Hey man I really appreciate all the content you put out, which is a hell of a lot. my only problem is I can't always watch it everyday and get overwhelmed trying to sort out your vids and what series they are part of etc. I guess it's my own personal problem though lol. Please keep supplying the world with hard facts and data as well as your valued opinion please. Thank you.
Compression on the NA LS isnt high enough to be limited by the 91 octane. Bump that compression up to 13 to 1 and then compare timing curves and then the power differences will be apparent.
He said in the video that they did bump the CR to 13.0, and the power was not effected. In this range of compression ratio, whole points are only worth about 1%. From 12.8 to 13.0 is not significant. To make a real change, they would have to go to 16:1.
@@HioSSilver1999 you fed it enough fuel to make more power. If they try to tune it like gasoline, leaning it for best power, they are not going to see much improvement if any. Ethanol is a different animal, it likes heat too. In the engine, oil, coolant and intake tract. If you want better mileage heating the fuel in the EFI lines works to pick up mileage and keep the power.
I've seen less knock sensor activity on my boosted Coyote at 15-17psi on E85, compared to running 7-8 psi on 91, both fuels using dedicated optimized tuning. I hope E85 never disappears from the pump. Great video!!
Richard whats the chances of doing a vid demonstrating how you build a timing map? I understand every engine wants different things but it will give us guys playing at home an idea of how to do it. Love your work as always! 👍🏻
Trust me, you don't want his timing maps. His timing maps are for max effort on the dyno with good fuel, 120-130 degree coolant temps, perfect ventilation, no underhood heat to worry about, no knock sensors. In real life where lugging exists from being hooked up to an actual vehicle drivetrain there are spots in the powerband that will not tolerate nearly as much timing. Plus, the most important area is down in the 1500-2500 part throttle range, something that doesn't even get touched on a dyno.
On paper, Ethanol is worth 4% more by chemical energy, BUT it needs the right compression ratio. I computed it out using ledenfrost models about 4 years ago. Fail E85 : 10.7:1. Doesn't have enough compression to make the fuel activate all the way, but it can work. Factory E85 : 11.8:1, sub 42 degrees of intake valve event. This puts knock potential at TDC, 1.0 Lambda. Easy to tune. 7% gain Street/strip E85 : 12.2:1, . Again, less than 42 degrees of ABDC IVC. This puts the knock point at 26 degrees. Needs sub 1 lambda all the time. 7.6% gain. Strip: 13.4 :1 Add 1 point of compression for every 15 degrees after 50 degrees ABDC. If you make it here, you already know this.
Swapping over to LS this year and I was really having trouble deciding 6.0 vs 6.2 until i saw this video, with so power potential and the difference in price im going with the 6.0, thanks for another great video Richard thumbs up
I started to fill up e85 on the old flex fuel Silverado and I loved the way it ran. It felt smoother than when I drove it on pump gas. Plus by using e85 we can be less dependent on fossil fuel or foreign Petro products too. Thanks for the test Richard, very interesting test.
On my 2015 Chevy Cruze with a flex sensor installed I like to run about a 30 to 35% alcohol mix. It really runs good at that amount. Way better than 93 octane with 10% ethanol. It also is letting the computer command about 2psi more boost that way.
@@ttank94 If I remember correctly, E85 actually liked more higher temperature. It's best to run on E85 around 170 to 190 temp. Produces less power if ran cold, like 120-130 temp. But yea, to have the most benefit of E85 you should use a higher compression ratio, depenging of the combustion chamber design.
With a 13:1 compression motor, the power increase you'd see with E vs pump gas is a 100% increase because nobody in the right mind would even think about going WOT with that much compression on pump gas. Jokes aside, you don't need race gas/E for a point or 2 more than 9:1, just not high enough. The combustion chamber characteristics of the LS are efficient enough that the max "safe" compression ratio for pump gas (N/A) IMO is between 11.5-12:1, ask me how I know (N/A 6.0, 11.5:1 comp 620hp on pump gas in my chevelle). You don't need race gas or E85 for an LS with 11:1. Now on the other hand, with a small block chevy/ford/mopar or big block chevy/ford/mopar, I would start to look at running E or race gas in stuff over 11:1.
When going higher compression ratio, the difference between pump gas and E85 gets better (for E85). E85 allows to run ridiculous amount of compression, e.g 13:1 dynamic** compression ratio w/o any problems if the cylinder head has a modern combustion chamber. How much static compression ratio depends a lot how much intake/exhaust cam duration you have, and cam timing.. it could be 14-16:1 to have 13:1 dynamic compression ratio. Methanol is even better. But there are limits, when more comp is not better - combustion chamber efficiency and flame travel are more important. Ridiculous compression ratio with efficient combustion chamber and alcohol fuel means a lot of torque -> power, if the engine can breath when the rpm climbs.
@@juhonmoottoripaja2443 Completely agree. IMO E85 is a MUCH better option than almost any given race gas because it offers the same advantages over pump gas, and costs 1/10th of most race gas, only downside is the legal limit for being labeled "E85" spans from 55%-90% ethanol so a composition test should be done. Bucket list project of mine is to build my blown up 8.1 big block chevy for 800 or 900hp N/A and HUGE compression. Definitely using some E. Smells good too
@303StreetMachines no it's not at all. If it were it would be as big of a turd as a 351. The old sbc had the beat down all over furd smallblocks. Why would they go backwards?
Simple, static vs. dynamic compression. Octane gives you “resistance to detonation” I felt that you could have gone to a 14:1:1 na would have given better power. Then use math to tell you the limits of e85 dynamic compression for the turbo. After that fine tune the timing to keep it from blowing out the side ....
I think the coyote making more power on e85 is likely compression and combustion chamber design related. And the fact that you can change the dynamic compression ratio with the DOHC and VVT. The LS combustion chamber at normal compression ratio doesn’t really need or benefit from the e85 until you start increasing cylinder pressure and adding more fuel and heat to take advantage of the cooling effect. Just my opinion. Who knows
If an NA gasoline engine is set up such that you can give it all the timing it will take without detonation, I can see where the Ethanol wouldn't change anything. If the NA gas motor is finicky and detonates with timing that would give it more power, you back off the timing to let the motor live. In that case I can see how the extra detonation resistance of E85 would allow more timing and therefore better numbers. Things like chamber shape, piston speed, overlap, charge density, intake charge temp, reversion, and head temp all affect this. But I am well aware that you already know all of this and more. Interesting video. In Harleys with high static CR and in Harleys with boost, E85 works better as the motor runs cooler all else being equal. That winds up yielding better numbers largely due to allowing more timing.
First off, I am now addicted to your videos! I started reading about your work when the big bang 4.8 was first circulating. Second, I'm a big fan of E85. I picked up 80hp in my 2011 CTS-V after tuning by adding flex fuel capability. I'd really like to know the Lambda instead of AFR, since both fuels require a different AFR to be equal. But running the tests at the same Lambda would show just the effect of just the fuel itself. Then maybe adding timing and showing how much tuning can be added at equal boost levels to show how much the cooling & octane really help... But on the GT45, 4.8, BTR stage 1 truck cam motor. Just because I want to know what my combo is going to make at the crank!
@@richardholdener1727 I'm not quite understanding. You're running them both at 11.5 AFR or you're running the pump gas at 11.5 and the E85 at its equivalent (same lambda)?
Without a dyno, how can one tell if they have too much or too little timing at a given rpm/psi in a boosted ls? I'm guessing this correlates to the torque curve and strength of components as one video I saw mentioned pulling back the timing during a particular rpm range. Keep them coming Richard!!
@@niknasstie www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468070 The car does have a rotofab cai but on a stock 6th gen camaro that is only about 5-8 hp gain and yes it has a lot to do with direct injection
I would also like to see the n/a e85 compared on a higher compression engine, I think that's where the big benefit is. Something 11:5.1 or better, e85 could really shin there, the pp gas would have to be run on lower timing to keep from knocking and the e85 would be able to take advantage where the pump gas couldn't. That would be cool too.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the difference in power come from the specific gravity? I think octane VS. specific gravity explaining fuel would be a good video for noobs like me.
The Ethanol molecule is smaller and less dense than Octane, however it also has lower caloric content, but more molecules can fit in a given space than Octane, so there's an overall net gain in caloric content at the cost of higher fuel consumption. Ethanol, being an alcohol, also will cool the air, and Ethanol fuel has around like 115 octane rating.
@@tommylyeah that’s kind of my point. The octane of the the two fuels is going to be very close. So with that in mind, they are going to differ in specific gravity creating better atomization due to being less dense, right?
I am torn, I like the smell of E85 and race gas, but hardly anyone realizes its E85, and they definitely know the smell of race gas, so E85 is more sleeper unless everyone is running it already in your area. E85 is dirt cheap compared to race gas, so I daily drive the stuff with way too much compression for pump gas.
@@SweatyFatGuy Plus the boys in blue don't tend to notice cars running E85 even when their catalysts are "sub-optimal". But anyone can smell gasoline not being catalysed properly.
