When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Car:
2000 Trans Am, 78/75 VSR cast front mount turbo, Elgin "Sloppy" stage 2 cam, TFS heads, Dorman LS2 intake, 92mm TB
Backed by a Jake's D-1 transbraked 4L80E, Triple disc lockup converter (3200+ stall), Strange chromoly driveshaft, Strange 3.70 geared 3rd member, in a Trick Chassis 9" housing, street tuned via HPTuners by me.
My fuel "system" consists of:
Dual AEM 320lph E-85 pumps (1 full time, 1 on 4psi Hobbs switch)
Stock, but modified "bucket", and wiring consists of a dual Racetronix Hotwire kit.
Stock feed line from bucket, to rails
Stock fuel rails
1000cc SEP injectors (103.7lb/hr @ 60psi fuel pressure)
Aeromotive 13109 boost sensitive bypass regulator plumbed off of shrader valve location (driver's side front of rail)
-6an return hose from regulator back to quick connect back next to the abs brake lines, in front of/above the axle housing
I've been doing a ton of reading and research since we can't do much else, and I'm tired of drinking beer & Fireball shots every day...lol.
The overwhelming consensus says:
Stock rails and lines CAN support at least 800HP on E-85
Dual 320lph pumps can also easily support 800HP on E-85
SEP 1000cc injectors CAN feed 850 WHEEL HP on E-85 with adequate fuel flow...
Also, the overwhelming consensus regarding "BLENDS" of flex fuel sure seem to agree that after E-50 or so, that there's minimal difference in the benefit of ethanol/flex fuel. Octane is very close, from E-60 to E-85, as is both of their knock thresholds.
I'm hitting 80+% injector duty cycle regularly at 14-15 psi, and during a (higher boost than I tuned for) boost controller swap test drive, saw 94% on a 16+# log....just for a split second, but way too high, IMO. I've since dumped in some 93 octane unleaded, (10% ethanol), and according to my flex sensor, running about 64% ethanol content.
Best part is/was, absolutely no knock retard, car felt as strong, if not stronger, wideband error was within 2% or so (.77 Lambda or 8.48:1 AFR), and duty cycle never went above 78%, even at 16ish psi. Timing logged at 17*, which is slightly lower than my normal of 18-19, due to the ethanol content adding less timing automatically.
Just curious if anyone here is running a LOWER ethanol content to make it a little easier on their fuel systems?
After dumping a bunch of money into the car over the winter (turbo, fuel pumps, injectors, drag radials, etc...), and with what's going on all over, a REAL overkill fuel system isn't possible, so hopefully this "fix" is good for 2020...
The plan, once the world is open again, is to bracket race the car again this year, running 6 psi, with a 16 psi "scramble" button for the sandbaggers...
We stopped at E60 (P59 on Flex) and 822 HP with ID1000s, 2-525's, Fast Rails, and were out of Duty Cycle 6.0 Huron Speed V3 AC kit with a 76/75 CEA 18#s (9" 4L80 unlocked).
I bought some ID1300s and hope to be at maybe 850 w/E85 now with some DC room.
So yes in other words. I knew I'd likely not make it at full power and e85 with the 1000s. Cheapest way for you might be the Bosch 210's if you don't want to spend a lot. That may also allow you to run less base pressure which would help your pumps work load.
in before that white paper that says you get all the benefits of alky-blended fuels at 50%
i run flex fuel and generally keep it about 60% as thats the break point when the exhaust doesnt smell like gasoline haha
power capability i dont know. I did make 1000+ wheel on e70-ish but thats just a single data point
Do you run it at 60% solely for the smell? lol
Or because of the same reason I am now? Which is to not borderline run out of fuel supply every time I get on it as hard as it'll go?
I'm confident that the car makes an easy 600+ to the tires now, and "think" it could go another 100 if I turn the boost up to 20 or so, which if (read: WHEN) I do that, lol, it'll 100% be just a hail Mary kinda thing at a test & tune.
