

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by 805beemer

Can you elaborate on why you say "only referencing stock turbo setups" Is that because you have yet to test higher concentrations of e85 on rb's, asr, or td turbos? If you could run 100% e85 successfully what is the max timing someone could run. I see shiv is now running 15-16 degrees at redline on a 60% ethanol content, could one go higher than that with 100%?

It all depends on the MBT given the fuel boost afr etc.

I am yet to tune an e85 RB Turbo car. I will be doing a 1m with RB's coming up this weekend and next week - but I do not think the owner is interested in e85.

As for what Shiv is doing - everyone does things different. I am running 35ish percent ethanol in my tank and in some areas I am more aggressive and in some areas he is more aggressive. Doesn't mean someone is doing it better or someone is doing it worse. Just different approaches.

When you run high ethanol contents you will want to think about preventative maintenance (speaking from experience on other platforms - but I doubt early or even late n54's have lines and pumps made with fuel components like lines and pumps that are durable in high ethanol content). Newer cars with less miles and wear on their lines and pumps may be better off but all these cars with 60k+ miles have lines with microfissures and cracks and wear.

I am a very conservative person by nature. I run the least aggressive setup I need to hit my hp/tq goals (no matter how aggressive these goals may be).

[805beemer]

Originally Posted by Jake@PTF

It all depends on the MBT given the fuel boost afr etc.

I am yet to tune an e85 RB Turbo car. I will be doing a 1m with RB's coming up this weekend and next week - but I do not think the owner is interested in e85.

As for what Shiv is doing - everyone does things different. I am running 35ish percent ethanol in my tank and in some areas I am more aggressive and in some areas he is more aggressive. Doesn't mean someone is doing it better or someone is doing it worse. Just different approaches.

When you run high ethanol contents you will want to think about preventative maintenance (speaking from experience on other platforms - but I doubt early or even late n54's have lines and pumps made with fuel components like lines and pumps that are durable in high ethanol content). Newer cars with less miles and wear on their lines and pumps may be better off but all these cars with 60k+ miles have lines with microfissures and cracks and wear.

I am a very conservative person by nature. I run the least aggressive setup I need to hit my hp/tq goals (no matter how aggressive these goals may be).

So one could assume that with all fuel components, pumps, ect in tip top shape and or new that on 100% e85 you could raise timing a little more than shiv, or am I just being unrealistic? I see Cloud Connected got a protune by you guys on 93+ meth and is running up to 14.5 degrees of timing. Is that the most you would feel comfortable running?

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by 805beemer

So one could assume that with all fuel components, pumps, ect in tip top shape and or new that on 100% e85 you could raise timing a little more than shiv, or am I just being unrealistic? I see Cloud Connected got a protune by you guys on 93+ meth and is running up to 14.5 degrees of timing. Is that the most you would feel comfortable running?

Pin it to the wall. Jake, I give you a typical N54 with a 50/50 mix, summer E85 and top tier 93. Car is FBO and runs well.

Equiv AFR is a flat 12, boost peaks to 18 at a load of roughly 180 and sags from there as normal.

What does the MBT timing advance look like 3-7krpm?

*logs into gmail in advance*

[str8shot]

I hope I'm not jumping off topic here - since this was an ATR E85 discussion originally.

Anyone have a how-to on tuning for say, ~25-30% E85?

Is it as simple as loading a OTS map (in my case, stage 1 agg) and adjusting the fuel scaler to correspond to the table Cobb provided at the end of the ATR help guide?

What should be logged at that point to make sure nothing is being pushed too far?

I'm new to Cobb. Was on Dinan S2 up until yesterday.

I've been throwing 1.25 gallons E85 in at each fill for roughly 2 months, with the remainder 93 to just help timing on the Dinan (and now Cobb OTS) map. Equals roughly a ~9% mix.

It seems like it'd be beneficial to try a higher concentration whilst adjusting the scaler accordingly.

Just looking for some free power...

[Carl Morris]

If you run more E85 a lot of the free power is in the timing map. Not sure how much you can add at 10%, the least I've run is 20%.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Jake@PTF

As for what Shiv is doing - everyone does things different. I am running 35ish percent ethanol in my tank and in some areas I am more aggressive and in some areas he is more aggressive. Doesn't mean someone is doing it better or someone is doing it worse. Just different approaches.

Could you elaborate on who is being more aggressive in what areas? Also, would you mind posting any dyno results a custom tuned cars running E85?

When you run high ethanol contents you will want to think about preventative maintenance (speaking from experience on other platforms - but I doubt early or even late n54's have lines and pumps made with fuel components like lines and pumps that are durable in high ethanol content). Newer cars with less miles and wear on their lines and pumps may be better off but all these cars with 60k+ miles have lines with microfissures and cracks and wear.

Have you Protuned any car running a strong mix of e85 (say 50% or more)? I'm genuinely curious and not trying to start any drama.

[str8shot]

Originally Posted by Carl Morris

If you run more E85 a lot of the free power is in the timing map. Not sure how much you can add at 10%, the least I've run is 20%.

I want to run ~20-30% for now.

My question was -

Can I simply change the fuel scaler for the OTS map in ATR, using the Cobb provided table, and what to log to look for trouble.

[enrita]

Originally Posted by str8shot

I want to run ~20-30% for now.

My question was -

Can I simply change the fuel scaler for the OTS map in ATR, using the Cobb provided table, and what to log to look for trouble.

yes, add STFT to the std. logging param.

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by str8shot

I hope I'm not jumping off topic here - since this was an ATR E85 discussion originally.

Anyone have a how-to on tuning for say, ~25-30% E85?

Is it as simple as loading a OTS map (in my case, stage 1 agg) and adjusting the fuel scaler to correspond to the table Cobb provided at the end of the ATR help guide?

What should be logged at that point to make sure nothing is being pushed too far?

I'm new to Cobb. Was on Dinan S2 up until yesterday.

I've been throwing 1.25 gallons E85 in at each fill for roughly 2 months, with the remainder 93 to just help timing on the Dinan (and now Cobb OTS) map. Equals roughly a ~9% mix.

It seems like it'd be beneficial to try a higher concentration whilst adjusting the scaler accordingly.

Just looking for some free power...

That isn't a high enough concentration to even require changes to the OTS mapping for fueling. You can adjust the scalar to see more gasoline-like trims though, and the scalar chart at the end of the PDF is pretty accurate from my experience.

Log STFT and AFR, log both banks at first, figure out which bank sees more STFT%, and log than bank only to take advantage of the 2 extra log parameters. Look for AFR's off target and STFT above 25% (they max at 34%).

You will likely be able to run much more timing advance, especially if you're also running 93 octane. I wouldn't shy away from starting with the OTS Stg2 Agg 130 load column timing copied to all higher load columns for the RPM's over 2500 or so (wherever your spool mode exits back into the main table). That's going to net you the majority of the "free power" you seek. With ATR why punk out with 30% E85? Run 50% summer blend and you'll be boost limited for power if you're a casual couple-pulls-here-and-there kinda guy.