home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Symposium > article composition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2006, 05:37 PM   #26
Billiam500
Board Member
 
Billiam500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Detroit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMc
The bit about LH-Jet Volvo's not having any dissolvable parts in their fuel system gives me a great deal of comfort.

Some info for MS equipped vehicles.

1) MSII and FCS (Fuel Composition Sensor) - It's no suprise that the cramped firmware on MSI boxes can't handle the additional tasks, but MSII already has support for the GM FCS. no need to set up multiple fuel tables, it interpolates the correction factors from the regular gas table based on the reading from the FCS. This would allow you to run various mixtures through the tank (full E85, half & half, E10) with no on-the-fly reconfiguring. Lots o' info: http://www.megasquirt.info/flexfuel.htm

2) MSI boxes - I guess no support for the FCS, and possibly there won't ever be. An alternative would be a dual map setup. One map set up for gas, the other set up for E85. You'd have to run the car pretty close to empty before switching over. I think you can rig up an external switch to flip that will switch between tables so you wouldn't have to have a laptop with you. If you were really l337 you could probably also swap ignition tables and alter your MS-managed boost controller at the same time...
What about MSI running only E85- not some random mix of ethanol and gas?
__________________
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
Billiam500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2006, 05:42 PM   #27
JohnMc
PV Abuser
 
JohnMc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: St. Louis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam500
What about MSI running only E85- not some random mix of ethanol and gas?
Assuming your injectors won't max out, just up the req fuel number by 39%. And call it a day.
__________________
'63 PV Rat Rod
'93 245 16VT Classic #1141
JohnMc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2006, 09:47 PM   #28
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

I just wanted to say that they lowered the price of E85 in Sweden today.

Before today it cost me 7.99sek/L = $1.12/L = $4.24/gallon.
Today it cost me 7.24sek/L = $1.01/L = $3.82/gallon.

Compare that to the gas price of 12.49sek/L = $1.75/L = $6.62/gallon.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 04:34 PM   #29
Lord Tentacle
Anime Lord
 
Lord Tentacle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney, AUS/Appleton, WI
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frpe82
No. The narrow band lambda sensor doesn´t have a clue about AFR, only lambda.

The ECU will tune to lambda=1 on idle regardless of the fuel used, and lambda=1 for E85 is 9.8.
what about an LC1 wideband?
I cant remember if it bases the analog output signel off of the afr
or if its a direct corrilation to lamda...
(aka do i need to reprogram it....)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:Sven:. View Post
Your not getting naked pics of my GF, and im getting a 3inch. Its settled
Tentacle Wagon-91 940; stuff including paddles and Holset etc... powered by corn
Tentacle Sedan-97 S90; stuff including paddles and holset etc... Powered by Beetroot

Current 240 Ownership
1993, 1992, 1990, 1988, 1985, 1981
Lord Tentacle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 04:40 PM   #30
JohnMc
PV Abuser
 
JohnMc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: St. Louis
Default

You'd need to program it if you wanted to see different numbers on E85. But really, why bother? It would then read 'low' on straight gas. Just understand that a reading of 14.7 is still stochiometric, regardless of the fuel used. Any higher numbers, you are running lean. Any lower numbers, you are running rich. Converting the exhaust gas numbers back to an AFR is just a purely cosmetic, aesthetic step, not crucial to anything.

All the gauge knows is that the wideband sensor voltage is somewhere between 0 and 5 volts. Past that, the numbers it shows you are entirely arbitrary.

Last edited by JohnMc; 06-19-2006 at 04:47 PM..
JohnMc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 05:44 PM   #31
Lord Tentacle
Anime Lord
 
Lord Tentacle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney, AUS/Appleton, WI
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMc
You'd need to program it if you wanted to see different numbers on E85. But really, why bother? It would then read 'low' on straight gas. Just understand that a reading of 14.7 is still stochiometric, regardless of the fuel used. Any higher numbers, you are running lean. Any lower numbers, you are running rich. Converting the exhaust gas numbers back to an AFR is just a purely cosmetic, aesthetic step, not crucial to anything.