If you are not picking up power on E85 vs pump gas, you are not running it rich enough. You do not lean it out to make more power on ethanol like you do with gasoline, throw fuel at it instead. Best power on E85 is around 7.5:1. best mileage with good power is around 8:1 to 9:1 AFR. Timing also plays a part too, as does head/chamber design. As I explained in my other post on this video, the reason ethanol makes more power is it has more oxygen in it. Adding more fuel adds more oxygen, and it compounds as you add more. Oxygenated race gas will keep up power wise because it has more oxygen in it, but it is hideously expensive and E85 around here is under $2 a gallon. Even an 8:1 engine will puck up power if you get it enough ethanol. It might only be 8-20hp, but its less money and still more power. Low compression will result in lower mileage, but around 12:1 compression NA you will see the same mileage as on gasoline, and ethanol will pick up mileage along with power above 13:1. Lots more power, and using even less fuel.. still more win. From High Performance Pontiac magazine before they were bought by the owners of HRM. www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/ it also cools the intake charge, but that is very limited in a port fuel system, works a lot better with a carb where the fuel has more time to vaporize and pull heat out of the intake tract. You will see more power the farther up the intake tract you introduce the fuel, also more cooling because it has more time, and if you run the fuel hot enough in the EFI lines you can make power AND increase mileage. the turbo is heating the intake air, ethanol cools it even with port fuel injector location. you get a little bit with direct fuel injection, but that goes completely against how ethanol works, so you will probably use a lot more ethanol in a DI engine. It DOES NOT eat your fuel system or engine gaskets, it will however clean all the varnish out of your fuel system and clog the pump, filter, and injectors. Additives are what cause the corrosion issues, not the ethanol. DO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO YOUR FUEL. Its bad enough when the oil companies do it. You know Jeff Smith as the tech editor of HRM and also for Summit Racing. Here is his article about corrosion on ethanol. www.onallcylinders.com/2018/05/25/ask-away-jeff-smith-e85-pump-gas-additives-not-ethanol-cause-corrosion/ I've been running ethanol both mixed like E30-E98 and E100 that I make from tree sap, converting and tuning carbs like Holley, Demon, and my beloved Qjets. I am the go to info source for E85 Qjets. Look into it and you will find the info I have provided with m 455 Pontiac powered GTOs and Firebirds. I build my engines with as much compression as I can, my daily driver 65 GTO has an iron head 455 with 11.5:1 and closed chamber heads, it likes 42 degrees total advance, the 67 vintage 400 heads don't have a good chamber shape to go with the large quench areas. In the 90s those same heads wanted 52 degrees total on 100 octane VP or Sunoco race gas. My tuning and mileage testing mule is a 13:1 455 with open chamber 69 RA III heads that have been ported to flow 70cfm more than stock. They do not have the center crossover filled so the intake can get warm, which helps with vaporization. It makes tire shredding torque, well over 600ftlbs from what I can tell based on its ease in moving a 4100lb 70 GTO, and gets 20mpg with a Qjet, 700R4, and 3.42 gears. Mid 11s is where both of them run, and the 65 is a lot lighter than the 70, like 700lbs. It costs me 10 to 40 cents to make a gallon from tree sap or cattails, respectively. it also requires about a weeks worth of work to make enough for the year, mostly cleaning as the yeast do the heavy lifting for me. You need a good amount of space to produce ethanol, I have lots of trees with 3% to 5% sugar in the sap, (around 300 sugar maples) no need to cut them down, just tap it like maple syrup. Syrup is far more valuable if you want to sell it though, I drive my cars more than I eat pancakes or waffles. If you want to know how it all works, just ask me. Its very simple, but has legal requirements. I will be making some videos about all of this in the near future. I use an Innovate wideband in my header collectors to measure the AFR, I do not run it on the gas scale, I want it to read what its actually doing, because the mix might be different from spring to summer, and my home brew tunes a bit different with no gasoline added to it.. I have alternative methods of denaturing the vodka. Lambda measures stoich, so I don't use that either, because best power and best mileage are a good distance apart in tuning. I don't have an engine or chassis dyno, so my measurements are all ET/MPH based. I am not the only one testing either, a group of us compare our tunes and a couple friends do Holley/Demon conversions for people. You can try to run ethanol like you do gasoline, but I will make more power and use less fuel than you do. I put Richard in touch with Mark Sullens, but Richard didn't want our nearly two decades of tuning/racing information. Its ok though.
Saying that ethanol does not eat you fuel system is over simplistic and therfore incorrect. In a 2020 vehicle that would be a correct statement, in a older vehicle with natural rubber lines, fuel tanks containing lead, and cork gaskets the ethanol absolutely will cause sever deterioration and be problematic.
And you will never get more fuel milage out of e85 then regular gas if thats what you are trying to claim, it has less BTUs per gallon therefore will ALWAYS consume more fuel per mile traveled.
I'm pretty sure when Richard was quoting AFR's he was expressing the ethanol mixture in petrol equivalent. It would have been better to say lambda. There is no way he was actually running 12.8:1 on ethanol at full load, because it would probably miss and pop and make no power. In reality, his mixture gauge was telling him both vehicles were running a lambda of 0.87. He just didn't switch it over to ethanol for the AFR conversion when he switched fuels. We usually do the same thing with customers because most aren't equipped (or inclined) to try and understand the difference (the looks on their faces if you tell them the actual mixture you run with methanol is hilarious).
Never had q16 compare to good pump e85 and it took roughly 2-3 more in timing. Then ignite made the same difference on the same e85 tune over e85 as e85 did over q16.
@@JoshCP527 I haven't done much comparison with Q16, but the Ignite stuff does work. Can only assume that the gasoline they mix in has a lot less volatility at high cylinder pressure (and it has a little more ethanol too). Picked up almost 40 hp on a 1000 whp LT4 switching from pump E85 to Ignite.
The LY6, being a truck engine originally, has 9.7 or so compression. It runs on 87 octane with a factory truck cam. Even with the TFS heads, assuming a 65cc chamber, the compression is just over 10:1. That should not stress the pump gas octane. I’m wondering what would happen to the NA test if you put flat top, or even a small domed, piston in this combo and retest. I’m thinking 11 or 11.5 to 1, maybe more. Reducing the combination of chamber, piston, and head gasket by 10-12cc would get you in that range. I’d think timing sensitivity would make that combo like E85 a lot, but only the dyno really knows! Can you test this for us, Richard? Love this channel!
You say that E-85 is less expensive, and per gallon it is, but you have to use almost twice as much of it compared to gasoline. So to verify that if that statement is true it would be interesting to see the duty cycle comparison at the same fuel pressure and work out the comparative volumes used then figure out the cost difference between fuels.
You don't use twice as much. Interestingly, here in California, E85 is priced to provide a near equivalent cost per mile as 91 octane gasoline. It's close to a wash for a well tuned vehicle. But considering that you're getting the performance of $10-$15/gal race gas, it feels like a steal if your gas tank is big enough to avoid refueling every other day.
@@ChurchAutoTest - I was thinking of methanol using nearly 2x and I was assuming this wasn't too far off, I suppose I was incorrect. On another note, I really dislike (read hate) this state of CA. What city are you in? I'm in Fresno until I can escape.
@@rudyrayaaw5138 I'm in Los Angeles, but I have a biz in Texas now and am opening one in AZ soon. California is a dead state walking, just doesn't know it yet.
@@lapin46 correct, although it's slightly more since we're looking at fuel _mass_ and E85 density is slightly different than gas. Fortunately we can generally run it a touch leaner.
@@lapin46 True, true. Although if you're interested, you can look at freely available software like HP Tuners to see how your factory ECU is estimating fuel mass flow rate in its calculations, even without a flow meter. It becomes a little easier to grasp the AFR calc when you do it that way.
You need more compression as many have already said. If an engine will already make peak power before reaching detonation then changing fuel ain’t gonna do jack. You need compression or more heat in the motor so the alcohol can show it’s gains NA
Unfortunately, i live in 1 of those states it's damn near impossible to find e85, CT. Nearest to me to buy it is 45-50miles away, n even trying to get 104 here is something like 8.50 a gal here, its ridiculous. Love ur vid's dude.
You didn't see much gain na because all these truck motors are low compression. Couple that with a cam and you'll lower the dcr more and make e85 nearly useless on a combo like that.
Part of our winter upgrade plans is a bigger pump, bigger injectors to make the change to E85, Plus a TBSS intake to go from 492 wheel hp to 600+ wheel hp. Why 600 wheel hp? Because #burnoutsandicecream
I got my turbo 5.3 street ready about a year ago. I was running around on 5psi for a while, until I finished the boost control and programmed it on the Holley Terminator. I was having no issues hitting 12psi of boost l, until it started getting hot here in Texas. I don't beat on it very hard, 6k max rpm at most. I attended LS Fest at Texas motor speedway a couple of weeks ago. On the way there, it made boost fine, no issues. On the way home it started popping and losing power at 5k rpm. I data logged it and everything looks great. IAT steady at 125, 100 degrees ambient. It will not make more than 6psi now. Right at 5k rpm and 6 psi boost, it pops like a 2 step. My 2 step is set at 2500rpm so I can make a little boost before the converter spins the tires. If anyone sees this and has any thoughts, I would welcome some input. It's on 93 octane, and the plugs all look great
I would LOVE to see you do a e85 nitrous test. Mark Sullens who builds e85 carbs claims you don't have to pull any timing with nitrous when e85 is the main fuel and nitrous fuel. I believe him but I would love to see a test proving it to the disbelievers and also to see how much more power it's worth with the same jet!!
If the engine don't need more octane, it ent going to thank you for it. 🇬🇧 gets 98 Ron. From the pump, we had a 1600cc sohc peugeot xu unit (205 gti) on 45mm Webber carbs and a reasonable race cam from piper cams here in the UK giving 183 bhp @ 8800 rpm and 126lbs/ft of torque at 5700-6300 rpm using 11.5:1 cr and changing to 101 Ron octane "race fuel" made no measurable (chassis dyno) differance either. We do not get E85.
