• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Converting to E85 (ethanol fuel)

I'm going to order the adjustable fpr from summit. What fittings needed to add a guage also?

I was looking at this
Actron Fuel Pressure Testers
sun-cp7818_w.jpg

but the pdf instructions say not for flex fuel, gasoline only. lol




edit

• Do not use the Fuel Pressure Tester Kit on Diesel or Flex Fuel engines.
• Only use the Fuel Pressure Tester Kit on Gasoline powered engines.
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=SUN-CP7818&N=0&autoview=sku
 
Last edited:
Later on, I will try this mod in conjuction with E85: Advance/retard timing on EZ116K

If we can sort it out, it will definitely be a great benefit when running E85. It is said that somewhere between 9 to 12 degrees of extra ignition advance works great with E85.

The mileage will be a lot better and the power will be much greater that what is achieveable on gasoline.

When you are running E85 and a lot of advanced timing, the statements "-That turbo will only be enough for 300HP", "-Get a bigger IC" and "-I have trouble with pinging" will not be heard/used very often.

People in Sweden has run ~330HP and ~350lb/ft of torque on E85 when using this setup and similar:

16T turbo (18psi of boost)
VX3 cam
531 head
48lb/hr injectors
9.0:1 CR
Chipped fuel ECU
Stock ignition ECU

bromspapper1.jpg



Same setup on gasoline:

bromspapper2.jpg
 
The current setup from the guy mentioned above:

19T turbo, ported, MBC 14-21psi
531 head
VX3 cam
Renovated bottom end
3" AMM (transplanted the electronics to an aluminum pipe)
3" downpipe, cat, mufflers and pipes
Iveco aluminum IC
780cc injectors @3 bar
Fuel and ignition maps from Turbo Center in Stockholm.

This resulted in 370HP and 575 NM (424lb/ft)

bromsning370.jpg
 
I'm gonna order the adjustable fpr. Should make it easy to install.

What about fittings for fuel pressure guage. Can it just be hooked up to the test valve on the fuel rail, and left or removed as needed?
 
davidmacq said:
I'm gonna order the adjustable fpr. Should make it easy to install.

What about fittings for fuel pressure guage. Can it just be hooked up to the test valve on the fuel rail, and left or removed as needed?
The test valve on the rail is a shrader valve (the same as used on your tires), so if you can find a gauge with that type of connection or make an adapter for it, then it would probably work fine.

Don?t connect/disconnect the gauge while the car is running. You?ll never know how good the valve will seal.

Measure the base fuel pressure with the vacuum hose disconnected.
 
I just wanted to tell you that I have raised my fuel pressure to 4bar to support my performance goals. I used the Malpassi AIR004 linear FPR that is pictured in the first post. It works like a charm.
 
Has anyone looked into simply adding 1 injector behind the thottle body? The idea is to choose an injector that pumps 30% or more of the combined output of the four stock injectors. Run the new injector in parallel off one of the stock injectors. Now you can plug and unplug it when you want to switch from E85 or petrol. An AFPR or piggyback would still be useful in tuning it all in.
 
I must say this has been one of the most interesting articles I have ever read on TB or the intraweb for that matter. E85 FTW! Thanks to Fred for all he has done for Volvo performance.
 
No we will not need to emport Ethanol from anywhere. No the largest ethanol maker in the US isn't a foregin owned agent. It is a U.S. Farmer owned company in Iowa.
...
Of course the oil companies are not going to support this but the security of this country is at stake on this oil problem. Watch the news. If we didn't need oil, if just 50% of the U.S. population would make thier own fuel and help their neighbor who can't/won't we would need oil only for durable goods like plastics, other synthetics, drugs, chemicals that only can be made from, "petrochemicals", "hydrocarbons" and live in a cleaner environment.

From The Oil Drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/5/23/23846/0807

