Jump to content
SAU Community

Help-do Ethanol Content Sensors Read Methanol?

sky30

By sky30,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

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.

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

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.

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

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
scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

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.

Dose Pipe Sutututu Grand Master

Dose Pipe Sutututu

Posted
Posted

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...

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

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.

Dose Pipe Sutututu Grand Master

Dose Pipe Sutututu

Posted
Posted

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Duncan
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Duncan · Posted

      Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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
    • funkymonkey
      Jacks that fit under GTR lips that can reach the subframe?

      By funkymonkey · Posted

      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
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
×
×
  • Create New...