Originally Posted by 007FJ
We stopped at E60 (P59 on Flex) and 822 HP with ID1000s, 2-525's, Fast Rails, and were out of Duty Cycle 6.0 Huron Speed V3 AC kit with a 76/75 CEA 18#s (9" 4L80 unlocked).
I bought some ID1300s and hope to be at maybe 850 w/E85 now with some DC room.
So yes in other words. I knew I'd likely not make it at full power and e85 with the 1000s. Cheapest way for you might be the Bosch 210's if you don't want to spend a lot. That may also allow you to run less base pressure which would help your pumps work load.
Actually, I am perfectly good with 600-700, (since it could go low 10's with a tad over 500 last year). I have no rollbar, nor will I, so it's plenty fun for this old fart (turned 57 in March). I like to keep the boost up near 15 or so when out playing around on the street, but will have to turn it down as low as it can go, at the track...if they ever are open this year.
Plus, My pumps and injectors are literally 3 months old, and have "maybe" 150 miles on them, so they aren't (ie; they can't) go anywhere, anytime soon.
It sounds like both of you have easily eclipsed my goal without running out of fuel, which is what I had hoped to see.
Thanks for the replies guys, and anyone else who's done it, or still does do it, please share.
That "test" everyone seems to be barking about that couldn't provide benefits for E85 compared to E50 needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
The results were INCREDIBLY circumstantial and the internet caught a glimpse of a chart from that test and spread it like wildfire.
I mean cmon, do you really believe the E85 only has an octane rating of 95?
The ethanol blend percents were calculated because they were using 2 sets of injectors, one with E85 and one with gasoline.
The octane numbers in the table were not the octane numbers for the fuel, but the octane numbers give by that specific test.
They were also using much more ignition timing with E85 compared to E50, such as the 2000 RPM loaded test for 12.78:1 compression ratio where they used 15 degrees of advance with E50 and seen knock, but did not get any knock at 19 degrees with E85.
Even if the octane difference between E50 and E85 really was insignificant (its not), there would still be benefits with E85 from thermal capacity increases and the fuel cooling effect.
Last edited by AwesomeAuto; Apr 23, 2020 at 02:27 PM.
on this particular car I'm injector limited and it made 600 whp unlocked with deka 80's on roughly 80% alky
when its on less alky % i have the holley set up to revert proportionally to a main "gasoline" fuel and spark tables. the boost curve i have for street driving would be fine on any fuel really. I top it up with as much alky as I can before I put the drag racing boost table in play.
i generally keep it around 60 or so as its easy to alternate fill ups that way. half tank of e10 + half tank of e85 ~ e60 or so
the smell is just something I noticed and yeah as i get older I have a lot less tolerance for big cam, no cats, gasoline-only cars. they ****** stink!
imo if you're cutting your e down with gas to stretch your fuel system my guess is eventually it'll bite you in the ***. jike joe said it's not even just the octane. the alky stabilizes the flame front and pulls heat out...to such an extent that when I put e100 in my car it barely hits 150*F coolant temps
That "test" everyone seems to be barking about that couldn't provide benefits for E85 compared to E50 needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
The results were INCREDIBLY circumstantial and the internet caught a glimpse of a chart from that test and spread it like wildfire.
I mean cmon, do you really believe the E85 only has an octane rating of 95?
The ethanol blend percents were calculated because they were using 2 sets of injectors, one with E85 and one with gasoline.
The octane numbers in the table were not the octane numbers for the fuel, but the octane numbers give by that specific test.
They were also using much more ignition timing with E85 compared to E50, such as the 2000 RPM loaded test for 12.78:1 compression ratio where they used 15 degrees of advance with E50 and seen knock, but did not get any knock at 19 degrees with E85.
Even if the octane difference between E50 and E85 really was insignificant (its not), there would still be benefits with E85 from thermal capacity increases and the fuel cooling effect.
