May have solved 100% E85 on LNF puzzle
03-08-2011 | 10:57 AM
#102
Granted Im not sure how the mechanical pump works but I assume a gear would spin the pump correct?
If so making the gear smaller may help the pump pressure. Not sure what this would entail or anything like that but we all no the smaller the gear or pulley the faster it will turn and hence the more pressure it would make.
Just a thought..
If so making the gear smaller may help the pump pressure. Not sure what this would entail or anything like that but we all no the smaller the gear or pulley the faster it will turn and hence the more pressure it would make.
Just a thought..
03-08-2011 | 11:29 AM
#103
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Gimpster ran E85 on an LNF stock sedan late last summer. He had enough fueling stock after shifting the MAF cal over 30% to get enough fuel. Starting became an issue when it got below 45*f. He emailed myself and others about it, not sure if he ever posted in HPT. Sadly he has moved on to another platform.
Mine will start fine in colder weather with about 10* added cranking advance with the 60% blend.
Mine will start fine in colder weather with about 10* added cranking advance with the 60% blend.
03-08-2011 | 11:32 AM
#104
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Once you have surpassed a certain duty cycle, the gains to adding more ethanol quickly diminish. Basically, you haven't run into misfires yet at that point, but the late injection is still having a negative affect on performance. It's a gradual curve, so it will appear that there simply is no gain to adding more ethanol. Now that you can inject sooner, you should see gains going beyond 50% E. Remember that you have to continue to get more aggressive with the tune as you progress into a higher percentage of E as well.
03-08-2011 | 11:33 AM
#105
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Granted Im not sure how the mechanical pump works but I assume a gear would spin the pump correct?
If so making the gear smaller may help the pump pressure. Not sure what this would entail or anything like that but we all no the smaller the gear or pulley the faster it will turn and hence the more pressure it would make.
Just a thought..
If so making the gear smaller may help the pump pressure. Not sure what this would entail or anything like that but we all no the smaller the gear or pulley the faster it will turn and hence the more pressure it would make.
Just a thought..
03-08-2011 | 11:35 AM
#106
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
I'm not convinced the problem is the supply pump, I undid the soft lines (plastic line, largest available diameter in engine bay) and was able to openly flow 2 liters in 22 seconds. The walbro pump according to summit is rated 255lph @0 psi. I know for a fact it's more than enough for 700 plus horspower so it's a non issue. But open flow at slightly less than 6 liters per minute tells me the pump isn't the problem, because then your talking conservatively 300+ liters per hour. If the real choke point isn't obvious to you just look at the hard line that feeds the hpfp, particularly the point where the stainless line is brazed into the formed compression fitting. That cannot be more than 3/32" it's likely less than that. At 100 psi I can see how it can cavitate the pump and thus produce a low rail pressure. Feeding the HPFP at a higher pressure, even 135 or so would probably eliminate the problems exposed here. You would need a mechanical pressure regulator, and to braze the device into the hard lines with the isolator to prevent diaphragm failure in the regulator.
edit:I meant 60psi for some reason im thinking about my dodge on a seperate fueling problem.
edit:I meant 60psi for some reason im thinking about my dodge on a seperate fueling problem.
03-08-2011 | 11:44 AM
#107
Vince are you sure that you are running E85? The winter blend of E85 is E70. I am pretty sure that Washinton has simular blend changes to WI.
Your talking about this study.
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/2-0l...tuners-232430/
Your pretty much right about diminishing returns on higher mixes in regards to a few of the factors measured. Unfortunately, the did not have a turbo strapped that that single cylinder LNF block they tested. Having a power adder increases the need for higher octane compared to a Naturally Inspired Engine. Unless you know of some other tests/information you would like to share?
I have a question...
Has anyone shown conclusive benefit to increasing the ethanol percentage over say 50%? There have been a few studies done on ethanol and compression ratio, mpg, timing, kr and power output and it seems to me they were finding diminishing returns on mixes over as low as 30-40% ethanol.
Fuel mileage had similar findings, highest mpg was reached not at straight pump gas, but at somewhere around 20-30% ethanol. This obviously was because of being able to run more timing, but once you're at the timing that would give the best mpg, and the octane to keep kr at bay, there is no reason or need to go higher on ethanol to reduce knock.
Sooooo, my question is like I said, has anyone shown that E85 makes more power than say E48 in the LNF? I know mpg's will keep going down over 50% or so, but I know that's not what most of us are looking for here. My personal experience, gathered information and my own testing has led me to believe between 35% and 55% ethanol is all that's needed to make good power and decent efficiency. The engineers, professors and engineering students that put those studies together seemed to say the same thing. I believe it's just like octane, you only want as much as you need to control kr, and no more. Raising octane levels higher than needed creates less power.
