10% ethanol??

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

Where would i find the fuel pump and new injectors, What kind of tuner would let you switch back and forth between E85 and E10? I have no experience with tuners...

Well mostly all after market fuel pumps are graphite armature fuel pumps for that reason. And all of ford racing and most aftermarket injectors are E85 compatible. Hell I have been running E85 threw the stock injectors and still no problem, lol. And a tuner like a tweecer would work just fine and when you wanted to switch between tunes just hook up ur laptop and upload the tune.

 

[millhouse]

Right on the money there.

I'm originally from South Dakota where we have used an ethanol blend for years. There is a bit of controversy as to reliability and all that. I can tell you from experience that there are more problems with ethanol than pure gasoline during periods of extreme cold. In addition, many believe that ethanol is the culprit behind mysterious corrosion and damage to heads and valvetrain.

Regardless of the above theories, it is a fact that ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline. I give a damn about octane; octane is not power. Just be aware of that misconception.

So to answer the question, normally there are little to no noticeable side-effects of using a 10% blend.

To expand on that….E85 turns into E70 in the colder states due to cold start issues caused by the low evaporation rate of ethanol.

The only reason I can see for switching to E85 is for those running extremely high compressions or those running some type of forced induction that cannot otherwise sustain a safe tune without resorting to higher octane fuel. For everyone else, it's just not worth it. You are going to loose 30% fuel economy by switching to E85 (negating any monetary savings over gasoline) and your going to loose HP (unless you fit one of the previously mentioned conditions).

As far as the 10% added to gasoline goes….as previously mentioned, they have been doing it here in Michigan for years with nearly no ill effects. Fuel economy will suffer in the slightest degree….but beyond that, it should not impact the vehicle in any way.

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

To expand on that….E85 turns into E70 in the colder states due to cold start issues caused by the low evaporation rate of ethanol.

The only reason I can see for switching to E85 is for those running extremely high compressions or those running some type of forced induction that cannot otherwise sustain a safe tune without resorting to higher octane fuel. For everyone else, it's just not worth it. You are going to loose 30% fuel economy by switching to E85 (negating any monetary savings over gasoline) and your going to loose HP (unless you fit one of the previously mentioned conditions).

As far as the 10% added to gasoline goes….as previously mentioned, they have been doing it here in Michigan for years with nearly no ill effects. Fuel economy will suffer in the slightest degree….but beyond that, it should not impact the vehicle in any way.

Just to add to something you said. Using E85 in a regular vehicle with a proper tune will not cause a loss in power. On the contrary, with a proper tune for E85 you see more power even in a normal engine. Hence GM, Chrylser, Ford, and Nissan show horsepower and torque rating for Gasoline and E85, And E85 shows higher HP and Torque ratings then on Gasoline.

 

[millhouse]

Just to add to something you said. Using E85 in a regular vehicle with a proper tune will not cause a loss in power. On the contrary, with a proper tune for E85 you see more power even in a normal engine. Hence GM, Chrylser, Ford, and Nissan show horsepower and torque rating for Gasoline and E85, And E85 shows higher HP and Torque ratings then on Gasoline.

Actually…not quite. The problem with E85 is that it provides 30% less energy than gasoline. As such, you need a means to be able to make up for the power losses associated with running a less combustible fuel. While throwing timing at it does help to a certain extent, you need to raise your compression in order to notice any gains associated with running e85. While I can not confirm your claim that the big OEM's show torque/hp increases while running e85 fuels (I'd like to see data that supports this), there is a valid explanation for such. If you look at today's vehicles in general, compression ratios are significantly up compared to a decade ago. Computers now will retard timing based on the types of fuel you use (some use a knock sensor)…and even switching between 87 and 93 octane gasoline can quite often lead to a change in engine performance. Because of this, I could see a slight performance difference in higher compression OEM setups running e85.

With that said, most other vehicles will not see a power gain…and retrofitting on a vehicle designed to run on 87 octane fuel will do nothing but diminish h/p and torque. You can throw as much timing as you'd like at it…but in the end, you need to raise your compression ratio (either internally in the engine or via. forced induction) to be able to benefit from using E85.

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

Actually…not quite. The problem with E85 is that it provides 30% less energy than gasoline. As such, you need a means to be able to make up for the power losses associated with running a less combustible fuel. While throwing timing at it does help to a certain extent, you need to raise your compression in order to notice any gains associated with running e85. While I can not confirm your claim that the big OEM's show torque/hp increases while running e85 fuels (I'd like to see data that supports this), there is a valid explanation for such. If you look at today's vehicles in general, compression ratios are significantly up compared to a decade ago. Computers now will retard timing based on the types of fuel you use (some use a knock sensor)…and even switching between 87 and 93 octane gasoline can quite often lead to a change in engine performance. Because of this, I could see a slight performance difference in higher compression OEM setups running e85.

With that said, most other vehicles will not see a power gain…and retrofitting on a vehicle designed to run on 87 octane fuel will do nothing but diminish h/p and torque. You can throw as much timing as you'd like at it…but in the end, you need to raise your compression ratio (either internally in the engine or via. forced induction) to be able to benefit from using E85.

Yes I know E85 has less BTU's then regular gasoline. Trust me I know all of this you are explaining to me already about E85.

