Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

it's weird, my united only ever really varied from 82-85 - haven't driven the car for like 3 months, so not sure what's happening at the moment...

and caltex when i was using it was always bang on 70

deffinatly looks like e85 will be in armadale shortly.

an email from united today:

Thank you for sending in your query. At this moment, we do not have an estimated time for the completion of E85 upgrades for Armadale as there are many factors changing the final date. We will announce on our website and Facebook pages when E85 does become available.

i had also asked if a few other stations would be getting e85 and there response was:

At this time, we do not have immediate plans for expanding in WA. As we have just introduced ethanol blended fuels in WA, we are expanding our E85 network nationally and have included WA in this. We will pass your request for E85 for Hamilton Hill and Melville to the appropriate department, however, for the near future; we do not have any other plans in WA.

im still uncertain if i just hold off a little bit as im in the final stages of finishing my r33 off which is running a 6 boost, gtx3076, 50mm external gate and plazmaman plenum. quite a few have advised already that the gtx3076 really does require e85 to make the most from it. eaither way if i go e85 i guess id1000's will be the go with a walbro intank e85 pump. is it true that all the rubber fuel lines will have to be replaced with teflon braided lines?

No, it's not true, the lines should last for years on ethanol.

The GTX is fine on petrol, they just like more boost than the gt's. when you go e85 you can just wind the boost up more. Still a good turbo for 2.5L, although I wouldn't want to go any bigger personally.

Finally in Armadale (First in WA) and for those not in WA, Armadale is a shit hole at the end of the earth haha

Anyway I got some, tested in test tube for about 88% ethanol, Dave tested with a Zeitronix and got E80. It's normal for the test tubes to read high yes?

Yep on the south western cnr of Brunker and Rookwood roads .

Funny you should mention concern at getting tuned for E85 or Eflex E70 . I was tuned on E70 and gave United E85 a go and yeah it felt a bit flat/lean which the Tech Edge shows . After about 50-60 km I added ~ 6L of Ultimate and after a short time my car drove almost as it had on E70 .

It's not a problem using the E85 if tuned for E70 because all you have to do is throw in a small amount of straight ULP or prefereably PULP .

If you assume Caltex is E70 and United E85 then the difference is 15% more Ethanol in E85 , to get back to "E70" you have to add the 15% ULP .

If we assume you have a 55L fuel tank then 15% is 8.25L so thats how much ULP/PULP you add to a basically empty tank before filling up with E85 to get E70 . 8 litres of petrol is close enough IMO and 4 or 2 works neatly with 1/2 or 1/4 of a tank .

Something else to think about is that adding 8 litres of straight 98ULP to 47 litres of E85 probably gives you a higher octane better quality fuel for half of the 30% petrol content than Caltex does . In a perfect world E70 would be 70% ethanol and 30% 98ULP and E85 same deal but I bet the oil Co's use whatever cheap garbage they can get away with for the "petrol" content .

I should have another look at Yagoona United because if they have 100E10 you could probably throw 10L of that in to make up the petrol content if it's cheaper than BP98 . I don't think 1 litre (1.8%) either way in a tankfull is a biggie with these high ethanol content fuels but 1 extra litre of petrol probably runs and starts a smidge better .

Cheers A .

A .

According to whitepapers I've read, the anti-knock benefits of ethanol level off above 40% ethanol content. As an experiment it would be interesting to see what a 40% ethanol / PULP remainder would give. By my calcs it's a fairly easy 30L of E85 (actual 85%) and 30L of PULP98. You then end up with 42% actual ethanol content, 8% shitty fuel and 50% PULP. As compared to a dyno run of straight E85.

More octane is not automatically better, the higher the octane the slower the fuel burns but I'm sure you can reach a point where this is detrimental. An efficient engine has the fuel burn as quickly as possible, at the right time, in a controlled fashion. So having "enough" octane is vital for the controlled fashion bit, but throwing more octane at the situation is not going to give you any benefit.

Downside being you end up looking like a chemistry student at the bowser trying to get 40% actual ethanol content when you fill up :P

Yes I note your points . Mine is thats it's not a biggie if your car was tuned on EFlex E70 and you wanted to or had to use United E85 for whatever reason .

The detonation resistance of E70 and E85 may not be so different but going from one to the other with no other change shows up as an air/fuel ratio difference . My Tech Edge display showed about 0.03-0.05 difference but I wasn't going anywhere flat out .

Now that it's available on my flightpath I am going to try United E85 with enough added PULP to make E70 just to see if anything changes drivability or consumption wise because as said I suspect the 30 or 15% "petrol" is some cheap mouthwash to bulk the volume out and make cold starting easier than with straight ethanol .

I think I remember reading on American boards that the blending petrol content was some inexpensive base stock and to be fair it may help out with tank pressurisation in warm weather . I think it's this issue that supposedly drives the change in ethanol content in some places summer to winter .

The burning question , sorry , is how well does the base rubbish burn and what does that do for fuel consumption ? Heat is where part throttle consumption is IMO and real petrol may give off more heat for the same volume of base stock rubbish so may be able to use less for the same heat .

With the right AFR E70 and E85 probably make similar power in a sane street tuned car so if you can have E70 with at least half the dino content REAL PULP can it make a difference ? I'd like to go further on a tank of fuel not just for cost reasons but range reasons .

Whats life without a challenge , cheers Adrian .

Yes I note your points . Mine is thats it's not a biggie if your car was tuned on EFlex E70 and you wanted to or had to use United E85 for whatever reason .

The detonation resistance of E70 and E85 may not be so different but going from one to the other with no other change shows up as an air/fuel ratio difference . My Tech Edge display showed about 0.03-0.05 difference but I wasn't going anywhere flat out .

Now that it's available on my flightpath I am going to try United E85 with enough added PULP to make E70 just to see if anything changes drivability or consumption wise because as said I suspect the 30 or 15% "petrol" is some cheap mouthwash to bulk the volume out and make cold starting easier than with straight ethanol .

I think I remember reading on American boards that the blending petrol content was some inexpensive base stock and to be fair it may help out with tank pressurisation in warm weather . I think it's this issue that supposedly drives the change in ethanol content in some places summer to winter .

The burning question , sorry , is how well does the base rubbish burn and what does that do for fuel consumption ? Heat is where part throttle consumption is IMO and real petrol may give off more heat for the same volume of base stock rubbish so may be able to use less for the same heat .

With the right AFR E70 and E85 probably make similar power in a sane street tuned car so if you can have E70 with at least half the dino content REAL PULP can it make a difference ? I'd like to go further on a tank of fuel not just for cost reasons but range reasons .

Whats life without a challenge , cheers Adrian .

yes Adrian all pump E85 use regular 91 ULP in the petrol portion. Only Drum E85 uses 98 PULP as the 15% petrol portion

E85 now available for you Newcastle folk.

United 114 Chelmsford Drive, Metford 2323.

Also good ole NECKNOCK too man!

Will go check out this Metford one in the next few weeks, mine was tuned on Eflex E70 so chucking it on the Jezmans dyno to check all is good with the 85 in its guts!

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...