When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'll try to get some more audio posted. I was thinking of using the dump pipe for drag racing and pull out everything aft of that for some weight reduction. We'll see if/when I go back. I see a clutch swap in my future, ugh... For the regular exhaust the major restriction for me now is the connecting pipe between the mid pipe and the cat back. I plan to size that up...
I'll try to get some more audio posted. I was thinking of using the dump pipe for drag racing and pull out everything aft of that for some weight reduction. We'll see if/when I go back. I see a clutch swap in my future, ugh... For the regular exhaust the major restriction for me now is the connecting pipe between the mid pipe and the cat back. I plan to size that up...
Thx man I drilled a 1/2" hole I the bottom of each muffler and went to work pulling it all out. That was a pain. Took about an hour per side. Wear a mask and goggles and long sleeves. Then I used a toggle bolt with a large diameter fender washer bent to the contour of the muffler canister to close it up. A welder would have made life easier. I would have cut it open and welded it back up. But in the end it was worth it for me. Basically cost nothing and I really like the sound!
E10 is what we have here at most stations sold as 92 octane premium. It's what I was running when I popped my last motor at 17psi, if that says anything. Based on the research I was reading the AKI for E10 is actually worse (90.5) than what they call HO (high octane) with an AKI of 91.6.
But then E50 jumps up to an AKI of 95.6, only slightly less that E85 with an AKI of 95.8.
I am running E40ish and the change was rather breathtaking. My friends are probably tired of hearing about it actually. I was enjoying it so much that I allowed my SOHN reservoir to run dry
Sorry to be a downer But again, I am no expert by any means, so perhaps there is benefit that I am not aware of
I had no choice but to use it once for a track day .... the engine ran at least 15%leaner per my guage and freaked me out . But ..................... no pings !
Until I really dropped my AFR really rich in the deep 10's I always had some level of knock retard both with "ethanol free" 92 and "E10" 92. That said, after I posted that graph I got to thinking, maybe I missed it but it is not entirely clear to me what they are considering the base gasoline octane in the ethanol blends. Is it what they call "RG" regular gas with an (R+M)/2 of 86.8 or is it "HO" high octane with an (R+M)/2 of 91.6... If the former then that could explain why their E10 had a lower rating than HO, and would seem to indicate some level of potential benefit if your E10 base gas is 92, but how much I do not know. At the local station where I get mine the ethanol blend pumps have 87 regular gas and E30, E50 and E85 all in the same pump. If they mix at the pump then it might be they use 87 as the base. I should ask them next time I am there...
The anti-knock properties do not appear to be linear. They seem to me to start low, ramp up fast as it approaches 50/50, then mostly levels off going up from there. Higher ratio blends seem to yield better latent heat vaporization results, but the trade-off is fuel consumption and the associated fuel system upgrades for the increased consumption.
Last edited by slash128; Jan 25, 2016 at 02:32 PM.
Yeah, this is the magic On 92 I was always stressed waiting for it to pop on every pull I did. Now I don't even think about it. Well, now I worry about other stuff like hoses catching fire
I may regret it at some point but so far it has been a god send...
Until I really dropped my AFR really rich in the deep 10's I always had some level of knock retard both with "ethanol free" 92 and "E10" 92. That said, after I posted that graph I got to thinking, maybe I missed it but it is not entirely clear to me what they are considering the base gasoline octane in the ethanol blends. Is it what they call "RG" regular gas with an (R+M)/2 of 86.8 or is it "HO" high octane with an (R+M)/2 of 91.6... If the former then that could explain why their E10 had a lower rating than HO, and would seem to indicate some level of potential benefit if your E10 base gas is 92, but how much I do not know. At the local station where I get mine the ethanol blend pumps have 87 regular gas and E30, E50 and E85 all in the same pump. If they mix at the pump then it might be they use 87 as the base. I should ask them next time I am there...
The anti-knock properties do not appear to be linear. They seem to me to start low, ramp up fast as it approaches 50/50, then mostly levels off going up from there. Higher ratio blends seem to yield better latent heat vaporization results, but the trade-off is fuel consumption and the associated fuel system upgrades for the increased consumption.
That seeems logical to me . Pretty sure they wouldn't have trucks running around the country with all of those different blends . Just makes everthing overcomplicated on so many levels. There would be no need to use premium grade petrol when mixing with ethanol .
Some further thoughts... Aside from a couple tanks of "ethanol free" I ran for testing I always ran an E10 92 mix because it is what most stations around here carry. Now I did say that I had knock retard with both "ethanol free" and 92 E10, but perhaps the 92 E10 is what allowed me to push the car as far as I did before it went. Keep in mind that it was not a *boom* event, I didn't even notice until the car was idling funny... So maybe there are benefits of 92 E10 over 92 "e-free"...?
Some further thoughts... Aside from a couple tanks of "ethanol free" I ran for testing I always ran an E10 92 mix because it is what most stations around here carry. Now I did say that I had knock retard with both "ethanol free" and 92 E10, but perhaps the 92 E10 is what allowed me to push the car as far as I did before it went. Keep in mind that it was not a *boom* event, I didn't even notice until the car was idling funny... So maybe there are benefits of 92 E10 over 92 "e-free"...?
That paper you sent me seems to indicate that E10 is inferior to high octane for knock resistance ....see the blacked out 'no go' zones for E10 vs HO.
That paper you sent me seems to indicate that E10 is inferior to high octane for knock resistance ....see the blacked out 'no go' zones for E10 vs HO.
Agreed, if the base fuel for their blends in the research paper was the HO. However, I *think* their base fuel is 87 RG. Sooo, my thinking is if our local station labeled 92 octane with 10% ethanol actually uses 92 as the base with 10% ethanol added then there *could* be benefit of E10 92 vs straight "ethanol free" 92.
I don't see how the local stations could label 87 octane mixed with 10% ethanol as 92, as it doesn't even line up with the numbers they reported in the research...
Also, it could mean that I was running the equivalent of mid-grade up to 17psi
Does that make sense? Or am I off my rocker again? It happens
Last edited by slash128; Jan 25, 2016 at 03:57 PM.
Just to clarify, for the moment, I am operating under the assumption that the that my local station that carries the various ethanol blends, ie:E30, E50, E85 uses 87 octane gasoline as their base. But the other stations that sell normal gas (not marketed ethanol blends) simply add 10% ethanol to the marked grades, ie: 87, 89 and 92...
Just to clarify, for the moment, I am operating under the assumption that the that my local station that carries the various ethanol blends, ie:E30, E50, E85 uses 87 octane gasoline as their base. But the other stations that sell normal gas (not marketed ethanol blends) simply add 10% ethanol to the marked grades, ie: 87, 89 and 92...
If 10% ethanol in RG takes it from 86.8 to 90.5 ....................... then adding 10% to HO should take it from 91.6 to 95.3 .........
Almost as good as E50 and E85 !!!!!
Might be a viable propostion for me seeing as it would be easy have some E85 at home to top up the tank with ..
I drilled a 1/2" hole I the bottom of each muffler and went to work pulling it all out. That was a pain. Took about an hour per side. Wear a mask and goggles and long sleeves. Then I used a toggle bolt with a large diameter fender washer bent to the contour of the muffler canister to close it up. A welder would have made life easier. I would have cut it open and welded it back up. But in the end it was worth it for me. Basically cost nothing and I really like the sound!
But again, I am no expert by any means, so perhaps there is benefit that I am not aware of 