Its about how much fuel you give it, you can make more power with 8:1 compression and open chamber heads easily. www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/
@@SweatyFatGuy Well if you can turn the timing up without hitting knock/pre ignition. Then a high octane fuel is going to do jack shit Re run the test with a knock sensor and 15/16 to one compression Let it run off the sensor running as much timing as I will take Then when it will pull timing if it sees knock Then test again with e85
@@danielthompson3849 you're stuck on the limits of gasoline and octane ratings. Ethanol is a different fuel with different properties. You need to think differently when tuning it. Sure it will work if you run it like gasoline, but you aren't getting as much out of it as you could be. If you are running low octane gasoline in an 8:1 engine with a certain chamber shape, it will want about the same amount of timing as one on high octane gasoline with 15:1. The gasoline itself will be different in composition though, more toluene or some other component that makes it harder to light. That will affect the burn rate, and that affects timing. Usually slower burning fuel wants a few more degrees of advance, provided it doesn't light off on its own. Chamber shape makes a big difference too. The closed chamber 670 heads on my 455 wanted ten degrees more total advance than the open chamber 62 heads on the same fuel with the same compression. Chamber shape matters a lot. Thats Pontiac stuff, they are 72cc heads with 2.11 intake valves and 1.77 exhaust, from 400s that both make around 11:1 to 11.5:1 on a flat top 030 over 455. They flow within five cfm of each other in stock form, so the big difference is chamber shape. Ethanol is a very different animal, you tune it different, you do not lean it to make power, you go rich. It cools the intake charge A LOT more than gasoline does as it vaporizes, it can withstand a lot more compression and advance than gasoline can, it can withstand compression and boost, two different things that increase cylinder pressure. It burns faster and more completely, wasting less of its energy as heat, so it runs cooler and makes more power due to having more oxygen in the fuel. Ethanol will not care if its run in a 5:1 compression engine or a 22:1 compression engine, it will run the same. You will use a lot more in the 5:1 engine though, and not get as much power. If gasoline could be run in that 22:1 engine, ethanol would still make more power, due to increased oxygen content. In the HPP article they found more power as they added more ethanol to gasoline. They were using VP race gasoline and E85 with race gas mixed to it. The race gas is harder to light than pump gas, so it actually works against making more power when you mix race gas with ethanol, and I am not the only one to have found that. They would have picked up a couple more hp and tq in that SD 455 with its 8:1 had they used regular pump E85. Yeah we have known for a while that the VP stuff makes less power and runs slower ETs than 82-85% E85 from the pump. The additives cause problems though in some areas. With 8:1 you aren't going to have a problem running the total timing anywhere the engine wants it. Been there done that with a 5C headed 455 that ran as good on 87 as it did on 91, and still made more power on E85. 5C heads are from a 1975 400, they have larger chambers but ports that flow about 7cfm more than the two heads I mentioned above, and have 1.66 exhaust valves. The cool thing about Pontiac is you can swap heads around and make from 7:1 to 13:1 with the same piston and short block, and the D port heads all flow nearly the same , being within 10cfm of each other highest to lowest, with the same size intake valves, so you can test things like compression and chamber shape every easily and its apples to apples when only the chamber shape and size changes. When you have more oxygen in the fuel, then adding more fuel will result in more oxygen in the chamber. More oxygen means more power. Its that simple, and that is why ethanol makes more power as you add fuel, and makes more power than gasoline. However, most of the power gain comes in between idle and 3500rpm, you make more torque down low in the RPM range on ethanol than you do at the top, so peak is going to be similar or only a few hp more, but you can pick up 15-20ftlbs at 2500-3000 just by changing the fuel. Doesn't mean much to a small block guy who has to rev over 4500 to start making power, but its right where our 455s grunt the hardest and where most street driving is done. My LS1 98 Formula will not spin the tires from idle with a quarter tank of E0% 93 in it, but mix 40% of ethanol in with 87 octane and that 2.73 geared, stock converter, with 285 45 17 tires will rip them off like they are nothing, on a full tank. More oxygen means more power. The 5.3 and 6.0 powered 4x4s I run in the winter salt have more bottom end when I mix in 30% to 40% ethanol, makes pulling a trailer a lot easier, but I only do it in summer, because you don't need more power in winter on ice covered highways. The problem with the LS engine and ethanol is injector sizing, the factory injectors do not have enough room to feed even a stock engine straight E85, you have to go larger. It will run on E85, but you get a lean bank code and it starts over fueling like crazy. You end up losing a lot of mileage, but it makes more power if it doesn't kill the timing due to the code. Too lean on gasoline with too much advance and you have broken parts, so it pulls timing. Correct all of that, bigger injectors, tuned so the ECM knows not to pull timing on vodka, and they make more power when you feed them more ethanol... more ethanol means more oxygen which means more power .. and yeah it will allow more advance if the engine wants it.
@@danielthompson3849 are you allowed to make vodka? I can show you how to build a 2" packed column reflux still with copper pipe, or PVC pipe will work too, if you have something between the boiler and the still. Then you can make your own fuel to test. You need a source of sugar, starch works too but you need enzymes to break down the long chains so the yeast can eat it. Adds a bit of cost to each gallon converting starch to sugar. However you can make fuel from any starch or sugar, including waste paper, tree sap, cattails, candy waste, spoiled taters, stale bread, and more. If you live in an apartment, its not a good idea, but if you know a guy who owns a decent sized farm, you could make a deal with him to feed his livestock with what comes out of the still, its all very edible and animals love the stuff. If the crown gets pissy about it though, it might be a bunch of red tape to do enough to drive around. Mixing it a couple gallons at a time would be doable though. With bakers yeast you get a 10% yield, which means you get one gallon of 190 proof fuel from ten gallons of water, you can reuse the water as long as there is no rust in it. Yeast don't do well with rust. With 'turbo yeast' (its actually called that) you can get a 20% yield, or 2 gallons from ten gallons, but that yeast is more expensive and you might not be able to get it in the UK. As usual the crown will want its taxes for you doing everything but breathing, but you could become a bootlegger making octane enhancing fuel at home. All I need to do here in the US is simply let the BATF know I will be producing less than 5000 gallons per year, where I will be making it, environmental concerns like nearby water, and how I am storing it(needs to be locked up because its drinkable vodka until its denatured), then how much I make every 90 days. Its a free permit to micro produce fuel, and for a while they were giving a tax credit for every gallon of fuel you make. That makes me legal, its a bit of paperwork, but you avoid taxes and fines that way, and sometimes they pay you. Starter info is right here.. Lots more than just ethanol in this library, a lot more. journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html
NA applications that have really hot intake temperatures benefit more from E 85 such as Honda’s look how much power they get from turbo yet supercharged they don’t make as much on the same boost I believe it’s because of the intake temperatures. I wonder if you could test the intake temps at the manifold for ls and coyote direct injection engine’s get the most benefit since the e 85 shoots at the piston
Good Video Rich But there's a downside to this fuel though as I tell customer's when I'm gonna tune their car's or truck's it's not always E85 at the pump it varies octane on the time of the year as well. Plus the other bad things are you need to upgrade the entire fuel systems starting with compatible lines resistant to ethanol and filters too. The injectors needed have to be doubled in capacity plus must be cleaned every few months due to getting gunked up with crap and must be ran with regular gas to keep them lubricated every couple of tanks to lube up the system internally. So in the end cost of the total conversion to E85 plus the maintenance plus the tuning must be redone for E85 as well. It adds up.. So YOU gotta think about all.
Anything over e50-e60 you won’t see a huge gain. Also with a flex sensor running pump won’t be a issue that’s simple. It’s always better to overbuild a fuel system from the start.
Not exactly Sonic. First, you only need about 40% more fuel capacity at the same power/boost level. Second, any car made since about 2000 has to have lines and parts that can handle ethanol in gasoline since it's been mandated in most of the country since then. As reese mentioned, most guys running ethanol run flex fuel these days with a proper ethanol sensor to compensate for varying mixes. Even cars that don't have flex available from the factory can buy injector intercept kits now that modify injector duty cycle for ethanol content (use these on older dodges that don't have flex in the ECU operating system). I do tell my customers to run a tank of regular gasoline basically whenever they do their oil change to keep the injectors clean. But I have done 10,000 miles on my CTSV between tanks of 91 with no issues. I think its more a case of poor tank quality/maintenance at the gas station, or crap already in your tank being dislodged by E85. For older vehicles (80s and earlier to be sure), there are more issues to be considered, no argument there. But for anyone running more modern stuff, its a pretty painless conversion outside of the cost of bigger injectors/pump and retuning.
Great video as usual ! Please make a video on how much straight methanol injection you can add on a boosted application with 91 pump gas. Even seeing if adding a second methanol pump in parallel is worth it. Thanks
@@richardholdener1727 Even with a carb style efi intake? Or even trying port injection. It would be interesting to see if there is such a thing as too much methanol and to what point you would be better off switching fuel Here in Canada, no E85, race gas is expensive and you can buy 99.9% methanol at you local hardware store
Years ago E85 was so cheap, U buy a control box and mix it urself, but the stupid government saw the potential for profit and tax ethanol portion very high. A few years ago one servo franchise started selling E85 on. Around 20 cents cheaper than unleaded. Now 30cents dearer. Good on U Australia
You are burning at least 20% more fuel with the e85, I would think that the lower charge temp is helping increase power. I wonder if using ice water in intercooler would change the results to bring race fuel and e85 closer in the power?
Really curious to see how the E85 would compare to pump gas NA when the coolant temp is up at a normal op temps for a car around 180-200 degrees. I seem to remember you normally doing runs when motors are still fairly cold...
Without the cylinder pressure the octane becomes a hindrance. You need to be able to fully burn your fuel. My thoughts only...... Na gains would be from lower temps and greatly advanced timing do to a slower burn rate
Very interesting and thank you as always. What injectors were you using and did you adjust the tune to add more fuel? Or did you literally just drain the tank and add E85?
I don't think the stock 6.0l has enough compression to really take advantage of e85 expecially sense it was already optimize for 91 octane over the stock 87 octane it was designed for. I love e85 either way because it's a good cleaner for the back of your valves and such. On the turbo application, ive heard e85 increases turbo response rates because of the extra fuel that is needed for ethanol. That would be interesting to see.
Matches what we see on the chassis dyno. Something to think about.... Theoretically (I know, bad word) E85 should produce 5-6% more power than gasoline even if you don't run more timing. There is less energy in a gallon of E85 than gas, but you inject so much extra fuel that the energy liberated is 5-6% more. So why don't we see that on lower compression engines like the off-the-shelf LS stuff? I suspect it has something to do with the amount of fuel we're injecting, and how much air we're displacing. Perhaps also that we're quenching the combustion process somewhat, just like when we inject a ton of meth on an NA engine. This would also explain why LT engines see vastly larger gains with E85. They only pick up 7-8% more power naturally aspirated on E85, but torque gains can easily exceed 10% near peak VE. Why? They are higher compression, but the gains are too large to be explained by that. I suspect that the ability to inject a lot of the fuel after the intake valve has closed is a big part of it. When I'm tuning flex fuel on an LS equipped Tahoe or Silverado, one trick I find that helps me get a touch more output is to run a fair bit leaner on E85. You won't knock running 13.5 (that's a gas equivalent AFR, let's just say lambda of 0.92-0.93), but it seems to help just a bit. As for turbo engines, looks like it gained about 6% more power which is right on target for energy content changes from race gas to ethanol. Maybe the higher intake temps and increased mixture motion offsets any potential quenching/displacement issues.