Exactly what I was thinking which is why I bought the ID 1300s even though I was where I wanted to be for power and boost level on that little Turbo. No biting me in the *** if I can help it. Enough Murphy **** to get me without known BS.
I am sure the high inj DC was because of the pumps not being able to keep up. As a result, the fuel pressure drops and the ECM raises the inj DC to try and meet the fuel demand and the AFR target.
If you have those injs set for 60psi base and run 16+psi, I'm willing to bet those pumps cannot flow enough with E85. Most pumps have their flow rate fall off a cliff when they approach 80psi. This issue can also be compounded by voltage dropping at high RPMs because the alternator is spinning too fast. With a stock balancer, stock alternator pulley and 7,000rpms, the alternator is spinning at about 20,500rpms. Wouldn't be surprised if the voltage above 6,600rpms drops to low-12s or even less. That reduces the pump flow significantly. Most people are unaware because they do not log fuel pressure and/or batt voltage.
I ran E70 for a while because my dual-AEM380s could not keep up running E85. I tune a 6L with rods and pistons, ProFlo intake, stage II cam, T4 billet S480 and dual AEM380s. We started out running E55 with 2 10gph alky nozzles. At 6,600 rpms, the voltage started dropping all the way down to hi-11s at 7K, FP would drop and inj DC would go up. Swapped out the stock balancer for an ATI (7.25" to 6.75") and the stock 2.4" alternator pulley for a 3" and now voltage is rock steady at 14+ even pass 7K rpms because the alternator isn't spinning at crazy high rpms. 8.26 @ 163.55 in a 3,300 fox body.
A lot of these issues can be solved or avoided by some simple math. Also passing on some lessons learned.
- From my experience, OEM alternators pretty much stop charging past 18+K rpms. (balancer dia / alt dia) * engine rpms = alt rpms. Not a big impact on n/a cars, but critical on hi-hp turbo setups as low voltage affects pump, coils and inj performance.
- Ignore the marketing hype for fuel pump flow. Find the flow chart and see what the pump actually flows at the pressure (base + boost) you plan to run. Convert that number to lb/hr and if you're turbo and E85, divide by .840 (BSFC) to get FWHP. Give yourself about a 10-15% margin for flow loss in the lines, fittings, etc, so multiply that fwhp by .9 or .85. You'll be surprised how low that number is compared to the marketing numbers. BTW, note that the flow chart will probably say the flow rates are at 13.5V. Kenne-Bell says a 1V change at the pump affects flow by about 15% !!
- For the injs, divide the inj lb/hr flow rate by .840 then multiply by 8 to get the FWHP that the injs will support @ 100% DC. Give yourself a margin of safety and a little growth by reducing that DC to 80%
- If you have a turbo/E85 combo, don't get injs where you have to jack up base FP and/or run them at 90+ DC as that's a 2-edge sword since it degrades fuel pump performance.
- Find a way to log fuel pressure and batt voltage so you don't go chasing your tail if they go south. You don't have time to look at gauges flying down the track, so if you can't log, set up a cheap camera to capture it.
- If you can't or don't want to change the fuel pumps, put a Kenne-Bell boost-a-pump on the 2nd pump. They work! When I switched from E70 back to E85, I added one to my 2nd pump and just added another one to the primary as I chase 7s. Dual Magnafuel 750s or a mechanical pump is a little out of my budget.
I'm sure some will scoff, but I'm just passing on my experience with several turbo cars I've been involved with. HTH.
I've been running 50% Ethanol with no issues. Running over 15 psi and 17 degrees timing with the timing mark still just before the bend suggesting I could run a couple more degrees in it. I have a 160 thermostat and fans on at 179 ECT never gets over 182 in stop and go driving or after a wot pull. Running br7ef plugs. IAT's are low with the D1x and large air to air. I used to run 70%, but ran out of injector and haven't noticed any negative effects dropping my percentage to 50%. Eventually I'll buy bigger injectors I'm just not spending any money right now due to uncertainty in the economy even though I'm still working 40 hours a week right now.
