E85 Discussion - HPFP lubrication and Flow issues

[amoosenamedhank]

Originally Posted by phate This whole thread has been about 100% E85

Wow... Way to go stud

The fact you mentioned reading about the interaction of MTDE and ethanol, led me to believe that you had to be running some sort of non ethanol based fuel considering ethanol is a substitute for MTDE not something that would be used in conjunction with it. So even I'd you're coming from E-10, MTDE wouldn't be present.

[phate]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 This may or may not add to the discussion, but i was next to a cigarette boat @ a gas station one summer, and he told me a story of how the new ethanol blend (10% in my area) was enough to loosen all of the deposits in his tank that accumulated from straight petrol. Enough was loosened to pop his cigarette boat motor.

I've been reading up on ethanol in boats. It seems that the solvency is having a pretty significant effect on the fiberglass and composite fuel tanks, along with the "normal" cleaning of residual dirt.

Originally Posted by John In the Evo community, there have been multiple reports of gunk on the injectors from switching to E-85. The prevailing theory is that it is indeed E-85 cleaning the fuel system from regular gunk in 91. In the case of the Evo X, E-85 would eat the stock fuel pump intake filter and deposit it in the fuel filter, clogging it up.

Good info. I am very concerned about my injectors, at this point. We know the pump parts look bad, right now, so I think its safe to assume the injectors are being subjected to the same nastiness. On my high priority list is getting an inline filter somewhere. I also want to take a look in the fuel tank, just to see if the gunk buildup is as-apparent, and check out the in-tank pump/filter.

Originally Posted by amoosenamedhank The fact you mentioned reading about the interaction of MTDE and ethanol, led me to believe that you had to be running some sort of non ethanol based fuel considering ethanol is a substitute for MTDE not something that would be used in conjunction with it. So even I'd you're coming from E-10, MTDE wouldn't be present.

I only mention the MTBE reaction because the result is kind of similar to what I'm seeing inside of the spill valve. A little bit of gummed up black shit all over the pumps internals. MTBE was phased out years ago in regular gas, so it shouldn't be the problem.

[John]

Here is the EvoE thread on injector gunk after running E-85:
Injector Gunk after 2 months of E85 - Evo Empire Forum

Here is one from EvoM on injector gunk after running E-85:
3 tanks of E85 and look at my ID2000's! unreal! - evolutionm.net

[Lex]

I am not convinced that is gunk from the tank. It is more likely a reaction E85 is having with vapors or fluids in the vehicle. Almost looks like oil sludge.

[phate]

John, thanks for the info. The second link is a great read.

I made good progress tonight with the spill valve. I have restored fuel pressure, although it may only be temporary. I will have a full write-up and tons of pictures (and even a video), tomorrow.

[JacksonMS30]

So all this gunk build up is from running 100% E85. If one were to run less than 50% will it still be a problem or would it just be significantly less of a problem?
Reason I ask is because I'm getting some E85 tomorrow and intend on letting Dustin take a crack at tuning it (at 30-45%). I may even have dyno results tomorrow if I can squeeze in after my friend who is dynoing his 100% e85 cobalt ss/tc...

[phate]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 So all this gunk build up is from running 100% E85. If one were to run less than 50% will it still be a problem or would it just be significantly less of a problem? Reason I ask is because I'm getting some E85 tomorrow and intend on letting Dustin take a crack at tuning it (at 30-45%). I may even have dyno results tomorrow if I can squeeze in after my friend who is dynoing his 100% e85 cobalt ss/tc...

Well, we don't have a definitive answer on what the gunk actually is. @driver311 has been testing the waters with E85 mixes and hasn't mentioned any problem like this (his thread is a great read if you haven't checked it out). I ran a 50% ethanol mix for a while without issues. It could be happening more slowly with less ethanol, but I'm not sure that I would count on it not happenning, at all.

