Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
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.
Q
quickd100 Offline
master
quickd100  Offline
master
Q

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: MR_P_BODY] #356018
06/24/09 01:36 PM
06/24/09 01:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
street_dart Offline OP
member
street_dart  Offline OP
member

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
Quote:

something is wrong somewhere. I've yet to switch one without picking up. We use a gas A/F meter and tune very close to gas ratios. It is more forgiving than gas, but I just go to max power and that's where the A/F stays. we have a 615 single 4 on the dyno right now that has 60+HP spread from one carb to the other on the same fuel, so that's no surprise. Patrick from prosystems carbs. The one that makes more is only .070 larger bore, it's 40 more average and over 60 more peak. I know Gw can make a gas carb work, but maybe somethings off with E85. there's more 02, volume,and cooling with E85, so don't give up yet. Get the right carb on it and it will pick up.




I didnt dyno test my change but on track
the switch to E-85 the car ran IDENTICAL but I didnt
make a single change other than the carb and fuel,
I still havent tweeked in jetting or timing.... so
it wasnt less power thats for sure.... JMO





when you compare this is the VP-109 and E-85 or what is it for petrol?


Dodge Dart-67 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer-55 Dodge Dakota 4.7 -05
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 Offline OP
member
street_dart  Offline 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
S
sixpackgut Offline
Drag Week Mod Champion
sixpackgut  Offline
Drag Week Mod Champion
S

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 Offline OP
member
street_dart  Offline 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 Offline
master
dthemi  Offline
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: street_dart] #356023
06/24/09 06:45 PM
06/24/09 06:45 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 174
Oklahoma
H
hemiiroc Offline
member
hemiiroc  Offline
member
H

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 174
Oklahoma
also think something is wrong. i've been testing most of my builds with e85 lately and have picked up a minimun of 10-12 and some up to 30 hp increase.

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 Offline
member
Dale  Offline
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: 16,928
NC
440Jim Offline
I Live Here
440Jim  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
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).


1993 Daytona, 5.50 at 130mph (1/8) 1.19 sixty ft (PG). Link to 572 B1 - Part 1
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: 16,928
NC
440Jim Offline
I Live Here
440Jim  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
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: 440Jim] #356027
06/24/09 10:04 PM
06/24/09 10:04 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY Offline
Master
MR_P_BODY  Offline
Master

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
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).




Doing a little calculations I would have to agree
with you Jim

Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85 [Re: 440Jim] #356028
06/25/09 04:01 AM
06/25/09 04:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
street_dart Offline OP
member
street_dart  Offline OP
member

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
Quote:

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).




Thanks you for sorting this out!
I run 12.2 A/F on the gas scale from idle to 7000rpm and 33degre spark advance.
And that was how it gave the most power with the 1100cfm GW E-85 carb.
Then I made the change to the VP-109 in the tank and the swap to my old 9375 Holley 1050 and it did 50 Hp more without touching the ignition.


This run it was 12.24A/F on the gas scale.


Dodge Dart-67 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer-55 Dodge Dakota 4.7 -05
Re: dyno numbers vp 109 vs E-85 [Re: dthemi] #356029
06/25/09 03:45 PM
06/25/09 03:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
street_dart Offline OP
member
street_dart  Offline OP
member

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
sweden
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...


Dodge Dart-67 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer-55 Dodge Dakota 4.7 -05
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: 16,928
NC
440Jim Offline
I Live Here
440Jim  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
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


1993 Daytona, 5.50 at 130mph (1/8) 1.19 sixty ft (PG). Link to 572 B1 - Part 1
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 Offline
master
dthemi  Offline
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?

Page 2 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1