Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

good news guys!

as halle informed me, e85 is now available at the pump for 109c @ fueltown southland!

i have contacted the store and spoken to the manager, and the fuel is supplied by powerplus. the fuel is also a 91/ethanol blend like united's

http://www.powerplusfuel.com.au/

after speaking to geoff, he informed me that getting the fuel from csr was impossible as the big fuel companies have signed contracts for the next 6 months preventing anyone else purchasing e85, however they are not using it themselves... and the contracts are probably going to get renewed.

the fuel, is selling at a rate of only 300l per week, so c'mon guys, lets go help 'em out!

i'll be filling up and testing later this week, and will post results when done.

yeah, we have it for 99c @ united, as they use csr...

but csr stuff cant be used due to contracts, so fueltown are getting it from powerplus, which are a smaller mob and cant match the price :P

but hell... its less than half the distance and at least 10 times more defect friendly

  • 2 weeks later...

As I'm in the final stages of the planning my engine build I have been doing a lot of research on what compression ratio is best for a dual 98 (street use) and E85 (track use). Just curious as to what are people running on dedicated E85 cars? And whether people have thought forward a little and decked the head and running a slightly thicker head gasket to get their desired CR, then all you have to do is get a thinner gasket when E85 becomes more available and you want to run it solely on E85?

I think a 9.5 compression ratio would be good for a dual setup. use 98 for street stuff then take e85 to the track.

I think that would be good (most other people are recommending me 8.7 at the highest), as it allows you take advantage of the extra torque throughout the rev range but will limit your max boost level due to knock setting in earlier. However I guess it all depends what you want to use the car for, and in my case it's circuit so response over max power is what I want.

A bit of light reading for those who want to get technical with CR's. Hopefully this will be insightful to others as it was for me. Original post is at http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51059

Is it better to increase the static CR or boost pressure. There are a couple reasons why supercharged or turbocharged engines run lower static compression ratios. A static CR in the range of 8-9 is very common. Here are a couple considerations.

Consideration #1

Heat from compression by a supercharger or turbo can be removed (for the most part) through use of an intercooler. Heat from compression within the cylinder cannot. Also, the cylinder pressure at the end of the compression stroke (prior to ignition) goes up exponentially with an increase in static compression ratio, versus a linear increase with boost pressure. Therefore, increasing the static CR is going to unavoidably push you closer to the knock limit for a given fuel. In other words, the octane requirement goes up more by increasing the static CR than it does by increasing boost.

For example, increasing the static CR from 8.5 to 9.5 increases the temperature within the cylinder at the end of the compression stroke (but before ignition) by ~63°F, (assuming IAT2 = 130°F and ideal adiabatic compression with γ = Cp/Cv = 1.4. I won’t bore anyone with equations. The situation doesn’t change much even if IAT2 were only, say, 100°F. In that case, the increase in temp at the end of the compression stroke goes up by ~60°F for the same increase in static CR). Also, the pressure at the end of the compression stroke (before ignition) goes up by ~97 psi from 574 psi to 671 psi, assuming atmospheric and boost pressures of 14.7 and 14 psi, respectively. On the other hand, increasing the boost pressure from 14 to 15 psi increases the outlet temp of the compressor by only ~11°F, assuming AE=60% and IAT1 = 90°F. And by further assuming an intercooler efficiency of 80%, the increase in IAT2 is only ~2°F. Hence, the increase in temp at the end of the compression stroke will hardly change at all. Also, the increase in cylinder pressure at the end of the compression stroke only goes up by ~18 psi (from 516 to 534 psi) with this increase in boost pressure.