Its about how much fuel you give it, you can make more power with 8:1 compression and open chamber heads easily. www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/ I am running closed chamber heads on my Pontiac, they want more advance than the open chamber heads on another 455 of mine. Closed chamber is 11.5:1 static, the open heads have been milled so they make 13:1, the open chambers make more power, but that is probably due to the CNC porting vs hand porting and the compression ratio difference. Those 13:1 capable heads are monsters for iron heads.
Yes, higher compression would also benefit from the E85 for those who really want to stay NA. Anymore tho a turbo is the way to go, more power for less 💰
why stage 3 cam for 6500? most stage 3 cams i see aren't ideal for only going to 6500rpm. i probably would've went stage 2(220-224 duration) for 6500rpm or reved the stage 3 out to 7k+. but still a good test regardless
You would make more power NA if you could increase the compression ratio. Form what I am seeing 13.1 on a sbc is pretty natural when it is corn fed :-)
I just watched Brian Tooley talk about the valve timing relationship between intake valve open and the exhaust valve close and he said to ignore the lobe separation angle...do you believe that the LSA is important?
I've always heard rumors that E85 can build boost faster because the chemical reaction of combusting E85 produces a greater volume of exhaust. Have you ever seen evidence of such a thing? And I think most LS guys would shy away from 30 degrees of timing NA on pump gas, so that might be where some people have found gains in E85--by having enough stomach to put the timing in under their E85 safety blanket
Have you tried E30 or E50 this is a common thing for turbo'd 4cly with a weak or GDI fuel system, I personally think a mix of E85 and race gas might get you more power per liter of fuel and still hit of even exceed pure E85
@@richardholdener1727 i figured at best the extra flow might only help egt, I have twin turbos on a 2014 yukon 5.3 with vvt&dod delete with a btr stage 1 cam. Also beefed up the trans for towing. I did the tune my self was not that hard more or less just chase the numbers and watch egt and stay on the safe side. Im at 12.2:1 at 12psi and 24deg timing peek but i tuned while pulling a 9000lbs trailer and then to static loads to make it more daily drivable
Mr Holdner, do you feel a 9 to 9.5:1 compression on a LSX type engine be safe on 91+ octane with up to 15lb of boost? What do you think "BALLPARK" max compression could be obtained because i know many supercharger companies even GM have put boost on 11:1 engines, i was just curious to what your take is with a good healthy cam of at (LEAST) 230* @ .050+ high duration cam types.. Because i wish to have a good healthy compression in case the charger may have issues etc, you can still have a really stout N/A only engine with a simple tune swap.
Like the N/A tests, I would have like to see both turbo tests done with optimized timing. Could the pump gas run better than the numbers you produced? Same with the E85. Would the margin change? Or would they both just get a little more? Love these vids.
On ethanol vs gasoline, yes it will make more power despite having low compression, if you get it enough ethanol. More O2 means more power, and ethanol has more O2 in it, adding more makes more power until you go richer than 7:1 AFR, then it makes the some power but uses more fuel. You pick up so much more with boost because of how much ethanol cools the intake charge, ethanol has more exhaust gas volume as well, and you can really turn up the boost on it because ethanol doesn't want to light without a spark. www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/
Off of this topic. When we look at drag racing engines it seems a 540 is about as big of an engine that you typically see with turbos or some kind of supercharger while nitrous motors are approaching 1,000 cubic inches. Is there a limiting factor, or a rules restriction?
I'm curious what A/F ratio you're running on the e85 both N/A and turbo. E100 has a lower density than gasoline and stoichiometric is 9:1 so you need to run quite a bit richer with E85.... like 8:1 for peak power. I suspect the cooling effect must be about the same with E85 vs pump gas on the N/A engine, but have a better cooling effect on the turbo engine. It may be interesting to see exhaust gas temperatures in the comparison also. Just for the fun of it, I tried a little math to calculate theoretical MAF and theoretical power and VE at the peak torque rpm of 5000 on the N/A engine. 6.0L/2 * 5000rpm/60sec/min * 1.184 g/L = 296 g/sec = 39.12 Lb/min MAF @100%VE multiply by 10 hp/lb/min airflow and I get 391 HP.... using the 450 hp number you had 450 hp/390 hp =.1.15 which is what the VE of the engine would be at 5000 rpm. I don't know if this is even possible, but the facts cannot lie. It would also be interesting to see some MAF numbers.
How much boost and timing can I run on my 4.8 twin holset hy35w turbos with 93 octane fuel? Its stock bottom end with ring gap. Truck intake with a cam. Made 416 hp na. Would it be safe to turn it up and make 1000hp on 93 octane if timing is conservative enough??
Even if you run single digit timing and 30 pounds of boost you're going to produce enough heat to detonate that pump swill. You could put some race gas in it and pull big dyno bragging numbers but on pump gas they really struggle above 700. And the variability in actual octane at the pump can cost you dearly. Press it hard on substandard fuel and it won't be pretty. One tank of mislabeled or contaminated fuel will spray the rods all over the road.
Does the Coyote take less timing advance to make peak power than this LS? If the peak power timing is less advanced then the combustion happens faster so E85 must have the advantage in engines with faster burning combustion events, as well as charge cooling.
Hey Richard, what are your thoughts on gapless rings like total seal. I totally agree with you on the ring gap situation, its just common sense but seems like too much blowby when the engine is cool or not running hard. would total seal rings solve this? or are they as problematic as I read about?
I think you need more compression. I don't believe the LS family (especially truck engines) is compression limited so you aren't seeing much difference.
I vote Mr Holdener as man of the year!
Hey man I really appreciate all the content you put out, which is a hell of a lot. my only problem is I can't always watch it everyday and get overwhelmed trying to sort out your vids and what series they are part of etc. I guess it's my own personal problem though lol. Please keep supplying the world with hard facts and data as well as your valued opinion please. Thank you.
Go to his page and hit playlist it’s all organized I hope this helps out he’s got a lot of good content
a 6.0 motor built to maximize pump gas compared to a 6.0 motor built to maximize E85 ..thanks for all your hard work
Compression on the NA LS isnt high enough to be limited by the 91 octane. Bump that compression up to 13 to 1 and then compare timing curves and then the power differences will be apparent.
He said in the video that they did bump the CR to 13.0, and the power was not effected. In this range of compression ratio, whole points are only worth about 1%. From 12.8 to 13.0 is not significant. To make a real change, they would have to go to 16:1.
@@andyharman3022 that's not what he said at all. We've seen 10whp at peak on bolt on ls3s.....and more in the meat of the tq curve.
@@HioSSilver1999 you fed it enough fuel to make more power. If they try to tune it like gasoline, leaning it for best power, they are not going to see much improvement if any.
Ethanol is a different animal, it likes heat too. In the engine, oil, coolant and intake tract. If you want better mileage heating the fuel in the EFI lines works to pick up mileage and keep the power.
@@HioSSilver1999 Oops, you're right. He said air/fuel ratio, and for some reason, I heard compression ratio.
@@andyharman3022 He talked about AFR, not CR. Big difference.
I run E85 all the time in my 6.0 L77 Caprice. Love it! Don't love the milage though lol.
I've seen less knock sensor activity on my boosted Coyote at 15-17psi on E85, compared to running 7-8 psi on 91, both fuels using dedicated optimized tuning. I hope E85 never disappears from the pump. Great video!!
THNX-GOOD INFO
Richard whats the chances of doing a vid demonstrating how you build a timing map? I understand every engine wants different things but it will give us guys playing at home an idea of how to do it.
Love your work as always! 👍🏻
I agree. I'd love to see a full timing map build, especially on a turbo LS!!
Trust me, you don't want his timing maps. His timing maps are for max effort on the dyno with good fuel, 120-130 degree coolant temps, perfect ventilation, no underhood heat to worry about, no knock sensors. In real life where lugging exists from being hooked up to an actual vehicle drivetrain there are spots in the powerband that will not tolerate nearly as much timing. Plus, the most important area is down in the 1500-2500 part throttle range, something that doesn't even get touched on a dyno.
That Holley setup is completely different than a factory ECU. He also doesn't use knock detection.
My understanding is the coyote engines run a fairly high static compression
That would help with the gains.
I think they've got like 12:1+ SCR.
Gen 1 yote is 11:1 I think
And with variable valve timing the CR can be somewhat modified by bleeding a little off if need be.
Just what I’ve been looking for!!
th-cam.com/video/j9vWVz3Qoz0/w-d-xo.html
Been running it in my street driven 555 BBC for 3 years. 13:1 N/A
Could not be happier.
Excellent work Richard. Hopefully you’ll be doing a couple more 5.7ltr LS1 tests soon.
Australia 🇦🇺
On paper, Ethanol is worth 4% more by chemical energy, BUT it needs the right compression ratio.
I computed it out using ledenfrost models about 4 years ago.
Fail E85 : 10.7:1. Doesn't have enough compression to make the fuel activate all the way, but it can work.
Factory E85 : 11.8:1, sub 42 degrees of intake valve event. This puts knock potential at TDC, 1.0 Lambda. Easy to tune. 7% gain
Street/strip E85 : 12.2:1, . Again, less than 42 degrees of ABDC IVC. This puts the knock point at 26 degrees. Needs sub 1 lambda all the time. 7.6% gain.
Strip: 13.4 :1 Add 1 point of compression for every 15 degrees after 50 degrees ABDC. If you make it here, you already know this.
Swapping over to LS this year and I was really having trouble deciding 6.0 vs 6.2 until i saw this video, with so power potential and the difference in price im going with the 6.0, thanks for another great video Richard thumbs up
Great to hear!