If you listen to the news lately, you know that E85 is going to lead the U.S. to energy independence, just like it did in Brazil. Senator Hillary Clinton has announced that she is getting into the act:
"President Bush and other elected officials have called for a greater expansion of E-85, a fuel made of 85 percent ethanol that can be used in vehicles built to run on both regular unleaded gasoline and E-85. E-85 is currently available in less than one percent of the country's gas stations, and Clinton wants to accelerate the spread of the fuel to half of the nation's gas stations by 2015 by offering a 50 percent tax credit for station owners who install ethanol pumps. `We've got to take action on this pump issue or we're just spinning our wheels,' she said."
<!-- close introtext -->There's more... (705 words) | Comments (232) | Permalink
<!-- close story_summary -->Just spinning our wheels. Indeed. But let's do a reality check and see whose wheels are spinning. These claims deserve a mathematical analysis, which none of the E85 proponents appear to have done.
According to http://www.corn.org/CRAR2005.PDF (Warning: 1.9 meg file) the estimated corn harvest in 2005 was 10.35 billion bushels, and corn exports were 1.95 billion bushels. According to the 2002 USDA study Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol, you can get 2.7 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. That means if we turned the entire corn crop into ethanol, we could make 27.9 billion gallons of ethanol. But as we all know, the BTU value of ethanol is around 67% that of gasoline, meaning that on a BTU basis this much ethanol is equivalent to 18.8 billion gallons of gasoline.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, our annual gasoline consumption is up to almost 140 billion gallons. That means on a BTU equivalent basis, converting the entire corn crop into ethanol would amount to 13.4% of our annual gasoline demand. Putting all of that ethanol into the gasoline supply would mean ethanol could comprise 19% of the gasoline supply on a volumetric basis (while consuming all of our corn production). In other words, all of the gasoline in the country could be E19 if we wanted to use 100% of the corn crop. Of course if we only want to turn all of our current exports into ethanol (ignoring the many implications), that would amount to 2.5% of our annual gasoline demand. In that case, E10 could make up about a third of our gasoline supply on a volumetric basis. If we want to convert all of the corn exports into E85, it could make up 3.3% of our total gasoline pool.
But that's the good news. According to the previously mentioned USDA study, it takes 77,228 BTUs of fossil fuel inputs to make 83,961 BTUs of "green, renewable" ethanol. Ignoring co-products for a moment, that means the created energy was a mere 8% in excess of the input energy. Given that the fossil fuels (primarily natural gas) that went into making the ethanol can usually serve as transportation fuels, the amount of transportation fuel that is displaced is only the 8% that was "created". That means that in reality, using our entire corn crop would only displace 1% of our annual gasoline consumption. If we only decide to use our exports, the net displacement of gasoline would be 0.2% of our annual gasoline consumption.
Now, a word about co-products. Energy balance studies of grain ethanol almost always include a BTU credit for the co-products (mostly animal feed). I think this is appropriate, provided that a proper analysis is made of the energy inputs into the products that were displaced. Let's ignore for a moment the fact that some estimates indicate that the "byproduct markets could saturate well short of 11 billion gallons of production". Let's give full credit for the byproducts, just as if they are liquid fuels to be burned. This has no effect on the BTU equivalent calculation, but will affect the displacement calculation. With by-products included, the USDA report has 77,228 BTUs of fossil fuel inputs for 98,333 BTUs of total outputs. In this best case scenario, the ratio of energy out/energy in is 1.27. Converting 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, presuming we had a market for the byproducts, would then displace an incredible 2.0% of our annual gasoline consumption. So, why the big rush to get E85 pumps at 50% of the nation's gas stations? We can't possibly produce enough E85 to justify putting in all those pumps. Wouldn't it be much better just to push for E10 at more locations? In that case, expensive new pumps are not required, and E10 can already be burned in most vehicles on the road. Or how about encouraging more natural gas vehicles, instead of inefficiently and expensively turning natural gas into ethanol? But I suppose those would be rational solutions, as opposed to feel-good solutions that promise energy independence.

So much for no longer needing oil, huh?
 
What psi range does the Malpassi support? Cost?

Not a direct replacement like the Holley?

The Malpassi I bought (in Sweden) cost me $95 and supports 14.5-72.5psi (1-5bar).

And no, the Malpassi is not a direct replacement but a FPR you put in series with the original one.
 
**** our posts from yesterday discussing the 5th injector setup are missing....

Summary:
When you need to drive on E10 (reg. gas) and E85 as well, a easy solution is a 5th injector. The LH ECU adapts very good to this.
Drive on E10, tank almost empty, tank E85, before you start enable the 5th injector and start the car.
Only 'problem' is how to place the 5th injector, it needs to distribute the fuel evenly between the cylinders.

The 5th injector needs to be around 0.39x4 times bigger than the 4 'main' injectors (on a 4 cylinder engine)
 
my car is now running on E85 and wow, just wow. I have a real hard time not running super fast.

I need to work out the kinks for cold start in the mornings, but man the power is awesome.

I just got 210 miles on my first tank on 14.2 gallons of E85. And this is with a 230hp 260ftlb in full weight of 2910 lbs.
 
All threads, info and FAQ is back.

Yep... Now I have worked my ass off and all the threads that got lost or f-ed up in the crash or outdated in the backup are now redone and updated with the latest info.

So the "Chips for redblocks", "Feedback: Chips for redblocks", "Chipping FAQ" and "Converting to E85 (ethanol fuel)" are now back again in full glory.

And yes... I have backups of them all.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
 
Fred from that other thread, have you decided that the mod to the ignition grounding the pins for advance is not suitable for running e85 due to the higher rpm issues you mentioned?
 
Fred from that other thread, have you decided that the mod to the ignition grounding the pins for advance is not suitable for running e85 due to the higher rpm issues you mentioned?
It is very much dependant on the cam you are running actually but the same basic things applies to all cars that use E85 in a performance application.

I just added this to the main post:

Tuning spark maps with E85:

With ethanol you can advance the timing pretty much because of two things:

* Burn rate at different rpm's.

* Octane rating.

