Your 7 second buddies over in grand national land already tested what the black goo was. It is a byproduct of e85 getting really hot. No relation to our other problems with e85. Its a physical deposit that doesnt bother anything other than looking funny and rarely getting stuck in an injector. Gas and other products can be added occasionally to disolve it.
The "consistency" problem always pisses me off because the target afr for e85 8n our turbo cars is anytbing between 10.5 and 13.5... it makes the same power regardless. If you were a hard core race bro then you might have a higher standard for the .03% horsepower gain you have running the "right" afr... gratz to that guy.
Making a dig against running a stock tune on e85 is also dumb. You need more fuel and optimal timing doesnt change and in the case of non stoich afrs it goes down slightly.
I think you should keep driving your slow pos fiero and not know **** about what your talking about, with the exception of talking about it.
My Fiero really isn't that slow considering how long it has been together (never broke) and considering I was one of the people who pioneered the Turbo 3800 swap in the Fiero in the first place. It has been on the road with the Turbo 3800 since 2003 and I don't drive it lightly. Would I like it to be faster? Sure, who wouldn't? But I have other priorities in life and, I'm sad to say, going faster in a Fiero isn't one that is high on that list right now. It would be a lot easier to make it faster if I didn't give a crap about how it looked. But I prefer it to look as nice as it drives, unlike other people I know.
Your 7 second buddies over in grand national land already tested what the black goo was. It is a byproduct of e85 getting really hot. No relation to our other problems with e85. Its a physical deposit that doesnt bother anything other than looking funny and rarely getting stuck in an injector. Gas and other products can be added occasionally to disolve it.
The "consistency" problem always pisses me off because the target afr for e85 8n our turbo cars is anytbing between 10.5 and 13.5... it makes the same power regardless. If you were a hard core race bro then you might have a higher standard for the .03% horsepower gain you have running the "right" afr... gratz to that guy.
Making a dig against running a stock tune on e85 is also dumb. You need more fuel and optimal timing doesnt change and in the case of non stoich afrs it goes down slightly.
I have to admit when I read your first post about letting the stock O2 sensor (and closed loop fuel control) in a stock PCM tune take care of the E85's tuning needs, I got a good laugh. I remember you arguing to no end for a great deal of time about throwing the factory narrow band O2 sensor in the trash and just running the PCM in open loop permanently. And now you've made a complete 180 and are arguing for the opposite. Make up your damn mind already.
You can call me dumb all you want, but I know you've already blown up more engines you've touched than I ever will. Perhaps you should stick to what you know which is copying and pasting info you read on other forums over here...
Perhaps, but I bet you are an expert in nutswinging.[/QUOTE}
like you are when you came in here repeating what some guy at a drag strip told you? Maybe try getting some real experience with something before you start misleading people.
like you are when you came in here repeating what some guy at a drag strip told you? Maybe try getting some real experience with something before you start misleading people.
So I wasn't posting about some real experience I gained back when I started running E85, BEFORE ANYONE ELSE on here did? If you do a search and find those threads, you'll see that I posted a wealth of information on the subject. If you even care to (which I'm sure you really don't because you've already made up your mind).
And when was it a bad thing to post information about testing procedures and warnings given by other people who have a hell of a lot more money in their cars that run a hell of a lot faster than anyone in the Fiero community? Please tell me how this is a bad thing to listen to these people who have a lot more experience on the subject than anyone else on here does?
The only people on this forum who have consistently mislead others are either gone for good or go by the names of Justinbart and Darkhorizon. Do a search and start reading. You're going to find tons of posts from them containing misinformation, reposts from other forums from other people, or posts from years ago made by them that contradict the very statements they are posting today. You're also bound to find a number of threads where I've argued with what both of them have said and done to be wrong or just a plain bad idea - later finding out I was proven right by what THEY SAY ended up happening to them.
Case in point - DH argued for some time with me and others about permanent open loop operation. He swore up and down it was the best thing to do. Now, in this very thread, he's a leading proponent of letting the system work in closed loop. Try arguing that with him not too long ago and you would have heard an earful. The guy's opinions change as often as the weather does.
