Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The caltex on main north road in Salisbury is overcharging for e85. It should be around 20 to 25c below 91 unleaded, the last time I checked it was only 5c below. It's a pity as it's on my way to work. Is this the same for all caltex servos?

Reduced range is the only drawback, and jerries can fix that.

United have a great app for finding e85 servos nearby, although it can be slow to be updated.

Scotty you are the E85 man so rather than doing a search can you answer this quickly.

Does the decreased cost of E85 negate the reduced range?

I'm not 100% on the cost of E85 and from what I have read it's about 30% more fuel?

...

Does the decreased cost of E85 negate the reduced range?

...

Have a read of this over at LS1: E85: A Long Term Evaluation.

Based on his data, over about two years, the cost per km of running E85 was pretty much identical to running PULP.

However that was posted in October last year so prices (and how they compare) will have changed again since.

Ive read on here multiple times people saying e85 is cheaper, but you use more lf it so it ends up more expensive. But e85 seems to be about 25-30% cheaper than 98. If you use 25- 30% more fuel, wouldnt you assume itd end up equal? (obviously depending on how you drive.)

*im no mathematician :D

if you drive "sensible" it equals about the same, put your foot in and can almost see the petrol needle drop. on average day to day driving I lost 100kms per tank switching to e85, but pay about $20 less per tank. also made 40kws from the change.

WOW! That answer couldn't be further from truth! E85 will be 1 of the best things you do to your car :) 100 is just 98 with 10% ethanol (I think) will be nowhere near the same power gains or the same driveability 70% or 85% ethanol will offer. If ya not too accelerator happy increased fuel consumption will be minimal with a good tune.. But its hard not using it with the new found powerz lol :)

Dont bother with E85. Too much hassel for the gain. Try united 100. Almost the same power gain without the issues and costly setup of E85.

Just curious, what gains in performance are there from a lightly modified standard turbo car? I have a friend with the following mods who wants e85 but I think the money is better spent elsewhere... Anyway:

Eg rb25 with standard turbo, 12psi, standard motor, pod, fmic, nistune, 3" exh etc?

Making around 190-200rwkw, could he expect the same increases in power as someone with 300rwkw going from 98 to e85?

Been having a read of this thread - is there enough scope in stock RB25 NEO injectors to run e85 with the stock turbo?

Been having a read of this thread - is there enough scope in stock RB25 NEO injectors to run e85 with the stock turbo?

Doubt it... they are pretty small (370cc 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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...