Drivers attempt at E85

[Nataphen]

Oooooooooooh, that makes sense. Higher alcohol content runs the car leaner. Maybe I just need to read more and post less before I confuse people.

OK, last stupid thing, then I'll hursh. In a pinch, on an e85 tune, would it be OK to fill up with premium? Last one, I promise.

[bf360]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Oooooooooooh, that makes sense. Higher alcohol content runs the car leaner. Maybe I just need to read more and post less before I confuse people. OK, last stupid thing, then I'll hursh. In a pinch, on an e85 tune, would it be OK to fill up with premium? Last one, I promise.

I would have a way to switch maps, you shouldn't run an e85 tune on pump unless you absolutely have to for a short while and if you do stay low rpms and out of boost.

[Enki]

You wanna run up to 30% richer? Your oil is probably going to be clear by the time you get out of the gas station lol

[Nataphen]

Some of us aren't as suave as you guys, so I'm just asking to be clear on everything.

I knew it would run richer, I just didn't know if it would be dangerously richer. If it ran 30% richer than a 12.0:1 AFR tune, that would put it at 8.4:1, which isn't any richer than many stock tune 2010s that I've seen. I know that's not all that there is to it, but as far as JUST the AFR, I don't see that it would hurt anything any worse than a brand new stock MS3.

I will make sure that I have the ability to switch maps before I go that way, I may just have to switch to the AP after all

[Click Here]

Datalogs combined here for easier viewing: Drivers attempt at E85

[EnigmaOperator]

Originally Posted by Nataphen This may be a common sense question, but I'll ask at the risk of looking stupid. If you were going to get to the level of running 100% e85, would it be best to get a protune with e70 to be sure you're getting at least the minimum percentage from fill up to fill up? I'm not going to go retune every time that the percentage changes. I would think that that would make sense, but just axing.

get tuned on the highest Ethanol content you can find, for safety's sake. if you think that extra 15% ethanol wont make a difference- it certainly can depending on the tune. but generally the lowest ethanol content you'll find is 70 minimum. I find on my personal car that when tuned for E70, and running E85, i run leaner by a measure of say 11.7 up to 12.2 AFR... different platform and tune of course.. key is even though it leans out - its not knocking due to the extra ethanol..

Originally Posted by bf360 If your thinking that 15% ethanol change will make a significant difference it wont. Even if it did, why would you get tuned on e70, if anything get tuned on e85 that way when you do get a lower percentage ethanol you run richer instead of leaner.

^ ive personally seen otherwise.. read above post. granted - again- different platform different tune.

Originally Posted by Nataphen OK, last stupid thing, then I'll hursh. In a pinch, on an e85 tune, would it be OK to fill up with premium? Last one, I promise.

absolutely not. Thats how you Zoom zoom BOOM.


run the fuel you tune for.


have map switching capability thu an Accessport or other means.

one thing thats also important that hasnt been mentioned before- each time you switch maps, go easy on that new tank- reason being (unless you drain your tank or ran it bone dry) you'll have a bit of fuel left over in there from your previous tank.. so you'll be running a mix- this can adversely affect your AFR's- depending on how much fuel is residual in your tank. lotta times tuners make "inbetween maps" or mix maps which go easier on the car to be safe.

Originally Posted by Click Here Conclusion? Ethanol doesn't really bring EGT's down much, if any at all. I'm amazed the difference in peak temperatures between the two runs was a measly 17 degrees!

Correct- i made mention of this before about not seeing a real decrease in EGT's.. the real cooling benefits are seen in the intake and compression phases.. not in combustion. - another reason spool isnt affected due to less thermal energy , only improved - due to similar EGT's (heat into the turbo) combined with a slight increase in exhaust gas volume.

- Enigma

[ms3brendan]

Does it make any sense that with 10% E85 I'm getting better gas mileage? ...it doesn't make any sense to me.. but it's true for this last tank.. I have to fill up today or tomorrow though.. we'll see if it happens again.. Like every tank for the last months ever since it got cold, I'd hit 250 miles and my light would be on.. I'm at 250 miles right now and I'm at a quarter tank remaining.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go It will be interesting to see if you have any significant AFR shift. I still have none at 4.3 gallons, which is ~20.6% ethanol... Unfortunatley, I just shoveled 4'' of snow off my driveway...so it might be a few days before I can get any meaningful logs...