As far as Justin is concerned, I'm not convinced he is anything other than a mouthpiece or test mule for DH. I told him it was a bad idea to just hang a turbo off a rear manifold with no support bracketry and was told I didn't know what I was talking about because DH had been doing it for years (sound familiar?). But the funny thing was, I later saw a post with pictures of a collapsed rear manifold with a turbo coming to rest on a sway bar or something like that. It happened just as I warned him it would.
But don't take my word for it, do a comprehensive search, a lot of reading, and learn about the people who's nuts you are swinging from before you open your mouth again...
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 05-14-2014).]
I ran E85 in my Regal since early 2010. That had a metal tank and all original lines, and just like Justin my tank and parts got cleaner (beware filter must be changed more regularly). Yes E85 percentages do vary. You can test this very easily by picking up a test kit online. I often see very close to 80%. 85% +/- 3% I see for a few months only in the summer .
These "7 second guys" can't always be trusted. I've been told I'll wreck everything using ethanol, by "car guys". If someone doesn't truly have the experience just nod and move on. You run into too many people like that sadly. I have had ZERO issues over the years. I expect similar results with a fiero after a few changes to the fuel system and lines.
As long as your tank and lines aren't already in shoddy condition, running ethanol shouldn't be a big deal. Keep an eye on your fuel filter for the first few months and change it after the first one or two tanks after changing fuels.
------------------ 11.8@115mph 1/4 mile 1999 Regal GSX being demodded for swap into a 87 Fiero GT. 11 sec pass>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQT4X2eBlR8
Don't knock on that Open loop theory. That is actually a good idea. Allows lean cruise. Also sounds more stable for cruise and WOT and many more things. I have only touched the subject a few years ago. I may end up doing just that to my car. It seems like that type of tuning will require more attention when seasons/temps/fuel octanes change.
PS Not a nutswinger for the above two but they do actually know a thing or two sometimes.
------------------ 11.8@115mph 1/4 mile 1999 Regal GSX being demodded for swap into a 87 Fiero GT. 11 sec pass>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQT4X2eBlR8
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: The other issue with E85 is that it readily consumes water, and if you get it from a station that has had it sitting in their tank for a long time, you could end up with issues there.
On the negative side, you had better make sure EVERYTHING in your fuel system is compatible with ethanol. Sadly, the stock Fiero sending unit is not and neither are a lot of other components in the typical Fiero 3800 swap's fuel system. Occasional use probably wouldn't hurt much but prolonged use would be a concern. If we could get someone to custom make plastic fuel tanks (to replace the originals) for our Fieros that accepted plastic sending units, that would solve some of the electrolysis issues encountered by people running E85 fuel for prolonged periods.
These two are related. Ethanol's only corrosive to steel if it's absorbed a lot of water and then sits around for a long time. The Fiero fuel tank and lines will be fine.
Alcohol dissolves, and then deposits things that gasoline won't dissolve, and vice versa. My dad says that back in the day, you used to be able to take a car that had sat for a while, put some fresh gas in it and start it right up. Nowadays, with E10 fuel everywhere, the ethanol deposits cause the injectors to stick, and can even gum the fuel pump, if the car's sat for a while. I tried starting a friend's car that had sat for a few years with E10 in the tank. I took two batteries and hit the fuel pump with 24V and it still wouldn't turn. Car was running when it was parked.
I have to admit when I read your first post about letting the stock O2 sensor (and closed loop fuel control) in a stock PCM tune take care of the E85's tuning needs, I got a good laugh. I remember you arguing to no end for a great deal of time about throwing the factory narrow band O2 sensor in the trash and just running the PCM in open loop permanently. And now you've made a complete 180 and are arguing for the opposite. Make up your damn mind already.
He is learning and revising his opinions, just like we all should.
I *NEVER* thought I'd read this from him:
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:
I have ran every combination of tuning crap for years and tuned MANY cars to finally realize that GM engineers actually knew what they were doing.
In THEORY, everything related to running E85 is simply related to a proportional change in stoich AFR from 14.7 to 9.8. I assume that GM flex fuel systems reference all the fuel calculations to a stoich AFR number that is calculated "live" from the input of the ethanol content sensor in the fuel tank sending unit. Bump the injector capacity up by 50% and the car should run just fine on E85, and all the calcs *should* still work. The engine may not be optimized, as it won't have the timing curve to take advantage of the higher octane, but it will run.