All the gauge knows is that the wideband sensor voltage is somewhere between 0 and 5 volts. Past that, the numbers it shows you are entirely arbitrary.
i'm using the LC1 as my only o2 sensor
hence why i'm asking
because you can actualy use the programming to recentre what is stoch...
but from my understanding as long as i have it programmed into the LC1 that lambda = 1 = .45v for the output to the ECU it will work just fine....
Lord Tentacle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 05:49 PM   #32
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiebird
what about an LC1 wideband?
I cant remember if it bases the analog output signel off of the afr
or if its a direct corrilation to lamda...
(aka do i need to reprogram it....)
You have to set the fuel type to ethanol in the "LM programmer 3.0" program that came with the LC1 WB sensor. Look at page 12 in the manual: http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/s...C-1_Manual.pdf
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2006, 11:52 AM   #33
davidmacq
Bored Member
 
davidmacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Clarksville, TN
Default

Couple questions. I have 42 and 46lb injectors.

Will an adjustable fpr allow you to lower the fuel pressure lower than normal?





I was thinking larger injectors with lower fuel pressure. To keep from maxing out the fuel pump and leave some room to grow, and also allow different injectors to be used.

I understand also that there are lower and higher bosch fpr's that will work. 2.5 fpr, 3.5 fpr, etc, maybe a 4.0. Any similiar bosch design.

What are factory injector lb/hr?

Like maybe you could throw in a 2.5fpr, 46lb injectors and run gas, then bump it up with the adjustable fpr for e85, etc. If you could lower the fpr lower than 3.0 with the adjustable it wouldn't be needed I guess?

What's this about special injectors for e85?
davidmacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2006, 10:19 PM   #34
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmacq
Will an adjustable fpr allow you to lower the fuel pressure lower than normal?
Only if you replace the stock FPR, not by putting another FPR in series with the stock one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmacq
What are factory injector lb/hr?
30-32lb/hr depending on year and model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmacq
Like maybe you could throw in a 2.5fpr, 46lb injectors and run gas, then bump it up with the adjustable fpr for e85, etc. If you could lower the fpr lower than 3.0 with the adjustable it wouldn't be needed I guess?
You would need less fuel than 46lb/hr injectors @ 2.5bar to run gasoline, unless you are running a bigger AMM to offset the fuel map.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmacq
What's this about special injectors for e85?
There is really nothing special about them other than that they are certified for E85. Most injectors that came with an electronic EMS will work. At least the ones we use for our Volvo´s (like the ones that came on S60/V70R, browntops, CFI´s etc.).
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2006, 08:07 AM   #35
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

I am now represented in the HTML and Excel documents on http://ahman.1go.dk/

Even Turbobricks.com made it in to the documents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2006, 11:51 PM   #36
ovlov760
Board Member
 
ovlov760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Midwest - IL
Default

Were all '88 Volvos made to work with ethanol? I wonder if my Walbro is E85 tolerant and if the Ford CFI injectors are.
__________________
2006 V70R GT
2011 XC90 R-design
1998 V70 AWD
1966 M-B 230
2011 C30 T5M
2006 XC70
1997 850 T5
1988 760 Turbo
ovlov760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2006, 12:24 AM   #37
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovlov760
Were all '88 Volvos made to work with ethanol? I wonder if my Walbro is E85 tolerant and if the Ford CFI injectors are.
The Walbro is of a pretty modern design, and it is not designed specifically for gasoline. It doesn´t have any natural rubber or cork-gasketed parts. I have a single in-tank pump as well ('98 945T), it is from Volvo and was designed to run at least E10 and is therefore ethanol certified. I am 100% sure the Walbro will work excellent.

I am running CFI´s with E85, and I am probably not the only one. And how many people actually use the CFI´s in their modded Volvo´s every day, or drive the original cars the CFI´s came from? Many! And what fuel are they running? At least 90% of all those vehicles all over the world have been running on E5 or E10 for the last couple of years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 11:27 PM   #38
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

A little more interesting reading for you guys...

Added section to the article in post #1: Performance application and fuel needed
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2006, 10:00 AM   #39
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Some studies has been made to estimate some other effects of E85 other than the usual things mentioned before. A comparison was made regarding the relationship between E85 and gasoline, and how good the cooling properties are:

An engine at operating temperature (of 82*C I think it was) with the supply of 20*C warm air and 20*C warm E85 has equal performance / cooling properties as the same engine running 20*C warm air and an equivalent of -63*C cold gasoline...!

Of course, gasoline would not even work at those low temperatures but the cooling effect of E85 is equivalent to -63*C gasoline when both are at the same lambda value.

