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.
Oh, and even with my plugs gapped down to .020" I am starting to get some breakup. Seems ethanol is a bit harder to light. I think I might need to try the AEM coils... Just another thing on the list...
Tested my could today and found a dead one. Replaced it and no more high boost breakup. Back in business! ...for now...
Daym .... that's lean alright . Although in lambda terms probably not .
I see timing is still prettybconservative ... you planning on playing with that as well ?
What clutch do you have ?
What leading timing are you targeting at 225-250% load?
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.
What leading timing are you targeting at 225-250% load?
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
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...
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.
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.
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...
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...
Interesting .................so it sounds like they don't recalculate the octane . Perhaps because the base octane rating would be the lowest it could be and any % of ethanol added would only improve it .
Here in nz they blend ethanol with 95octane (your 91) and call it 'Gull force10 , 98 octane'.
I always thought that meant. It had up to 10 pct added to being the rating up to the rated octane
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.
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
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..
