Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: sixpackgut]
#356017
06/24/09 01:15 PM
06/24/09 01:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,392 nielsville, minn.
quickd100
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,392
nielsville, minn.
|
Quote:
i think i would have tried jetting the box stock holley up for E85.
That won't work, you need to change all your bleeds, change squirters, cams, and should go to 50cc pumps. I've seen it done your way but you'll end up with bogs, flat spots, and a car that wants to die at idle. Dave
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: cudadon]
#356019
06/24/09 01:48 PM
06/24/09 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140 sweden
street_dart
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
|
Did you test the E85 for actual content? I tested a couple stations this week and am still finding E70-E73. People are buying less because gas prices aren't that much different from E85. Don
No i did not test for actual content. But a friend of mine filled at the same station a week earlier and his four-cylinder turbo volvo delivered over 1000Hp and he says it was good quality fuel.
Dodge Dart-67
Dodge Custom Royal Lancer-55
Dodge Dakota 4.7 -05
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: quickd100]
#356020
06/24/09 01:48 PM
06/24/09 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225 Charleston
sixpackgut
Drag Week Mod Champion
|
Drag Week Mod Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
|
Quote:
Quote:
i think i would have tried jetting the box stock holley up for E85.
That won't work, you need to change all your bleeds, change squirters, cams, and should go to 50cc pumps. I've seen it done your way but you'll end up with bogs, flat spots, and a car that wants to die at idle. Dave
Doms have 50 cc pumps. squirters should be fine for the dyno. you dont have to idle on a dyno. it would have showed if there was something wrong with the E85 carb, wouldnt you agree?
Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135 Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram
performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: street_dart]
#356021
06/24/09 03:08 PM
06/24/09 03:08 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140 sweden
street_dart
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
|
I talked recently with Garry Williams on my problem. He had previously been on the engines that delivered less on e-85. The problem then was that the intake and cylinder heads for small area to deal with the extra fuel needed to run e-85. A petrol engine that is at the limit when it comes to flow in the intake and cylinder heads do not need to give more power on alcohol.
It was what he told me.
By the way so is the GW carb a 1100cfm he said also.
Dodge Dart-67
Dodge Custom Royal Lancer-55
Dodge Dakota 4.7 -05
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: street_dart]
#356022
06/24/09 05:21 PM
06/24/09 05:21 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,097 back in Georgia
dthemi
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,097
back in Georgia
|
Quote:
I talked recently with Garry Williams on my problem. He had previously been on the engines that delivered less on e-85. The problem then was that the intake and cylinder heads for small area to deal with the extra fuel needed to run e-85. A petrol engine that is at the limit when it comes to flow in the intake and cylinder heads do not need to give more power on alcohol.
It was what he told me.
By the way so is the GW carb a 1100cfm he said also.
I've heard Patrick at prosystems say the same about over taking the runner, but every one I've done picks up, even on max effort small head combos. I agree the theory is sound about a runner at 100 percent on gas would suffer with the extra volume, but to one degree or another it would be overcome by the 50 degree difference in intake charge temp using ethanol. The temp reduction would make the mix more dense and allow more through the same cross section and none of us except pro stock are reaching near total efficiency. Plus having 02 in the fuel means you need less air than with gas at the same power. A member we built a 578 ci -1 motor for came by today to buy an e85 dominator. His motor made a little over 900 on a single 4 using c12. The carb should be here next week, and I値l try to go to the track with him to sort it out and report back. This motor is using a good bit of the head, so we値l see.
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: hemiiroc]
#356024
06/24/09 08:03 PM
06/24/09 08:03 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 150 Mobile Al
Dale
member
|
member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 150
Mobile Al
|
I've always heard from people Smarter than Me a properly adjusted gas motor will make as much power as the some motor on alcohol. http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_manual/manual1-2.html Here is a good site or Alcohol as a fuel.In the article it talks about when you adjust to the correct Air fuel Ratio they basically produce the Some btu's so Should make Close to the Same power when each is adjusted right. Alcohol is just easer to get there and stay there.
Last edited by Dale; 06/24/09 08:11 PM.
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: quickd100]
#356025
06/24/09 09:39 PM
06/24/09 09:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,932 NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,932
NC
|
Quote:
Get your A/F ratio corrected for E-85 and you'll see it kick azz. Stoich is 9.765-1, maxpower rich is 6.975-1.
When talking about alternate fuels, some people just leave the wide band oxygen sensor on the gasoline calibration, so we have to be careful talking A/F ratio. Lambda is the ratio of actual A/F to stoich, so that never changes with fuel.
6.975/9.765 = 0.71 Lambda and that is pretty rich (but I don't know the best)
Last year my carb was a little lean and I ran around 0.9 Lambda or 8.7 A/F (13.2 on the gas scale). This year I just started running E85 in my Ron's injection and I have it set to .83 Lambda or 8.2 A/F (12.3 A/F on the gas scale). The one change I tried was 12.6 on the gas scale and I didn't see any difference on that one pass. More to come.
From the track times, I estimate during the hot weather, the E85 is roughly 30 hp more than gas, and 30 hp less than methanol. On a 50 degree F day at high barometric pressure, the difference will be small. I ran on those conditions with a gas car and ran 9.12 while he ran 9.10. In 85 deg F conditions he ran 9.45 and I ran 9.23 (methanol).