Hey rel3rd, where are you finding pump E85 around Baltimore-is it E85 out of the pump, or still 70. Normally I just run 93, but last 3 with flex fuel sensors read 8% rather than 10% eth. With dual tanks the plan is to use one for eth, keep mixing until I come up with the max % and tune for ex. equipment, I guess kind of like what your aiming for. A small amt. sure does make it idle nice and smell better, lol.
That "test" everyone seems to be barking about that couldn't provide benefits for E85 compared to E50 needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
The results were INCREDIBLY circumstantial and the internet caught a glimpse of a chart from that test and spread it like wildfire.
I mean cmon, do you really believe the E85 only has an octane rating of 95?
The ethanol blend percents were calculated because they were using 2 sets of injectors, one with E85 and one with gasoline.
The octane numbers in the table were not the octane numbers for the fuel, but the octane numbers give by that specific test.
They were also using much more ignition timing with E85 compared to E50, such as the 2000 RPM loaded test for 12.78:1 compression ratio where they used 15 degrees of advance with E50 and seen knock, but did not get any knock at 19 degrees with E85.
Even if the octane difference between E50 and E85 really was insignificant (its not), there would still be benefits with E85 from thermal capacity increases and the fuel cooling effect.
I honestly have no idea what "test" you are talking about. I did see severaI references to some "paper" but the links were dead. I don't believe in most of the controlled scientific paper tests anyway, to be honest. Much rather hear from normal guys/girls that do something in the real world not in a test environment. I was simply digging around on various forums seeing what everyone else has done, does, or has tried. The ones that stick out to me are the CTSV guys who were all saying about the minimal difference in performance between the 50% and 80+%. My little 3+ minute test, which was actually to test the electronic boost controller (which I still haven't been able to re-test BTW), is where I saw the differences in IDC% since I had also went from E-80 or so, to E-64.
Originally Posted by truckdoug
on this particular car I'm injector limited and it made 600 whp unlocked with deka 80's on roughly 80% alky
when its on less alky % i have the holley set up to revert proportionally to a main "gasoline" fuel and spark tables. the boost curve i have for street driving would be fine on any fuel really. I top it up with as much alky as I can before I put the drag racing boost table in play.
i generally keep it around 60 or so as its easy to alternate fill ups that way. half tank of e10 + half tank of e85 ~ e60 or so
the smell is just something I noticed and yeah as i get older I have a lot less tolerance for big cam, no cats, gasoline-only cars. they ****** stink!
imo if you're cutting your e down with gas to stretch your fuel system my guess is eventually it'll bite you in the ***. jike joe said it's not even just the octane. the alky stabilizes the flame front and pulls heat out...to such an extent that when I put e100 in my car it barely hits 150*F coolant temps
I still have a P01 OS (tuned via HPTuners)
I do have a flex fuel segment, so have my "high octane" timing table as high as I'd run it on gasoline, with the flex table adding 1-4* depending on ethanol content. Of course, the fuel tables are also changing depending on ethanol content.
The temp thing I didn't even consider.
Looking at two logs to compare...
E-76, coolant averaged 171*, with a high, after some heavy footed boosting, was 185*
E-64, coolant averaged 181*, with a high of 196*
So, rounding numbers, basically looks like a -10% change, in ethanol content, added a consistent 10* to coolant temps...
Originally Posted by 007FJ
Exactly what I was thinking which is why I bought the ID 1300s even though I was where I wanted to be for power and boost level on that little Turbo. No biting me in the *** if I can help it. Enough Murphy **** to get me without known BS.
I always seem to have that Murphy Monkey on my back as well...
