Ornj-SS

I'll apologize up front for a long question...I'm pretty new to the LS1 scene. I've got a '99 Camaro SS. I've ported the heads and decked them .030...installed a bigger cam...long tube headers...3" exhaust...etc. I sent my PCM away to Fastchip to have it optimized for the mechanical changes I made. It runs great, but now I'd like to convert the car to run on E85.

I've read some of the previous threads on this topic, and they've been really informative (especially an old post by Runn...lots of great info). I have some concerns, though.
I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to PCM programming (That's why I sent mine away the first time). Can a bonehead like me make the necessary changes without screwing something up?

Also, I don't have a programmer. Are there any suggestions as to what a good choice might be? I've heard HP Tuners' VCM suite is nice...as well as LS1 Edit...any recommendations? Also, will I have problems using a tuner on a PCM that Fastchips has already worked on?...would they lock the code?

Any additional information would be appreciated

Thanks!

cherryelky305

iTrader: (2)

You should'nt have trouble working on a previously tuned PCM. You might try posting in the tuning section to get a more specific reply to your tuning questions.

Just wondering, why do you want to run E-85?

Ornj-SS

Just wondering, why do you want to run E-85?[/QUOTE]


Mainly to be as environmentally friendly as I can. There's no real cost savings at this point in time. E85 costs a little less than gasoline, but I'll need to use more of it to run the car.

I like driving fast...but I also want to do my part not to poop in the swimming pool

RednGold86Z

There's several key things for running E85. You'll need about 50% more injector right off the bat (14.7/10 = 1.47 +/- some density and viscosity differences). Your pump will need to be able to flow about 50% more fuel. The stoich AFR variable(s) in your PCM will need to be reduced, and the injector flow cal increased. Transient fueling will also usually need increasing, even above just changing the stoich and injector flow constants. Spark timing can and should be increased by roughly 6 degrees (but do it the right way, on a dyno, etc...).
I'm not sure if your 99's fuel system is compatible with the alcohol, though. It's probably good enough (at least your not using methanol).
O2 sensor should work just the same as before.
Warm-up and cold starts may need a bit more enrichment also.
There's a fuel oxygen content sensor (think it measures the dielectric constant of the fuel, and gives a frequency signal) available, but pricey, and your PCM doesn't exactly have the software to read it as far as I know. E85 apparently isn't always perfectly E85 depending on the season, and the sensor allows mix and match with gas, if your PCM software had that from the factory.
It makes about 5-10% more power depending on the amount of tuning and system optimization for the higher octane (105 octane!).
FYI, The fuel economy on a miles per GALLON basis usually drops by more than 15% (part throttle torque picks up a little free torque (compared to gas) which is why it's not 50% worse).

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

If you tune it for E85 it will be fine. The O2s will make up small differences. You would not be able to switch from straight up gas to E85 fuel back and worth as a Flex Fuel vehicle would be able to.

It should be possible to make your car into a Flex Fuel vehicle given money, time, and research. Vast mods to your wiring, PCM, ect.

duece_bigalo01

iTrader: (6)

I had my car converted over in june and dont have any regrets. while my mileage went down I was making up for it in the wallet. E85 was a dollar cheaper a gallon for me then premium. I have done a head (dart pro1's) and cam swap with all the bolt ons. only had to richen it up about 30% and my stock injectors are fine (01's). I bought another pcm off the board here and just had that one reprogramed and when ever I need to switch over to premium then I just take the E85 pcm out and replace with regular gas pcm. If you have any questions just ask. by the way I do have a bigger pump in the tank (walbro 255) then the stocker.

NC98Z

iTrader: (1)

The only people I know that advertise E85 conversion is www.run85.com maybe it can help you out.

blackangel327

iTrader: (3)

the link you provided is not working....

kgkern01

iTrader: (10)

You do not need to run 50% more fuel for E85, it has approx 28% lower BTU than gas, therefore that is the amount extra that is required. Average loss of MPG is about 20% for a flex fuel vehicle, and if tuned strictly for E85, could be less. With E85 costing about a dollar less per gallon, I've considered getting a spare PCM tuned for E85 so I can swap back and forth if needed.

koolrayz

iTrader: (26)

Spare PCM?????????
Man up get a laptop and tune it yourself.
I run 1/3 e85 all i did was tell the pcm the injectors were smaller. it changed the tune across the board, Very easy to do. If it was more available I would run 100% I have to keep it in my garage and carry some when I fill up. It sucks

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

Interesting that the difference is that much. Is that due to governmental relief or what? If the true econ difference was that much you would think it would be more wide spread.

