May have solved 100% E85 on LNF puzzle
03-21-2011, 08:51 PM
#452
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-09-09
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-21-2011, 09:00 PM
#454
Premium Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: 12-21-08
Location: TUCSON AZ
Posts: 5,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-21-2011, 09:22 PM
#455
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 04-09-08
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a group of students at a university doing this, mostly inline with the findings from the Delphi paper on E85 and to study economy. I think they are running something like 12:1 or something like that.
03-21-2011, 10:01 PM
#460
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
03-21-2011, 10:04 PM
#461
Regardless, if you're looking for driveability, and not just peak horsepower, raising the LNF's compression seems to me to be the next step. I'm still confused about the fact that GM thought it was ok to run 9.5:1 compression on a supercharged, port injection engine, but dropped down to 9.2:1 on a direct injection, turbocharged car. There is no reason those numbers shouldn't have been reversed. At first I thought that GM was having a problem tuning to higher compression, or that the piston design was preventing them from raising it, but they are running 11.4:1 on the LAF with no issue. And considering both engines are designed for the "cat-****" that passes as 91 octane gaoline here in the states, it only seems reasonable both could do even better with a better blend of fuel.
PS- Mazda's new Sky engine runs 14:1 compression in Europe & Japan, but our fuel here is so bad, they are dropping it to 12:1 to run off it here in the States.
03-21-2011, 10:40 PM
#462
Former Vendor
03-21-2011, 10:46 PM
#463
Premium Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: 12-21-08
Location: TUCSON AZ
Posts: 5,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your disagreement
Case being K20 + 8PSI is more powerful than an LNF or LSJ + 8 PSI on the same turbo.
Built high comp K20 + 20 PSI > Built low comp LNF or LSJ or low compression K20 on the same turbo with same PSI level.
its all limited by the strength of the internals.
powerband is also better on a high comp low boost engine
Case being K20 + 8PSI is more powerful than an LNF or LSJ + 8 PSI on the same turbo.
Built high comp K20 + 20 PSI > Built low comp LNF or LSJ or low compression K20 on the same turbo with same PSI level.
its all limited by the strength of the internals.
powerband is also better on a high comp low boost engine
03-21-2011, 11:40 PM
#464
If we were talking strictly on pump gas, your numbers work in your favor.
If we are comparing high boost and low boost engines with the same turbo, we are not tuning to the strengths of each build.
But, I'd like to see a good comparison of 2k-4k rpms betweent these builds when E85 or E50 was the fuel. I have no doubt that above 4-5k the higher boost engines make more power, I'm simply doubting the low to midrange.
Those numbers prove my case, not his... ?
If we are comparing high boost and low boost engines with the same turbo, we are not tuning to the strengths of each build.
But, I'd like to see a good comparison of 2k-4k rpms betweent these builds when E85 or E50 was the fuel. I have no doubt that above 4-5k the higher boost engines make more power, I'm simply doubting the low to midrange.
I agree with your disagreement
Case being K20 + 8PSI is more powerful than an LNF or LSJ + 8 PSI on the same turbo.
Built high comp K20 + 20 PSI > Built low comp LNF or LSJ or low compression K20 on the same turbo with same PSI level.
its all limited by the strength of the internals.
powerband is also better on a high comp low boost engine
Case being K20 + 8PSI is more powerful than an LNF or LSJ + 8 PSI on the same turbo.
Built high comp K20 + 20 PSI > Built low comp LNF or LSJ or low compression K20 on the same turbo with same PSI level.
its all limited by the strength of the internals.
powerband is also better on a high comp low boost engine
03-22-2011, 12:15 AM
#467
New Member
Join Date: 07-08-10
Location: Pembroke, NC
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-22-2011, 08:40 AM
#472
Member
Join Date: 06-21-09
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow awesome work Vince. I just read every last word of this thread lol. I'm hoping some big turbo guys step in to test the earlier injection start on E10. I feel much better about starting the injection earlier than running 2800+PSI fuel pressure.
03-22-2011, 09:01 AM
#473
Former Vendor
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: 05-01-09
Location: NEPA/North NJ
Posts: 5,973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ill be easily able to goto full E85 today.
03-22-2011, 09:18 AM
#475
Former Vendor
If we were talking strictly on pump gas, your numbers work in your favor.
If we are comparing high boost and low boost engines with the same turbo, we are not tuning to the strengths of each build.
But, I'd like to see a good comparison of 2k-4k rpms betweent these builds when E85 or E50 was the fuel. I have no doubt that above 4-5k the higher boost engines make more power, I'm simply doubting the low to midrange.
Those numbers prove my case, not his... ?
If we are comparing high boost and low boost engines with the same turbo, we are not tuning to the strengths of each build.
But, I'd like to see a good comparison of 2k-4k rpms betweent these builds when E85 or E50 was the fuel. I have no doubt that above 4-5k the higher boost engines make more power, I'm simply doubting the low to midrange.
Those numbers prove my case, not his... ?