Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It's more than likely that they do. They'd be based around the idea of detecting the -OH group on the ethanol, and so should be able to see the same group on the methanol molecule. I would be VERY HESITANT to trust that the % it read out while seeing methanol would be accurate though. I'm sure that there are some calibration factors assumed/built into the sensor or its calculation that would be thrown out by the lighter metho molecule.

I just googled around a bit and there is muttering that the usual suspect sensor (the GM/Haltech one) tends to go to 200Hz frequency when methanol is present - meaning it is not useful. This is not the final word, as I'm not going to do all your research for you, but it would appear that whilst methanol will affect the sensor in a similar way to ethanol (as I suggested in my first post) the actual response of the sensor to the difference between eth and meth is to say that >100% ethanol is present. This is probably the safe and conservative way to do it, because methanol requires a lot more volume than even ethanol does, and system/sensor designers would probably want to be able to protect themselves against people using methanol deliberately/accidentally and running too lean.

Lol, easier to carry a flex fuel sensor

I agree, until such time it lets you down.

I was told these sensors are actually reading what percentage isn't ethanol, not sure how correct this is.

  • Like 1

How many have you seen fail, Scott?

None, and I assume they are fairly reliable seeing they are used in OEM applications, but they are also monitored by the stock ecu, and there are huge safety margins in place. I don't think I could ever fully rely on a sensor like this for turbo tuning unless I had two of them to compare. The less variables in the tune the better imo.

Same goes for wideband target mapping, without a pair of sensors running simultaneously you would have no idea if they are accurate.

I agree, until such time it lets you down.

I was told these sensors are actually reading what percentage isn't ethanol, not sure how correct this is.

But most ECUs have a failsafe, so if the ethanol sensor fails then assume ethanol content is 0% or whatever you set it as.

I'm running a flex sensor now too, drove to Wakefield yesterday with four jerry cans. After the track day, drove to 7-11 and filled up with 98 and drove home.

And unrelated, I chopped two R34 GT-Rs down the straight at Wakefield...

I'm running a flex sensor now too, drove to Wakefield yesterday with four jerry cans. After the track day, drove to 7-11 and filled up with 98 and drove home.

We did the same thing in Artz's 33, other than we had to drop the petrol tune on with the laptop near the border. A simple switch would have done the job.

Doesn't make much difference, you still need two tunes, but I can see the practicality of it.

Yeah but make a perfect 98 tune, then all you do is interpolate between the E85 3D map based on the ethanol content.

I drove home on about E40.. got mad economy too, did 187km on 20L

  • 2 weeks later...

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...