However, if the chamber quality is good (like an LS1's) and the power is fairly flat for several degrees of timing advance before detonation, then getting just the right timing isn't all that important. On a forced induction engine, you can just add boost to take advantage of the octane.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 05-15-2014).]
Don't knock on that Open loop theory. That is actually a good idea. Allows lean cruise. Also sounds more stable for cruise and WOT and many more things. I have only touched the subject a few years ago. I may end up doing just that to my car. It seems like that type of tuning will require more attention when seasons/temps/fuel octanes change.
If you pay attention to tuning the right aspects of the tune (like temperature and barometric corrections vice fueling tables) and take stock of all your data at once, vice just that day's log, you can get an open loop tune to run very well. Tweaking will be a daily exercise until you've covered the full range of temps, pressures and humidity levels that the engine will see.
OEM's only run lambda 1.0 at cruise to keep the catalysts up to temp. If the engine will run at 17:1 under light load, then you'll use less fuel at that AFR than you would at 14.7... but will have higher levels of NOx and other other pollutants. If you can't lean beyond peak EGT, then you need to consider the time you spend at high EGT's and whether your exhaust valves are up to it... but if you can get beyond peak EGT, go as lean as it will run for fuel economy.
Yup a local up here in my college town is able to cruise down the highway around 17 or 18:1 AFR. He gets the best that I know of personally mileage for a 3.29 gear's SC3800 Grand Prix on E85. Think he said he got low 20's. Best I ever got was 17mpg. 13avg in a 3400lb wbody haha.
I'd love to hear more about the subject.
[This message has been edited by djlamp14 (edited 05-15-2014).]
Originally posted by Will: The engine may not be optimized, as it won't have the timing curve to take advantage of the higher octane, but it will run.
However, if the chamber quality is good (like an LS1's) and the power is fairly flat for several degrees of timing advance before detonation, then getting just the right timing isn't all that important. On a forced induction engine, you can just add boost to take advantage of the octane.
Some real world research proves that stock GM issued timing is more than good enough for E85. The e85 seems to add timing itself by having slightly faster burn rates in engines, although outside of high presure enviornments it shows slightly slower burn rates. This is debatable, my experimentation has shown very little or no gains in increased timing over stock. Lean cruising over 20:1 afr lowers EGT with increased timing, but its minimal and application specific so far.
quote
Tweaking will be a daily exercise until you've covered the full range of temps, pressures and humidity levels that the engine will see.
You would think so, but luckily the MAF sensor on these cars are VERY VERY well engineered, to the point that GM does not have any fueling modifications based on air temp (even though that information is availible). The MAF will natively calculate air density with a degree of accuracy acceptible in an open loop configuration.
quote
I have to admit when I read your first post about letting the stock O2 sensor (and closed loop fuel control) in a stock PCM tune take care of the E85's tuning needs, I got a good laugh. I remember you arguing to no end for a great deal of time about throwing the factory narrow band O2 sensor in the trash and just running the PCM in open loop permanently. And now you've made a complete 180 and are arguing for the opposite. Make up your damn mind already
quote
He is learning and revising his opinions, just like we all should.
There is more backstory to this conversation..... The first talks of "throw the o2 sensor away" come from situations of 93 octane, which I said IN THIS THREAD very specifically had a razor thin acceptible air fuel range for optimum power in PE, and in terms of lean cruise/ optimal NOX emmissions... E85 on the otherhand is a COMPLETELY different animal which will tolerate a "bad tune" without any negitives.
The second part of this that was left out... was my orginal comments on open loop were directed at situations where the o2 sensor has lost its "GM calibration enviornment". In cases where leaky/long tube headers/large low temperature turbo exhausts, large overlap camshafts, and other distance from stock rendered data reporting for the narrowband highly inaccurate. I am sorry that I cant make 3 word statements hold up out of context, Darth.
quote
I took two batteries and hit the fuel pump with 24V and it still wouldn't turn. Car was running when it was parked.
quote
Perhaps you should stick to what you know which is copying and pasting info you read on other forums over here...
