What should target lambda be?E10+30gph methanol
Thread Starter
10 Second Club
iTrader: (22)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,677
Likes: 2
From: Northwest side of Chicago
What should target lambda be?E10+30gph methanol I'm using lambda since I'm mixing so many fuels. Running an alky control kit with 2 15gph nozzles. I'm thinking when I'm done tuning ve that about 22-25% of fuel will be replaced with methanol.
93 pump around here is e10 verified by a test kit I bought.
So what do ya think? .78? .80?
I'm still trying to train my brain in lambda but damn is it hard to forget afr. I keep thinking I need to target 11.0 like I was on a gas scale. But 11.0 really means nothing when mixing 3 different fuels.
Must get afr out of head,haha.
93 pump around here is e10 verified by a test kit I bought.
So what do ya think? .78? .80?
I'm still trying to train my brain in lambda but damn is it hard to forget afr. I keep thinking I need to target 11.0 like I was on a gas scale. But 11.0 really means nothing when mixing 3 different fuels.
Must get afr out of head,haha.
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 360
Likes: 3
From: Montreal
Every combo is different......My previous setup loved right around .80 but my current one seems happier a bit richer. I would target .78 to .80 like you said, and then fine tune on the dyno or track from there.
Thread Starter
10 Second Club
iTrader: (22)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,677
Likes: 2
From: Northwest side of Chicago
Realcanuk, thanks a lot for the response. Any chance you could post your tune? I like seeing others meth tunes for comparison. At the moment Im working on getting the transition from no meth to meth correct so that Im not either really rich or really lean right before it kicks in. I feel its important to be consistent on weather you purge the meth before a run or not.
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 360
Likes: 3
From: Montreal
Realcanuk, thanks a lot for the response. Any chance you could post your tune? I like seeing others meth tunes for comparison. At the moment Im working on getting the transition from no meth to meth correct so that Im not either really rich or really lean right before it kicks in. I feel its important to be consistent on weather you purge the meth before a run or not.
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 360
Likes: 3
From: Montreal
Thread Starter
10 Second Club
iTrader: (22)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,677
Likes: 2
From: Northwest side of Chicago
Ya it's a neat setup for sure. I have my initial at 6-7psi right now on the single 15 nozzle. As soon as it's dialed in up to 15psi il add the 2nd 15 nozzle and go for 20psi.
Would you say 22-25 fuel replacement on the 15s makes sense?
Would you say 22-25 fuel replacement on the 15s makes sense?
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
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
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
I agree that 30gph of meth is a lot. With that much meth, you have plenty of safe octane and detonation resistance. With that being said, no way I would go to a 0.78 lambda. As long as the tune is spot on where you know it won't go lean, I would target 0.81-0.82. The 0.81 being "on the safe side". You don't have to do like a lot of tuners I see that target something ridiculous like 0.75 just so they can feel all warm and fuzzy and call it a "conservative tune".
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 360
Likes: 3
From: Montreal
I agree that 30gph of meth is a lot. With that much meth, you have plenty of safe octane and detonation resistance. With that being said, no way I would go to a 0.78 lambda. As long as the tune is spot on where you know it won't go lean, I would target 0.81-0.82. The 0.81 being "on the safe side". You don't have to do like a lot of tuners I see that target something ridiculous like 0.75 just so they can feel all warm and fuzzy and call it a "conservative tune".
‘give the engine what it wants and invent a theory as to why later’.”
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tec...e-tecklenburg/
9 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
From: Just outside Memphis
You honestly shouldn't think according to what others do or have done. Every setup will have a sweet spot. Whether it is .78 or .83, give the car what it wants. One of the best quotes every written regarding this, by one of the best tuners in the world.....article is below..
‘give the engine what it wants and invent a theory as to why later’.”
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tec...e-tecklenburg/
‘give the engine what it wants and invent a theory as to why later’.”
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tec...e-tecklenburg/
I don’t see why you’d tune it any different than any other fuel? Also don’t see any harm in using AFR values. You shoot for the same AFR you would shoot for on pump gas, the sensor doesn’t know the difference, it bases all its calculations off lambda anyway.
As for the AFR window, I’d shoot for lowest octane fuel used (which is also usually the majority fuel). Pump gas’s peak power window is generally accepted as 12:1-13:1 or 0.82-0.88. According to the article below you want to target these AFR’s as they will give you the fastest most complete burn. So for a “good tune”, you should dial timing way back to something like 9-10* that you know is overly low. Dial in your boost and .82 lambda AFR. Then take baby steps with timing
“Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline.”
So if you believe this article, you’d target .82 around peak torq. Then lean it out to .88 by redline and run as little timing as necessary.
That’s how I understood the articles anyway.
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/myths.php
As for the AFR window, I’d shoot for lowest octane fuel used (which is also usually the majority fuel). Pump gas’s peak power window is generally accepted as 12:1-13:1 or 0.82-0.88. According to the article below you want to target these AFR’s as they will give you the fastest most complete burn. So for a “good tune”, you should dial timing way back to something like 9-10* that you know is overly low. Dial in your boost and .82 lambda AFR. Then take baby steps with timing
“Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline.”
So if you believe this article, you’d target .82 around peak torq. Then lean it out to .88 by redline and run as little timing as necessary.
That’s how I understood the articles anyway.
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/myths.php
IMO the lack of individual cylinder monitoring is the reason “rich” tunes are favorable. People like me using a single WB02 only have a collective reading of all 8 cylinders. While my WB02 gauge may read 11.5, the #8 hole could be 12.6 and the #7 might be 10.8. So if you targeted 12.5 collectively, chances are your #8 would be lean and power could drop off, detonation could happen etc… For this reason I don’t target 12.5-13.0 either. If I had the correct equipment to monitor each cylinder, I’m sure there is a lot of power left on the table with "leaner" AFR's.
9 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
From: Just outside Memphis
I think the “Key” is having the proper equipment to test what the car wants. I’m doubting you have the equipment to test small percentage gains in each cylinder, or individual cylinder AFR’s for that matter. If you take a look at the engine masters competitions you see they target the “window” every time and monitor every cylinder. The article suggests rich AFR’s are a crutch to slow the burn. Meaning you either have too much lead in the tune or not enough octane for the cylinder press/temp. To try and argue a “rich” fuel mixture will extract the same amount of power as a 12.0-13.0ish mixture is just plain wrong.
IMO the lack of individual cylinder monitoring is the reason “rich” tunes are favorable. People like me using a single WB02 only have a collective reading of all 8 cylinders. While my WB02 gauge may read 11.5, the #8 hole could be 12.6 and the #7 might be 10.8. So if you targeted 12.5 collectively, chances are your #8 would be lean and power could drop off, detonation could happen etc… For this reason I don’t target 12.5-13.0 either. If I had the correct equipment to monitor each cylinder, I’m sure there is a lot of power left on the table with "leaner" AFR's.
Throttle's Performance - EMC 2013 - YouTube
IMO the lack of individual cylinder monitoring is the reason “rich” tunes are favorable. People like me using a single WB02 only have a collective reading of all 8 cylinders. While my WB02 gauge may read 11.5, the #8 hole could be 12.6 and the #7 might be 10.8. So if you targeted 12.5 collectively, chances are your #8 would be lean and power could drop off, detonation could happen etc… For this reason I don’t target 12.5-13.0 either. If I had the correct equipment to monitor each cylinder, I’m sure there is a lot of power left on the table with "leaner" AFR's.
Throttle's Performance - EMC 2013 - YouTube