Has anyone shown conclusive benefit to increasing the ethanol percentage over say 50%? There have been a few studies done on ethanol and compression ratio, mpg, timing, kr and power output and it seems to me they were finding diminishing returns on mixes over as low as 30-40% ethanol.
Fuel mileage had similar findings, highest mpg was reached not at straight pump gas, but at somewhere around 20-30% ethanol. This obviously was because of being able to run more timing, but once you're at the timing that would give the best mpg, and the octane to keep kr at bay, there is no reason or need to go higher on ethanol to reduce knock.
Sooooo, my question is like I said, has anyone shown that E85 makes more power than say E48 in the LNF? I know mpg's will keep going down over 50% or so, but I know that's not what most of us are looking for here. My personal experience, gathered information and my own testing has led me to believe between 35% and 55% ethanol is all that's needed to make good power and decent efficiency. The engineers, professors and engineering students that put those studies together seemed to say the same thing. I believe it's just like octane, you only want as much as you need to control kr, and no more. Raising octane levels higher than needed creates less power.
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/2-0l...tuners-232430/
Your pretty much right about diminishing returns on higher mixes in regards to a few of the factors measured. Unfortunately, the did not have a turbo strapped that that single cylinder LNF block they tested. Having a power adder increases the need for higher octane compared to a Naturally Inspired Engine. Unless you know of some other tests/information you would like to share?
03-08-2011 | 11:51 AM
#108
This past weekend I ran 1:1 on my car and a 2:1 mix on a diff car. We made the same power with basically the same mods and tune. He actually made a few more wtq then I but my clutch barely slipped in the beginning which may have made that difference.
For whatever that's worth.
For whatever that's worth.
03-08-2011 | 12:02 PM
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
"In my testing of 25 through 70% E, I didn't see any performance gains on my 60-100 times once I got above 47%, but you knew that already."
Yeah Tom I should have given you credit, you definitely were one of the sources I "gathered" info from! You've done an awesome job pioneering the E85 mix on the LNF's.
On the "aggressive" tune, I'm at 22-26 degrees ign timing from midrange through 7500 and I really don't think more timing is going to make much, if any more power. At that timing I've gone down to 35% E and still was ok on kr, as long as it's mixed with good premium gas. I know it would be easier to fill up with straight E85, but for me it would be a little harder actually. My E85 stations are all around 15 minutes away so what I do is drive my truck to one, fill up a 15 gallon portable fuel tank and two more 5 gallon gas cans. That way if I'm not near an E85 station in my car, I just pour in 6 gallons of E85 at home and drive over to the nearest station and put another 6 of premium in it. One trip to the E85 station lasts me 4 or 5 tanks of E47.
Yeah Tom I should have given you credit, you definitely were one of the sources I "gathered" info from! You've done an awesome job pioneering the E85 mix on the LNF's.
On the "aggressive" tune, I'm at 22-26 degrees ign timing from midrange through 7500 and I really don't think more timing is going to make much, if any more power. At that timing I've gone down to 35% E and still was ok on kr, as long as it's mixed with good premium gas. I know it would be easier to fill up with straight E85, but for me it would be a little harder actually. My E85 stations are all around 15 minutes away so what I do is drive my truck to one, fill up a 15 gallon portable fuel tank and two more 5 gallon gas cans. That way if I'm not near an E85 station in my car, I just pour in 6 gallons of E85 at home and drive over to the nearest station and put another 6 of premium in it. One trip to the E85 station lasts me 4 or 5 tanks of E47.
03-08-2011 | 12:05 PM
#110
Member
Joined: 05-15-08
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
From: USA
The E85 in Utah is E70 year round as are a lot of other states. people seem to make good power on it that are running it?
Here is a list of all cities/states that do and do not switch in the winter/summer
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/420b08006.pdf
Here is a list of all cities/states that do and do not switch in the winter/summer
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/420b08006.pdf
03-08-2011 | 12:08 PM
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vince are you sure that you are running E85? The winter blend of E85 is E70. I am pretty sure that Washinton has simular blend changes to WI.
Your talking about this study.
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/2-0l...tuners-232430/
Your pretty much right about diminishing returns on higher mixes in regards to a few of the factors measured. Unfortunately, the did not have a turbo strapped that that single cylinder LNF block they tested. Having a power adder increases the need for higher octane compared to a Naturally Inspired Engine. Unless you know of some other tests/information you would like to share?