Thoughts on LH2.2 and LH2.4:

The stock chips are not very good to run ethanol (E85) on. The spark map is f-ed up even for gasoline use, and even more f-ed up for ethanol. It doesn?t look very good when you view it graphically (think roller coaster). The tuned chips I sell will already be at the limit of knock and have a more consistent map and will therefore work excellent with E85. Then it is just a matter of advancing it further if you desire.

Don?t get me wrong. I am not saying that the stock chips are bad in anyway when it comes to running E85, they are just inefficient. Pinging is definitely not an issue since the spark map is very conservative.

Thoughts on programmable EMS:

Advice (at a fixed amount of boost):

* 1000 up to 2500-3000rpm = A lot of advance. Probably more than a sane number. A nice increase in torque is definitely expected :-D .

Why? Because ethanol burns slower at low rpm's, AFR's and pressures. You can also use more advance because of the cooling effect and the higher octane rating.

* 2500-3000 up to almost 5000 = a few degrees more advance than on gasoline (3-9 degrees depending on dynamic compression).

Why? Also dependant on the burn rate. Since the engine will have less time to ignite the mixture the advance compared to gasoline will not be as great number, but great in terms of percent.

* From around 5000 and up = Equal to gasoline or slightly more retarded (yes, more spark retard).

Why? Because here you can let the ethanol do its job. Push the piston downwards and not counteract its motion by lighting the air/fuel mixture off too early. It only leads to unnessecary high cylinder pressure.

Let the piston pass TDC with at least 10 degrees before the peak pressure occurs.

Richer mixture will burn quicker, but... a richer mixture will also raise the threshold of knock.

Follow this rule: MBT = "Minimum ignition for Best Torque". Use the least/smallest possible ignition advance that gives maximum torque.

So... how much advance can you actually run? Since knocking is not the greatest problem with ethanol you should worry about other things, namely the headgasket and other things! You can advance the ignition a lot across the range but how much pressure can the headgasket take? How much pressure can the head bolts take before they stretch? How much force can the rods withstand before bending/breaking?

I ran +3 degrees across the board on my chipped LH2.4 system for a while. It gave me a lot better low end torque but made my engine sound "hard" above 5000rpm at 20psi of boost. The reason it sounded "hard" was that the cylinder pressure was so great at a very early stage of the combustion cycle. It made me gain low end torque but robbed me of horsepower up top.

It is more a rule than an exception that you will have over-advanced the ignition (and thereby loosing power again) before knock occurs on ethanol. The cylinder pressures will therefore become very high so watch the rods/headgasket.

Knock is not proceeded by the rods making a window in the block when running ethanol. The rods will pop out to say hello much earlier than that...

I am now back at the stock setting on my tuned chips again. The torque at low rpm's is lower but I gained top end and the engine sounds healthier.
 
Some info for you who are using / will be using E85:

Regardless of engine managment system used, there are some things that differ between gasoline and ethanol fuel (E85).

At cold start / cold running:

When you look at your AFR gauge/meter (set to measure the AFR of E85 of course, stoichiometric value of 9.765) you will notice some strange things. When the engine (the intake manifold and head in particular) is cold, the AFR gauge will often show lean before the engine has warmed up a bit. It will not show leaner than stoichiometric (9.765) though, but close to stoichiometric.

An engine running gasoline will show rich at cold start and cold running.

Why?

Because E85 condensates much easier on the surface of the intake manifold and head than gasoline, and will not enter the cylinders as a fine mist.

Solution: If you have a programmable EMS, then adjust the cold start settings to deliver a lot more fuel during cranking and warmup procedure. In many cases it requires a lot of enrichment.

And I can promise you that even if you use a programmable EMS it is only marginally easier to get the car started. When it goes below a certain temperature it will be hard or impossible to start the car regardless of EMS unless you blend in some gasoline or use an engine heater of some sort. This usually happens below 2-5*C (35-40*F).

Ethanol as solvent:

Ethanol will not dissolve your fuel lines, injectors or gaskets. Nor will it corrode anything. It is a very common misconseption and the properties of ethanol is often mistaken for the very corrosive properties of methanol.

Upon the first few times of use or the first couple of 1000 miles however, the ethanol will dissolve some residues in the gas tank and fuel lines left there by the gasoline you have used for so long. If you have a lot of sludge in your gas tank and fuel lines it can on some occations clog the fuel filter. I recommend that the fuel filter will be replaced after the first few 1000 miles. After that the gas tank and fuel lines will be clean and you will not have to worry about it anymore (you should not worry about it in the first place either, just take a note of what can happen).

This will eventually be added to the article.
 
my car is nearly impossible to start with e85 when it is cold, is there any timing adjustment or anything that can be done to aid this?

Jonathan
 
my car is nearly impossible to start with e85 when it is cold, is there any timing adjustment or anything that can be done to aid this?

Jonathan
How cold?

As you can see in my previous post, the cold-starts are tricky.

What I do: If you add 10% gasoline it will start at very cold weather. Add 20-25% and it will be almost like starting on gasoline.

But the question is again: How cold are we talking about here?
 
Back
Top