Hey 12pkinmybelly,

Lemme ask you this... have you seen any adjustment in your fuel trims during closed loop? We keep looking at wot info here, but i think we'd have better resolution and more conclusive data based off your closed loop trims.

If they (also) are still the same as pre-e85.... then i think there is something else going on here. Either that, or your grabbing the 93 octane handle at the e85 pump some how lol.

If your trims haven't even adjusted... then i think there might be some more credibility to the theory that our cars can measure fuel density... at least up to a certain point.

Originally Posted by Click Here ... informative & conclusive data ... Conclusion? Ethanol doesn't really bring EGT's down much, if any at all. I'm amazed the difference in peak temperatures between the two runs was a measly 17 degrees!

Thank you!

[Click Here]

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator Correct- i made mention of this before about not seeing a real decrease in EGT's.. the real cooling benefits are seen in the intake and compression phases.. not in combustion. - another reason spool isnt affected due to less thermal energy , only improved - due to similar EGT's (heat into the turbo) combined with a slight increase in exhaust gas volume. - Enigma

You did, but none of your posts have any references to any studies, tests, data...The fact that I wasn't the only one that heard E85 lowers EGT's was reason enough to do the testing.

Actually, that brings up another question I've had. This comment in particular makes me nervous:

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator E-85 does NOT require an addtional lubricant. It is 15% petrol, providing more than enough lubrication.

More than enough lubrication based on what? I had a BMW DI fuel pump fail on me after running up to 40% blends of ethanol. Would you mind sharing your source, reference, experience, or whatever makes you so confident to tell people to start filling up with ethanol with no added lubricant?


Edit: I just got off the phone with Ryan from APR, the company that supplies the HPFPs for cpe.

I asked him, "Hey Ryan, I bought one of your high pressure fuel pumps and I'm thinking about running E85. Is that going to be a problem?"

"We've never done any testing ourselves, but our engineers that designed our HPFP pump said to stay away from E85. They won't work together. If your pump fails as a result of E85 your warranty is void."

So again, I'd really really like to see whatever it is that you're seeing that indicates E85 is okay for cam driven fuel pumps because this is not the first time I've heard that E85 might be a problem. Please educate me!

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Hey 12pkinmybelly, Lemme ask you this... have you seen any adjustment in your fuel trims during closed loop? We keep looking at wot info here, but i think we'd have better resolution and more conclusive data based off your closed loop trims. If they (also) are still the same as pre-e85.... then i think there is something else going on here. Either that, or your grabbing the 93 octane handle at the e85 pump some how lol. If your trims haven't even adjusted... then i think there might be some more credibility to the theory that our cars can measure fuel density... at least up to a certain point. Thank you!

LOL. I have been filling up twice during each trip to the gas station. The yellow handled hose is E85, then I use the 87/91/93 hose for 93.

After about 100 miles my since my last flash, my LTFT's appear to range from +5 to +13. I will try to get a log and see, which break points are which. I know the 13 was under decel so probably the lowest g/s range.

I haven't monitored these in close to a year, so I do not know if they have been significantly influenced by the E85 at this time.

[djuosnteisn]

do any of your recent logs have some PT activity?

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn do any of your recent logs have some PT activity?

I have a ~30 min log from my drive to work this morning that I am planning to review this evening...

[cld12pk2go]

Log file from the trip home.

I couldn't do any high power pulls, but I got into boost enough to get into my 11.8:1 fueling areas several times.

Still appear to be hitting them without issue. One thing though is that my LTFT stays around 4-5 during OL. I wonder if it is actually correcting fueling in OL?

[djuosnteisn]

I only saw one section of 2.0 loads, and most were below 1.5. That 2.0 section may not have been long enough to switch to OL. What are you transition delays setup for? Also, what is your max load transition value?


All your trims are pretty positive, so if they used to be closer to 0, or even negative, then is def shows your leaning out some.

[Dano]

IIRC my niggah trans at 1.1 yo

and I believe Lex always preached about fuel trimming going up to around 4500 RPMs and or depending on one of your other CL Max Load values. Right?

looks like a lot of + 9.98 trimming going on...

[cld12pk2go]

The transition are all for 1.1 load.

The trans delays are half of the stock "80", so they are "40". I understand these are miliseconds, which means I should be in OL pretty much one data point after 1.1 load.

My ignition timing jives with this.