There is still an issue of fuel pumps picking up crud on the brushes through an electrolsis or related issue. This was a thread started by me, and only me, based on reasearch I have been doing in combination with TI automotive.
quote
but I know you've already blown up more engines you've touched than I ever will.
I'm still at zero. I havent even broken a transmission outside of my completely stock trailblazer SS and 400whp D series honda.
quote
I told him it was a bad idea to just hang a turbo off a rear manifold with no support bracketry and was told I didn't know what I was talking about because DH had been doing it for years
And I'm still doing it, on more than just my car now as well (many cars run my same design). The reason for the "sagging manfiold' was well documented in that thread as the motor ran for many (500+) miles with less than 14 degrees of timing. It was repaired and hasnt had any problems since then.
quote
You're going to find tons of posts from them containing misinformation
Misinformation??? Just like your wall of text posts you copy and paste out of some 10 year old auto book and claim is "knowlege"? These topics I talk about are always based on applying context to a problem, something you obviously have no understanding of as you always just spew the same basic by the book alldata type crap on any problem you can... Last I checked alldata doesnt cover E85 conversions, engine swaps, and the differences between each of the 6 3800 operating system codebases.... You even admit that all of your tuning information comes DIRECTLY from your well funded tunercats guys tell you which they DO NOT TEST... Mine comes from my own disassembly work AND REAL WORLD TESTING on the PCM. If I released a program here where I work (as a software developer) without testing it, I would be instantly fired without questions asked.... yet you offer paragraph after paragraph of information on so many topics with little testing, outdated testing, or NO TESTING at all to back it up.... Just a pile of text that nobody will take the time to actually read and apply to the problem at hand and or "some guy that ran fast quarter mile times said so" as proof.
Its really cool that you have a hard-on for hating JB and DH and I really liked reading some of your cool stories about hating them. If you recall, we were discussing running E85 in a 3800. We were going to talk about your experiences with it, some guys at a drag stip's experience with it, and my own experience with it.
You said you were a real go-getter a decade ago and were the first to run it. It's great to hear that you tried, but you must have done something wrong with those 4 tanks or so you got through before you gave up. I'm going to guess you either accidentally put diesel in the car or just had no idea what you were doing because even I, an idiot from Michigan, managed to figure it out with some pretty good results. I've been running it for years, and put thousands and thousands of miles using a steel stock tank, rail, and regulator.
I also run the DW300 pumps, although I have killed a couple of them. They seem to die pretty fast when I am running ice races at -40*C/F. The brushes cant seem to take it, and DW agree's so far. They don't believe it is the ethanol, and neither do I. Also yes, the truck starts, runs, and makes power great at -40. And no, I do not have any form of intake air temp sensor.
Another buffoon in here was talking about loving to run open loop so that he could get away with running lean burn. I do this as well and can say great things about it. I run, within the PCM, 41-44* advance when I am cruising and will run as lean as 20:1. Keep in mind that there is supposedly a 14* 'base timing' number that is added in to any commanded timing advance. I actually have never double checked to see if this is true, and just gone off of the word of zzp's results.
running so lean I tend to get decent fuel econ of 15-18 mpg average driving around town and such. This is an awd 3700lb turbo 3800 blazer with an automatic three speed that wines out 3500 rpm cruising down the freeway. No, I have no idea what my EGT's are but nothing cracked yet and the plugs still look ok. I drove 5 hours highway like this just this weekend.
WOT, speaking only from an ass dyno, it seems like I get more power the leaner I run it when using a constant timing of 16* (add that 14* in there if you believe it). right now its running around 13.5:1@20psi. Ill run that same afr when I run 28psi. Plugs look great.
I also began tuning my typhoon on E85 a month or so ago and am doing it rawdog. Stock tank not cleaned, stock lines, leaving in stock filter for now. Unlike DH though I tuned mine. So far so good but its still a young project
I assume that GM flex fuel systems reference all the fuel calculations to a stoich AFR number that is calculated "live" from the input of the ethanol content sensor in the fuel tank sending unit.
