E85 Blenders please chime in.
- Thread starter Blackhawk
- Start date
With my old MKS as well as my new Conti, I have found that speed makes a huge difference. Driven in the 60 MPH range, my MKS would get close to 30 MPG but at 75-80 it would be closer to 24-25.
Regarding E85, my wife's naturally aspirated Taurus is a flex fuel vehicle but E85 drops the mileage pretty dramatically - at least 4 MPG. On the flip side, I have been running one of Brad's E-tunes in my Continental and using approximately an E40 blend and my fuel mileage is just as good or better as when I run E10. Apparently, the advanced timing is making up for typical characteristics of poorer mileage with Ethanol.
Regarding E85, my wife's naturally aspirated Taurus is a flex fuel vehicle but E85 drops the mileage pretty dramatically - at least 4 MPG. On the flip side, I have been running one of Brad's E-tunes in my Continental and using approximately an E40 blend and my fuel mileage is just as good or better as when I run E10. Apparently, the advanced timing is making up for typical characteristics of poorer mileage with Ethanol.
Brucelinc said:
And from what I hear wants his AFR darn near close to stoich....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DerricksSho
New member
FoMoCoSHO your on a 45% blend with stock components no aftermarket pump? That is BEAST!!! congrats...
Back to this thread for a second.... Even if the fuel system can handle it, I wonder if too much E85 could hurt performance? My Continental fuel system can handle all the E85 I can throw at it. I am the running the 4th revision what Brad is calling an E50 tune. Our latest revision looked the best on the logs and feels very strong but I was probably only running about 35-40% ethanol when we logged it. Boost and timing looked good to Brad.
I carefully refueled to get a 50% mix and took it to the track but car was slower than it was with an earlier version when I was running a lesser E mix. Could too much octane (burning more slowly) hurt performance if timing is maxed out?
I carefully refueled to get a 50% mix and took it to the track but car was slower than it was with an earlier version when I was running a lesser E mix. Could too much octane (burning more slowly) hurt performance if timing is maxed out?
Wow, I thought some of you E gurus would comment on my last post. I guess I will have to answer my own question at the track. I will run less E next time. I have to think the added octane of the 50% mix hurt my performance compared to the 35% mix I ran before. Brad was fine with my logs at 35% so I am not worried about detonation.
That's a good question... I have never heard more octane being an issue than you are tuned for... more just a fail safe.
E85 burns cooler so I would think it would help overall... so not sure why you would run slower? You are having to throw more fuel at the car to achieve the same power but as long as the fuel system is still able to keep AFR then I don't see where the issue would be?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
E85 burns cooler so I would think it would help overall... so not sure why you would run slower? You are having to throw more fuel at the car to achieve the same power but as long as the fuel system is still able to keep AFR then I don't see where the issue would be?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I never blended more than E30 with Brad... but never took it to the track to compare...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know Brad is busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger so I haven't heard from him for awhile. He has always said that my fuel system was not an issue and the pressure held up fine. I think he added 4 degrees of timing for the "E50" tune. I wonder if the car might need even more spark to take advantage of a 50% mix. There is just no other explanation for slower times with 50% Ethanol vs 35% that I ran before except that the additional E just slowed the burn rate too much.
Note that I an NOT criticizing Brad at all. This is the first 3.0 Continental than anyone has tuned and it does seem to respond differently to tuning than the 3.5 ecoboost.
Note that I an NOT criticizing Brad at all. This is the first 3.0 Continental than anyone has tuned and it does seem to respond differently to tuning than the 3.5 ecoboost.
Brucelinc said:
How much slower are we talking? Could it be environmental?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was only a tenth slower but the DA was 1000 feet more favorable with the 50% mix. I was running a revised tune that looked better on the logs than before. The boost and spark were holding up better and Brad liked what he saw. I was expecting it to be quicker considering the better air and the better log.