[phate]

A little teaser for you guys:

YouTube - MZR DISI Spill Valve Solenoid

[BigjohnB20]

Hey guys, I haven't been following the E-85 discussions too closely so I am not sure if this has been brought up before. But, I have been seeing this in the parking lot at work lately and thought it was intriguing.

2011 Buick Regal Turbo will be E85-capable | The Car Tech blog - CNET Reviews

First full flex-fuel, direct inject turbo engine according to the article. They of course discuss the sensor that can determine EtOH percentage on teh fly and report to the ECU. We lack that, but otherwise, they mention a eco-boost 2.0 liter with HPFP and fuel rail that looks pretty simiarl to ours. I thought that the eco-boosts were based somewhat off of the MZR.

Anyway, maybe someone a little more motivated or driven than I can research up and see if they can dig up any specifics on the HPFP used in the Regal application.

[John]

The E-85 content analyzer is just an in-line sensor ($359) made by GM, guys on EvoE run the Zeitronix E-85 ECA ($199) guage since there has been some issue with Ethanol content consistency in the Bay Area. Hayward E-85 was running ~E-60 and causing some issues with our tunes.

Zeitronix ECA : SEMA Award Winning Ethanol Content Analyzer and Flex Fuel Sensor for E-85 and E-85/gasoline Blends

Here is a link for an E-85 test kit you can put together at Walmart:
E85 gas storage , testing, and proper disposal. - Evo Empire Forum

I would love to run E-85 on my 'stockish' MS3 and if I could do it with just fuel pump internals and a cobb AP then I would. Power boost aside, E-85 runs much smoother than piss 91 in CA.

[Speed3eak]

I don't think it would be a problem - how "stockish" are you?

Are you talking about running straight e85? Lots of guys run 3 gallons of e85, with the rest 91 or 93 octane - nobody seems to have had any problems yet. And 3 gallons e85 seems to raise the octane of gas enough to all but eliminate knock from what I've seen with driver311 and clk(his name is longer than that but I can never remember it). I think straight e85 is possible too, and would like to commend phate for having the balls to go for it. Stock turbo I can see it happening, for a big turbo though we'd probably need much larger injectors.

I don't know enough about it though - this thread has been great reading and I'm looking forwards to seeing what phate uncovers running 100% E85.

[phate]

OK, guys. So you can see from the video above (here if you didn't) that I went ahead and plugged my extra spill valve solenoid into the harness, apart from the pump. At first, it didn't want to do anything, it wouldn't operate unless I pushed on the plunger (that is the center pin on the solenoid). After doing that for a bit, it started to work a bit better and I gave the solenoid some love taps with the plastic end of a screwdriver (because it was the closest tool that wouldn't damage the metal).

After a few minutes of this, it started working regularly - meaning it wouldn't skip cycles. About two seconds after that, the whole thing pretty much fell apart in my hands. I thought I broke it, but it turns out it is just a pressed together unit

I didn't understand how the spill valve worked before now, so I'm going to attempt to explain it for everyone else like me. If it's old news, skip past!

First, the operation of the solenoid was the opposite of what I expected. The plunger is normally "out", depressing the spill valve - which relieves pressure. When power is applied (polarity didn't matter), the center pin retracts into the solenoid.

The "normal" position (no power) is on the left, applied voltage position on the right:


Again, the "normal" position (no power) is on the left, applied voltage position on the right:


So the round piece on the very bottom of the solenoid - we'll call it the 'collar' - is just pressed into the solenoid frame with a pretty tight fit. It looks to serve three purposes: 1) to guide the plunger, which is what controls the actual spill valve, and 2) to secure the opposing round metal piece - the "valve body", and 3) to allow fuel to flow through it when the valve is released, diverting fuel, and thus decreasing pressure.

This is the collar which mates to the round valve body. The two faces, shown in the next two pictures, are the faces that press against each other. You can see wear pattern on the collar from the valve body's outer ring:


The round valve body does not move. Only the center “button” (which is actually the valve) moves. The valve body seals against the bottom of the spill valve port (next picture, below) – flat side down, cup side up. The outer edge of the cup side of the valve body seals against the solenoid’s collar.



