Na turbo e85

Coote_00 · Postby **Coote_00** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:54 pm

Hey just wanted some thoughts about going to e85
What needs to be done are are the gains worth it
Cheers

StanTheMan · Postby **StanTheMan** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:53 pm

E85 on turbo is a decent increase if tuned well.
35% seems to pop up in my head. But coulndt be 100% certain.....its just a number i seem to recall.

There have been other methods to get the same gains where E85 is scarce.
Its similar to nitro injection controlled by the .ecu. But a different propellant or something Nitro dan did a write up on facebook a while back
I have even less idea what cost is involved withe the nabove nitrord style injection system.

I ran E85 on an N/A application. I pretty much ran e85 exclusively.
I changed the fuel hoses cAuse i liked the bling. I changed the fuel filters a gew times. I also changed the fuel injectors cause they ran at over 90% Duty cycle

I recently got a flex fuel sensor which hasnt been installed. Still getting my head around AN-6 fittings

ManiacLachy · Postby **ManiacLachy** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:43 am

Presumably you're already running an aftermarket ECU? Are you planning to go with a Flex Fuel setup, or just run E85 only?

At the very least, you'll need largeish fuel injectors and a fuel pump to run them, depending on power levels. Something like ID1000s and a Walbro 255. Then it's mostly a re-tune.

If you add the flex fuel setup, you'll need to plumb the sensor into your fuel lines and run the wires to your ECU, some setup to run and blend tables - providing your ECU can do this.

ManiacLachy · Postby **ManiacLachy** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:46 am

Oh, I'll add that I have a flex fuel setup and I much prefer the E85 life. I only get ~300kms to a tank compared to ~400kms on 98, but the power is so much better everywhere, the car just feels more effortless. 98 is only used now if no other option is available.

And at current fuel prices I think E85 works out cheaper per km, but I haven't done the math. Even if it costs more, it's worth it IMO.

StanTheMan · Postby **StanTheMan** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:48 am

I get considerably less than that.

fact that the engine is old & past its use by date probably helps.

ManiacLachy · Postby **ManiacLachy** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:50 am

A large portion of my daily drive is freeway, so that might help. But in-fact when I did a mountain run day I got similar range so maybe not a big help after all.

Also, I'm noticing a better economy if I drive windows up with a/c on, compared to windows down and just the blower. I have the power to spare :mrgreen:

bruce · Postby **bruce** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:32 am

The downsides I found;
-availability. Even in busy Melbourne, I'd have to drive a little to find it.
-cold start was terrible. Probably due to my setup, it kept stalling when not warmed up.
-you can't let it sit for long periods due to it absorbing moisture from the air (hydropscopic).
I went back to e98 and all those problems went away.

The American · Postby **The American** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:45 am

bruce wrote:The downsides I found;
-availability. Even in busy Melbourne, I'd have to drive a little to find it.
-cold start was terrible. Probably due to my setup, it kept stalling when not warmed up.
-you can't let it sit for long periods due to it absorbing moisture from the air (hydropscopic).
I went back to e98 and all those problems went away.

My NB hasn’t had ULP in it since re-tuning for e85. Cold start is fine (so yes, probably a set up/tuning issue).

On the hydroscopic matter - my reading is that you’d have to absorbe a large amount before the water would start to fall out/separate in the tank and cause problems.