And yes, for good performance you still need a good intercooler. Not really for the sake of avoiding pinging and detonation, but the intercooler makes the air more dense and therefore you can push more air-mass into the cylinders and get more power.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2006, 03:52 PM   #40
Unregistered
Guest
 
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDKR
I've allways been under the understanding that Ethanol has some negatives in terms of engine longevity.

http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/...hp?itemid=3514


From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_392b.html


It's also been my understanding that ehtanol attracts moisture. Here is a post on a board that is a guy quoting a Mercury (boat engines and stuff) dealer about ethanol.


Then there is the entry on The Auto Blog about it. http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/21/i...its-big-break/
One of the comments is really interesting.


And another...


In short, I'm not really convinced in spite of the aggressive nature with which it's being pushed onto the public. As a fuel, it works, but it's no saviour. The bugs and surrounding issues need to be solved.
Hey guys, learn, learn.
There are a lot of very uneducated statements here. Ethanol is a far superior fuel than Hydrocarbon fuels, "OIL/Gasoline."
Truth, if you just pour it into a none Ethonal tuned system it will be a real problem as you seem to think it is. The other possibility here is that you are paid to say these things by the oil companies.
I really don't believe that but the possibility exists.
No we will not need to emport Ethanol from anywhere. No the largest ethanol maker in the US isn't a foregin owned agent. It is a U.S. Farmer owned company in Iowa.
It also appears that those of you posting here think E-85 is something you mix with gasoline.
E-85 is 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol hence the E-85 label, "E for ethanol, 85 for 85%.
If your worried about reporgramming your ECM for each of or mixtures of the ethanol/gasoline then look at the MegaSquirt ECM. You can do almost as much as you please with this system.
You do have to learn, learn and think, think! Of course the oil companies are not going to support this but the security of this country is at stake on this oil problem. Watch the news. If we didn't need oil, if just 50% of the U.S. population would make thier own fuel and help their neighbor who can't/won't we would need oil only for durable goods like plastics, other synthetics, drugs, chemicals that only can be made from, "petrochemicals", "hydrocarbons" and live in a cleaner environment.
My old man used to say, "boy you need to enguage your brain before running your mouth."
You all sound like intellegent people and you seem to be WEB savvy so do some research.
Learn, the info is here. If you don't understand, talk to someone who does, "it's called totoring".
Have fun! Burn clean/cheap/free fuel.
I make about 1500 gal of ethanol each year.
I use absolutely free energy to distill it.
I built the still.
You can too.
I don't mix ethanol with gasoline.
I don't want that crap, "gasoline" in my machines. For your info I fly a home built aircraft that cruises at 410 mph at sea level. At 25,000 ft that is very close to the speed of sound. It uses ethanol. I make it to the West coast from Texas in about 2.5 hours if the jet stream is below 100mph. If it is that fast I load on another 20 gal or so of jet fuel before I leave the coast, Phew, nasty stuff so as to get back nonestop.
No I'm not going to offer to do the tutoring on ethanol, injectors, ECM's, aircraft.
It is easy to do.
Bottom line....... learn, learn, learn,
If your still in High School, stay and learn, learn, learn.
It doesn't take a high IQ for this it takes a little effort. Learn, learn, learn.
I've been using ethanol since 1973.
At first I used it outside the law when it was nearly impossible to make it legaly.
Now it would be stupid to break the law. It is easy to get a license to make your own brew for fuel.
P.S. I also inject a small amount of Hydrogen into the airstream entering the engines of my road vehicles that causes the primary fuel, "ethanol, gasoline etc" to change the mode of combustion to the hydrogen cumbustion mode making the burn even cleaner, faster proprogating and allowing ingition timing to be after top dead center thus saving the load of compressing against an already started combustion process like is occuring when fireing before TDC.
More miles per gallon.
More power where it belongs, "the wheels".

Same machine tuned for pure ethanol will out perform gasoline in almost every way.
1. mileage
2. brute power
3. cleaner
4. longivity
5. maintainance
6. etc,etc,etc,etc
The only people who are saying bad things about Ethanol, Ethanol mixes, "E-85", Hydrogen etc are either oil investors, producers or people who just don't understand the combustion process.
Those who don't understand the process are probably stating their opinion from making a half baked attempt to burn something besides gasoline or hydrocarbon Diesel.
It isn't any harder to burn good fuel verses the damned garbage that's been sold to us ever since Henry Ford got into a relation with the oil producers back when.
Misinformation and ignorance is the largest problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2006, 11:22 AM   #41
davidmacq
Bored Member
 
davidmacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Clarksville, TN
Default

I'm going to order the adjustable fpr from summit. What fittings needed to add a guage also?