Will, GM used an ethanol (fuel composition) content sensor up until somewhere around the 2009 model year (don't know exactly because I have not researched ALL the different types of flex fuel vehicles they produce - I was mainly looking at truck applications per some tuning work I was doing for a alternative fuel fleet company). After GM ditched the content sensor, they switched to just using fuel trims to calculate fuel composition once the PCM detected a fuel level increase of a certain minimum amount requirement. Obviously the change in ethanol composition measuring techniques was a result of trying to cut production costs of their vehicles. Unfortunately, there are some negative side-effects of doing it the new way as you can imagine.
DH - Myself and a few others do Tunercat's testing for him. We are more than happy to do this seeing as how we have a company who is actually willing to add support for little used or unknown parameters, especially in the 3800 applications. Try approaching other tuning software vendors who currently support 3800 applications and ask them to add such things and see what kind of response you get.
I enjoy your comments like "do not test, real world testing, no testing" and you saying that you supposedly do your own disassembly work. When, thru the help of TunerCat, we added 4T60-E support in 1998 OBD2 3800 SC PCM OS's, I seem to remember you making comments about that on this very forum about how it was "hacked". This told me you had no idea what you were talking about because we discovered the logic for the 4T60-E (and other transmissions as well) were left in the OS's of the OBD2 V6 PCMs by GM. We have since moved on to being able to support not only the 4T60-E in these PCMs, but also the 4L60-E and 4T80-E thru these same OS's for not only 3800 applications, but 3100 and 3400 applications as well. I am more than happy to do my part in "testing" as you so eloquently put it.
In the meantime, I still haven't seen you actually produce anything new in the tuning world by your own work that you haven't ripped off of someone else. And every time myself or others who use TunerCat think up, get him to add support, and then we test to verify something new works, all you do is get on the internet and throw terms like "hacking" and such around - obviously mad because you couldn't come up with it yourself.
I have far more resources available to me than a 10 year old auto book. Obviously that was no help to me in the latest LS4 swap and a number of others. I turn out some of the highest quality swaps this community has ever seen and I'll let my work speak for itself. I still have yet to see one of your swaps win any awards. Any idiot can hack a car to death and buy or copy someone else's custom engine build to make their car fast. But it takes a lot more intelligence and skill to do a swap that looks as well as it performs. Don't agree? Then post up some pictures of some clean, award winning swaps you have done by yourself. I'm sure there are a number of people on this forum that would like to see them.
BMFB - I tried E85 before anyone else did in this community (as far as I knew at the time). I only ran it for a limited amount of time after I discovered it was attacking material in my fuel system. That's right, I took the time and did the research after a limited time that nobody else seems to care to do on this forum to make sure I knew what was going on. Unlike you and your buddies, I don't just make a major change and run with it without doing the proper checking to make sure it is working ok. I did some further experimentation out of the car on the same type of materials that I was using in my fuel system at the time and determined the E85 was breaking down those materials just by letting them sit in a sealed jar. So rather than continuing to use a fuel that I knew was destroying elements of my fuel system, I discontinued its use until other changes or upgrades could be made - if I so desired. And no, I didn't accidently put diesel in my car, in case you were wondering.
I truly don't give a rat's ass what you, DH, or JB say you are doing nor how many miles you say you put on your vehicles while running such and such fuel or whatnot. I have caught both of them in lies so many times that it is illogical for me to apply any level of credibility to any claims or statements they make. The fact that none of you have actually done any proper measuring of ethanol content of the fuels you are running or any other proper research and testing to see how the materials in your fuel systems are reacting to it - by your own admission - just proves to me that what you claim on an internet forum is worth about 2 dead flies.
"Just dump it in and go" seems to be your philosophy. That might be fine for you guys with junkyard cars, but there are those of us who prefer to do it a better way.
I will be ditching the M90 at some point, but for at least next season it will be staying on, so I do NOT want to buy any kind of S/C intercooler.
I already have a 340LPH fuel pump, and I plan on 80lb injectors and E85 as the fuel and 1.9 ratio Rockers. would starting with a 2.8" pulley be to ambitious.
I would like to touch the 11's before the blower comes off if possible
With advice from many on this forum, I have been 3800 SC on E85 for years now. Bumping this thread cause FAST Fiero's are too cool not to.