This only leaves two paths for the fuel to leave:

1) out the pump side’s high pressure line that goes to the fuel rail (which is the larger hole you see when you take the typical pump internals out), or
2) through the valve body, and then through the collar’s 90° opposing holes, which is then rerouted back to the pumping side of the CDFP.

How this routing actually occurs is where the "button" comes into play. We can see that the fuel must flow through the center of the collar in order to flow through the 90° opposing holes. You can see the wear pattern on the inside edge of the collar's face where the button rides, and thus is closing the path when the solenoid's plunger retracts. The movement of the button occurs because, when the plunger retracts, we have a great deal of fuel flowing against the bottom of the button. Once the button is touching the collar's face, the pump generates a ton of pressure because it only has one route to go - through the high pressure feed line into the fuel rail.

____________________

Now that we have that out of the way, we can look at the details of the spill valve solenoid. The solenoid is pretty simple. Only five pieces, including the solenoid frame. Sorry for the lighting in this pic, but there are better pictures to follow:

From left to right we have: 1) solenoid frame, 2) plunger return spring, 3) plunger c-clip guide, 4) plunger, 5) collar.
[PS - if someone knows the real names of these pieces, I'll be glad to edit this entire post.]

Close up of the solenoid frame. The center post is stationary - it holds the plunger return spring and plunger in place:


Here's the plunger return spring, it's nothing crazy. Second picture is how it sits in the solenoid frame on that center post.



Here's the plunger's c-clip guide and how it fits into the solenoid frame. This piece fits very nicely into its bore, there is essentially no rocking or binding:



Which brings us to the heart of any solenoid, the plunger:


The plunger sits on the spring, and is held by the c-clip guide (obviously not as loosely as shown here when installed into the solenoid frame):


This is the plunger in the solenoid frame, held by the c-clip guide:


And the collar was shown way up in the beginning of this post, so this is how all of the pieces fit together:


____________________


Which brings us to the issues I was having. These five pieces fit together pretty snugly in order to keep the plunger from flopping around. I found two places which were binding when I initially inspected it

1) The c-clip guide did not move smoothly in its bore. This was just a matter of a very light, sticky residue. The solenoid internals were not nasty like some of the parts were in previous posts, but the unit is not sealed. These parts are susceptible to the same contaminants. Once the solenoid frame and c-clip were cleaned, it was a smooth operation.

2) Where the plunger goes through the collar. The center bore in the collar actually was visibly dirty. It is a very tight fit between these two components.

I blasted all of the components with brake parts cleaner and gave the collar a quick scrub. Threw it back in and, like I hoped, had fuel pressure

____________________

I will now, unquestionably, get an in-line fuel filter installed. Whether or not the ethanol is dissolving deposits from the previous 50k miles' dirt from 93 octane, I am getting one. Fuel can be nasty, no matter what brand/type/station. I've been looking around for filters, and I may order one tomorrow after I do a quick inspection tonight of where it can or cannot fit.

I am fairly convinced that a large part of this is just residual grime from the last few years. Until I see differently, I'm sticking with E85

[Speed3eak]

Cue slow clap

I <3 this thread. Thanks again phate.

[Fatguy729]

so everything is running well now and you just need to wait for your fuel system to clean itself?

[superskaterxes]

jesus that was way over my head. im way to distracted right now for this haha

[BigjohnB20]

Good god man you are thorough!!

Keep up the good work. I think I finally am starting to understand how the LPFP, HPFP, spill valve, relief valve, etc., blah, blah work together.

[phate]

Thanks, guys. Hopefully this helps out some other folks!

Originally Posted by Fatguy729 so everything is running well now and you just need to wait for your fuel system to clean itself?

Sort of. I really want to get the fuel filter in place, even if its just for my own piece of mind. I'm also just getting the MAF curve dialed in, right now. Once I get some solid logs, I'll post my results with lots of charts and fun data. If I have to clean the solenoid again, I'll let everyone know!