[cld12pk2go]

Alright, so like all of the cool people I am building Excel modules on Friday night and analyzing datalogs...

Here is what I have:




It appears that I have the following LTFTs after about 6-8 key cycles and ~125 miles:

0-5.7 g/s +20%
5.7-18 g/s +9.2%
18-30 g/s +10.8%
30-200 g/s + 9.2

I also developed the attached Excel module for calculating Ethanol % in fuel, the change in latent heat of vaporization of the fuel mix, how much E85 to add to hit a desired ethanol % with a mixed tank that is still partially full, and the expected additional fueling requirements with E85 added.

What is very interesting is that I would expect to need to add 8.7% more fuel with my current ethanol content. If my LTFT's were still dead on (like they used to be after my previous MAF calibration) on straight gas, then my LTFT's have essentially shifted up this amount.

What is odd is I thought the LTFT didn't influence fueling in OL, but it sure looks like they are currently for me...

I am going to scale my MAF curves up by 1.09x and see how the fueling responds on my next map v108e9...

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 looks like a lot of + 9.98 trimming going on...

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go I am going to scale my MAF curves up by 1.09x and see how the fueling responds on my next map v108e9...

interesting...

[cld12pk2go]

Here is my log:

What is interesting is that if I sort the data so as only to look at the 0 KR data above 5 PSI, I am averaging 11.67:1 AFR for these 49 data points with the +9% MAF when all my fuel maps are requesting 11.8:1...

Very interesting...

[djuosnteisn]

12pk, i noticed your using boost based tuning... i wonder if that is why your getting active LTFT's at wot.

Thanks for the data and results!

[EnigmaOperator]

Originally Posted by Enki You wanna run up to 30% richer? Your oil is probably going to be clear by the time you get out of the gas station lol

Not a good idea to run that rich for many, many reasons, but the real problem at hand is the tuning for Ignition advance.. running that ammt of advance on pump will lead to a quick death of your DISI.

run the fuel you tune for.

Originally Posted by Nataphen Some of us aren't as suave as you guys, so I'm just asking to be clear on everything. I knew it would run richer, I just didn't know if it would be dangerously richer. If it ran 30% richer than a 12.0:1 AFR tune, that would put it at 8.4:1, which isn't any richer than many stock tune 2010s that I've seen. I know that's not all that there is to it, but as far as JUST the AFR, I don't see that it would hurt anything any worse than a brand new stock MS3. I will make sure that I have the ability to switch maps before I go that way, I may just have to switch to the AP after all

Like i mentioned earlier- the richness of your mix is reason for concern (fouling of the plugs, etc) but the real problem is the ignition advance.. timing is key.. lots of timing on pump will lead to very bad things.

reason you can do it on E85 is because the fuel is so knock and det proof - thus allowing you to advance timing safely (to a point!)

Originally Posted by Click Here You did, but none of your posts have any references to any studies, tests, data...The fact that I wasn't the only one that heard E85 lowers EGT's was reason enough to do the testing. Actually, that brings up another question I've had. This comment in particular makes me nervous: More than enough lubrication based on what? I had a BMW DI fuel pump fail on me after running up to 40% blends of ethanol. Would you mind sharing your source, reference, experience, or whatever makes you so confident to tell people to start filling up with ethanol with no added lubricant?

For sure. Im glad you did your own tests and proved to yourself that E85 doesnt considerably lower EGT's. I knew this from running the fuel for 5 years myself and numerous personal tests. Sorry, i'd have to dig through thousands of logs to post something for ya as proof.. I knew the answer, and didnt have to back up my claim for you.. you did that for yourself.

The main reason that E85 IS only an 85% mix was to address cold start issues, and to provide petrol lubrication for fuel pumps that are designed for Petrol use.

Almost everyone making pumps right now is claiming that E85 is a no no- but after 5 years of use on Walboro pumps with zero failures.. i've found the opposite. I too called Walboro and found that they said the exact same thing as APR, but with very, very, very few problems across multiple communities I continue to run E85 through their pumps, and continue to state that they are capable of doing so.

Also, i mentioned that a Walboro costs 90 bucks. if one DID fail and you had to replace it every 5 years or so, oh well... its a 90 dollar pump. spread over 5 years thats 18 bucks per year in pumps.