So summarising the effects of increased temp and pressure at the end of the compression stroke for the two cases:

Increased CR from 8.5 to 9.5: ΔT = ~63°F and ΔP = ~97 psi

Increased boost from 14 to 15 psi: ΔT = ~2.4°F and ΔP = ~18 psi

A higher temp and pressure increase the likelihood of deadly preignition for a given octane fuel. And for those astute observers that know the physics I’ve applied, yes, although I’ve idealized things to keep it simple, (by not including effects such as heat loss thru the cylinder walls during the compression stroke or ignition and valve timing in the calculations), I’m sure they’ll also recognize that this doesn’t change the conclusion.

Consideration #2

Power is increased by two completely different mechanisms for the two approaches. Increasing the static compression ratio increases power via an increase in thermal-conversion efficiency. Increasing boost pressure increases power via an increase in mass-air flow rate. There’s less gain in thermal-conversion efficiency (and hence power) via an increased static CR compared to the power gain by increasing the mass-air flow rate via an increase in boost pressure. For example, increasing the static CR from 8.5 to 9.5 results in an increase in thermal-conversion efficiency (for an ideal Otto cycle) of about 3.2%. On the other hand, increasing the boost pressure from just 14 psi to 15 psi, increases the mass-air flow rate by about 3.5%. If boost pressure is increased by 2 psi, (from 14 to 16 psi), the increase in mass-air flow rate will now be more than twice that compared to the increase in thermal-conversion efficiency, (~7% vs ~3.2%), and ΔT and ΔP still won’t be as great as they are when increasing the static CR from 8.5 to 9.5. Therefore, not only can it be “safer” from the knock point of view, but a little more power is gained as well, (relatively speaking that is).

A good friend of mine built his engine solely to run on E85 and his CR is 9.5:1 has run 2.1 bar with no knock at all.

9.0:1 would be the best for both IMO.

Mine is roughly 8.7:1 i think.

I just came across an ethanol content advisor and wondering if anyone has had any experience with them at all? Some guys in Sweden are using it to automatically switch maps from 98 to E85 based on the output of the analyser, so they don't have to run their tanks dry to switch over.

Link: http://www.zeitronix.com/Products/ECA/ECA.htm

I just came across an ethanol content advisor and wondering if anyone has had any experience with them at all? Some guys in Sweden are using it to automatically switch maps from 98 to E85 based on the output of the analyser, so they don't have to run their tanks dry to switch over.

Link: http://www.zeitronix.com/Products/ECA/ECA.htm

i have a s14 customer that whants to run the flex fuel sensor (not interested in the content advisor), just waiting on the parts atm (not cheap). we are just using the 0-5v inputs on the ecu to get it working. will be interesting.

the mob at southland gave me some details to the garage next door, some guy name tom :banana:, who will be doing flex fuel conversions... didn't get any specifics last time i filled up.

reckon the Nistune will handle a 'flex' option Trent?

Im running E85 full time, loving it

Km per $ comparison works out to be about the same with 98 PULP

Just hoping it would be more widely available in sydney

Iv heard that Holden are bringing out an E85 commo this year so this should force availability to increase i think

