slash128's Top Mount Build
#1526
n3rd
Thread Starter
Tested my could today and found a dead one. Replaced it and no more high boost breakup. Back in business! ...for now...
#1527
n3rd
Thread Starter
#1530
Dark Moderator
iTrader: (18)
Yea I've seen em.. and Brett all but called me an idiot cuz I didn't have that one kidding Brett. He did suggest a similar one. Mine has the open area to see the spark but apparently doesn't test as vigorously as that one..
Guess I need to stop in and see Muz tomorrow at Napa.
Travis
Guess I need to stop in and see Muz tomorrow at Napa.
Travis
#1536
n3rd
Thread Starter
No comment Brettus?
I decided to throw a little back in... So far results have been positive.
Unfortunately, my clutch is no longer up to the task, even in third at this point. I've been fighting this power dip and spike. I played with AFR, timing, APV... Then I overlaid RPM and vehicle speed and looky here. The engine speed departs from vehicle speed starting around 5200 RPM, which is where the power spikes. Then it starts catching again around 5800 RPM and power dips and is gets the vehicle back up to speed and eventually levels off again... Looking at the AFR graph I kept thinking that was related, but I couldn't get the power graph to respond to fueling or timing changes... Seems an HD clutch is a requirement to proceed from here
I decided to throw a little back in... So far results have been positive.
Unfortunately, my clutch is no longer up to the task, even in third at this point. I've been fighting this power dip and spike. I played with AFR, timing, APV... Then I overlaid RPM and vehicle speed and looky here. The engine speed departs from vehicle speed starting around 5200 RPM, which is where the power spikes. Then it starts catching again around 5800 RPM and power dips and is gets the vehicle back up to speed and eventually levels off again... Looking at the AFR graph I kept thinking that was related, but I couldn't get the power graph to respond to fueling or timing changes... Seems an HD clutch is a requirement to proceed from here
#1538
n3rd
Thread Starter
This is what I was running when I hit 430rwhp @ 17psi on 92 octane:
This is what I dialed it back to after losing that motor:
This is what I am currently running on E50:
Considering going back to the original timing but need to get my clutch replaced first. I can't really get good logs with it slipping...
This is what I dialed it back to after losing that motor:
This is what I am currently running on E50:
Considering going back to the original timing but need to get my clutch replaced first. I can't really get good logs with it slipping...
#1539
n3rd
Thread Starter
Here's some data on E50 MPG. This was a 30 mile highway trip of mostly flat road. There were a couple hills which resulted in the highs and lows but overall it was right around 18.5. I think not bad...
#1541
n3rd
Thread Starter
On this same stretch of road 22'sh. "Straight" gas for me was always E10. Had to hi to for "e-free" but after all this research and testing I think the E10 helped me get away with a tad more than straight gas might have tolerated. It seems to me the only real drawback to ethanol blends is reduced MPG.
#1542
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
15% penalty isn't bad at all -considering the benefits you are seeing ! for me ,pricewise, that would end up being same all things considered.
Do you know what the E10 you were on was blended with ? 87 or 91 octane ?
That test you sent me seems to suggest 91 octane E10 is slightly inferior to 91 octane straight gas.
Do you know what the E10 you were on was blended with ? 87 or 91 octane ?
That test you sent me seems to suggest 91 octane E10 is slightly inferior to 91 octane straight gas.
Last edited by Brettus; 02-16-2016 at 03:51 PM.
#1543
n3rd
Thread Starter
I agree it is well worth it, even with the "inconvenience" of having to drive downtown to fill up.
That research paper seems to indicate that the "91" E10 was 87 octane blended with 10% ethanol. I believe that is specific to their testing.
The local pumps all have "up to 10% ethanol" blended with each of the octane ratings of reg 87, mid 89 and prem 92. So my assumption is the 92 octane at the local pump is 92 octane base with 10% ethanol added... But I am not 100% sure...
That research paper seems to indicate that the "91" E10 was 87 octane blended with 10% ethanol. I believe that is specific to their testing.
The local pumps all have "up to 10% ethanol" blended with each of the octane ratings of reg 87, mid 89 and prem 92. So my assumption is the 92 octane at the local pump is 92 octane base with 10% ethanol added... But I am not 100% sure...
#1545
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
I agree it is well worth it, even with the "inconvenience" of having to drive downtown to fill up.
That research paper seems to indicate that the "91" E10 was 87 octane blended with 10% ethanol. I believe that is specific to their testing.
The local pumps all have "up to 10% ethanol" blended with each of the octane ratings of reg 87, mid 89 and prem 92. So my assumption is the 92 octane at the local pump is 92 octane base with 10% ethanol added... But I am not 100% sure...
That research paper seems to indicate that the "91" E10 was 87 octane blended with 10% ethanol. I believe that is specific to their testing.
The local pumps all have "up to 10% ethanol" blended with each of the octane ratings of reg 87, mid 89 and prem 92. So my assumption is the 92 octane at the local pump is 92 octane base with 10% ethanol added... But I am not 100% sure...
Here in nz they blend ethanol with 95octane (your 91) and call it 'Gull force10 , 98 octane'.
Last edited by Brettus; 02-16-2016 at 04:14 PM.
#1546
n3rd
Thread Starter
Possibly, I don't know for sure either way. However, if what you said is the case then the numbers se m to be off. The research paper showed an AKI (R+M)/2 octane rating of 90.5 for an 87 base E10 blend. Premium at the local pumps here show 92 (R+M)/2 octane rating, not 90.5. They would either need to start with a higher base octane or more than 10% ethanol. Also, 87 octane with 10% ethanol wouldn't make sense to me either because that means the base fuel would have to be less than 87 octane.
#1549
n3rd
Thread Starter
Also wanted to mention that this is still better than the purported 28-30% penalty for E85, while still getting pretty much the same anti-knock benefits and pretty good cooling benefits as well. There could be other ratios that stole a sweeter spot but the clincher for me is my station has E50 mixed at the pump
#1550
n3rd
Thread Starter