Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm not far off making the leap into E85 territory. One deciding factor in it for me, is compatability with Caltex E85. I can't be assed travelling to the few independant servos that carry E85, they are just too far away from me. Once in a while, maybe, but not every tank. And if I run E85, I want to run it somewhat permanently.

Now, not so long ago, there were several discussions and concerns expressed within E85 related topics here on SAU - questions about whether the Caltex brew would be safe to use, given Caltex did not want to guarantee the percentage of ethanol in every tank (which was to change between 70% and 85% anyway, depending on summer and winter seasons). This is a non-issue for new cars designed to run on E85, as (from what I'm told) they used sensors to detect ethanol content and adjust fuel maps accordingly (something to that effect). So the consensus at the time of these discussions, was that unless you A. had an ECU with 3D fuel maps, B. tuned your car to run the mix straight after filling up, or C. had about 10 different tunes ready to load after filling up, you should stay away from the Caltex E85.

What are the latest thoughts on this? I ask because I was talking to a Stagea owner the other day, who claimed to use tank after tank of Caltex E85 with no issues at all. He also had a wideband O2 sensor to keep an eye on things.

  • Nope 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/355537-caltex-e85-anyone-using/
Share on other sites

I think Scotty NM35 mentioned the change in AFR's on his wideband between the 70% blend and 85% blend being f**k all, as well as the fact that if you've tuned into the sweet spot but not beyond, you won't REALLY have to worry about any damage being done.

e70 on e85 map = running slightly rich which will compensate (with some minor negative things like eventual fouling of plugs perhaps? certainly no detonation)

e85 on e70 map = running slightly lean, but theoretically shouldn't detonate due to increased ethanol content. Will run a bit shitty though, should still be relatively safe.

You're right though, it's not a gamble you can make without a wideband sensor and ability to swap maps on the spot once you see that you're running the "other" stuff. You'd also want to either have your maps somewhat conservative to compensate for a mix in e70 and e85, which could mean you'll have anything in between, or 3 maps - 70, 77.5, and 85% ethanol

  • Like 1

Im running caltex e85 no problems, got a 40kw up top and yeah in regards to the variance in ethanol content if you get it tuned to leave some margin for when the mixtures change you wont have a problem. I got it done at status and trent was confident theres no problem if the tune accounts for the change.

  • Like 1

i have used it and i know someone else from down (or up as the case may be) here that uses it. i havent noticed much change. worst case you get it tuned for E85 and run it on that tune all year round as some have commented their switch from E70-E85 made about 1 AFR difference (eg cruise of 15:1 became 16:1) where as if you are tuned on E85 and it changes to E70 it only gets richer.

  • Like 1

well basically yeah buy a WB02 to keep an eye on things, but the consensus is an E85 tune done with a little bit of wiggle room in the AFR and not 'on the edge' timing wise is fine to use with the varying caltex brew. best to talk to your tuner though and find out what he's comfortable with but personally I wouldn't be too turned off. just keep an eye on the WB02 after fill-ups and you should be fine.

  • Like 1

The conversation I had with the caltex dealer implied that whilst the ethanol content would vary between summer and winter the ron rating would not.

I am going to use wide band just to be on the safe side and some logging over a period of time should make or break what they had to say.

  • Like 2
  • Nope 5

LOL I was going to say, what's wrong with Noel's post?

Cheers for the advice, it's good to know. Think I'll get a WB sensor and conservative tune, maybe 2 switchable tunes (E70/E85) if I can afford it.

E85 here I come :D

  • Nope 1

Im running caltex e85 no problems, got a 40kw up top and yeah in regards to the variance in ethanol content if you get it tuned to leave some margin for when the mixtures change you wont have a problem. I got it done at status and trent was confident theres no problem if the tune accounts for the change.

So you don't have a wideband or anything to monitor AFRs? I suppose if Trent has recommended that then you should be ok. Having to switch maps and buy a wideband etc etc is making converting to e85 just a bit too inconvenient for me atm.

The conversation I had with the caltex dealer implied that whilst the ethanol content would vary between summer and winter the ron rating would not.

I am going to use wide band just to be on the safe side and some logging over a period of time should make or break what they had to say.

Forgive my ignorance, but if the RON rating stays the same can AFRs still be affected? Would be good to get some concrete info from Caltex re: their mixtures

Forgive my ignorance, but if the RON rating stays the same can AFRs still be affected? Would be good to get some concrete info from Caltex re: their mixtures

yer the AFRs will be directly affected by the % of ethanol in the fuel, which if constantly mixxed with the same type of ulp will affect octane rating aswell (albeit not enough to be dangerous), the only way they could lower ethanol content without affecting octane rating would be to mix it with a higher octane ulp

has anyone noted how much an octane booster can actually affect AFRs, as I was thinking if I run E85 as my only tune but then cant find E85 on a cruise somewhere that I could possibly use 98 and some octane booster...

would that work or am I asking for trouble... otherwise I'll be limited to 250ks before I need to find E85 or pay the price get datalogit to change maps over to 98 tune...

yer the AFRs will be directly affected by the % of ethanol in the fuel, which if constantly mixxed with the same type of ulp will affect octane rating aswell (albeit not enough to be dangerous), the only way they could lower ethanol content without affecting octane rating would be to mix it with a higher octane ulp

I see. So is monitoring AFRs and changing maps the only way this caltex fuel is going to work? Tuning conservatively and just absorbing the difference doesn't seem optimal

you can do it on the hand controller???

how? I didnt know you could switch maps through it....

you cant change maps, but you can add/remove fuel etc, to make it safer.... only a bandaid solution to limp home really

At the worst it will involve some minor corrections to your tune once a year. either that or run 2 maps.

As I am to understand it the change in ethanol content will not be random. Merely a summer to winter adjustment.

That will not be difficult to work around.

  • Like 1

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...