C12 vs E-85 Track Numbers Inside
C12 vs E-85 Track Numbers Inside 10.64 @ 130.02
1.49 60ft on E-85
3600ft Density Altitude
C-12
10.93 @ 127.05mph
1.57 60ft
4400ft DA
Tire PSI and Launch RPM were the same, DA was about a 1000ft less but that only accounts for 1 tenth and 1 mph, i picked up 3 tenths and 3 mph.
All in all a great night at the track, i even drove it 15 miles back home , a buddy broke a drive shaft and needed the trailer. It was a good thing i brought extra gas for the trip home. It picked up 0.3 tenths and 3 mph over the C12 tune up, and the density altitude was 4400ft then.It looks like 2 tenths and 2 mph are due to the fuel. Not bad at all considering i spent $40.00 less on 5 gallons of fuel for the track and i went faster I guess i need to get down to sea level and see what it will do before i swap center sections and turn on one stage.
Here is some cool vids from tonight from the Go Pro camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojUBmRDfCSo
1.49 60ft on E-85
3600ft Density Altitude
C-12
10.93 @ 127.05mph
1.57 60ft
4400ft DA
Tire PSI and Launch RPM were the same, DA was about a 1000ft less but that only accounts for 1 tenth and 1 mph, i picked up 3 tenths and 3 mph.
All in all a great night at the track, i even drove it 15 miles back home , a buddy broke a drive shaft and needed the trailer. It was a good thing i brought extra gas for the trip home. It picked up 0.3 tenths and 3 mph over the C12 tune up, and the density altitude was 4400ft then.It looks like 2 tenths and 2 mph are due to the fuel. Not bad at all considering i spent $40.00 less on 5 gallons of fuel for the track and i went faster I guess i need to get down to sea level and see what it will do before i swap center sections and turn on one stage.
Here is some cool vids from tonight from the Go Pro camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojUBmRDfCSo
Did you check to see what both would be corrected for weather?
I'd be more intrested in that to be honest.. because when one was ran at a 4400 DA and the other at 3600 DA, there's a good difference there and some of the change is probably due to that.
I'd be more intrested in that to be honest.. because when one was ran at a 4400 DA and the other at 3600 DA, there's a good difference there and some of the change is probably due to that.
humm
Well according to dragtimes.com
when i ran the 10.93 at 127.05 the DA in Amarillo was 5100ft on 9-5-9, i called the local airport weather conditions and it said DA was 4400ft.
when i ran the 10.64 at 130.02 the DA was 3700ft according to dragtimes.com
Thats about 1400ft difference ,probably accounting for 0.15 in ET at 1.5mph..
Well according to dragtimes.com
when i ran the 10.93 at 127.05 the DA in Amarillo was 5100ft on 9-5-9, i called the local airport weather conditions and it said DA was 4400ft.
when i ran the 10.64 at 130.02 the DA was 3700ft according to dragtimes.com
Thats about 1400ft difference ,probably accounting for 0.15 in ET at 1.5mph..
so that means there's roughly a tenth and a 1/2 in difference, what about the 60 foot times? Why was there such a drastic difference there?
I'm not trying to support either fuel, I just don't think there's an accurate comparison being done.
I'm not trying to support either fuel, I just don't think there's an accurate comparison being done.
10.93 was a 1.57 60"
10.64 was a 1.49 60"
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
It definitely shows the E85 didn't hurt him that is for sure. Go run your car at sea level in some good air and lets see it trap 134+!! No reason to not buy the E85 its much cheaper.
E-85 requires 32% fuel all the time thus 5% more power ( they say )
But at $1.90 a gallon for E-85 vs $8.50 for VP C12 i can fill the car up with E-85 and not just buy 5 gallons of VP. I could care less if it burns more fuel its way cheaper, and if it makes more power, hell ya why not run it?
E-85 requires 32% fuel all the time thus 5% more power ( they say )
But at $1.90 a gallon for E-85 vs $8.50 for VP C12 i can fill the car up with E-85 and not just buy 5 gallons of VP. I could care less if it burns more fuel its way cheaper, and if it makes more power, hell ya why not run it?
But at $1.90 a gallon for E-85 vs $8.50 for VP C12 i can fill the car up with E-85 and not just buy 5 gallons of VP. I could care less if it burns more fuel its way cheaper, and if it makes more power, hell ya why not run it?
The poster's setup surly doesn't need the octane, or there would have been a substantial loss in power.
One thing is for sure, the fuel didn't make the car go one bit faster. When there's a .29 difference between 2 passes, and the faster one had the 60 foot .08 faster, and the DA bewteen the 2 was a 1300 ft difference, faster run having the better DA, I'd almost venture to guess that the fuel actually made the car slower not faster.
1300 DA points is about .1, so of the .29 we're down to .19 faster. Now, take the .08 difference in the 60 foot, which .08 in the 60 foot should be about .12 over the whole run, now you are at a .07 gain. That's less then a tenth, and I really would not judge the performance of a fuel with only a .07 actual gain.
