Dodge SRT Forum banner

Horsepower gains~Race Fuel vs. E85 vs. W/M injection

39K views 169 replies 29 participants last post by  D-SRT 
#1 ·
Lets say with stock turbo with bolt ons, and a BWS or big turbo with bolt ons and supporting mods, all with appropriate tuning. Not considering the plus and minus of each, or whats available in your area, price, safety, or anything else. Just the dirt on actual HP gains with each of these formats...The more I research I cant make heads or tails of which setup is the king POWER WISE ONLY...
 
#47 · (Edited)
I wouldn't consider Q16, it's so corrosive that it almost has to be treated with as much care as straight methanol. Also, as stated before, a lot of the injectors available to us are not compatible with these types of fuels.

Oxygenated fuel is awesome stuff, but if you're as picky as I am, it will require extra maintenance if you really want to keep your fuel system components and the vehicle itself in top shape.
 
#48 ·
Alright..It'starting to make sense to me finally! Now as I see it the cooling effects of E85 has a similar effect of adding meth injection over 93, plus it burns slower so you can advance the timing close to the same as C16 without detonating, and at less than a quarter of the price of C16...Correct?
 
#49 ·
Research Octane Number | | Motor Octane Number | | R+M/2
ethanol...........118....................96....... ........................107
regular gas .......92....................82................... ............87
E85 (summer)...113....................94.............. ...............104
C16.................119.....................117....... .....................118
As a drag racer I feel the most important number is the Motor octane number. Research and R+M2 don't mean to much to me.
R+M/2 is the number you see at the pump. to get that number you take, research octane plus motor octane and divided by 2.
 
#54 ·
Thanks Hunter, I am 25 minutes away from E85! I know there will be more cropping up closer soon. We just got our first E85 station in CT. If I do meth now I will kick myself in the ass when we get it locally. I was planning on filling the car and buy some of those VP fuel jugs with the hoses and stock up each time I make the trek...It's all highway drive in the quiet part of our state.
 
#55 ·
Nigel told me e85 vs c16 was pointless on stock frame turbo. Basically the lil turbo would perform the same on the fuels.

I have no proof if e85 is better than c16. But I know it's wayyyyyyyy cheaper.
 
#58 ·
Well I'm a little less confused now...But what I do know from all of your responses is that E85 sounds like a winner for HP and bang for the $$$ with relative safety! It is within a reasonable distance from me now, and the performance it will bare will make the trip worth it...Now comes Dusters injectors and his custom E85 tune, and a spare sending unit!!! Thanks
 
#65 ·
They are different and have held up better than the other newer years (I think I've heard of some dying, but not many). The previous several years senders are the same as well on the regular neons, so you can scavenge one of those if yours dies too.
 
#68 ·
flashpoint, or point of ignition( or can be ignited) is different then flamespeed. unless that isn't what your saying, in which case i don't understand what your trying to say?

the info is out there for laminar flame speed, and E85 is faster and methanol faster still.

but the increase in flame speed isn't on par with the requirement of 30% more fuel. so higher flame speed but still takes longer to completely burn the 30% more fuel..
 
#69 ·
im guessing here,

the more violent the fuel the faster it burns? maybe

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the reason you need 30% more is bc of btu to make the same btu as gas you need the 30% more of E.

now it is burning slower bc of more fuel to completely burn, hmm?? not sure.


def. not arguing with you man, just discussing....
 
#72 · (Edited)
OK.. here is the BTU's ,

Gasoline, 111,745 on the low side
Ethanol, 76,100
and E85, 81,800

with this we see that the percentage LESS for the fuels is as follows with the lowside BTU for gasoline being the constant.

Ethanol 32% less BTU

E85 27% less BTU

now the laminar flame speed of ethanol are 42CM/s and gasoline at abotu 30-31 CM/s we'll use 30 as the base


this gives us a 29% faster burn rate for E85.

but we have to look at total volume of fuel to compare flame speed to time taken for complete combustion now.

we also are forgettign the lower flashpoint of gas which may also be a contributing factor.. as when placed under pressure, ignition points raise so there are ALOT of variables. so timing advance may also be required due to the flash point increasing with pressure. coruse i may just be confusing it with boiling point.

but another interesting fact, AUTOIGNITION or the temperature at which it will ignite itself, for E is 363 degrees farenheit, but gas is only 280 at atmospheric pressure.

more variables.
 
#75 ·
Quote from Wikipedia :
"There is no requirement to post octane on an E85 dispenser. If a retailer chooses to post octane, they should be aware that the often cited 105 octane is incorrect. This number was derived by using ethanol’s blending octane value in gasoline. This is not the proper way to calculate the octane of E85.
Ethanol’s true octane value should be used to calculate E85’s octane value. This results in an octane range of 94-96 (R+M)/2. These calculations have been confirmed by actual-octane engine tests."
 
#77 ·
oh just cause i got curious, since your injecting 30% more by volume, let's say you inject 10cm by the 3rd ( volume is cubed while the flame speed is represented in two dimensions) your total area is now 1000 for gasoline, now 30% more by volume is 13cm to the 3rd, or 2197!! that is over DOUBLE the area.

it takes 33.3 to burn all the gas, and 52.31 to burn all the E85
 
#79 · (Edited)
basically yes, also the flame speed is represented in a 1 dimensional term, yet BTU and injection amount is in VOLUME ( a 3 dimensional term)

so in order to convert 13cm to the third you take 13 x 13 x 13 or length times width times height which comes out on gasoline side for the BTU's to be 1000, or 10 x 10 x 10
and E85 is 2197 in a 2 dimensional plane. ( we converted to match the math of the laminar flame speed) you now take the flame speed of each fuel and divide the respective 2 dimensional value of the flame speed

IE 1000/30 for gasoline and 2197/42 for E85 to figure up the exact amount of time to completely burn the fuel.
 
#85 ·
well.. there are alot of factors on this as well, additional gas burning in the manifold will increased the velocity of the exhuast gas, EGT's AND the rate at which the gas expands ( all these tings affect boost and spool up response)

so it can naturally affect boost, until the PCM can correlate the difference and adjust, assumign you leave it on WG DC learn mode.

otherwise it is controlled by the DSP, and adding or removing WG DC percentage.
 
#87 ·
I really think E85 is great, but after reading this I'm getting second thoughts again...Norths knowledge of the turbo SRT motor is immense!
It holds a candle, let's be real here. :> I run a pump+meth tune and an E85 tune. It's only a 5% difference in power between them and 30% less miles per tank (with E85 putting down more power and not taking you as far).

I wish I voted today instead of yesterday though. I just put in Mole's 16G BWS. :eveilgrin
 
#88 · (Edited)
thing is with meth you have to rely on the pump, lines, injector and level if any one of thes fail bye bye engine.... i will run e85 over pump and meth ANY day of the week

that 5% is prob on stock of bws turbo.. basically weak turbos. put a 6262 on e85 vs pump meth bet that 5% changes...
 
#92 ·
My 04 sending unit made it one summer.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using AutoGuide.Com Free App
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top