On the other hand the true cost [not shelf cost] of many products like denatured alcohol is pretty low. Which is why they poison it. hmmmm

I am also left to wonder what ECTs would do on a fuel that contains additional alcohol. Assuming high test has a small percent as a gas tank drier.



Anyways, just glad to hear some benefits and not just the "you get lower miles per gallon" arguement.

RednGold86Z

BTUs/mass are not important when calculating the amount of extra fuel needed to reach stoichiometry for a given amount of air. 14.68 (theoretical pure gasoline - no E) to 9.84 (theoretical E85) is what is important - this is a function of the composition Ethanol = C2 H5 OH; Gas ~ C7.16 H14. Knowing the actual mass flow rate when using different fuels with different flow properties is where the fudge factor is.

BTUs/mass are important when calculating the power output though. But, it still needs the mass of fuel injected to know the total BTU release. (14.68/9.84)*(1-.28)*100% = 7.4% power increase. The octane rating can also help get to MBT if previously knock limited.

That power increase allows less throttle opening (= less air flow rate) for a given cruise speed, which will improve the economy over the initial loss due to needing more fuel mass.

oz304

im not convinced untill i get factual proof it will make more power.
let alone better fuel efficiency on a fair n square basis.
so whats a fair nsquare unbiased no bull evaluation one may ask?
all things equal and if the tuner optimised for a specific grade premium ulp tune beforehand then ethanol fuel consumption will be at best 25+% worse!
But thats not the case according to some.OK i don't doubt them
infact i earnestly beleive them + if they are happy with their results good on them+ kudos to the tuners.
But lets look at the hidden angles here,
them whom attained these amazing results ,with their optimised tuned only for e85 fuel, surely had significantly compromised fuel and timing maps to cater for all sorts of different grades of normal ulp beforehand there..Now this is where the tricky bit is,as ye tuners ought to know,themsome over sensitive knock sensors with too much of that slug retard dialed in to the pullback scheme (as the case with all factory ecu parameters)certainly compromises fuel efficiency regardless of the fuel ratio because the sluggier the car,the more fuel needed to overcome the uninspiring cylinder burn,so the ecu will run on the higher load map and keep on going until you back the trottle off.conversely with less energy from e85 fuel it will lower energised cylinder combustion potential which will surely promote the less tinny sound in the chambers as opposed to the more aggressive fuels such as plain ulp.
so there less chance of knock sensor detecting detonation(because the energy in the cylinder now weaker,so timing overall will remain higher at them part throttles only but only to a certain load where now its really gotta dig deep to make the power such as loaded trucks,rvs,tow vehicles.now the fuel map is looking different back off the timing or it will hit the knock panick mode,when this coincides
even more fuel will be required than ever before to keep the ball rolling.a smart driver will lessen the load as much as he can
a crazy driver wont give a rats and keep the pedal to the metal
so wheres the trade off point one might ask?
unfortunately i cant say but for the time being i earnestly beleive
untill proven otherwise, theres a distinct possibilty
of a big rort going on with e85 fuel, where revised stragetys
that can afford to incorporate a specific ideal state of tune for a specific grade of fuel then claiming it to be superior to existing ulp fuel
lets see a proper unbiased back to back test (no knock sensors allowed) by a reputable unbiased person who knows how to exactly
optimise a mule engine specifically for 95 ron fuel
then do the same with e85 and see the dyno results,quarter mile times,+ exact fuel consumption for both fuels! fair nsquare.
till this happens then i wont be fooled into some kind of ecological concept thats really only a coverup for government incompetence.
if only some could comprehend how much fuel is wasted to prepare the fields,grow the crops,watering,then harvesting,blending,transporting + re transporting which require all these big machinerys,then you can see why i dont like it.
unless i see compehensivly proven more power + less fuel used,which interm
could peg back the overall polluting diff.

Alvin

iTrader: (2)

E85 couples the worse attributes of both gasoline and ethanol. It is very possible to make more power with E85 but it is usually in cases where the engine is octane limited.

Last I did the math the AFR with E85 puts the overall heat input exactly the same or slightly worse than gasoline.