Now, if you go to the track, have the ability to drain the fuel from 1 tun to another, and do that and can show a difference, a substantial .1 to .2 and 1 to 2 mph difference, then I would say that you have some solid proof that the fuel is better or not. Or, the tuneup is just set for one level of fuel better then another.
At this point there is no solid proof in this thread AT ALL that either fuel is better or worse for the given setup at this point. Yes the E85 is cheaper, and I would run it just for that reason if you can get away with it... but all else being equeal you aren't going any faster with it.
Hell, a couple more degrees of timing with the C12 and you may pick up a tenth, making the E85 slower.
Plus, the lack of lead in E85, and the fact that E85 will absorb moisture very easily/quickly, would make me stay away from it. Real easy to get a bunch of water in the tank when running that stuff, which is the reason that they can't ship it out to the east and west coast, and that's why it's only available within XXXX miles of the refinery, because in the time it takes to ship it to say CT from Iowa, it will bave water in it already.
Which, is why it's never going to work as a gasoline subistitute. It can in regions, but unless every 1000 miles there's a refinery, it won't work.
One thing is for sure, the fuel didn't make the car go one bit faster. When there's a .29 difference between 2 passes, and the faster one had the 60 foot .08 faster, and the DA bewteen the 2 was a 1300 ft difference, faster run having the better DA, I'd almost venture to guess that the fuel actually made the car slower not faster.
1300 DA points is about .1, so of the .29 we're down to .19 faster. Now, take the .08 difference in the 60 foot, which .08 in the 60 foot should be about .12 over the whole run, now you are at a .07 gain. That's less then a tenth, and I really would not judge the performance of a fuel with only a .07 actual gain.
Now, if you go to the track, have the ability to drain the fuel from 1 tun to another, and do that and can show a difference, a substantial .1 to .2 and 1 to 2 mph difference, then I would say that you have some solid proof that the fuel is better or not. Or, the tuneup is just set for one level of fuel better then another.
At this point there is no solid proof in this thread AT ALL that either fuel is better or worse for the given setup at this point. Yes the E85 is cheaper, and I would run it just for that reason if you can get away with it... but all else being equeal you aren't going any faster with it.
Hell, a couple more degrees of timing with the C12 and you may pick up a tenth, making the E85 slower.
Plus, the lack of lead in E85, and the fact that E85 will absorb moisture very easily/quickly, would make me stay away from it. Real easy to get a bunch of water in the tank when running that stuff, which is the reason that they can't ship it out to the east and west coast, and that's why it's only available within XXXX miles of the refinery, because in the time it takes to ship it to say CT from Iowa, it will bave water in it already.
Which, is why it's never going to work as a gasoline subistitute. It can in regions, but unless every 1000 miles there's a refinery, it won't work.
The poster's setup surly doesn't need the octane, or there would have been a substantial loss in power.
One thing is for sure, the fuel didn't make the car go one bit faster. When there's a .29 difference between 2 passes, and the faster one had the 60 foot .08 faster, and the DA bewteen the 2 was a 1300 ft difference, faster run having the better DA, I'd almost venture to guess that the fuel actually made the car slower not faster.
1300 DA points is about .1, so of the .29 we're down to .19 faster. Now, take the .08 difference in the 60 foot, which .08 in the 60 foot should be about .12 over the whole run, now you are at a .07 gain. That's less then a tenth, and I really would not judge the performance of a fuel with only a .07 actual gain.
Now, if you go to the track, have the ability to drain the fuel from 1 tun to another, and do that and can show a difference, a substantial .1 to .2 and 1 to 2 mph difference, then I would say that you have some solid proof that the fuel is better or not. Or, the tuneup is just set for one level of fuel better then another.
At this point there is no solid proof in this thread AT ALL that either fuel is better or worse for the given setup at this point. Yes the E85 is cheaper, and I would run it just for that reason if you can get away with it... but all else being equeal you aren't going any faster with it.
Hell, a couple more degrees of timing with the C12 and you may pick up a tenth, making the E85 slower.
Plus, the lack of lead in E85, and the fact that E85 will absorb moisture very easily/quickly, would make me stay away from it. Real easy to get a bunch of water in the tank when running that stuff, which is the reason that they can't ship it out to the east and west coast, and that's why it's only available within XXXX miles of the refinery, because in the time it takes to ship it to say CT from Iowa, it will bave water in it already.
Which, is why it's never going to work as a gasoline subistitute. It can in regions, but unless every 1000 miles there's a refinery, it won't work.
One thing is for sure, the fuel didn't make the car go one bit faster. When there's a .29 difference between 2 passes, and the faster one had the 60 foot .08 faster, and the DA bewteen the 2 was a 1300 ft difference, faster run having the better DA, I'd almost venture to guess that the fuel actually made the car slower not faster.
1300 DA points is about .1, so of the .29 we're down to .19 faster. Now, take the .08 difference in the 60 foot, which .08 in the 60 foot should be about .12 over the whole run, now you are at a .07 gain. That's less then a tenth, and I really would not judge the performance of a fuel with only a .07 actual gain.