I started to fill up e85 on the old flex fuel Silverado and I loved the way it ran. It felt smoother than when I drove it on pump gas. Plus by using e85 we can be less dependent on fossil fuel or foreign Petro products too. Thanks for the test Richard, very interesting test.
I’ve been waiting for this comparison ! Good way to end the year! #2021
On my 2015 Chevy Cruze with a flex sensor installed I like to run about a 30 to 35% alcohol mix. It really runs good at that amount. Way better than 93 octane with 10% ethanol. It also is letting the computer command about 2psi more boost that way.
Ignition timing is a function of the speed of total burn and the maximum pressure generated at top dead center...only
The NA compression is optimized for pump premium. Try adding another point or two, I'm sure the e85 would shine.
or jack that water temp up to 190, something a normal engine will see, instead of these unrealistic "happy number producing" 120-130 degree temps
@@ttank94 If I remember correctly, E85 actually liked more higher temperature.
It's best to run on E85 around 170 to 190 temp.
Produces less power if ran cold, like 120-130 temp.
But yea, to have the most benefit of E85 you should use a higher compression ratio, depenging of the combustion chamber design.
With a 13:1 compression motor, the power increase you'd see with E vs pump gas is a 100% increase because nobody in the right mind would even think about going WOT with that much compression on pump gas.
Jokes aside, you don't need race gas/E for a point or 2 more than 9:1, just not high enough. The combustion chamber characteristics of the LS are efficient enough that the max "safe" compression ratio for pump gas (N/A) IMO is between 11.5-12:1, ask me how I know (N/A 6.0, 11.5:1 comp 620hp on pump gas in my chevelle). You don't need race gas or E85 for an LS with 11:1. Now on the other hand, with a small block chevy/ford/mopar or big block chevy/ford/mopar, I would start to look at running E or race gas in stuff over 11:1.
When going higher compression ratio, the difference between pump gas and E85 gets better (for E85).
E85 allows to run ridiculous amount of compression, e.g 13:1 dynamic** compression ratio w/o any problems if the cylinder head has a modern combustion chamber.
How much static compression ratio depends a lot how much intake/exhaust cam duration you have, and cam timing.. it could be 14-16:1 to have 13:1 dynamic compression ratio.
Methanol is even better. But there are limits, when more comp is not better - combustion chamber efficiency and flame travel are more important.
Ridiculous compression ratio with efficient combustion chamber and alcohol fuel means a lot of torque -> power, if the engine can breath when the rpm climbs.
@@juhonmoottoripaja2443 Completely agree. IMO E85 is a MUCH better option than almost any given race gas because it offers the same advantages over pump gas, and costs 1/10th of most race gas, only downside is the legal limit for being labeled "E85" spans from 55%-90% ethanol so a composition test should be done.
Bucket list project of mine is to build my blown up 8.1 big block chevy for 800 or 900hp N/A and HUGE compression. Definitely using some E. Smells good too
R.H. ………...I am an old Ford guy and the Ls is enlighting a lot of Ford in it ,head bolts 10 ,symmetrical ports etc. Always thumbs up !!!!!!!!
There's nothing ford about it....or it would be as turdy as a windsor.
@303StreetMachines no it's not at all. If it were it would be as big of a turd as a 351. The old sbc had the beat down all over furd smallblocks. Why would they go backwards?
Keep em coming
Simple, static vs. dynamic compression. Octane gives you “resistance to detonation” I felt that you could have gone to a 14:1:1 na would have given better power. Then use math to tell you the limits of e85 dynamic compression for the turbo. After that fine tune the timing to keep it from blowing out the side ....
Happy New Year, Richard. Thanks for all the testing vids in 2020.
I think the coyote making more power on e85 is likely compression and combustion chamber design related. And the fact that you can change the dynamic compression ratio with the DOHC and VVT.
The LS combustion chamber at normal compression ratio doesn’t really need or benefit from the e85 until you start increasing cylinder pressure and adding more fuel and heat to take advantage of the cooling effect.
Just my opinion. Who knows
If an NA gasoline engine is set up such that you can give it all the timing it will take without detonation, I can see where the Ethanol wouldn't change anything. If the NA gas motor is finicky and detonates with timing that would give it more power, you back off the timing to let the motor live. In that case I can see how the extra detonation resistance of E85 would allow more timing and therefore better numbers. Things like chamber shape, piston speed, overlap, charge density, intake charge temp, reversion, and head temp all affect this. But I am well aware that you already know all of this and more. Interesting video. In Harleys with high static CR and in Harleys with boost, E85 works better as the motor runs cooler all else being equal. That winds up yielding better numbers largely due to allowing more timing.
First off, I am now addicted to your videos! I started reading about your work when the big bang 4.8 was first circulating. Second, I'm a big fan of E85. I picked up 80hp in my 2011 CTS-V after tuning by adding flex fuel capability. I'd really like to know the Lambda instead of AFR, since both fuels require a different AFR to be equal. But running the tests at the same Lambda would show just the effect of just the fuel itself. Then maybe adding timing and showing how much tuning can be added at equal boost levels to show how much the cooling & octane really help... But on the GT45, 4.8, BTR stage 1 truck cam motor. Just because I want to know what my combo is going to make at the crank!
THE LAMBDA IS THE SAME-WE USE THE GAS SCALE SO BOTH ARE RUN AT 11.5:1 GAS SCALE
@@richardholdener1727 I'm not quite understanding. You're running them both at 11.5 AFR or you're running the pump gas at 11.5 and the E85 at its equivalent (same lambda)?
Without a dyno, how can one tell if they have too much or too little timing at a given rpm/psi in a boosted ls?
I'm guessing this correlates to the torque curve and strength of components as one video I saw mentioned pulling back the timing during a particular rpm range.
Keep them coming Richard!!
Your casting vids are dope
@@lucysmith4242 thanks 😊 hope to be doing more soon..
If uncle Rodney visits you've got too much timing.
@@harperjmichael trying not to see rodney, or have a pan full of ring lands...
E85 makes like 30-40 more hp NA with the LT engine 👍
Direct injection
DAYUM
Swapping over to E85 and tuning for it on a hellcat is worth over 70whp.
Any proof on the NA LT making more power? Just want to see actually it but i assume the direct injection helps it
@@niknasstie www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468070
The car does have a rotofab cai but on a stock 6th gen camaro that is only about 5-8 hp gain and yes it has a lot to do with direct injection
I would also like to see the n/a e85 compared on a higher compression engine, I think that's where the big benefit is. Something 11:5.1 or better, e85 could really shin there, the pp gas would have to be run on lower timing to keep from knocking and the e85 would be able to take advantage where the pump gas couldn't. That would be cool too.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the difference in power come from the specific gravity? I think octane VS. specific gravity explaining fuel would be a good video for noobs like me.
The Ethanol molecule is smaller and less dense than Octane, however it also has lower caloric content, but more molecules can fit in a given space than Octane, so there's an overall net gain in caloric content at the cost of higher fuel consumption. Ethanol, being an alcohol, also will cool the air, and Ethanol fuel has around like 115 octane rating.
@@tommylyeah that’s kind of my point. The octane of the the two fuels is going to be very close. So with that in mind, they are going to differ in specific gravity creating better atomization due to being less dense, right?
@@ChadLisonbee - That makes sense ta me.
Great job as usual Richard! Don’t forget the added bonus that E85 exhaust smells so much better than pump gas! 😁
I am torn, I like the smell of E85 and race gas, but hardly anyone realizes its E85, and they definitely know the smell of race gas, so E85 is more sleeper unless everyone is running it already in your area.
E85 is dirt cheap compared to race gas, so I daily drive the stuff with way too much compression for pump gas.
@@SweatyFatGuy Plus the boys in blue don't tend to notice cars running E85 even when their catalysts are "sub-optimal". But anyone can smell gasoline not being catalysed properly.
Running e85 in my turbo bmw I can feel a difference even without changing the ignition timing between my 91 map
Gold star for you mr.!
If you are not picking up power on E85 vs pump gas, you are not running it rich enough. You do not lean it out to make more power on ethanol like you do with gasoline, throw fuel at it instead. Best power on E85 is around 7.5:1. best mileage with good power is around 8:1 to 9:1 AFR. Timing also plays a part too, as does head/chamber design. As I explained in my other post on this video, the reason ethanol makes more power is it has more oxygen in it. Adding more fuel adds more oxygen, and it compounds as you add more. Oxygenated race gas will keep up power wise because it has more oxygen in it, but it is hideously expensive and E85 around here is under $2 a gallon.
Even an 8:1 engine will puck up power if you get it enough ethanol. It might only be 8-20hp, but its less money and still more power. Low compression will result in lower mileage, but around 12:1 compression NA you will see the same mileage as on gasoline, and ethanol will pick up mileage along with power above 13:1. Lots more power, and using even less fuel.. still more win. From High Performance Pontiac magazine before they were bought by the owners of HRM. www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/
it also cools the intake charge, but that is very limited in a port fuel system, works a lot better with a carb where the fuel has more time to vaporize and pull heat out of the intake tract. You will see more power the farther up the intake tract you introduce the fuel, also more cooling because it has more time, and if you run the fuel hot enough in the EFI lines you can make power AND increase mileage. the turbo is heating the intake air, ethanol cools it even with port fuel injector location. you get a little bit with direct fuel injection, but that goes completely against how ethanol works, so you will probably use a lot more ethanol in a DI engine.
It DOES NOT eat your fuel system or engine gaskets, it will however clean all the varnish out of your fuel system and clog the pump, filter, and injectors. Additives are what cause the corrosion issues, not the ethanol. DO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO YOUR FUEL. Its bad enough when the oil companies do it. You know Jeff Smith as the tech editor of HRM and also for Summit Racing. Here is his article about corrosion on ethanol.
www.onallcylinders.com/2018/05/25/ask-away-jeff-smith-e85-pump-gas-additives-not-ethanol-cause-corrosion/
I've been running ethanol both mixed like E30-E98 and E100 that I make from tree sap, converting and tuning carbs like Holley, Demon, and my beloved Qjets. I am the go to info source for E85 Qjets. Look into it and you will find the info I have provided with m 455 Pontiac powered GTOs and Firebirds. I build my engines with as much compression as I can, my daily driver 65 GTO has an iron head 455 with 11.5:1 and closed chamber heads, it likes 42 degrees total advance, the 67 vintage 400 heads don't have a good chamber shape to go with the large quench areas. In the 90s those same heads wanted 52 degrees total on 100 octane VP or Sunoco race gas.