Now, im not claiming that APR's pumps WILL be absolutely failure free. its entirely possible that Ethanol could kill a DI pump. Hell... regular pump gas can kill one.. sometimes these things just break. parts wear out, things need replacing. however, with the extensive use of E85 throughout multiple platforms for many years with minimal failure rates- i'm willing to come to the conclusion that its possible to run E85 on a DI pump. APR says no, as does Walboro.. but folks (including myself) still do it.. with great success. I still say its worth a shot.


Deatchwerks - a major injector supplier just came out with their own fuel pump which they claim to be 100% Ethanol compatable. know what that pump is?? - a Walboro copy. (flows slightly more from their tweaking)

If E85 kills your APR pump after 5 years or so.. replace it.

[Click Here]

Enigma, thanks for the reply. Let me be clear why I asked you to clarify your position on E85 and CDFP's:

This statement here:

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator E-85 does NOT require an addtional lubricant. It is 15% petrol, providing more than enough lubrication. Marvels Mystery oil is just that- a Mystery.. who decided they needed to add that to their E85 mix is a Mystery.

Is at odds with this staement:

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator ...with the extensive use of E85 throughout multiple platforms for many years with minimal failure rates- i'm willing to come to the conclusion that its possible to run E85 on a DI pump. APR says no, as does Walboro.. but folks (including myself) still do it.. with great success. I still say its worth a shot.

Not to mention, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the aftermarket cam driven fuel pumps are not $90 like the Walbro's are...they're closer to $650(!)...are perpetually backordered...and they use an entirely different pumping method. That's the reason I'm giving you a hard time over this. I think it should be clear that there is no definitive answer as to whether E85 will kill DI pumps, and telling people that E85 has more than enough lubrication is more based on opinion than it is on factual evidence. That's all.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to nit-pick. I just think when you're telling people to just go ahead and try it, the potential consequences and costs involved in the experiment should be clear.

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator For sure. Im glad you did your own tests and proved to yourself that E85 doesnt considerably lower EGT's. I knew this from running the fuel for 5 years myself and numerous personal tests. Sorry, i'd have to dig through thousands of logs to post something for ya as proof.. I knew the answer, and didnt have to back up my claim for you.. you did that for yourself.

That's the funny thing. After I did the 93octane vs. E85 comparo I talked to some very knowledgeable folks about my datalogs and they still swear E85 lowers EGTs. They suggested that maybe something wasn't right in my testing. So, I still don't know what to believe, haha.

[djuosnteisn]

I spoke with one guy (unnamed for his sake) who's pump took a shit this last weekend... and he had just started running an e-85 mix.

Can't definitively say that the e-85 killed the pump... maybe it was just time for it to let go..... cause it did have quite a few miles on it.

But alternatively you could say.... it worked for many many miles, so why did it finally give up when running e-85?



I think the fuel is great, and am eager to see pioneers (understanding and willing to accept any such risk) continue to test the waters. Hope it all works out for the best, cause an e-85 DI setup seems like a very awesome combo.

[Click Here]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn I spoke with one guy (unnamed for his sake) who's pump took a shit this last weekend... and he had just started running an e-85 mix. Can't definitively say that the e-85 killed the pump... maybe it was just time for it to let go..... cause it did have quite a few miles on it. But alternatively you could say.... it worked for many many miles, so why did it finally give up when running e-85? I think the fuel is great, and am eager to see pioneers (understanding and willing to accept any such risk) continue to test the waters. Hope it all works out for the best, cause an e-85 DI setup seems like a very awesome combo.

Ugh...I am sorry to hear this!!

For whatever it's worth, I was looking around for more alcohol fuel lubricants beyond the MMO and stumbled across these. I have no idea of these products are compatible with cats, O2 sensors, etc. so use at your own risk:

Red Line Synthetic Oil - Gasoline Fuel Additives - Alcohol Fuel Lube

Uplon® Fuel Lube

My situation was the same...high pressure fuel pump worked great for about 15k miles, but as soon as I started using blends of ethanol I started losing pressure. It sucks because even if we could take apart these pumps I wouldn't have any idea how to determine if the alcohol was the cause of the failure or if it was manufactured/assembled improperly.

[djuosnteisn]

His symptoms were similar of a seized pump. Pressure dropped to in-tank pressure (~70psi).

Perhaps when he gets a new set of internals, he can snap some photos for MSF's CSI dept to analyze. I'll send him a text tonight and get his thoughts.