Hey rel3rd, where are you finding pump E85 around Baltimore-is it E85 out of the pump, or still 70. Normally I just run 93, but last 3 with flex fuel sensors read 8% rather than 10% eth. With dual tanks the plan is to use one for eth, keep mixing until I come up with the max % and tune for ex. equipment, I guess kind of like what your aiming for. A small amt. sure does make it idle nice and smell better, lol.
I run a sensor, on my car, and my daily driver truck (both converted). Truck, a knock happy 2008 Silverado, I mainly spike it with flex only when towing to Cecil...but, obviously a moot point so far this year...
Anyway, my truck reads 11% on pump 87 at either Costco or any Royal Farms stores.
My car "reads" 77%, but my test bottle, always reads 85% or higher, all through the winter, the lowest I saw was 80% on the test kit.
This is at Royal Farm store at Pulaski Highway and Ebenezer, (near White Marsh, exit 67 off of 95) and has also been the same % at the one on Boston Street, and at Route 7 and Route 24 intersection. The RoFo's seem to be really consistent with one another everywhere near me.
I am sure the high inj DC was because of the pumps not being able to keep up. As a result, the fuel pressure drops and the ECM raises the inj DC to try and meet the fuel demand and the AFR target.
That's kinda what I am thinking...sadly.
If you have those injs set for 60psi base and run 16+psi, I'm willing to bet those pumps cannot flow enough with E85. Most pumps have their flow rate fall off a cliff when they approach 80psi. This issue can also be compounded by voltage dropping at high RPMs because the alternator is spinning too fast. With a stock balancer, stock alternator pulley and 7,000rpms, the alternator is spinning at about 20,500rpms. Wouldn't be surprised if the voltage above 6,600rpms drops to low-12s or even less. That reduces the pump flow significantly. Most people are unaware because they do not log fuel pressure and/or batt voltage.
I actually do log voltage, and maintain 13.2 volts at WOT. Graph literally flatlines at 13.20, then raises to 13.3 - 13.60 depending on RPM at "normal" drive speeds. I had a 145 amp truck alternator before going turbo, but the alternator relocation brackets now prevent me from using it. The case would hit the valve cover/fill tube.
With it, my "normal" running voltage was 14.0...
I ran E70 for a while because my dual-AEM380s could not keep up running E85. I tune a 6L with rods and pistons, ProFlo intake, stage II cam, T4 billet S480 and dual AEM380s. We started out running E55 with 2 10gph alky nozzles. At 6,600 rpms, the voltage started dropping all the way down to hi-11s at 7K, FP would drop and inj DC would go up. Swapped out the stock balancer for an ATI (7.25" to 6.75") and the stock 2.4" alternator pulley for a 3" and now voltage is rock steady at 14+ even pass 7K rpms because the alternator isn't spinning at crazy high rpms. 8.26 @ 163.55 in a 3,300 fox body.
I do have a 10% UD balancer I could swap on, but from what you've said above, doesn't appear to be an issue for me.
A lot of these issues can be solved or avoided by some simple math. Also passing on some lessons learned.
- From my experience, OEM alternators pretty much stop charging past 18+K rpms. (balancer dia / alt dia) * engine rpms = alt rpms. Not a big impact on n/a cars, but critical on hi-hp turbo setups as low voltage affects pump, coils and inj performance.
- Ignore the marketing hype for fuel pump flow. Find the flow chart and see what the pump actually flows at the pressure (base + boost) you plan to run. Convert that number to lb/hr and if you're turbo and E85, divide by .840 (BSFC) to get FWHP. Give yourself about a 10-15% margin for flow loss in the lines, fittings, etc, so multiply that fwhp by .9 or .85. You'll be surprised how low that number is compared to the marketing numbers. BTW, note that the flow chart will probably say the flow rates are at 13.5V. Kenne-Bell says a 1V change at the pump affects flow by about 15% !!