I was looking at this
Actron Fuel Pressure Testers

but the pdf instructions say not for flex fuel, gasoline only. lol




edit

• Do not use the Fuel Pressure Tester Kit on Diesel or Flex Fuel engines.
• Only use the Fuel Pressure Tester Kit on Gasoline powered engines.
http://store.summitracing.com/partde...0&autoview=sku

Last edited by davidmacq; 07-17-2006 at 09:38 AM..
davidmacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 07:36 PM   #42
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Later on, I will try this mod in conjuction with E85: Advance/retard timing on EZ116K

If we can sort it out, it will definitely be a great benefit when running E85. It is said that somewhere between 9 to 12 degrees of extra ignition advance works great with E85.

The mileage will be a lot better and the power will be much greater that what is achieveable on gasoline.

When you are running E85 and a lot of advanced timing, the statements "-That turbo will only be enough for 300HP", "-Get a bigger IC" and "-I have trouble with pinging" will not be heard/used very often.

People in Sweden has run ~330HP and ~350lb/ft of torque on E85 when using this setup and similar:

16T turbo (18psi of boost)
VX3 cam
531 head
48lb/hr injectors
9.0:1 CR
Chipped fuel ECU
Stock ignition ECU




Same setup on gasoline:

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2006, 05:47 PM   #43
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

The current setup from the guy mentioned above:

19T turbo, ported, MBC 14-21psi
531 head
VX3 cam
Renovated bottom end
3" AMM (transplanted the electronics to an aluminum pipe)
3" downpipe, cat, mufflers and pipes
Iveco aluminum IC
780cc injectors @3 bar
Fuel and ignition maps from Turbo Center in Stockholm.

This resulted in 370HP and 575 NM (424lb/ft)

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2006, 02:26 AM   #44
davidmacq
Bored Member
 
davidmacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Clarksville, TN
Default

I'm gonna order the adjustable fpr. Should make it easy to install.

What about fittings for fuel pressure guage. Can it just be hooked up to the test valve on the fuel rail, and left or removed as needed?
davidmacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2006, 06:25 AM   #45
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmacq
I'm gonna order the adjustable fpr. Should make it easy to install.

What about fittings for fuel pressure guage. Can it just be hooked up to the test valve on the fuel rail, and left or removed as needed?
The test valve on the rail is a shrader valve (the same as used on your tires), so if you can find a gauge with that type of connection or make an adapter for it, then it would probably work fine.

Don´t connect/disconnect the gauge while the car is running. You´ll never know how good the valve will seal.

Measure the base fuel pressure with the vacuum hose disconnected.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2006, 08:45 PM   #46
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

I just wanted to tell you that I have raised my fuel pressure to 4bar to support my performance goals. I used the Malpassi AIR004 linear FPR that is pictured in the first post. It works like a charm.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2006, 04:34 PM   #47
Unregistered
Guest
 
Default

Has anyone looked into simply adding 1 injector behind the thottle body? The idea is to choose an injector that pumps 30% or more of the combined output of the four stock injectors. Run the new injector in parallel off one of the stock injectors. Now you can plug and unplug it when you want to switch from E85 or petrol. An AFPR or piggyback would still be useful in tuning it all in.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2006, 09:27 PM   #48
SteveMD
Repent Walpurgis
 
SteveMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West of I-270
Default

I must say this has been one of the most interesting articles I have ever read on TB or the intraweb for that matter. E85 FTW! Thanks to Fred for all he has done for Volvo performance.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
I recommend not quoting anything from TB to any family member
SteveMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2006, 10:02 PM   #49
davidmacq
Bored Member
 
davidmacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Clarksville, TN
Default

What psi range does the Malpassi support? Cost?