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: street_dart]
#356026
06/24/09 09:53 PM
06/24/09 09:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,932 NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,932
NC
|
Quote:
The engine:
400 block hardblock and alu mains 4.15 crank 4.375 bore flat topp ross pistons att the deck
ported B1-BS flow 350@ .700 milled to 67cc chamber 1009 feel pro 13.7-1 comp ratio 2"-3.5" open headers.
My 2-cents... Those headers are holding back your peak power. I run 2-1/8" x 32" long headers on my 511" (4.250 stroke x4.375" bore) and the low peak hp rpm supports that thought. I twist mine a little higher, 6500 shift, 7200 finish line (at 145 mph).
Indy 440-1 heads, 350 cfm at 0.700", 368 cfm at 0.800" 13.5 CR (68 cc heads) Solid lifter cam (not a roller) 305コ/320コ@.020", 279コ/287コ@.050", 197コ/200コ@.200", 110 LSA, .690"/.670", 1.6 ratio rockers
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: street_dart]
#356030
06/26/09 09:45 AM
06/26/09 09:45 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,932 NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,932
NC
|
Quote:
The engine: 2"-3.5" open headers.
Are those the long (43" ?) Hooker Super Comp fenderwell headers for a big block A-body? I have seen dyno numbers comparing those to shorter, larger dia headers and the long ones killed higher rpm power (above about 5000-5500 rpm). The other headers were step headers, 2" to 2-1/8", about 32" long.
Here is the header compare:Quote:
Fast68plymouth dyno test, 493 CID Includes Hooker Super Comp A-body fenderwells (2" x 43") versus his dyno headers, stepped 2 to 2-1/8", 32" long (12" + 20")
test A-M1 4150/905 carb/1" open spacer/dyno headers
test B-M1 4150/1050 carb/2" adapter/dyno headers
test C-M1 4500/1050 carb/no spacer/dyno headers
test D-M1 4500/1050 carb/no spacer/ A body 2" headers
rpm---A/tq/hp---B/tq/hp---C/tq/hp---D/tq/hp 3700----------------------------------586/413 3800----------------------------------598/433 3900----------------------------------607/451 4000-521/397---------------524/399---619/471 4100-525/410---519/405----524/409---632/493 4200-555/444---533/426----545/436---631/505 4300-594/486---588/481----599/490---635/520 4400-605/507---594/498----617/517---636/532 4500-611/524---618/530----618/530---640/548 4600-628/550---623/546----628/550---635/556 4700-632/565---634/567----630/564---635/568 4800-628/574---637/582----635/581---632/578 4900-630-587---632/589----634/592---626/584 5000-624/594---625/595----632/602---619/589 5100-623/605---626/608----625/607---619/601 5200-617/611---622/616----624/618---612/606 5300-615/620---621/627----619/625---606/612 5400-609/626---620/637----609/626---599/616 5500-603/631---606/635----612/640---593/621 5600-591/630---600/640----599/639---586/625 5700-587/637---600/651----597/648---578/627 5800-585/646---592/654----592/654---576/636 5900-578/649---589/661----584/656---560/629 6000-571/653---581/664----580/663---553/632 6100-565/656---576/670----576/670---550/639 6200-557/658---567/669----560/661---538/635 6300-546/655---561/673----556/669---526/631 6400-541/660---549/669----544/663---516/629 6500-530/655---541/670----540/668---504/624 6600-518/651---535/672----527/663---494/620 6700-509/650---523/667----518/661---484/617 6800------------514/665----511/662---476/616
Comparing C and D, that was 31 hp at 6100 rpm, and 46 hp at 6800. This was a big reason I went to larger/shorter headers when I went to 500 CID
|
|
|
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85
[Re: street_dart]
#356031
06/26/09 10:08 AM
06/26/09 10:08 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,097 back in Georgia
dthemi
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,097
back in Georgia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I talked recently with Garry Williams on my problem. He had previously been on the engines that delivered less on e-85. The problem then was that the intake and cylinder heads for small area to deal with the extra fuel needed to run e-85. A petrol engine that is at the limit when it comes to flow in the intake and cylinder heads do not need to give more power on alcohol.
It was what he told me.
By the way so is the GW carb a 1100cfm he said also.
I've heard Patrick at prosystems say the same about over taking the runner, but every one I've done picks up, even on max effort small head combos. I agree the theory is sound about a runner at 100 percent on gas would suffer with the extra volume, but to one degree or another it would be overcome by the 50 degree difference in intake charge temp using ethanol. The temp reduction would make the mix more dense and allow more through the same cross section and none of us except pro stock are reaching near total efficiency. Plus having 02 in the fuel means you need less air than with gas at the same power. A member we built a 578 ci -1 motor for came by today to buy an e85 dominator. His motor made a little over 900 on a single 4 using c12. The carb should be here next week, and I値l try to go to the track with him to sort it out and report back. This motor is using a good bit of the head, so we値l see.
When you say that all you've done picks up by e-85 what have they gone on the past, it is pump gas or race gas?
I do not understand why I am the only one here who fail to pick up the power of E-85...
It's been a mixed bag of pump and race fuel, big inch and small. I've seen the difference in 2 almost identical size carbs with the same fuel be as much different in power, so it's hard to say what's going on. Maybe someone near you would swap carbs for a test?
|
|
|
|
|