RednGold86Z

Did you calculate using density?
Gas is roughly .74 kg/L (varies a lot, though), Ethanol is .79. E85 would then be about .7825 kg/L
Gas ~ 43 MJ/kg (varies); 14.7:1 A/F; power per kg Air = 2.1646 MJ
Ethanol ~ 26.8 MJ/kg; 8.98:1 A/F; power per kg Air = 2.3577 MJ
E85 ~ 29.23 MJ/kg; 9.836:1 A/F; power per kg Air = 2.324 MJ

2.324/2.1646 = 1.07 = 7% increase in power. The assumption though is that we are able to convert the energy released directly into rotational power (and that the air intake isn't affected by fuel). The IC engine isn't an ideal otto cycle, so flame speed might hurt, and possibly a few other things. Charge cooling may help. Ignore octane improvements for a fair comparison. I'm pretty sure the balance still tips in favor of Ethanol, though.

I know first hand that straight Methanol has a power advantage, all else equal, including spark timing even. The stoichoimetric energy content of Methanol is pretty darn close to Ethanol.

Alvin

iTrader: (2)

No but I did make an assumption that in order to have decent flame travel speeds lambda (for both fuels) would need to be .85-.87 which takes some of the advantage out of E85 as theres more unused fuel passing thru "soaking" up heat.


I'm probally wrong at some level with what AFR E85 needs at max power.

oz304

maybe it can run more ignition timing with them lower loads,
but whether it makes more power with more ignition advance for them higher loads,as opposed for less timing with the standard ulp remains to be a mystery,even if it does irrespective of the power more or less,I can only see it as the fuel that was designed by governments to deliberately increase fuel consumption of every car in order for them to reap more profits through taxes at the expense of the consumers!

At this stage I certainly don't beleive the savings at the bowser outweigh the losses of the fuel efficiency for the long term goals.

These are one of the many hidden elements I question E85, just like the e90 in oz,its all a rort+we the consumers do infact have the power to say no to e85 unless the governments dig deep and pay the diff,around 25% less at them bowsers.

Conversely the tuner could work wonders,and make reasonable power gains at low loads with minimal losses as load demands increase,regardless if the car uses more fuel ultimately,compared to previous optimised pure ulp tune,then it's not gonna be the tuners fault but rather the idiot that chose to beleive the new wave of cleaner concept,which by itself is known as hypocrsy.

like hell am I gonna promote, the governments give reason that the motor industry or the cars,arn't good enough for safe emmissions.

Just refuse the jibe untill we have the 100% no bull results.
or tell em parasites that hand these promote green leaflets
at the bowsers,to knock the price of e85 down 25% off the price of standard ulp,if they beleive really that its good for the planet.

RednGold86Z

I agree that it's not a good fuel for solving all the crap they blame on cars, CO2, and supply fears.

It is, however, about 105 octane, at the pump. I would only consider it for a forced induction toy car that won't leave the safety zone of the supply chain.

oz304

Please dont take this personally,but as far as their fuel is concerened,I don't give a rats about whats listed on their gimmick specs.

I have run 10.25 compression boosted to 19 psi of boost,succesfully over 7 years with factory spec reccomended heatrange sparkplugs added to the equation,optimised on 91-95 rom pure ulp fuel and I could pull more fuel out of the maps as opposed to running the more benzene content ultimate grades.To me thats what a practical good fuel ought to do and allow for the car to make very good power in the process.
now I experimented with e90 in oz and found all ethanol fuels simply did not take the gas as well,regardless of fuel+timing trims I tried.I also found the ethanol fuels worsened fuel consumption regardless of the higher octanes.But to be honest i did not dare attempt to run more boost to see if more power was available because pre evaluation observations on this engine atleast,comfirmed that fuels were not worth compromising that beaut little engine with cheaper fuel arrangment.

I also sucked less benzene for the priviledge.
Theory suggests the higher the ron the better,fair enough,but I do not want benzene nor waste my time on fuel which gonna require 25% more energy(25%more fuel to attain the same overall picture,regardless unless the assumed increase in power coincided
with the excess burned fuel,ie 10& more power+ 10% more fuel constitutes fair trade if ye ask me,conversely claimed 7% more power+ 25% more fuel doesnt.

Untill then I will always have my reservations along with the now opposed proof of what can be done win 91-95 ron fuel if you really want it to.Conversely that engine only required 8 degress total advance at 19psi.