My tuning and mileage testing mule is a 13:1 455 with open chamber 69 RA III heads that have been ported to flow 70cfm more than stock. They do not have the center crossover filled so the intake can get warm, which helps with vaporization. It makes tire shredding torque, well over 600ftlbs from what I can tell based on its ease in moving a 4100lb 70 GTO, and gets 20mpg with a Qjet, 700R4, and 3.42 gears. Mid 11s is where both of them run, and the 65 is a lot lighter than the 70, like 700lbs.
It costs me 10 to 40 cents to make a gallon from tree sap or cattails, respectively. it also requires about a weeks worth of work to make enough for the year, mostly cleaning as the yeast do the heavy lifting for me. You need a good amount of space to produce ethanol, I have lots of trees with 3% to 5% sugar in the sap, (around 300 sugar maples) no need to cut them down, just tap it like maple syrup. Syrup is far more valuable if you want to sell it though, I drive my cars more than I eat pancakes or waffles. If you want to know how it all works, just ask me. Its very simple, but has legal requirements. I will be making some videos about all of this in the near future.
I use an Innovate wideband in my header collectors to measure the AFR, I do not run it on the gas scale, I want it to read what its actually doing, because the mix might be different from spring to summer, and my home brew tunes a bit different with no gasoline added to it.. I have alternative methods of denaturing the vodka. Lambda measures stoich, so I don't use that either, because best power and best mileage are a good distance apart in tuning. I don't have an engine or chassis dyno, so my measurements are all ET/MPH based. I am not the only one testing either, a group of us compare our tunes and a couple friends do Holley/Demon conversions for people.
You can try to run ethanol like you do gasoline, but I will make more power and use less fuel than you do. I put Richard in touch with Mark Sullens, but Richard didn't want our nearly two decades of tuning/racing information. Its ok though.
Saying that ethanol does not eat you fuel system is over simplistic and therfore incorrect. In a 2020 vehicle that would be a correct statement, in a older vehicle with natural rubber lines, fuel tanks containing lead, and cork gaskets the ethanol absolutely will cause sever deterioration and be problematic.
And you will never get more fuel milage out of e85 then regular gas if thats what you are trying to claim, it has less BTUs per gallon therefore will ALWAYS consume more fuel per mile traveled.
I'm pretty sure when Richard was quoting AFR's he was expressing the ethanol mixture in petrol equivalent. It would have been better to say lambda. There is no way he was actually running 12.8:1 on ethanol at full load, because it would probably miss and pop and make no power. In reality, his mixture gauge was telling him both vehicles were running a lambda of 0.87. He just didn't switch it over to ethanol for the AFR conversion when he switched fuels. We usually do the same thing with customers because most aren't equipped (or inclined) to try and understand the difference (the looks on their faces if you tell them the actual mixture you run with methanol is hilarious).
Never had q16 compare to good pump e85 and it took roughly 2-3 more in timing. Then ignite made the same difference on the same e85 tune over e85 as e85 did over q16.
@@JoshCP527 I haven't done much comparison with Q16, but the Ignite stuff does work. Can only assume that the gasoline they mix in has a lot less volatility at high cylinder pressure (and it has a little more ethanol too). Picked up almost 40 hp on a 1000 whp LT4 switching from pump E85 to Ignite.
The LY6, being a truck engine originally, has 9.7 or so compression. It runs on 87 octane with a factory truck cam. Even with the TFS heads, assuming a 65cc chamber, the compression is just over 10:1. That should not stress the pump gas octane. I’m wondering what would happen to the NA test if you put flat top, or even a small domed, piston in this combo and retest. I’m thinking 11 or 11.5 to 1, maybe more. Reducing the combination of chamber, piston, and head gasket by 10-12cc would get you in that range. I’d think timing sensitivity would make that combo like E85 a lot, but only the dyno really knows! Can you test this for us, Richard? Love this channel!
HIGHER COMPRESSION WILL HELP WITH E85
You say that E-85 is less expensive, and per gallon it is, but you have to use almost twice as much of it compared to gasoline. So to verify that if that statement is true it would be interesting to see the duty cycle comparison at the same fuel pressure and work out the comparative volumes used then figure out the cost difference between fuels.
You don't use twice as much. Interestingly, here in California, E85 is priced to provide a near equivalent cost per mile as 91 octane gasoline. It's close to a wash for a well tuned vehicle. But considering that you're getting the performance of $10-$15/gal race gas, it feels like a steal if your gas tank is big enough to avoid refueling every other day.
@@ChurchAutoTest - I was thinking of methanol using nearly 2x and I was assuming this wasn't too far off, I suppose I was incorrect. On another note, I really dislike (read hate) this state of CA. What city are you in? I'm in Fresno until I can escape.
@@rudyrayaaw5138 I'm in Los Angeles, but I have a biz in Texas now and am opening one in AZ soon. California is a dead state walking, just doesn't know it yet.
@@lapin46 correct, although it's slightly more since we're looking at fuel _mass_ and E85 density is slightly different than gas. Fortunately we can generally run it a touch leaner.
@@lapin46 True, true. Although if you're interested, you can look at freely available software like HP Tuners to see how your factory ECU is estimating fuel mass flow rate in its calculations, even without a flow meter. It becomes a little easier to grasp the AFR calc when you do it that way.
You need more compression as many have already said. If an engine will already make peak power before reaching detonation then changing fuel ain’t gonna do jack. You need compression or more heat in the motor so the alcohol can show it’s gains NA
Thankyou! This answered many of my questions about E85.
Unfortunately, i live in 1 of those states it's damn near impossible to find e85, CT. Nearest to me to buy it is 45-50miles away, n even trying to get 104 here is something like 8.50 a gal here, its ridiculous. Love ur vid's dude.
You didn't see much gain na because all these truck motors are low compression. Couple that with a cam and you'll lower the dcr more and make e85 nearly useless on a combo like that.
Part of our winter upgrade plans is a bigger pump, bigger injectors to make the change to E85, Plus a TBSS intake to go from 492 wheel hp to 600+ wheel hp. Why 600 wheel hp? Because #burnoutsandicecream
don't want it to melt!
That’s right!! Only thing melting in this truck is the tires!!
I got my turbo 5.3 street ready about a year ago. I was running around on 5psi for a while, until I finished the boost control and programmed it on the Holley Terminator. I was having no issues hitting 12psi of boost l, until it started getting hot here in Texas. I don't beat on it very hard, 6k max rpm at most. I attended LS Fest at Texas motor speedway a couple of weeks ago. On the way there, it made boost fine, no issues. On the way home it started popping and losing power at 5k rpm. I data logged it and everything looks great. IAT steady at 125, 100 degrees ambient. It will not make more than 6psi now. Right at 5k rpm and 6 psi boost, it pops like a 2 step. My 2 step is set at 2500rpm so I can make a little boost before the converter spins the tires. If anyone sees this and has any thoughts, I would welcome some input. It's on 93 octane, and the plugs all look great
leak
Thx Richard, great work
I would LOVE to see you do a e85 nitrous test. Mark Sullens who builds e85 carbs claims you don't have to pull any timing with nitrous when e85 is the main fuel and nitrous fuel. I believe him but I would love to see a test proving it to the disbelievers and also to see how much more power it's worth with the same jet!!
Happy new year's Richard
When are your cams going to be coming outtttt!!!!!!!??????
1.59 cents for a gallon of E85 in the great state of North Dakota
We in komifornia are envious!
I hate you!!!
😆
We would welcome you all with open arms
@@jodypierson3137 I love the weather here but hate the politics...
@@timdontwannasay5889 I totally understand
Happy New Year Richard Holdener!
If the engine don't need more octane, it ent going to thank you for it.
🇬🇧 gets 98 Ron. From the pump, we had a 1600cc sohc peugeot xu unit (205 gti) on 45mm Webber carbs and a reasonable race cam from piper cams here in the UK giving 183 bhp @ 8800 rpm and 126lbs/ft of torque at 5700-6300 rpm using 11.5:1 cr and changing to 101 Ron octane "race fuel" made no measurable (chassis dyno) differance either. We do not get E85.
We get 93 (R+M)/2 here which is the same as your 98 Ron. Not all places get 93 in the US for some reason, its all state based.
Yeppers... that should get us out of 2020. Let’s just hope 2021 doesn’t smile at 2020 ans say hold my beer..
IKR
2021 already off and running with 2020 holding said beer. also, the prices of fuel in the video will not age well.
Just need a bigger pump and injectors :). Any thoughts on octane boosters as an alternative to race gas? Does the mmt have any influence on anything
In the n/a. Test I think the compression was to low for timing needing to be pulled on pump fuel so no gain
Its about how much fuel you give it, you can make more power with 8:1 compression and open chamber heads easily.
www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/
@@SweatyFatGuy Well if you can turn the timing up without hitting knock/pre ignition. Then a high octane fuel is going to do jack shit
Re run the test with a knock sensor and 15/16 to one compression
Let it run off the sensor running as much timing as I will take
Then when it will pull timing if it sees knock
Then test again with e85
@@danielthompson3849 you're stuck on the limits of gasoline and octane ratings. Ethanol is a different fuel with different properties. You need to think differently when tuning it. Sure it will work if you run it like gasoline, but you aren't getting as much out of it as you could be.
If you are running low octane gasoline in an 8:1 engine with a certain chamber shape, it will want about the same amount of timing as one on high octane gasoline with 15:1. The gasoline itself will be different in composition though, more toluene or some other component that makes it harder to light. That will affect the burn rate, and that affects timing. Usually slower burning fuel wants a few more degrees of advance, provided it doesn't light off on its own.