[Nataphen]

Good info guys. I'll be watching for any pics that you can get, DJ. It would be quite a coincidence that two different HPFPs seized almost immediately after running e85. Maybe the e85 thing won't come to fruition after all.

I was really looking forward to doing some testing with it too.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn he can snap some photos for MSF's CSI dept to analyze.

hahha CSI depot...

galled internals= galled internals no matter if the fuel did it or not...says CSI Dano...evidence may be be inconclusive as to if 85 caused the failure.

now if this pump was a pee tee pee pump...well we can almost certainly rule out 85 as the root cause and Mr Bushbalm will be the prime suspect...LOL

*knocks on wood*

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Good info guys. I'll be watching for any pics that you can get, DJ. It would be quite a coincidence that two different HPFPs seized almost immediately after running e85. Maybe the e85 thing won't come to fruition after all. I was really looking forward to doing some testing with it too.

I say keep going with it if your that interested. Nobody said pioneering was easy lol. Just understand the risks involved, cause i agree, e85 would make for a very very good setup on our cars.

Originally Posted by Dano2010 hahha CSI depot... galled internals= galled internals no matter if the fuel did it or not...says CSI Dano...evidence will be inconclusive as to if 85 caused the failure. now if this pump was a pee tee pee pump...well we can almost certainly rule out 85 as the root cause and Mr Bushbalm will be the prime suspect...LOL

They were PG internals that had been run for nearly 2 years without issue. But that's 2 years of use as well.

Time will tell if the e85 is the culprit. So far Driver's having good luck, right?

[Dano]

as hard as theses pumps/internals are to get...if you are going to pioneer 85 you'd better have a spare pump or your MZR better not be your DD.

I suspect it will be hard to prove either way what causes the failures as we've had plenty of failures on petro...

what are the downsides to adding a lube? any? maybe plug fouling after thousands of miles

[Nataphen]

I've already thought of having a spare pump. I'm having to wait on the gen 2 AP software release anyway, so I'll keep an eye on Anthony's results.

[Dano]

hahaah

me too...i haz PTP pump with around 10-12K on it

I haven't logged DI pressure in awhile...hum...do I want to know.....

[cld12pk2go]

I am back to straight 93 on this tank...

I ran up to 20% ethanol (4.3 gal of E85 winter blend, which is really E70) without any apparent damage to my HPFP; however, my E85 testing was limited to < 500 miles.

We really need a gross injection PW adjustment for non-gas fuels so we don't have to BS the MAF curves, which screws up all the load calcs...

I need to ask Cobb about that...

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by Click Here I have no idea of these products are compatible with cats, O2 sensors, etc. so use at your own risk: Red Line Synthetic Oil - Gasoline Fuel Additives - Alcohol Fuel Lube Uplon® Fuel Lube

The redline product says "Do not use with catalytic converters"

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by FreeFlyFreak The redline product says "Do not use with catalytic converters"

Dustin says "Do not use catalytic converters with turbo vehicles"

[Nataphen]

Sorry, DJ, I plan to keep one cat on there. I'm going to do the catted RP+catless DP combo though. I can't find any conclusive evidence, but it seems to me that having the cat further away from the turbo would be better.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Sorry, DJ, I plan to keep one cat on there. I'm going to do the catted RP+catless DP combo though. I can't find any conclusive evidence, but it seems to me that having the cat further away from the turbo would be better.

It'll improve spool, but will still hinder the top end flow. Most cats are plenty efficient though, and i really don't see a problem with running one. I just like to talk shit.

[EnigmaOperator]

Originally Posted by Click Here Enigma, thanks for the reply. Let me be clear why I asked you to clarify your position on E85 and CDFP's: Not to mention, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the aftermarket cam driven fuel pumps are not $90 like the Walbro's are...they're closer to $650(!)...are perpetually backordered...and they use an entirely different pumping method. That's the reason I'm giving you a hard time over this. I think it should be clear that there is no definitive answer as to whether E85 will kill DI pumps, and telling people that E85 has more than enough lubrication is more based on opinion than it is on factual evidence. That's all. I hope you don't think I'm trying to nit-pick. I just think when you're telling people to just go ahead and try it, the potential consequences and costs involved in the experiment should be clear. That's the funny thing. After I did the 93octane vs. E85 comparo I talked to some very knowledgeable folks about my datalogs and they still swear E85 lowers EGTs. They suggested that maybe something wasn't right in my testing. So, I still don't know what to believe, haha.