Your talking about this study.
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/2-0l...tuners-232430/
Your pretty much right about diminishing returns on higher mixes in regards to a few of the factors measured. Unfortunately, the did not have a turbo strapped that that single cylinder LNF block they tested. Having a power adder increases the need for higher octane compared to a Naturally Inspired Engine. Unless you know of some other tests/information you would like to share?
No there were a couple other studies done, they were hard to find. I'll see if I have them saved. I think I sent them to Tom and Nick awhile back but it's a ton of reading so I wouldn't be surprised if they never got to it!
03-08-2011 | 12:14 PM
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ha, posted this on the other thread you had linked!
Here's one, google to find the actual pdf, this is just a copy paste of the title page...
OPTIMAL ETHANOL BLEND-LEVEL
INVESTIGATION
Final Report
(for the period of December 15, 2006, through December 31, 2007)
Prepared for:
Ron Lamberty
American Coalition for Ethanol
5000 S. Broadband Lane, Suite 224
Sioux Falls, SD 57108
Prepared by:
Richard E. Shockey
Ted R. Aulich
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
Bruce Jones
Gary Mead
Paul Steevens
Minnesota Center for Automotive Research
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Trafton Science Center 205E
Mankato, MN 56001
2007-EERC-11-02 November 2007
Here's one, google to find the actual pdf, this is just a copy paste of the title page...
OPTIMAL ETHANOL BLEND-LEVEL
INVESTIGATION
Final Report
(for the period of December 15, 2006, through December 31, 2007)
Prepared for:
Ron Lamberty
American Coalition for Ethanol
5000 S. Broadband Lane, Suite 224
Sioux Falls, SD 57108
Prepared by:
Richard E. Shockey
Ted R. Aulich
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
Bruce Jones
Gary Mead
Paul Steevens
Minnesota Center for Automotive Research
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Trafton Science Center 205E
Mankato, MN 56001
2007-EERC-11-02 November 2007
03-08-2011 | 12:17 PM
#113
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
I had to make less fuel mass adjustment than I expected so maybe it is less than 85% ethanol. I also had about 1/2 gallon of 92 octane gasoline left in it.
03-08-2011 | 12:56 PM
#116
This time of year most stations are increasing the E back up, but it takes time depending on the volume of the station and supplier. They say they change here in Indiana, (also 70% min) but my LTFT's stayed the same so I doubt it changed much. Low volume station I suspect. On the MAF freq shift tuning, a 10% ethanol change is about a 4.4% LTFT shift from what I have seen on mine. YMMV.
03-08-2011 | 12:58 PM
#117
I am happy to report that we may have figured out (what should be) the last piece of the puzzle of running 100% E85 on the LNF. It's subject to further development and testing, but we seemed to have gotten past a major milestone.
I was actually reviewing a post on another lnf tech forum yesterday, from 2009 around the time when we sorted out the fuel rail pressure stuff. The post seemed to imply that the only way to increase fuel flow on the LNF was to raise the rail pressure because the injection window (amount of time we have to inject fuel on the LNF) was fixed. It also seemed to imply that the problem with injection window size was due to injection carrying over into the compression stroke and that going outside the injection window meant injecting fuel while the exhaust valve was still open causing soot build-up due to an improper combustion.
This implies that the ECM has a hard-set STOP injection point, and calculates the start of injection backwards from this point, meaning that any "time" that needs to be added goes onto the front of the injection pulse.
I don't believe this accurately describes what is happening, and maybe this has been debated here, already - if it has, I apologize for rehashing old discussions.
After some interesting discussions with the guys at ZZP who have more hands-on experience exercising the fuel supply limits of the LNF than I do, it started to sound like the problem wasn't the injection pulse starting too early, but rather it was ending too late - e.g. the injection is still happening when the ECM was trying to ignite the air-fuel charge! There is some math to explain this:
I've heard various numbers - some say injection window misfire sets in at "around 5.5ms" but I got some more detailed information from ZZP - they say that injection window misfire sets in at around 35% injector duty cycle, which is a more accurate way to describe the issue because it takes RPM into account. For example, at 7000 RPM, this would be 6ms.
We can use this figure of 35% IDC to estimate when the LNF starts its injection cycle. There are 720* of crankshaft rotation for all strokes, so 35% of this, or 720 * .35 = 252*. We also have to take into account ignition timing, which happens at, conservatively, 15* BTDC. So we add 15* to our 252*, and that puts the estimated start point of injection at around 267* BTDC.