- For the injs, divide the inj lb/hr flow rate by .840 then multiply by 8 to get the FWHP that the injs will support @ 100% DC. Give yourself a margin of safety and a little growth by reducing that DC to 80%
- If you have a turbo/E85 combo, don't get injs where you have to jack up base FP and/or run them at 90+ DC as that's a 2-edge sword since it degrades fuel pump performance.
- Find a way to log fuel pressure and batt voltage so you don't go chasing your tail if they go south. You don't have time to look at gauges flying down the track, so if you can't log, set up a cheap camera to capture it.
- If you can't or don't want to change the fuel pumps, put a Kenne-Bell boost-a-pump on the 2nd pump. They work! When I switched from E70 back to E85, I added one to my 2nd pump and just added another one to the primary as I chase 7s. Dual Magnafuel 750s or a mechanical pump is a little out of my budget.
I haven't heard of anyone using the BAP since 20 years ago in my old Fox body days...
I will look into logging fuel pressure, as it's something I really should do anyway.
Thanks for all the tips above...I got some figuring to do, lol.
I'm sure some will scoff, but I'm just passing on my experience with several turbo cars I've been involved with. HTH.
I greatly appreciate the time it took to offer that reply. It gives me some direction...maybe not the direction I "want" LOL
As per flow chart of my AEM 320 pumps:
320lph pump, is down to 250 lph @ 80 psi (@ 13.5 volts)
My car maintains 13.2 volts, so assuming Kenne Bell's claim of 1 volt = 15%, I adjusted, hopefully correctly downwards, since pump is rated at 13.5 volts.
250 LPH X .955 (voltage difference) = 238.75 LPH
238.75 LPH = 389.15 LB/HR
389.15/.840 = 463.27 FWHP
463.27 x .85 (safety margin) = 393.79 FWHP
No idea how the 2nd pump would affect this formula?
I'm sure the numbers don't double?
My injectors seem to fair much better:
IFR @ 60psi = 103.7 LB/HR
103.7/.840 = 123.45
123.45 X 8 = 987.6 HP @ 100% IDC
790.0 HP @ 80% IDC
EDIT***
Did some "fitting", and some "clearancing" but was able to get my 145 amp truck alternator installed on the car. Used to idle at like 13.5 volts, and flat-lined at 13.2 at WOT...
Now...14.7 at idle, so if the trend continues, I'm hoping to see maybe a 14.2 volts at the worst, which may (according to Kenne Bell), actually damn near "fix" my duty cycle issue...If not, I'm going to get a BAP and wire it into the secondary pump, and be done...and also be able to run E-anydamnthing, LOL.
Video shows voltage reads a little inconsistent due to me losing the little clamps to hold the probes tight, so they're just resting against the battery ground, and the alternator positive terminal.
I've been running 50% Ethanol with no issues. Running over 15 psi and 17 degrees timing with the timing mark still just before the bend suggesting I could run a couple more degrees in it. I have a 160 thermostat and fans on at 179 ECT never gets over 182 in stop and go driving or after a wot pull. Running br7ef plugs. IAT's are low with the D1x and large air to air. I used to run 70%, but ran out of injector and haven't noticed any negative effects dropping my percentage to 50%. Eventually I'll buy bigger injectors I'm just not spending any money right now due to uncertainty in the economy even though I'm still working 40 hours a week right now.
That's my main concern right now, as well.
Right now, it looks like I can safely run 60% "all out" if desired, or straight E-85, if I want to be maxed out.
My new electronic boost controller test drive is where I actually saw the 97% duty cycle, mainly due to the boost being higher than I have ever ran it. Not by choice...the boost controller seems to CREEP as much as 4 psi, which during that creep, was when the duty cycle also creeped... I've since re-configured the boost controller's plumbing, and hope that it now actually CONTROLS BOOST, like it is supposed to. The cave man air regulator manual boost controller never had an issue making/holding rock steady boost, so as soon as the rain stops, I can test that, and hopefully that issue is gone...then I can address the fueling...or at least have some definitive data.
