Jump to content
SAU Community

United Regular E85 And 107 E85


camoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. Not true. Simply because the engine would have to built with stratospheric static compression and lots of boost to have a hope of needing all the knock resistance of normal E85 anyway. Not more than 0.01% of engines running around on E85 would be built even half that hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this then begs the question, what is the point of all of this octane rating in these fuels?

Obviously I get the E85 thing but to be doing a 107 octane version of it- why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marketing and profit margin. There is so little hydrocarbon in E85 that the marginal cost difference to the supplier is only about 15% of the marginal cost difference between 91 and P98. Yet they can probably charge ALL of the retail price difference between 91 and P98 when applying the marketing spin to E85 and 107octane E85. 6 times the extra profit makes it worth refining a little extra P98 to go into it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Maybe the theory of "under octane" ULP in the E85 is not a theory and they prefer to use a more highly refined dino like 98ULP .

I think ultimately E85 or similar is only ever going to get mainstream acceptance when you can prove to people that it works consumption wise , and to achieve that you need engines with high compression ratios . How you get around NOx emissions I don't know but I have read that direct injection engines gain more from evaporative in cylinder cooling so the higher a fuels octane the better assuming it doesn't get harder to light off like high octane petrol does .

A .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so just a bit of an up date on using the green 107 octane.

tested it and has the same ethanol content, so in the tank it goes.

Went for a 10 minute drive and parked up.

Started it up and it now runs like crap.....

Maybe, probably a coincidence..... but yeh..... my car didnt like it very much....

Also ive eliminated most other possible causes of my car running like crap, dosnt mean it is the fuel though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an issueswapping between tge two fuels. If the car is tuned right it should be able to go from 70 to 90% ethanol without any damage even at a track on either 105 or 107 . It comes down to knowing what you are running % wise whilst tuning and factoring in possible changes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found 107 needs a different coldstart map to the normal stuff. Aside from that havnt found much difference at all (will do back to back testing on a dyno in afew weeks). Was the same starting problem on 3 different cars when tuned on normal e85 then run on 107 (107 only recently became available at my local).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I was having starting issues and got sick of the increased consumption .

My local EFlex servo is getting cheap ATM so that's what I'll stock up on . Starts are much better but need to get finger out and retune the cold and hot starts because they've gotten really rich .

$1.16.9/L acceptable , cheers A .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Current brew is a 50/50 mix of E85 Lime and 98ULP . My engine was getting rough on E70 and I was beginning to wonder about the gum gunge some people get on their injector tips when using high eth fuels . I did use that ethanol fuel conditioner for a time but ultimately it didn't change the rough running much .

I started blending more ULP into the Eflex to get acceptable consumption and picked up 30L of green E85 for a 50/50 mix - as easy as splash blending gets .

Results look pretty good so far with power and general consumption . I suppose the octane would be around 102-103 which isn't far short of the old E85 but 57% of the fuel is now PULP which gives better consumption than 85% ethyl alcohol .

The down side is that Uniteds Green gut rot is a bit exy .

A .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I find it interesting that people are getting higher consumption from the 107 as well. My car was tuned on the 107 and I get very slightly better economy when I use it vs EFlex, granted I'm talking maybe 20-30ks per tank more, certainly not enough to offset the higher costs of united.

The car also feels the tiniest bit more responsive on the extremely low rpm as well with the united, like before around 2000rpm it seems smoother to take off from the lights or whatever. No idea if there is a reason for that or if its in my head.

Either way I just fill up with whatever I'm closest to when I need fuel, doesn't make much difference except price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Which is a thing done by no-one ever. Not even remotely a good idea. I would run an engine with 10:1 these days. Good management and fuel compared to the early 90s when these boat motors were designed & built.  
    • I think you misunderstand. This was Greg driving from Melb to Syd (or return) at a constant 100km/h on the highway. Very little throttle movement, very little accel/decel. You should be able to get 8.5 l/100km under those circumstances (which is effectively what he reports - 50L for 600km is 8.3 l/100km). I drive my car to & from work every day, in traffic, on a mixture of 50, 60, 90 km/h roads (and therefore at up to 110km/h!!) with traffic lights and freeway sections. 28 km each way, so about a 30-40 minute drive depending on day, direction and traffic (which is enough for the majority of the drive to be "fully warmed up". I typically get flat 10 l/100km every single week. OK, maybe 10-10.5, every single tank of fuel. RB25DET Neo. It is easy to get acceptable economy. I won't say "good" economy, because modern cars are doing 5-6 l/100km in the same conditions.
    • Superpro are fine. There are some applications (R32 FUCAs for example) where they are no damn good, but typically for any normal suspension bush, they are fine. Some people will complain of them making noise. Some people will complain of them collapsing. But many of those can probably be traced back to not properly lubing at install or other installation problems, or possibly other problems elsewhere in the suspension that put additional load into particular bush. And for the legit complaints? Meh. Deal with it. I had to replace the poly bushes in my R32 FUCAs every year. The real issue is that I am sold on the idea of adjustability of at least upper arms. So I only have spots for poly bushes in lower arms these days, as everything else is either hardened rubber or spherical steel.
    • Suspension really is complicated.... All these considerations are making me over think it all. Again. I reckon I'll wait for SK's response on his coilovers, and go from there. Though if I go MCA, I'll have to decide on whether the extra $600 (voston comforts $1890, mca pro comfort is $2490) is worth it. Just something soft and comfy, yet firm enough when required at the track or a casual old pac drive for a pie... Otherwise, anyone have experience with SuperPro bushings? Needing to replace the bushings on the suspension department... Will probably keep the oem uppercontrol arms etc, and just replace the bushings. 
    • yes you are right, indeed it is for information only.  there is not much difference being at 9 or 9.5 or 10.  but when I see that you have to plane the block by 2mm if you have taken (example) CP piston which means that you end up with an 8.2 with the rb26 cylinder head.  hence the question I ask is what would be best to achieve what he is asking me.  take pistons in 9.0 or 10.0 to avoid planing a famous 2mm on the block knowing that I worked on the dome of the cylinder head which became total hemispherical
×
×
  • Create New...