Not a direct replacement like the Holley?
davidmacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 09:43 AM   #50
Matt Dupuis
Board Member
 
Matt Dupuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Calgary, Ab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
No we will not need to emport Ethanol from anywhere. No the largest ethanol maker in the US isn't a foregin owned agent. It is a U.S. Farmer owned company in Iowa.
...
Of course the oil companies are not going to support this but the security of this country is at stake on this oil problem. Watch the news. If we didn't need oil, if just 50% of the U.S. population would make thier own fuel and help their neighbor who can't/won't we would need oil only for durable goods like plastics, other synthetics, drugs, chemicals that only can be made from, "petrochemicals", "hydrocarbons" and live in a cleaner environment.
From The Oil Drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/5/23/23846/0807

Quote:
If you listen to the news lately, you know that E85 is going to lead the U.S. to energy independence, just like it did in Brazil. Senator Hillary Clinton has announced that she is getting into the act:
"President Bush and other elected officials have called for a greater expansion of E-85, a fuel made of 85 percent ethanol that can be used in vehicles built to run on both regular unleaded gasoline and E-85. E-85 is currently available in less than one percent of the country's gas stations, and Clinton wants to accelerate the spread of the fuel to half of the nation's gas stations by 2015 by offering a 50 percent tax credit for station owners who install ethanol pumps. `We've got to take action on this pump issue or we're just spinning our wheels,' she said."
There's more... (705 words) | Comments (232) | Permalink
Just spinning our wheels. Indeed. But let's do a reality check and see whose wheels are spinning. These claims deserve a mathematical analysis, which none of the E85 proponents appear to have done.
According to http://www.corn.org/CRAR2005.PDF (Warning: 1.9 meg file) the estimated corn harvest in 2005 was 10.35 billion bushels, and corn exports were 1.95 billion bushels. According to the 2002 USDA study Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol, you can get 2.7 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. That means if we turned the entire corn crop into ethanol, we could make 27.9 billion gallons of ethanol. But as we all know, the BTU value of ethanol is around 67% that of gasoline, meaning that on a BTU basis this much ethanol is equivalent to 18.8 billion gallons of gasoline.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, our annual gasoline consumption is up to almost 140 billion gallons. That means on a BTU equivalent basis, converting the entire corn crop into ethanol would amount to 13.4% of our annual gasoline demand. Putting all of that ethanol into the gasoline supply would mean ethanol could comprise 19% of the gasoline supply on a volumetric basis (while consuming all of our corn production). In other words, all of the gasoline in the country could be E19 if we wanted to use 100% of the corn crop. Of course if we only want to turn all of our current exports into ethanol (ignoring the many implications), that would amount to 2.5% of our annual gasoline demand. In that case, E10 could make up about a third of our gasoline supply on a volumetric basis. If we want to convert all of the corn exports into E85, it could make up 3.3% of our total gasoline pool.
But that's the good news. According to the previously mentioned USDA study, it takes 77,228 BTUs of fossil fuel inputs to make 83,961 BTUs of "green, renewable" ethanol. Ignoring co-products for a moment, that means the created energy was a mere 8% in excess of the input energy. Given that the fossil fuels (primarily natural gas) that went into making the ethanol can usually serve as transportation fuels, the amount of transportation fuel that is displaced is only the 8% that was "created". That means that in reality, using our entire corn crop would only displace 1% of our annual gasoline consumption. If we only decide to use our exports, the net displacement of gasoline would be 0.2% of our annual gasoline consumption.
Now, a word about co-products. Energy balance studies of grain ethanol almost always include a BTU credit for the co-products (mostly animal feed). I think this is appropriate, provided that a proper analysis is made of the energy inputs into the products that were displaced. Let's ignore for a moment the fact that some estimates indicate that the "byproduct markets could saturate well short of 11 billion gallons of production". Let's give full credit for the byproducts, just as if they are liquid fuels to be burned. This has no effect on the BTU equivalent calculation, but will affect the displacement calculation. With by-products included, the USDA report has 77,228 BTUs of fossil fuel inputs for 98,333 BTUs of total outputs. In this best case scenario, the ratio of energy out/energy in is 1.27. Converting 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, presuming we had a market for the byproducts, would then displace an incredible 2.0% of our annual gasoline consumption. So, why the big rush to get E85 pumps at 50% of the nation's gas stations? We can't possibly produce enough E85 to justify putting in all those pumps. Wouldn't it be much better just to push for E10 at more locations? In that case, expensive new pumps are not required, and E10 can already be burned in most vehicles on the road. Or how about encouraging more natural gas vehicles, instead of inefficiently and expensively turning natural gas into ethanol? But I suppose those would be rational solutions, as opposed to feel-good solutions that promise energy independence.
So much for no longer needing oil, huh?
Matt Dupuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.