It would seem this also dispels the theory that carrying over the injection into compression stroke is what causes injection window misfire. There is only 180* of crankshaft rotation from TDC (start of intake stroke) to BDC (start of compression stroke), but we can hit as much as 252* of injection window.
Our injection window size, could be, in theory, accounting for, say 20* of spark advance, 360 - 20 = 340* which would be 47% IDC, and 8ms (33% more fuel mass even at 7000 RPM!). The reality is, though, due to cam phasing events (e.g. exhaust valve still open - we don't want to spray fuel while the exhaust valve is still open), the window would likely be less than 340* maximum. But, then again, maybe we can get there - the LF1 engine (SIDI 3.0L V6) starts its injection almost that early.
With regard to running E85, raising the fuel rail pressure has helped us immensely, but that only shortens the required pulsewidth, it doesn't increase window size, and to run 100% E85 we need as much as 40% more fuel mass, and cranking the rail pressure up all the way doesn't *quite* get us there. I am Broke got somewhere around 67% E85 I believe with rail pressure at highest.
So, to summarize, by combining raised fuel rail pressure and changing the start of injection point on the LNF, we can increase the fuel flow potential, likely enough to run 100% E85 on the LNF. This is the part that we believe we've sorted out now. I'll be working on testing over the next few days, and a few people have offered to help test this out.
If it works out, we could be running 100% E85 in our LNFs within a matter of weeks.
I was actually reviewing a post on another lnf tech forum yesterday, from 2009 around the time when we sorted out the fuel rail pressure stuff. The post seemed to imply that the only way to increase fuel flow on the LNF was to raise the rail pressure because the injection window (amount of time we have to inject fuel on the LNF) was fixed. It also seemed to imply that the problem with injection window size was due to injection carrying over into the compression stroke and that going outside the injection window meant injecting fuel while the exhaust valve was still open causing soot build-up due to an improper combustion.
This implies that the ECM has a hard-set STOP injection point, and calculates the start of injection backwards from this point, meaning that any "time" that needs to be added goes onto the front of the injection pulse.
I don't believe this accurately describes what is happening, and maybe this has been debated here, already - if it has, I apologize for rehashing old discussions.
After some interesting discussions with the guys at ZZP who have more hands-on experience exercising the fuel supply limits of the LNF than I do, it started to sound like the problem wasn't the injection pulse starting too early, but rather it was ending too late - e.g. the injection is still happening when the ECM was trying to ignite the air-fuel charge! There is some math to explain this:
I've heard various numbers - some say injection window misfire sets in at "around 5.5ms" but I got some more detailed information from ZZP - they say that injection window misfire sets in at around 35% injector duty cycle, which is a more accurate way to describe the issue because it takes RPM into account. For example, at 7000 RPM, this would be 6ms.
We can use this figure of 35% IDC to estimate when the LNF starts its injection cycle. There are 720* of crankshaft rotation for all strokes, so 35% of this, or 720 * .35 = 252*. We also have to take into account ignition timing, which happens at, conservatively, 15* BTDC. So we add 15* to our 252*, and that puts the estimated start point of injection at around 267* BTDC.
It would seem this also dispels the theory that carrying over the injection into compression stroke is what causes injection window misfire. There is only 180* of crankshaft rotation from TDC (start of intake stroke) to BDC (start of compression stroke), but we can hit as much as 252* of injection window.
Our injection window size, could be, in theory, accounting for, say 20* of spark advance, 360 - 20 = 340* which would be 47% IDC, and 8ms (33% more fuel mass even at 7000 RPM!). The reality is, though, due to cam phasing events (e.g. exhaust valve still open - we don't want to spray fuel while the exhaust valve is still open), the window would likely be less than 340* maximum. But, then again, maybe we can get there - the LF1 engine (SIDI 3.0L V6) starts its injection almost that early.
With regard to running E85, raising the fuel rail pressure has helped us immensely, but that only shortens the required pulsewidth, it doesn't increase window size, and to run 100% E85 we need as much as 40% more fuel mass, and cranking the rail pressure up all the way doesn't *quite* get us there. I am Broke got somewhere around 67% E85 I believe with rail pressure at highest.
So, to summarize, by combining raised fuel rail pressure and changing the start of injection point on the LNF, we can increase the fuel flow potential, likely enough to run 100% E85 on the LNF. This is the part that we believe we've sorted out now. I'll be working on testing over the next few days, and a few people have offered to help test this out.
If it works out, we could be running 100% E85 in our LNFs within a matter of weeks.
03-08-2011 | 01:02 PM
#118
This, i popped the P0087 while on the dyno. Im at a 50/50 blend.