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • As discussed in the previous post, the bushes in the 110 needed replacing. I took this opportunity to replace the castor bushes, the front lower control arm, lower the car and get the alignment dialled in with new tyres. I took it down to Alignment Motorsports on the GC to get this work done and also get more out of the Shockworks as I felt like I wasn't getting the full use out of them.  To cut a very long story short, it ended up being the case the passenger side castor arm wouldn't accept the brand new bush as the sleeve had worn badly enough to the point you could push the new bush in by hand and completely through. Trying a pair of TRD bushes didn't fix the issue either (I had originally gone with Hardrace bushes). We needed to urgently source another castor arm, and thankfully this was sourced and the guys at the shop worked on my car until 7pm on a Saturday to get everything done. The car rides a lot nicer now with the suspension dialled in properly. Lowered the car a little as well to suit the lower profile front tyres, and just bring the car down generally. Eternally thankful for the guys down at the shop to get the car sorted, we both pulled big favours from our contacts to get it done on the Saturday.  Also plugged in the new Stedi foglights into the S15, and even from a quick test in the garage I'm keen to see how they look out on the road. I had some concerns about the length of the LED body and whether it'd fit in the foglight housing but it's fine.  I've got a small window coming up next month where I'll likely get a little paint work done on the 110 to remove the rear wing, add a boot wing and roof wing, get the side skirt fixed up and colour match the little panel on the tail lights so that I can install some badges that I've kept in storage. I'm also tempted to put in a new pair of headlights on the 110.  Until then, here's some more pictures from Easter this year. 
    • I would put a fuel pressure gauge between the filter and the fuel rail, see if it's maintaining good fuel pressure at idle going up to the point when it stalls. Do you see any strange behavior in commanded fuel leading up to the point when it stalls? You might have to start going through the service manual and doing a long list of sensor tests if it's not the fuel system for whatever reason.
    • Hi,  Just joined the forum so I could share my "fix" of this problem. Might be of use to someone. Had the same hunting at idle issue on my V36 with VQ35HR engine after swapping the engine because the original one got overheated.  While changing the engine I made the mistake of cleaning the throttle bodies and tried all the tricks i could find to do a throttle relearn with no luck. Gave in and took it to a shop and they couldn't sort it. Then took it to my local Nissan dealership and they couldn't get it to idle properly. They said I'd need to replace the throttle bodies and the ecu probably costing more than the car is worth. So I had the idea of replacing the carbon I cleaned out with a thin layer of super glue and it's back to normal idle now. Bit rough but saved the car from the wreckers 🤣
    • After my last update, I went ahead with cleaning and restoring the entire fuel system. This included removing the tank and cleaning it with the Beyond Balistics solution, power washing it multiple times, drying it thoroughly, rinsing with IPA, drying again with heat gun and compressed air. Also, cleaning out the lines, fuel rail, and replacing the fuel pump with an OEM-style one. During the cleaning process, I replaced several hoses - including the breather hose on the fuel tank, which turned out to be the cause of the earlier fuel leak. This is what the old fuel filter looked like: Fuel tank before cleaning: Dirty Fuel Tank.mp4   Fuel tank after cleaning (some staining remains): Clean Fuel Tank.mp4 Both the OEM 270cc and new DeatschWerks 550cc injectors were cleaned professionally by a shop. Before reassembling everything, I tested the fuel flow by running the pump output into a container at the fuel filter location - flow looked good. I then fitted the new fuel filter and reassembled the rest of the system. Fuel Flow Test.mp4 Test 1 - 550cc injectors Ran the new fuel pump with its supplied diagonal strainer (different from OEM’s flat strainer) and my 550cc injectors using the same resized-injector map I had successfully used before. At first, it idled roughly and stalled when I applied throttle. Checked the spark plugs and found that they were fouled with carbon (likely from the earlier overly rich running when the injectors were clogged). After cleaning the plugs, the car started fine. However, it would only idle for 30–60 seconds before stalling, and while driving it would feel like a “fuel cut” after a few seconds - though it wouldn’t fully stall. Test 2 – Strainer swap Suspecting the diagonal strainer might not be reaching the tank bottom, I swapped it for the original flat strainer and filled the tank with ~45L of fuel. The issue persisted exactly the same. Test 3 – OEM injectors To eliminate tuning variables, I reinstalled the OEM 270cc injectors and reverted to the original map. Cleaned the spark plugs again just in-case. The stalling and “fuel cut” still remained.   At this stage, I suspect an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, caused during the cleaning process. This has led me to look into getting Frenchy’s fuel hanger and replacing the unit entirely. TL;DR: Cleaned and restored the fuel system (tank, lines, rail, pump). Tested 550cc injectors with the same resized-injector map as before, but the car stalls at idle and experiences what feels like “fuel cut” after a few seconds of driving. Swapped back to OEM injectors with original map to rule out tuning, but the issue persists. Now suspecting an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, possibly cause by the cleaning process.  
×
×
  • Create New...