No no not nitpickin! its all good. you are asking the right questions and are trying to be informed. - Constructive criticism and questions are what this forum needs.. its good to ask these questions.

Thats unfortunate that the Pumps are 600 bucks!!! Thats unbelieveable. Someone oughtta come out with an affordable solution , or rebuild kits.. that would be ideal.


As for those Alcohol fuel conditioners you posted up.. seems like an viable idea for you cam driven pump guys.. IF you arent getting enough lubrication on the Etanol 85% mix..Perhaps the 15% petrol left in the E85 for lubrication and cold starting ISNT enough lubrication for the Cam driven pumps, however there will be only one way to find out- testing. The walboro guys say its a no no, but widespread testing throughout multiple platforms shows otherwise..

on to EGT's

ive heard TONS of folks swear it lowers EGT's but like you, i have ALWAYS seen little to no difference in EGT's on E85. it has a tremendous effect on intake temps, but once burned, its tough to see any real difference.

keep askin the right questions!

its gonna take some folks here with the attachments (and possibly the spare pumps lol) to do some testing and see for sure what will become of the Cam driven pumps on Ethanol.

[djuosnteisn]

On that note..... Driver, how's it going? Been a while since you posted up.

[Click Here]

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator No no not nitpickin! its all good. you are asking the right questions and are trying to be informed. - Constructive criticism and questions are what this forum needs.. its good to ask these questions.

I appreciate that attitude, you're a good sport

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator Thats unfortunate that the Pumps are 600 bucks!!! Thats unbelieveable. Someone oughtta come out with an affordable solution , or rebuild kits.. that would be ideal.

No kidding man! They're crazy expensive, and so far really one company has been able to get those things right, and as a result they charge big $$$ for them. That isn't to say that people don't have luck with the rebuild kits, but the reality seems to be that they're just not as reliable. Some guys run them for years at a time, and others go through two or three sets before they get one that works, no matter the vendor. I've heard stories about them all.

I think the real problem is that it's hard to make a precise item like that cheap unless you're making them in HUGE quantity, or have a clever method for holding really tight tolerances. Otherwise, you're really just paying for a precise machining job and tight quality control. The materials and coatings don't cost shit.

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator As for those Alcohol fuel conditioners you posted up.. seems like an viable idea for you cam driven pump guys.. IF you arent getting enough lubrication on the Etanol 85% mix..Perhaps the 15% petrol left in the E85 for lubrication and cold starting ISNT enough lubrication for the Cam driven pumps, however there will be only one way to find out- testing. The walboro guys say its a no no, but widespread testing throughout multiple platforms shows otherwise..

You're right! So who's gonna pony up $800 for two stock fuel pumps and subject them to a side by side E85vs.93-octane test

The problem is that I think most people are going to want to do this with pump rebuild kits, but I'd argue that the data isn't any good. When you consider how often they fail, how can you really come to any conclusion if the pumps fail on just gasoline, let alone alcohol? The quality control of the aftermarket sets just isn't there in my humble opinion.

I think someone has to do it right and get factory assembled pumps and run them in two different cars running different fuels. I'd LOVE to see someone do this and finally put this question to bed!

Originally Posted by EnigmaOperator on to EGT's ive heard TONS of folks swear it lowers EGT's but like you, i have ALWAYS seen little to no difference in EGT's on E85. it has a tremendous effect on intake temps, but once burned, its tough to see any real difference. keep askin the right questions! its gonna take some folks here with the attachments (and possibly the spare pumps lol) to do some testing and see for sure what will become of the Cam driven pumps on Ethanol.

Someone on another board suggested that I was probably running the E85 too lean at 0.92 lambda, and that if I ran it a little richer it would have lowered the EGT's some. I'm not sure if I buy that, but shit it just gives me another excuse to go and flog the shit out of my car, so I'll be trying that again with a lower lambda (0.85), haha.

Thanks again for the comments Enigma.

[Dano]

IMO the only true test is to use a pump that has a great track record. Unfortunately that would be a CPE pump at 600+.

IIRC they have only had a failure or two whereas all the other pumps and kits have failed miserably.

*knocks on wood with PTP pump at 15k*

so we need someone to get a CPE pump and use 85 exclusively for 30-40K LOL.