Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah bang for buck it's pretty good, ( be better on E85, diff go's bang ) not bad for a daily

2 points higher, if it was actually higher, would make it run a bee's dick richer, hardly worth plugging the laptop in but!

Or get a gearbox full of third........

2 points higher i would have thought be richer too....Alls i know is that fuel will not be going in my daily ever again....E85 on the other hand hmmmm....

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well the United site lists E85 being sold only at United Tapleys, hopefully they will bring it to Salisbury, then ill seriously consider it.

http://www.unitedpetroleum.com.au/distribu...5-locations.asp

Increasing by 2 points shouldn't make it run like a POS if it ran fine on BP 98 though......different story when decreasing by the same amount.

Apart from running slightly cleaner, the only issue by not tuning to the extra 2 points would be that you would not be taking advantage of the increased octane.

I stand to be corrected by the tuning gurus though. :D

I may be wrong but thought I read the V8 supercars switched to E85 and had a world of issues until they got the tune right. I don't think the RON value is the issue, maybe it's the way the fuel burns which requires the vehicle to be tuned accordingly. I've also heard you will use a third more fuel if tuned correctly thus burning the cost advantage. So ultimately the only advantage to E85 on a standard vehicle would be your conscience effort to support the environment.

I may be wrong but thought I read the V8 supercars switched to E85 and had a world of issues until they got the tune right. I don't think the RON value is the issue, maybe it's the way the fuel burns which requires the vehicle to be tuned accordingly. I've also heard you will use a third more fuel if tuned correctly thus burning the cost advantage. So ultimately the only advantage to E85 on a standard vehicle would be your conscience effort to support the environment.

^^ not entrily true

Less knock and more power even if it uses more fuel you still get more power

yes but on gasolene more power does not always mean you're burning more fuel. Your engine will burn more E85 per Kilowatt than gasolene no matter what the tune, so the cost advantage is moot.

And FWIW I don't think the v8's changed to E85 because they get more power out of it, I think it was enviironmentaly driven............pardon the pun :D

When peeps convert to E85, cost doesn't even come into it, neither does the environment...that's just a bit of cream on the cake.

They do it purely for higher state of tune that can be achieved and extra boost that can be had without the leaning and knocking that pump gas gives you at maximum AFR's and timing.....hence more power, with only injector and fuel component upgrades needed.

My 34 has been runnig on e85 for daily duties for over 9 months now, and there is no issues once tuning and injectors and better fuel pump gets addressed.

To run this fuel you have to add the supporting mods you cant just put it in and expect more power or reliable operation. I did it properly once and the car runs the same as on pump fuel sligtly smoother at idle.

yes but on gasolene more power does not always mean you're burning more fuel. Your engine will burn more E85 per Kilowatt than gasolene no matter what the tune, so the cost advantage is moot.

And FWIW I don't think the v8's changed to E85 because they get more power out of it, I think it was enviironmentaly driven............pardon the pun ;)

Your wrong. My car would ony make 280awkw on 98premium, the day i changed to e85 the car jumped to 300kw with no tuning, and then up to 315awkw with a better tune. So yes e85 does make more power, you do burn slightly more of it, and at the end of the day dont give a hoot how much it costs, i was buying it from scotchers at 1.80 per litre but out at mallala the car is always on redline on every gear change without even the slightest misfire or anything.

Your wrong. My car would ony make 280awkw on 98premium, the day i changed to e85 the car jumped to 300kw with no tuning, and then up to 315awkw with a better tune. So yes e85 does make more power, you do burn slightly more of it, and at the end of the day dont give a hoot how much it costs, i was buying it from scotchers at 1.80 per litre but out at mallala the car is always on redline on every gear change without even the slightest misfire or anything.

that's a bit of a blanket statement, which part of my posts are wrong? To summise I've stated so far:

Yes you need to tune to suit E85

Yes you will get more power on E85

Yes you will use more fuel doing so

Yes the running costs will go up.

So what is so wrong with what I said when you just confirmed all of it.......... :rofl:

And let's not forget that I've stated all this in relation to the GP who drive street cars, not race tuned track cars.

yes but on gasolene more power does not always mean you're burning more fuel. Your engine will burn more E85 per Kilowatt than gasolene no matter what the tune, so the cost advantage is moot.

And FWIW I don't think the v8's changed to E85 because they get more power out of it, I think it was enviironmentaly driven............pardon the pun :rofl:

This bit :P

then I'll make the blanket statement and say YOU are wrong. :rofl:

The press release:

E85 fuel supplier announced

Friday 10/10/2008 13:10

Author: Briar Gunther | Source: BigPond Sport - copyright

V8s at Phillip Island

CSR Ethanol was this morning named as the official fuel supplier of the V8 Supercar Championship Series for 2009 and beyond.

V8 Supercars Australia Chairman Tony Cochrane joined Ian Glasson, the Chief Executive Officer of CSR Sugar – an associated company of CSR Ethanol - at the Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 on Friday to make the announcement.

While this year V8 Supercars use a five per cent ethanol blended fuel, next year they will run the E85 fuel which is an 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petroleum blended fuel.

The safety cars will also run on the E85 fuel, which is made from molasses (a byproduct of sugar cane).

“This is one (announcement) that I think we’re particularly proud of at V8 Supercars Australia,” Cochrane said.

“It’s not only a great day for our sport, it’s a great day for the environment, and a great day for renewable energy here in Australia.

“What we consider is one of our key roles in all of this quite frankly is to help educate over the next five years the Australian motoring public in particular.”

Glasson said E85 fuel will substantially lower the greenhouse footprint of motor racing.

“CSR Ethanol is delighted to be part of V8 Supercars to improve the environmental footprint of the sport and also to establish ethanol as a very credible fuel, not only in V8 Supercars but across the Australian motoring public,” he said.

“Every litre of E85 produces about half the greenhouse gas of traditional fuel.

“That’s a very significant improvement and not only is it sustainable but renewable.”

So not environment driven then !!!!!!!

http://envirofuel.com.au/2008/03/01/v8-sup...se-e85-in-2009/

Edited by mosoto

the teams mechanics dont give much away while looking for any advantage they can get, atm they are more interested in economy than power and since e85 can be run much leaner before shit melts thats the direction they are playing, IMO the teams who can afford to run leaner will win, triple 8 have the advantage here because they have lots $$$ and can push there engines further

V8SA's green theme doesnt seem as friendly if someone mentions performance

Your missing the point. A car wil get as much as a 40kw increase by switching to e85 over premium.

Im not fighting the fact that it is an enviro fuel. All im saying is the prformance benefits are quite large. So if you think tyres is what make horsepower in an engne than thats fine. Id rather beleive what my figures say than someones press release.

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...