[lito37]

Here is some info. Using E85 in Non Flex Fuel Vehicles

[Calvin@COBB]

Originally Posted by phate Thanks, guys. Hopefully this helps out some other folks! Sort of. I really want to get the fuel filter in place, even if its just for my own piece of mind. I'm also just getting the MAF curve dialed in, right now. Once I get some solid logs, I'll post my results with lots of charts and fun data. If I have to clean the solenoid again, I'll let everyone know!

I had a very similar experience as you when I did some testing on 100% E-85.

I have tuned many cars running E-85 (Subaru's, EVO's, GTR's) but all being port injected and the results of tuning with E-85 were so nice that I was determined to run it in my MS3 no mater what It took. So I started by getting my fuel level as low as I could and then filling up with E-85. From my past experience with E-85 I knew I would need approximately 30% more fuel so I added 30% to my MAF curve to get the extra fuel and flashed the map.

All was well for about 20mi and then bam fuel pressure dropped to about 60psi and anything more than about 10% throttle and the car would fall on its face. The next day at work I removed my HPFP and found the same black gunk as you. At the time I was running a set of KMD internals and after cleaning off all of the gunk I found lots of wear on them, so much that I was uncomfortable putting them back in, so I put my factory internals back in and put it back together only to find I still had no fuel pressure. Luckily I had a spare pump that I swapped the spill valve from and all was well again. So Before I put the car on the dyno I wanted to at least run one full tank of E-85 to make sure I wouldn't have any more problems with the fuel system.

The next problem I ran in to that ended up stopping my testing was the load cap. Since I had raised my MAF curve by 30%, I was hitting the load cap at very low boost levels. At the time we hadn't uncovered the load cap so my testing on E-85 was put to a stop.

Now on to the good part. Before I had run a full tank of 93 I had a injector fail, it stuck open at WOT, full boost, and 5000rpm and the end result was a bent rod due to that cylinder hydro-locking with fuel.


So I am glad to see that more and more people are starting to venture in to the E-85 world, but I wanted to share my experience so that you would know what possible failures you could run in to.

Calvin

[R.MS3]

Just a blown motor to summarize, no big deal. Haha

[phate]

Calvin, excellent information, thank you. Very sorry to hear about the blown engine. It's also too bad that E85 testing hasn't continued on your end. I am seeing positive results, despite the spill valve solenoid. I believe a fuel filter is in order for anyone considering doing this.

It looks like I will be able to run an in-line filter in the soft line immediately before the CDFP. It's a 5/16" line, and I think I can splice into it, directly. If not, the ends (with the blue ring lock) can be reused in another hose, I believe. Finding a filter that fits the bill has been a little difficult, as many filters are not advertised as E85/alcohol compatible. The ones that I do find are often for carb'd, low pressure applications. I'm going to call Summit tomorrow morning and get their recommendation.

The spill valve that I cleaned and re-installed lasted for ~170 miles without a filter, this time. That's significantly more than the 30-35 miles, before. The solenoid takes about five minutes to swap, so it's not a big deal right now. It looked much, much better this time around. There weren't any deposits, like before. Just a very light residue.

I have most of the MAF curve nailed down. I have been focused on the "driving" range and the upper end of the calibration. The idle range is still a bit rich, though. I will post my last known good gas calibration and the new E85 calibration, once I am satisfied with it. It should be revealing and may help out others looking to do this.

Before I did any WOT testing, I significantly lowered my entire WGDC table so I wouldn't run any more boost than the wastegate spring allowed. I did this due to the high injector duty cycle that I mentioned in my first post. I also didn't really know what kind of loads to target, so I just raised the load targets to 4.00 over the entire range. This worked well, as I was able to see the actual load values at low boost. This method then allowed me to find the minimum WGDC required to raise the boost pressure over the entire RPM range. [This isn't the only way to go about it, but it worked for me.]

