Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah the thizzle figure is very questionable, i would take it with a grain of salt

its the only 300kw GT-RS ive ever seen so wouldnt even use it as comparison

it must have some other mods we dont know about, ie diff gears, different gear ratios, different dyno settings

could be a million things, wouldnt worry too much

most GT-RS's make 260kw and cap there

but the main benefit of the GT-RS is the average power and response

  • Replies 489
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Has this question been addressed? Also, what is the equivalent PULP RON (if such a comparison can be made)?

a few motors have been pulled down with no ill effects. e85 also loses power before the knock becomes serious so the tune isn't as much of a knife edge as pulp.

people have been claiming a ron figure of 108-110

a few motors have been pulled down with no ill effects. e85 also loses power before the knock becomes serious so the tune isn't as much of a knife edge as pulp.

people have been claiming a ron figure of 108-110

I like that RON. Sounds very promising. The only thing i have heard is the 10% ethanol stuff can foul up plugs on some cars. I personally never had any issues running boost98 from united in the vl or the 32. Both cars just chewed through it alot quicker.

well the tank is at 1/4 full (my standard refill point) and i have done 220k's, nomally i get 320...

so in essence.... if the price of e85 2/3 of the price of 98 then you are getting a free power increase..... and if its below 2/3 you are actually SAVING $$$

good result, how much timing did you settle on at full load and what afr?

sorry... forgot bout this one

timing 39deg (decided to look @ hand cont... lol)

afr's cant remember the exact figure

my filter flowed fine after 6 months use, I think each car will be different, mates blocked up after only a few months, pull it off and blow thru it, compare to a new one!

Edited by 180or200

I have been very keen to jump onto the e85 band wagon, and have followed this and another similar thread. My big question or thing I would be interested to see...is both tunes one on 98 and other on e85 with same power outputs.

It is proven that e85 will make more power, but how about the engine using less effort to make the same power? Less boost, less stress on components, maybe lower intake temps? then we can compare effects on engine life, fuel efficiency, engine/oil temps and see the other benefits just not more power from e85.

If you can use more timing and less boost to get the same power would you be using less fuel?

Paul.

i doubt it as my car was lean as f**k when it was first started and needed a decent whacck of fuel to compensate... also with the better response its way more tempting to put your foot down :P

just to let all you victorians know...

i rang united head orifice and asked where e85 was stocked and was told hoppers crossing AND buleen... they even gave me the bulleen address!

i went to buleen united today and the is NO e85 pump! (i asked the guy WTF and the only 2 english words he could say were "united" and "boost" lol)

so in vic atm it is ONLY hoppers crossing!

they did say there is talk of a bigger rollout soon, but not in the next few weeks

First post, so I thought it should make a contribution to the group.

Just been looking on the United Petroleum web page for locations. Noticed that the Kingsway (South Melbourne) United site is listed as stocking E85 fuel. This site is at 151 Kingsway, South Melbourne, 3205 and is listed as being open 24 hours a day - for all the night owls.

Here is a link:

http://www.unitedpetroleum.com.au/distributor-information.asp?IDstore=464

ah i didnt know that the kings way one would have E85

thats a big difference, as hoppers is homo-spec

yeah hamish the tune you have is locked, when the PFC is locked, you get 0's everywhere

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...