03-08-2011 | 01:05 PM
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
BTW Vince, sorry I hijacked your thread a little. I in no way want to take away from what you're doing. Like you said, the injection timing control will most likely be huge for LNF's disregarding any ethanol mix. And fuel mass control is also huge. Thanks for the work on these Bosch ECM's!
I just wish you could get together with HPT or EFILive and share what you've been able to do with these ECM's. I know you're in business to sell tunes, but I can't believe you couldn't sell what you know to one of these tuning software companies. Or get a cut of every license they sell that has your additions. Ross over at EFILive has finally got a little time to look into the E69 and E77's, it sure would be great if you could team up with them and help out the ENTIRE LNF community, meaning guys like me that will pay for software or a license, but don't want someone else tuning their cars.
Wow, even farther off topic, sorry! I am thrilled at the progress you're making Vince, thanks for staying involved and brainstorming new ideas for this ECM and platform. The Bosch ECM's may be dead in GM's future, but Direct Injection certainly isn't. In fact I believe I heard GM will be 100% DI in 2012, and I'm sure the others aren't far behind.
I just wish you could get together with HPT or EFILive and share what you've been able to do with these ECM's. I know you're in business to sell tunes, but I can't believe you couldn't sell what you know to one of these tuning software companies. Or get a cut of every license they sell that has your additions. Ross over at EFILive has finally got a little time to look into the E69 and E77's, it sure would be great if you could team up with them and help out the ENTIRE LNF community, meaning guys like me that will pay for software or a license, but don't want someone else tuning their cars.
Wow, even farther off topic, sorry! I am thrilled at the progress you're making Vince, thanks for staying involved and brainstorming new ideas for this ECM and platform. The Bosch ECM's may be dead in GM's future, but Direct Injection certainly isn't. In fact I believe I heard GM will be 100% DI in 2012, and I'm sure the others aren't far behind.
03-08-2011 | 03:19 PM
#124
Senior Member
Joined: 09-04-09
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Keep it all Trifecta and make your Trifecta base file required for HPT like you currently have. This way you force people to buy at least some portion of your tuning software while being able to control who has what available.
I wouldn't help any of those other tuning companies out, I highly doubt they would do the same for your tuning software if you needed them, which we know you don't
Now if you don't care about your company growing as a tuning company and offering stuff the other big boys don't have or can;t crack
, then by all means help them out.
Flame suit on
I wouldn't help any of those other tuning companies out, I highly doubt they would do the same for your tuning software if you needed them, which we know you don't
Now if you don't care about your company growing as a tuning company and offering stuff the other big boys don't have or can;t crack
, then by all means help them out.Flame suit on
03-08-2011 | 03:27 PM
#125
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
BTW Vince, sorry I hijacked your thread a little. I in no way want to take away from what you're doing. Like you said, the injection timing control will most likely be huge for LNF's disregarding any ethanol mix. And fuel mass control is also huge. Thanks for the work on these Bosch ECM's!
I just wish you could get together with HPT or EFILive and share what you've been able to do with these ECM's. I know you're in business to sell tunes, but I can't believe you couldn't sell what you know to one of these tuning software companies. Or get a cut of every license they sell that has your additions. Ross over at EFILive has finally got a little time to look into the E69 and E77's, it sure would be great if you could team up with them and help out the ENTIRE LNF community, meaning guys like me that will pay for software or a license, but don't want someone else tuning their cars.
Wow, even farther off topic, sorry! I am thrilled at the progress you're making Vince, thanks for staying involved and brainstorming new ideas for this ECM and platform. The Bosch ECM's may be dead in GM's future, but Direct Injection certainly isn't. In fact I believe I heard GM will be 100% DI in 2012, and I'm sure the others aren't far behind.
I just wish you could get together with HPT or EFILive and share what you've been able to do with these ECM's. I know you're in business to sell tunes, but I can't believe you couldn't sell what you know to one of these tuning software companies. Or get a cut of every license they sell that has your additions. Ross over at EFILive has finally got a little time to look into the E69 and E77's, it sure would be great if you could team up with them and help out the ENTIRE LNF community, meaning guys like me that will pay for software or a license, but don't want someone else tuning their cars.
Wow, even farther off topic, sorry! I am thrilled at the progress you're making Vince, thanks for staying involved and brainstorming new ideas for this ECM and platform. The Bosch ECM's may be dead in GM's future, but Direct Injection certainly isn't. In fact I believe I heard GM will be 100% DI in 2012, and I'm sure the others aren't far behind.