So the wastegate still wanted to work a little bit, even though I lowered the targets. These are all 2800-6100rpm runs in 4th gear. Don't mind the AFR's in this graph, I was still working on them at this point. This is what the load and boost curves looks like brake boosting into 4th gear:

If you can't read the text at the bottom, load is the tallest curve (scaled by x10), boost pressure is the next one down, AFR is the mostly straight line, and WGDC (scaled to 1/10) is the line at the bottom (mostly 0). The peak load, in every run seen here, is right at 4,500rpm. This is about where peak torque occurs, so it makes sense to me.

In these same runs, I was logging injector duty cycle, but not injector pulsewidth. I have found that 100% injector duty cycle doesn't really mean 100%, and we can go beyond 100%. I posed this question on the Cobb forums, but haven't received a reply, yet. What does 100% mean for us? Thus far, I have seen 103.xx% injector duty cycle, but the injector pulsewidth doesn't flatline, and I am still achieving target AFR's. This is what injector duty cycle looks like:


____________________


I have since bumped up the low rpm WGDC to push the curve back up and make it a smooth taper out to 6k rpm. This is the last log I took at WOT. I have since altered the map again to get rid of the "dip" seen in the load curve, but all of the roads are wet around here, today. This is what 4th gear (brake boosting, again) looked like:


____________________

So that's where everything is at, right now. With Calvin's note, above, I think it is best that I drive as little as possible until I get the filter in place. The semester is finally over, so I don't have to drive to class any more. I don't drive to work, so the car can just chill out for a couple of days.

As for how the car feels: it is easily pulling just as hard as it was on 93 octane in the same type of weather. Mind you, this is at less boost and only 1* additional timing as compared to the 93 tune, as the turbo was completely maxed when I was running it on 93. I think there is huge potential here.

I'm going to a dyno day next Saturday with a few local racers. If I get everything to a point where I'm comfortable, we'll strap the car down for S's and G's. Down the road, I'll probably end up fine-tuning the car at this place, myself.

____________________

Edit: Calvin, how many miles did you have on the car when you tried the E85? This would be a good indicator if the gunk we're seeing is accumulated dirt, or not.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Calvin@COBB I had a very similar experience as you when I did some testing on 100% E-85. I have tuned many cars running E-85 (Subaru's, EVO's, GTR's) but all being port injected and the results of tuning with E-85 were so nice that I was determined to run it in my MS3 no mater what It took. So I started by getting my fuel level as low as I could and then filling up with E-85. From my past experience with E-85 I knew I would need approximately 30% more fuel so I added 30% to my MAF curve to get the extra fuel and flashed the map. All was well for about 20mi and then bam fuel pressure dropped to about 60psi and anything more than about 10% throttle and the car would fall on its face. The next day at work I removed my HPFP and found the same black gunk as you. At the time I was running a set of KMD internals and after cleaning off all of the gunk I found lots of wear on them, so much that I was uncomfortable putting them back in, so I put my factory internals back in and put it back together only to find I still had no fuel pressure. Luckily I had a spare pump that I swapped the spill valve from and all was well again. So Before I put the car on the dyno I wanted to at least run one full tank of E-85 to make sure I wouldn't have any more problems with the fuel system. The next problem I ran in to that ended up stopping my testing was the load cap. Since I had raised my MAF curve by 30%, I was hitting the load cap at very low boost levels. At the time we hadn't uncovered the load cap so my testing on E-85 was put to a stop. Now on to the good part. Before I had run a full tank of 93 I had a injector fail, it stuck open at WOT, full boost, and 5000rpm and the end result was a bent rod due to that cylinder hydro-locking with fuel. So I am glad to see that more and more people are starting to venture in to the E-85 world, but I wanted to share my experience so that you would know what possible failures you could run in to. Calvin

Did the motor run after you ran the E85? If so, chances are that "gunk" was also coating your injectors and perhaps caused it to stick open.


As for duty cycle, I believe COBB calculates 100% duty cycle as injector firing the entire intake and compression stroke before the spark event. I am VERY curious where the injection event moves past 100%. Does it move past the spark event? Or does it move into the end of the exhaust?