Now, if you go to the track, have the ability to drain the fuel from 1 tun to another, and do that and can show a difference, a substantial .1 to .2 and 1 to 2 mph difference, then I would say that you have some solid proof that the fuel is better or not. Or, the tuneup is just set for one level of fuel better then another.
At this point there is no solid proof in this thread AT ALL that either fuel is better or worse for the given setup at this point. Yes the E85 is cheaper, and I would run it just for that reason if you can get away with it... but all else being equeal you aren't going any faster with it.
Hell, a couple more degrees of timing with the C12 and you may pick up a tenth, making the E85 slower.
Plus, the lack of lead in E85, and the fact that E85 will absorb moisture very easily/quickly, would make me stay away from it. Real easy to get a bunch of water in the tank when running that stuff, which is the reason that they can't ship it out to the east and west coast, and that's why it's only available within XXXX miles of the refinery, because in the time it takes to ship it to say CT from Iowa, it will bave water in it already.
Which, is why it's never going to work as a gasoline subistitute. It can in regions, but unless every 1000 miles there's a refinery, it won't work.
Great post man, its been a long time since I have actually learned something on the net. Most of it is all bs or peoples opinions. Makes since why there is no E-85 over here in Washington state.
There most likly never will be either. Same with CT where I am. The materials (corn in this case) aren't here in mass quantity, so to process it here, is just not pratical. Which is why you'll never see an E85 refinery on the east, or west coast.... also meaning we'll never have it.
The poster's setup surly doesn't need the octane, or there would have been a substantial loss in power.
One thing is for sure, the fuel didn't make the car go one bit faster. When there's a .29 difference between 2 passes, and the faster one had the 60 foot .08 faster, and the DA bewteen the 2 was a 1300 ft difference, faster run having the better DA, I'd almost venture to guess that the fuel actually made the car slower not faster.
1300 DA points is about .1, so of the .29 we're down to .19 faster. Now, take the .08 difference in the 60 foot, which .08 in the 60 foot should be about .12 over the whole run, now you are at a .07 gain. That's less then a tenth, and I really would not judge the performance of a fuel with only a .07 actual gain.
Now, if you go to the track, have the ability to drain the fuel from 1 tun to another, and do that and can show a difference, a substantial .1 to .2 and 1 to 2 mph difference, then I would say that you have some solid proof that the fuel is better or not. Or, the tuneup is just set for one level of fuel better then another.
At this point there is no solid proof in this thread AT ALL that either fuel is better or worse for the given setup at this point. Yes the E85 is cheaper, and I would run it just for that reason if you can get away with it... but all else being equeal you aren't going any faster with it.
Hell, a couple more degrees of timing with the C12 and you may pick up a tenth, making the E85 slower.
Plus, the lack of lead in E85, and the fact that E85 will absorb moisture very easily/quickly, would make me stay away from it. Real easy to get a bunch of water in the tank when running that stuff, which is the reason that they can't ship it out to the east and west coast, and that's why it's only available within XXXX miles of the refinery, because in the time it takes to ship it to say CT from Iowa, it will bave water in it already.
Which, is why it's never going to work as a gasoline subistitute. It can in regions, but unless every 1000 miles there's a refinery, it won't work.
One thing is for sure, the fuel didn't make the car go one bit faster. When there's a .29 difference between 2 passes, and the faster one had the 60 foot .08 faster, and the DA bewteen the 2 was a 1300 ft difference, faster run having the better DA, I'd almost venture to guess that the fuel actually made the car slower not faster.
1300 DA points is about .1, so of the .29 we're down to .19 faster. Now, take the .08 difference in the 60 foot, which .08 in the 60 foot should be about .12 over the whole run, now you are at a .07 gain. That's less then a tenth, and I really would not judge the performance of a fuel with only a .07 actual gain.
Now, if you go to the track, have the ability to drain the fuel from 1 tun to another, and do that and can show a difference, a substantial .1 to .2 and 1 to 2 mph difference, then I would say that you have some solid proof that the fuel is better or not. Or, the tuneup is just set for one level of fuel better then another.
At this point there is no solid proof in this thread AT ALL that either fuel is better or worse for the given setup at this point. Yes the E85 is cheaper, and I would run it just for that reason if you can get away with it... but all else being equeal you aren't going any faster with it.
Hell, a couple more degrees of timing with the C12 and you may pick up a tenth, making the E85 slower.
Plus, the lack of lead in E85, and the fact that E85 will absorb moisture very easily/quickly, would make me stay away from it. Real easy to get a bunch of water in the tank when running that stuff, which is the reason that they can't ship it out to the east and west coast, and that's why it's only available within XXXX miles of the refinery, because in the time it takes to ship it to say CT from Iowa, it will bave water in it already.
Which, is why it's never going to work as a gasoline subistitute. It can in regions, but unless every 1000 miles there's a refinery, it won't work.
now the only way i would believe the gains is if the car was tuned before with c12 and then tuned after with E85...otherwise the tune might be biased for one fuel type as already stated...