Chamber shape makes a big difference too. The closed chamber 670 heads on my 455 wanted ten degrees more total advance than the open chamber 62 heads on the same fuel with the same compression. Chamber shape matters a lot. Thats Pontiac stuff, they are 72cc heads with 2.11 intake valves and 1.77 exhaust, from 400s that both make around 11:1 to 11.5:1 on a flat top 030 over 455. They flow within five cfm of each other in stock form, so the big difference is chamber shape.
Ethanol is a very different animal, you tune it different, you do not lean it to make power, you go rich. It cools the intake charge A LOT more than gasoline does as it vaporizes, it can withstand a lot more compression and advance than gasoline can, it can withstand compression and boost, two different things that increase cylinder pressure. It burns faster and more completely, wasting less of its energy as heat, so it runs cooler and makes more power due to having more oxygen in the fuel.
Ethanol will not care if its run in a 5:1 compression engine or a 22:1 compression engine, it will run the same. You will use a lot more in the 5:1 engine though, and not get as much power. If gasoline could be run in that 22:1 engine, ethanol would still make more power, due to increased oxygen content.
In the HPP article they found more power as they added more ethanol to gasoline. They were using VP race gasoline and E85 with race gas mixed to it. The race gas is harder to light than pump gas, so it actually works against making more power when you mix race gas with ethanol, and I am not the only one to have found that.
They would have picked up a couple more hp and tq in that SD 455 with its 8:1 had they used regular pump E85. Yeah we have known for a while that the VP stuff makes less power and runs slower ETs than 82-85% E85 from the pump. The additives cause problems though in some areas.
With 8:1 you aren't going to have a problem running the total timing anywhere the engine wants it. Been there done that with a 5C headed 455 that ran as good on 87 as it did on 91, and still made more power on E85. 5C heads are from a 1975 400, they have larger chambers but ports that flow about 7cfm more than the two heads I mentioned above, and have 1.66 exhaust valves.
The cool thing about Pontiac is you can swap heads around and make from 7:1 to 13:1 with the same piston and short block, and the D port heads all flow nearly the same , being within 10cfm of each other highest to lowest, with the same size intake valves, so you can test things like compression and chamber shape every easily and its apples to apples when only the chamber shape and size changes.
When you have more oxygen in the fuel, then adding more fuel will result in more oxygen in the chamber. More oxygen means more power. Its that simple, and that is why ethanol makes more power as you add fuel, and makes more power than gasoline.
However, most of the power gain comes in between idle and 3500rpm, you make more torque down low in the RPM range on ethanol than you do at the top, so peak is going to be similar or only a few hp more, but you can pick up 15-20ftlbs at 2500-3000 just by changing the fuel. Doesn't mean much to a small block guy who has to rev over 4500 to start making power, but its right where our 455s grunt the hardest and where most street driving is done.
My LS1 98 Formula will not spin the tires from idle with a quarter tank of E0% 93 in it, but mix 40% of ethanol in with 87 octane and that 2.73 geared, stock converter, with 285 45 17 tires will rip them off like they are nothing, on a full tank. More oxygen means more power.
The 5.3 and 6.0 powered 4x4s I run in the winter salt have more bottom end when I mix in 30% to 40% ethanol, makes pulling a trailer a lot easier, but I only do it in summer, because you don't need more power in winter on ice covered highways.
The problem with the LS engine and ethanol is injector sizing, the factory injectors do not have enough room to feed even a stock engine straight E85, you have to go larger. It will run on E85, but you get a lean bank code and it starts over fueling like crazy. You end up losing a lot of mileage, but it makes more power if it doesn't kill the timing due to the code. Too lean on gasoline with too much advance and you have broken parts, so it pulls timing.
Correct all of that, bigger injectors, tuned so the ECM knows not to pull timing on vodka, and they make more power when you feed them more ethanol... more ethanol means more oxygen which means more power .. and yeah it will allow more advance if the engine wants it.
@@SweatyFatGuy I’m in the U.K. so e85 is not available easy as it is in US Can’t wait till it’s available easier in U.K. can start to play with it
@@danielthompson3849 are you allowed to make vodka? I can show you how to build a 2" packed column reflux still with copper pipe, or PVC pipe will work too, if you have something between the boiler and the still. Then you can make your own fuel to test.
You need a source of sugar, starch works too but you need enzymes to break down the long chains so the yeast can eat it. Adds a bit of cost to each gallon converting starch to sugar. However you can make fuel from any starch or sugar, including waste paper, tree sap, cattails, candy waste, spoiled taters, stale bread, and more.
If you live in an apartment, its not a good idea, but if you know a guy who owns a decent sized farm, you could make a deal with him to feed his livestock with what comes out of the still, its all very edible and animals love the stuff.
If the crown gets pissy about it though, it might be a bunch of red tape to do enough to drive around. Mixing it a couple gallons at a time would be doable though. With bakers yeast you get a 10% yield, which means you get one gallon of 190 proof fuel from ten gallons of water, you can reuse the water as long as there is no rust in it. Yeast don't do well with rust. With 'turbo yeast' (its actually called that) you can get a 20% yield, or 2 gallons from ten gallons, but that yeast is more expensive and you might not be able to get it in the UK.
As usual the crown will want its taxes for you doing everything but breathing, but you could become a bootlegger making octane enhancing fuel at home.
All I need to do here in the US is simply let the BATF know I will be producing less than 5000 gallons per year, where I will be making it, environmental concerns like nearby water, and how I am storing it(needs to be locked up because its drinkable vodka until its denatured), then how much I make every 90 days. Its a free permit to micro produce fuel, and for a while they were giving a tax credit for every gallon of fuel you make. That makes me legal, its a bit of paperwork, but you avoid taxes and fines that way, and sometimes they pay you.
Starter info is right here.. Lots more than just ethanol in this library, a lot more.
journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html
NA applications that have really hot intake temperatures benefit more from E 85 such as Honda’s look how much power they get from turbo yet supercharged they don’t make as much on the same boost I believe it’s because of the intake temperatures. I wonder if you could test the intake temps at the manifold for ls and coyote direct injection engine’s get the most benefit since the e 85 shoots at the piston
Good Video Rich
But there's a downside to this fuel though as I tell customer's when I'm gonna tune their car's or truck's it's not always E85 at the pump it varies octane on the time of the year as well. Plus the other bad things are you need to upgrade the entire fuel systems starting with compatible lines resistant to ethanol and filters too. The injectors needed have to be doubled in capacity plus must be cleaned every few months due to getting gunked up with crap and must be ran with regular gas to keep them lubricated every couple of tanks to lube up the system internally. So in the end cost of the total conversion to E85 plus the maintenance plus the tuning must be redone for E85 as well. It adds up.. So YOU gotta think about all.
Anything over e50-e60 you won’t see a huge gain. Also with a flex sensor running pump won’t be a issue that’s simple. It’s always better to overbuild a fuel system from the start.
Not exactly Sonic. First, you only need about 40% more fuel capacity at the same power/boost level. Second, any car made since about 2000 has to have lines and parts that can handle ethanol in gasoline since it's been mandated in most of the country since then. As reese mentioned, most guys running ethanol run flex fuel these days with a proper ethanol sensor to compensate for varying mixes. Even cars that don't have flex available from the factory can buy injector intercept kits now that modify injector duty cycle for ethanol content (use these on older dodges that don't have flex in the ECU operating system). I do tell my customers to run a tank of regular gasoline basically whenever they do their oil change to keep the injectors clean. But I have done 10,000 miles on my CTSV between tanks of 91 with no issues. I think its more a case of poor tank quality/maintenance at the gas station, or crap already in your tank being dislodged by E85.
For older vehicles (80s and earlier to be sure), there are more issues to be considered, no argument there. But for anyone running more modern stuff, its a pretty painless conversion outside of the cost of bigger injectors/pump and retuning.
With higher compression 10:1 + the e85 would make more na pwr over 91, I'm only talking 10-15 hp over 91 on a 10:1 compression,
Great video as usual ! Please make a video on how much straight methanol injection you can add on a boosted application with 91 pump gas. Even seeing if adding a second methanol pump in parallel is worth it. Thanks
I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT DISTRIBUTION
@@richardholdener1727 Even with a carb style efi intake? Or even trying port injection. It would be interesting to see if there is such a thing as too much methanol and to what point you would be better off switching fuel
Here in Canada, no E85, race gas is expensive and you can buy 99.9% methanol at you local hardware store
Years ago E85 was so cheap, U buy a control box and mix it urself, but the stupid government saw the potential for profit and tax ethanol portion very high. A few years ago one servo franchise started selling E85 on. Around 20 cents cheaper than unleaded. Now 30cents dearer. Good on U Australia
You are burning at least 20% more fuel with the e85, I would think that the lower charge temp is helping increase power. I wonder if using ice water in intercooler would change the results to bring race fuel and e85 closer in the power?
ICE WATER ADDS POWER TO BOTH
@@richardholdener1727 Which fuel has more energy potential?
Really curious to see how the E85 would compare to pump gas NA when the coolant temp is up at a normal op temps for a car around 180-200 degrees. I seem to remember you normally doing runs when motors are still fairly cold...
Without the cylinder pressure the octane becomes a hindrance. You need to be able to fully burn your fuel.
My thoughts only......
Na gains would be from lower temps and greatly advanced timing do to a slower burn rate
By pressure, do you mean compression? Serious question.
Very interesting and thank you as always. What injectors were you using and did you adjust the tune to add more fuel? Or did you literally just drain the tank and add E85?
I don't think the stock 6.0l has enough compression to really take advantage of e85 expecially sense it was already optimize for 91 octane over the stock 87 octane it was designed for. I love e85 either way because it's a good cleaner for the back of your valves and such.
On the turbo application, ive heard e85 increases turbo response rates because of the extra fuel that is needed for ethanol. That would be interesting to see.
Matches what we see on the chassis dyno. Something to think about....
Theoretically (I know, bad word) E85 should produce 5-6% more power than gasoline even if you don't run more timing. There is less energy in a gallon of E85 than gas, but you inject so much extra fuel that the energy liberated is 5-6% more. So why don't we see that on lower compression engines like the off-the-shelf LS stuff? I suspect it has something to do with the amount of fuel we're injecting, and how much air we're displacing. Perhaps also that we're quenching the combustion process somewhat, just like when we inject a ton of meth on an NA engine.