I think injector sizing is going to be the biggest issue running straight E85 once the gunk issue is sorted out (What happens when you mix oil and E85 BTW?)

[86AmishMs3]

Originally Posted by phate I am not inclined to agree, here. There was a mandate back in the early 90's that vehicles had to handle ethanol fuels. Older vehicles had huge problems with the ethanol enriched fuels - it was doing exactly as you described. The gunk is more carbon-y than anything - it's like the nasty coating that piston crowns get after many miles. I think it is simply breaking down all of the dirt that was in the fuel system. BUT, we shall leave no stone unturned. I called Mazda Motorsports about the possibility of ethanol damaging the lines. The rep wasn't sure, so he's emailing one of the Mazda engineers. Edit: I did find a couple of articles describing a reaction between MTBE and ethanol, but I thought MTBE had been phased out of all gasoline for a few years. I'm going to look into this some more.

MTBE is a reddish brown and it shouldn't react with alcohols, at least not very easily. Link to articles?

Edit: nevermind on the reddish brown that's MMT, but still i don't see ethers and alcohols reacting under normal conditions.

Edit again: Wow I is retard, I didn't see second page.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Lex As for duty cycle, I believe COBB calculates 100% duty cycle as injector firing the entire intake and compression stroke before the spark event. I am VERY curious where the injection event moves past 100%. Does it move past the spark event? Or does it move into the end of the exhaust? I think injector sizing is going to be the biggest issue running straight E85 once the gunk issue is sorted out (What happens when you mix oil and E85 BTW?)

Lex, I'm very curious about this, as well. The point of spark would be logical. TDC in the compression stroke could be another point, as well, but I think the spark event is a good guess. There has to be a point where injecting fuel no longer matters - like partway through the power stroke.

I changed my oil today, so I had an empty gallon jug of Rotella T6. I threw in an E85 sample I pulled to check for contaminants, so I'll take a look at this tomorrow.

[phate]

Alright guys, I've learned some things today. Another theory for the black gunk is electrolysis. When I was searching for fuel filter options, I came across this thread on a mustang forum: Fuel Filter E85? - Page 2 - SVTPerformance

The above thread is great for two reasons: The electrolysis theory, and that I might just need to ground out the pump body to rid the system of any excess voltage. And the second reason: the fuel filter that is highlighted in the thread is a stock ford part, with seemingly identical hose barbs that we find in our cars. The guy was running it with straight E85 with no ill effect. Here's a picture of one of the filters:



What I think this means is that I can purchase another one of the intermediate soft lines that goes from the firewall to the CDFP, and mount the filter somewhere in that region. I called one of my Mustang crazy friends, and he says the stock 03-04 cobra filters are supporting over 400whp and 100psi of fuel pressure with a kenne bell boost-a-pump. A viable option, right now, and one that I can put in place this week.

[phate]

We have a winner for the fuel filter:

The hose barbs are almost identical, just about 1/8" shorter on the cobra filter. I'll order the line tomorrow, from Mazda Motorsports. In the meantime, I'll have to figure out where to mount the filter. It's a little bigger than I expected, but I think I can tuck it right next to the firewall between the battery box and a heat shield down there.

While I was out messing with this in my garage, I went ahead and wired a direct ground from the CDFP's bottom bolt to the negative terminal on the battery. Once the filter is in, we'll be able to pinpoint the issue even further. I pulled the CDFP and cleaned the spill valve and pump internals, so we can see any change. The internals were pulled ~200 miles ago the last time, and they didn't look as bad this time around. I'm still hopeful about this working out.

I poured the ethanol/oil mix into a glass jar while I was out. It is milky, not anything like what we saw on the internals. When I pulled the sample, it looked clear and nothing settled out after leaving it for a few hours. BUT, that does not mean it doesn't contain anything. I'll let this mixture sit, just in case it does precipitate.