The screenshot that convinced the internet that E85 wasn't any better than E50:
Oh, ok. Thanks for the link. I did see that picture around, but like said above, I much prefer hearing from fellow normal blue collar people, not prima donna "engineers" with lab controlled testing...assuming that's what it even was. That's why I have been digging all around the forums seeing what the consensus was. Way, WAAAYYYYY too much rambling and reading there in that link for me.
Just to clarify, I never asked which is better...When I first did the turbo, on undiluted (by me) E-85, I totally forgot to change my N/A tune, and ran 15# of boost, with 32-33* timing and got zero knock retard, so I'd much rather run E-85, but after finding myself, once again, right at the limit, just wanted to know if anyone on here using less than E-85, without issues, which it appears there are. I'm still going to have to face the fact that I need more fuel. Which I will, probably sooner than later.
#7 hole 16 psi 10.5 to 1 static compression 11.5 AFR on the gas scale 17.5 degrees peak timing 50 percent Ethanol.
And #7, that's the "bad" hole, right?
FWIW, I spent my lunch break today modifying the 145 amp "truck" alternator to fit in the On3 F body alternator relocation bracket. I'm curious to see if it makes any change in duty cycle with almost 1 more volt going to the electrical system.
What I’d like to see is data proving that paper is in anyway incorrect? I’ve yet to see it.
Yes, those octane numbers are correct. Of course they are! If you take those blends and test them on the same tests that pump fuel uses… those are indeed the RON/MON numbers they average out to. It’s a fact. Look it up.
Just like Methanol is only rated at 108.7 RON and 88.6MON. The fact that that there is twice as much fuel in CC at like AFR cools things down in a hurry and makes it “ACT LIKE” a much higher octane fuel. But the facts are facts the facts on that paper are correct. Nowhere do they state E50 is as good of a race fuel as E98, E85 etc…
I agree E85 or E98 will be a better race fuel. That is simply because of the increased volume of fluid in the CC for cooling at like AFR’s. That doesn’t make is 130 octane… though it may suppress detonation as well as 130 octane race fuel.
That said how much knock suppression does your setup need? If you can run E50 with no knock and clean plugs, why the hell wouldn’t you?
I have issues with E85 leaving residue on my injector tips and clogging injs when they sit in the winter etc. So I started experimentation with blends a long time ago. My race car runs E70 year round and shows no signs of needing more knock suppression. Also the higher the gasoline % in the blend the more cleaning affect there is. So you don’t have to worry about E85 “goo” build up. (which is region specific it seems. Not all have problems)
My street car toy is a 5.3 with twins and no intercooler on e60ish. Anything less and as mentioned it gets super stinky with exhaust dumps up front. But I run 19lbs on smallish gt35 turbos with around 220* inlet temps and the plugs look great. So I don’t really see the need for many "street guys" or occasional racers to run higher ethanol percent’s.
Fuel pump plumbing is also a huge factor. Guys with 2JZFC’s pumps have been 183 in the ¼ at similar weights with 2 AEM380’s alone. He was running a -8 feed to each cyl bank. Each inj rail getting its own pump. Each pump having its own -8 feed.
I agree with the above. Just like any other fuel why run more octane than your setup needs? Lower ethanol content requires less fuel system maintenance.
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Slideshow: From wobbling harmonic balancers to failed EBCMs, these are the issues that define long-term C5 ownership and what repairs typically involve.
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Slideshow: A modern Camaro transformed into a retro icon, this limited-run "Bandit" build blends nostalgia with brute force in a way few revivals manage.
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Slideshow: Cadillac didn't just crash the high-performance luxury vehicle party, it showed up loud, supercharged, and occasionally a little unhinged...
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Slideshow: A one-off sports car that looks like a vintage Italian exotic-but hides a C6 Corvette underneath-just sold for the price of a new mid-engine Corvette.
Any E-85 people diluting to E-50 to E-70? 