This would also explain why LT engines see vastly larger gains with E85. They only pick up 7-8% more power naturally aspirated on E85, but torque gains can easily exceed 10% near peak VE. Why? They are higher compression, but the gains are too large to be explained by that. I suspect that the ability to inject a lot of the fuel after the intake valve has closed is a big part of it.
When I'm tuning flex fuel on an LS equipped Tahoe or Silverado, one trick I find that helps me get a touch more output is to run a fair bit leaner on E85. You won't knock running 13.5 (that's a gas equivalent AFR, let's just say lambda of 0.92-0.93), but it seems to help just a bit. As for turbo engines, looks like it gained about 6% more power which is right on target for energy content changes from race gas to ethanol. Maybe the higher intake temps and increased mixture motion offsets any potential quenching/displacement issues.
More compression make a bigger na difference I guess would be the only plus? Get the timing up with more squish?
Its about how much fuel you give it, you can make more power with 8:1 compression and open chamber heads easily.
www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/
I am running closed chamber heads on my Pontiac, they want more advance than the open chamber heads on another 455 of mine. Closed chamber is 11.5:1 static, the open heads have been milled so they make 13:1, the open chambers make more power, but that is probably due to the CNC porting vs hand porting and the compression ratio difference. Those 13:1 capable heads are monsters for iron heads.
we tried more fuel-nope!
@@richardholdener1727 Did you play with timing when you added more fuel?
I can't get e85 so pump gas and alcohol and water injection after the intercooler is the way to go here.
same here. Don't really need water injection, but I inject a tiny amount above 9 lbs boost--- just in case.
What was the compression ratio of the engine when it ran on e85?
It seems to me to me that E85 needs help like direct port injection or boost to get a good enough density to see a gain in power. Just a thought...
Yes, higher compression would also benefit from the E85 for those who really want to stay NA. Anymore tho a turbo is the way to go, more power for less 💰
why stage 3 cam for 6500? most stage 3 cams i see aren't ideal for only going to 6500rpm. i probably would've went stage 2(220-224 duration) for 6500rpm or reved the stage 3 out to 7k+. but still a good test regardless
You would make more power NA if you could increase the compression ratio. Form what I am seeing 13.1 on a sbc is pretty natural when it is corn fed :-)
I have a c3 corvette Running rear mounted VS racing 7875 Gen 2 Turbo on a 6L engine, If I run E85 how much boost can I run without an intercooler?
I just watched Brian Tooley talk about the valve timing relationship between intake valve open and the exhaust valve close and he said to ignore the lobe separation angle...do you believe that the LSA is important?
OVER LAP DOES NOT BLOW BOOST OUT -BACK PRESSURE IS HIGHER THAN BOOST PRESSURE
It’s a 1.86 a gallon here in Huntsville Alabama
And we are get f**k here in quebec ! 1.09$ per litre! So like 4$ /gallon of 87octane😣 imagine if we were havibg e85... it would be 2$ /litre
Did you guys actually check if it was e85? Lot of variability in gas stations for true e85, some of them have come in as low as 65.
I've always heard rumors that E85 can build boost faster because the chemical reaction of combusting E85 produces a greater volume of exhaust. Have you ever seen evidence of such a thing?
And I think most LS guys would shy away from 30 degrees of timing NA on pump gas, so that might be where some people have found gains in E85--by having enough stomach to put the timing in under their E85 safety blanket
I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT TESTED
More power and less expensive! You can't get better than that!
More trips to the gas station with e85
Have you tried E30 or E50 this is a common thing for turbo'd 4cly with a weak or GDI fuel system, I personally think a mix of E85 and race gas might get you more power per liter of fuel and still hit of even exceed pure E85
AFTER E50 THE GAINS ARE MINIMAL
@@richardholdener1727 i figured at best the extra flow might only help egt, I have twin turbos on a 2014 yukon 5.3 with vvt&dod delete with a btr stage 1 cam. Also beefed up the trans for towing. I did the tune my self was not that hard more or less just chase the numbers and watch egt and stay on the safe side. Im at 12.2:1 at 12psi and 24deg timing peek but i tuned while pulling a 9000lbs trailer and then to static loads to make it more daily drivable
Mr Holdner, do you feel a 9 to 9.5:1 compression on a LSX type engine be safe on 91+ octane with up to 15lb of boost?
What do you think "BALLPARK" max compression could be obtained because i know many supercharger companies even GM have put boost on 11:1 engines, i was just curious to what your take is with a good healthy cam of at (LEAST) 230* @ .050+ high duration cam types..
Because i wish to have a good healthy compression in case the charger may have issues etc, you can still have a really stout N/A only engine with a simple tune swap.
DEPENDS ON TIMING
Like the N/A tests, I would have like to see both turbo tests done with optimized timing. Could the pump gas run better than the numbers you produced? Same with the E85. Would the margin change? Or would they both just get a little more? Love these vids.
'Seems that a 416ci with ported 706 heads would do very well on E85. (12:1 compression?)
E85 responds to boost or compression. A low compression build for boost will not make more power @ NA without boost
On ethanol vs gasoline, yes it will make more power despite having low compression, if you get it enough ethanol. More O2 means more power, and ethanol has more O2 in it, adding more makes more power until you go richer than 7:1 AFR, then it makes the some power but uses more fuel.
You pick up so much more with boost because of how much ethanol cools the intake charge, ethanol has more exhaust gas volume as well, and you can really turn up the boost on it because ethanol doesn't want to light without a spark.
www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-1109-testing-different-fuel/
Would like to see the comparison pull with added boost and timing
You should test the bmw n54 to its limits . So cheap to get may not be the easiest to find tho
We don’t have e85 in the uk, but have pump 99oct.
Your 98 ron is the same as US 93 (R+M)/2, it depends on what part of the country on if it is widely available.
love the videos
th-cam.com/video/j9vWVz3Qoz0/w-d-xo.html
Off of this topic. When we look at drag racing engines it seems a 540 is about as big of an engine that you typically see with turbos or some kind of supercharger while nitrous motors are approaching 1,000 cubic inches.
Is there a limiting factor, or a rules restriction?
NITROUS MOTORS NEED MORE NA POWER THAN BOOSTED MOTOR TO GET TO THE SAME HP LEVEL
So, boost doesn't need those mountain motors.
Nice content. But E85 is not widely available in some states.
I'm curious what A/F ratio you're running on the e85 both N/A and turbo. E100 has a lower density than gasoline and stoichiometric is 9:1 so you need to run quite a bit richer with E85.... like 8:1 for peak power. I suspect the cooling effect must be about the same with E85 vs pump gas on the N/A engine, but have a better cooling effect on the turbo engine. It may be interesting to see exhaust gas temperatures in the comparison also.
Just for the fun of it, I tried a little math to calculate theoretical MAF and theoretical power and VE at the peak torque rpm of 5000 on the N/A engine.
6.0L/2 * 5000rpm/60sec/min * 1.184 g/L = 296 g/sec = 39.12 Lb/min MAF @100%VE
multiply by 10 hp/lb/min airflow and I get 391 HP.... using the 450 hp number you had
450 hp/390 hp =.1.15 which is what the VE of the engine would be at 5000 rpm.
I don't know if this is even possible, but the facts cannot lie. It would also be interesting to see some MAF numbers.
WE ADJUSTED THE AF ON THE E85 (AND GAS) TO FIND BEST SAFE POWER
Great video, just curious on the difference between pump 91 with water meth and pump E85 timing values.
Done it on my ls turbo. Difficult to street tune plus over fueling is an issue. Have an Aem controller an a eboost 2.
Its not octane or fuel limited though that's why same on the na gen 3 hemi.
Did you run the same injector also? i was always told with E you need 2x the amount of fuel to make the same power. Happy New Year, Love the vids!
WE HAD BIG ENOUGH INJECTORS TO SUPPORT THE FUEL FLOW ON THE E85 (IT'S NOT TWICE AS MUCH)
Comment for the algorithm 👍
Right on
Nice comparison
How much boost and timing can I run on my 4.8 twin holset hy35w turbos with 93 octane fuel? Its stock bottom end with ring gap. Truck intake with a cam. Made 416 hp na. Would it be safe to turn it up and make 1000hp on 93 octane if timing is conservative enough??
1000 HP ON 93?
Or maybe 800 ? Just wondering what you think is to much on 93 and what is safe. 👍
Even if you run single digit timing and 30 pounds of boost you're going to produce enough heat to detonate that pump swill.
You could put some race gas in it and pull big dyno bragging numbers but on pump gas they really struggle above 700. And the variability in actual octane at the pump can cost you dearly. Press it hard on substandard fuel and it won't be pretty. One tank of mislabeled or contaminated fuel will spray the rods all over the road.
So I guess I should stick to around 8 lbs . It makes 620 ish on 8 lbs with 21 degrees of timing afr is around 11.9
Does the Coyote take less timing advance to make peak power than this LS?
If the peak power timing is less advanced then the combustion happens faster so E85 must have the advantage in engines with faster burning combustion events, as well as charge cooling.
Here we are in Oct of 2022 and E85 is MOST certainly NOT $2.50 a gal in Cali...Hell, it's over $3.00 here in Texas. Thanx SO much #FJB
why so angry?
Richard can you do a 6.0 LS (iron block) test that is supercharged and twin turbo'ed. I'm really curious to see what is possible with this setup.
WHY DO YOU NEED BOTH?
Hey Richard, what are your thoughts on gapless rings like total seal. I totally agree with you on the ring gap situation, its just common sense but seems like too much blowby when the engine is cool or not running hard. would total seal rings solve this? or are they as problematic as I read about?
NOT NECESSARY
E85 will tolerate more compression NA. Without more compression it leaves power on the table.
I think you need more compression. I don't believe the LS family (especially truck engines) is compression limited so you aren't seeing much difference.
Below 3000 rpm what u have timing sat at?