[JacksonMS30]

I have a question regarding the effectiveness of running E85.
I'm halfway through a tank with a 35% mix of e85 and I'm also running wmi (50/50). Tuned by DJ. The gains of running e85 have been barely noticeable. I'm pretty close to mbt so there isn't really anymore timing advance that can be done. My friends turbo cobalt ss (direct injected as well) has seen ridiculous gains from e85. How come we don't see very much gain where everybody else pics up a ton of power?
I know the cobalts can advance timing by more than 25* on e85 so I'm sure that helps them a little...

[Lex]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 I have a question regarding the effectiveness of running E85. I'm halfway through a tank with a 35% mix of e85 and I'm also running wmi (50/50). Tuned by DJ. The gains of running e85 have been barely noticeable. I'm pretty close to mbt so there isn't really anymore timing advance that can be done. My friends turbo cobalt ss (direct injected as well) has seen ridiculous gains from e85. How come we don't see very much gain where everybody else pics up a ton of power? I know the cobalts can advance timing by more than 25* on e85 so I'm sure that helps them a little...

The question is - how do you know you are close to MBT? Did you verify on the dyno that you're not making any more power with more timing?

Phate, good investigation. If this cleans out the gunk, how do you plan on running more than 10psi boost on the stock injectors?

[Calvin@COBB]

Originally Posted by phate Edit: Calvin, how many miles did you have on the car when you tried the E85? This would be a good indicator if the gunk we're seeing is accumulated dirt, or not.

I was at about 56,000mi when I tried.

[phate]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 I have a question regarding the effectiveness of running E85. I'm halfway through a tank with a 35% mix of e85 and I'm also running wmi (50/50). Tuned by DJ. The gains of running e85 have been barely noticeable. I'm pretty close to mbt so there isn't really anymore timing advance that can be done. My friends turbo cobalt ss (direct injected as well) has seen ridiculous gains from e85. How come we don't see very much gain where everybody else pics up a ton of power? I know the cobalts can advance timing by more than 25* on e85 so I'm sure that helps them a little...

Every engine is different, but I'm with Lex: How do you know where MBT is, and are you at MBT for the entire rpm range? Driver311's thread is the thread for learning about the benefits of E85 - Drivers attempt at E85. It is a fantastic read, and it starts to get really in depth on page 3 or 4.

Also, 25* of timing means NOTHING comparing two different makes of engines. Even identical makes of engine will need a different amount of timing to achieve MBT...

Edit: You are asking a very good question, though. As far as I know, I may be the only person running straight E85 on this platform, right now. No one knows how much benefit there will be.

Originally Posted by Lex Phate, good investigation. If this cleans out the gunk, how do you plan on running more than 10psi boost on the stock injectors?

Right now, it looks like the simplest method to gain some head room is to increase the pressure. This would require me to get one of PTP's (yeah, I know ) relief valves. I have seen a couple of people on msf mention they are having good luck with them.

Originally Posted by Calvin@COBB I was at about 56,000mi when I tried.

Ok, we're looking at similar mileage, then. I was at 49,xxx miles when I started running the 50/50 mix. I just turned over 50,000 yesterday.

[Calvin@COBB]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 I have a question regarding the effectiveness of running E85. I'm halfway through a tank with a 35% mix of e85 and I'm also running wmi (50/50). Tuned by DJ. The gains of running e85 have been barely noticeable. I'm pretty close to mbt so there isn't really anymore timing advance that can be done. My friends turbo cobalt ss (direct injected as well) has seen ridiculous gains from e85. How come we don't see very much gain where everybody else pics up a ton of power? I know the cobalts can advance timing by more than 25* on e85 so I'm sure that helps them a little...

MBT will be different for different fuels, if you are at MBT on 93 or a 93+wmi mix and you switch to 100% E-85 you will be far from MBT with the same timing curve.

On other platforms I typically see around a 40whp gain with E-85 vs 93 octane and would expect to see around the same gains with the MS3.

[amoosenamedhank]

Are you going to try and check out the condition of your injectors? Or run some sort of solvent through the system to ensure what happened to Calvin, doesn't happen to you.

[phate]

Yeah, I want to have them cleaned. There aren't too many places that will do gas direct injection injectors, but I have found a place in Houston that will do it - http://www.injectorrx.com/services.html. Which means I will be car-less for about a week. With shipping, it looks like it would only be around $125. I think it will be money well spent, and a hell of a lot cheaper than nuking my engine.

I just ordered the fuel line from Mazda Motorsports. It was $50 (before shipping), and it should be here tomorrow.

[amoosenamedhank]

Well I'm honestly pretty excited to see the out come of this all. Are you planning on getting on the dyno (if you can get everything running reliably) to see what the change will yield?

[redneckrecon]

Great job phate... this is some really good info man... thank you! glad you got VIP man

[John]

Originally Posted by Calvin@COBB On other platforms I typically see around a 40whp gain with E-85 vs 93 octane and would expect to see around the same gains with the MS3.

I've actually seen ~70whp/wtq gains from E-85 vs 91 on multiple different Evos. Boost was vastly increased though, in my personal Evo I went from 22psi to 28psi.

[Lex]

Do the Evo owners eventually see plastic or rubber parts failures?

[phate]

Alright, I talked to one of the guys at Fuel Injector Cleaning Service : Cleaning Fuel Injectors : InjectorRX.com. He was especially helpful after I told him I was converting to E85. He was emphatic about the need for some type of filter in a direct injection system. He said he has seen countless direct injection pumps damaged by the dislodged dirt in fuel systems. He suggested a 40-60 micron filter, and that a finer filter may create drag on the system. He mentioned that cavitation in a direct injection pump would almost surely cause immediate failure.

He was familiar with our type of injector, as they are used in other cars. He says the problem isn't usually with them sticking open or closed, but the spray pattern being disrupted by buildup on the injector tip. He mentioned flow capacity being an issue with some pumps, and I mentioned I had a higher flowing pump due to the KMD internals. So I mentioned that I would like to run higher pressure in the system. He said these injectors (yes, the ones that our cars use) can handle up to 3,000psi, if they are in good working condition. He said the flow rate of direct injection injectors is linear with pressure.

This guy was super helpful. He spoke with a western european an accent and I didn't catch his name, unfortunately. He was telling me about direct injection systems in some European countries running anywhere from 30-40:1 AFR's and that new systems being introduced have pushed that out to 72:1 at light load (cruising loads). This is where we got into the importance of spray pattern in direct injection engines. Apparently, if it gets disrupted at all, it has a pretty significant effect on power and drivability.

With all of that said, I'm going to send my injectors out next week. I need the car this Thursday and Saturday, and I'm comfortable with that since the filter will be in place. I'll take that time to clean out the high pressure line to the fuel rail, and the fuel rail itself. After I get the injectors back (which will take about a week with regular shipping), everything should be nice and tidy.

I think I may take this time to do injector seals and the high pressure relief valve, as well.

[John]

I have heard of no failures in the Evolution 8/9 (just need upgraded pump/injectors and tune), but the Evolution X fuel pump was not designed for E-85 so they had some early issues that have since been fixed.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate He said these injectors (yes, the ones that our cars use) can handle up to 3,000psi, if they are in good working condition. He said the flow rate of direct injection injectors is linear with pressure.

If I read the post correctly, not in practice...ask SSinstaller. IIRC at ~2300PSI rail pressure his injectors will not fire. Its in this thread.

post 358 and 353

Kenne bell boost a spark

SS talks about his whole story earlier in that same thread but the net is he ported the spill valve, line and RV and hit the limit and is hoping to switch to an AP and command lower FP to come in right under 2300PSI rail. He couldn't scale voltage enough with the SB to get under that PSI.

hope this sheds some more light on the subject. Great work BTW Phate

I am with Lex and wonder how bad the E85 will effect our oil. With all the fuel getting past the rings in our application the oil will be diluted much faster with the solvent properties of E85.

Oil change at every fill up? LOL