Tell you what tomorrow I will try and grab one of those sheets off the window of one of the new cars sittingon the lot. Besides if you have ever been to new car unveiling or even disney after the test track ride. You will see how the chevy displays show how chevy brags about making more power on E85. But hey what do i know

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

Oh and figures since your making your argument on new cars use high comp. here the info on the 07 durango FFV

SPECIFICATIONS - 4.7L ENGINE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Engine Type 90° SOHC V-8 16-Valve
Displacement 4.7 Liters / 4701 cc
287 ( Cubic Inches)
Bore 93.0 mm (3.66 in.)
Stroke 86.5 mm (3.40 in.)
Compression Ratio 9.0:1
Max. Variation Between Cylinders 25%
Horsepower 235 BHP @ 4800 RPM
Torque 295 LB-FT @ 3200 RPM
Lead Cylinder #1 Left Bank
Firing Order 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2


CYLINDER BLOCK
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Bore Diameter 93.010 ± .0075 mm 3.6619 ± 0.0003 in.
Out of Round (MAX) 0.076 mm 0.003 in.
Taper (MAX) 0.051 mm 0.002 in.


PISTONS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Diameter 92.975 mm 3.6605 in.
Weight 366 grams 12.9 oz
Ring Groove Diameter
No. 1 83.37 - 83.13 mm 3.282 - 3.273 in
No. 2 82.833 - 83.033 mm 3.261 - 3.310 in.
No. 3 83.88 - 84.08 mm 3.302 - 3.310 in.


PISTON PINS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Clearance In Piston 0.010 - 0.019 mm 0.0004 - 0.0008 in.
Diameter 24.013 - 24.016 mm 0.9454 - 0.9455 in.


PISTON RINGS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Ring Gap
Top Compression Ring 0.20 - 0.36 mm 0.0079 - 0.0142 in.
Second Compression Ring 0.37 - 0.63 mm 0.0146 - 0.0249 in.
Oil Control (Steel Rails) 0.25 - 0.76 mm 0.0099 - 0.30 in.
Side Clearance
Top Compression Ring .051 - .094 mm 0.0020 - 0.0037 in.
Second Compression Ring 0.040 - 0.080 mm 0.0016 - 0.0031 in.
Oil Ring (Steel Ring) .019 - .229 mm .0007 - .0091 in.
Ring Width
Top Compression Ring 1.472 - 1.490 mm 0.057 - 0.058 in.
Second Compression Ring 1.472 - 1.490 mm 0.057 - 0.058 in.
Oil Ring (Steel Rails) 0.445 - 0.470 mm 0.017 - 0.018 in.


CONNECTING RODS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Bearing Clearance 0.015 - 0.055 mm 0.0006 - 0.0022 in.
Side Clearance 0.10 - 0.35 mm 0.004 - 0.0138 in.
Piston Pin Bore Diameter .025 - .048 mm
(Interference Fit) 0.001 - 0.0019 in.
Bearing Bore Out of Round (MAX) 0.004 mm 0.0002 in.
Total Weight (Less Bearing) 555 grams 19.5771 ounces


CRANKSHAFT
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Main Bearing Journal Diameter 63.488 - 63.512 mm 2.4996 - 2.5005 in.
Bearing Clearance 0.004 - 0.034 mm 0.0002 - 0.0013 in.
Out of Round (MAX) 0.005 mm 0.0004 in.
Taper (MAX) 0.008 mm 0.0004 in.
End Play 0.052 - 0.282 mm 0.0021 - 0.0112 in.
End Play (MAX) 0.282 mm 0.0112 in.
Connecting Rod Journal Diameter 50.992 - 51.008 mm 2.0076 - 2.0082 in.
Bearing Clearance 0.010 - 0.048 0.0004 - 0.0019 in.
Out of Round (MAX) 0.005 mm 0.0002 in.
Taper (MAX) 0.008 mm 0.0004 in.


CAMSHAFT
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Bore Diameter 26.02 - 26.04 mm 1.0245 - 1.0252 in.
Bearing Journal Diameter 25.973 - 25.995 mm 1.0227 - 1.0235 in.
Bearing Clearance 0.025 - 0.065 mm 0.001 - 0.0026 in.
Bearing Clearance (MAX) 0.065 mm 0.0026 in.
End Play .075 - .200 mm 0.003 - 0.0079 in.
End Play (MAX) .200 mm 0.0079 in.


VALVE TIMING
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Intake
Opens (BTDC) 4.4°
Closes (ATDC) 239.1°
Duration 243.5°
Exhaust
Opens (BTDC) 240.5°
Closes (ATDC) 13.2°
Duration 253.70°
Valve Overlap 17.6°


VALVES
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Face Angle 45° - 45.5°
Head Diameter
Intake 48.52 - 48.78 mm
(1.9103 - 1.9205 in.)
Exhaust 36.87 - 37.13 mm
(1.4516 - 1.4618 in.)
Length (Overall)
Intake 113.45 - 114.21 mm
(4.4666 - 4.4965)
Exhaust 114.92 - 115.68 mm
(4.5244 - 4.5543 in.)
Stem Diameter
Intake 6.931 - 6.957 mm
(0.2729 - 0.2739 in.)
Exhaust 6.902 - 6.928 mm
(0.2717 - 0.2728 in.)
Stem - to - Guide Clearance
Intake 0.018 - 0.069 mm
(0.0008 - 0.0028 in.)
Exhaust 0.047 - 0.098 mm
(0.0019 - 0.0039 in.)
Max. Allowable Stem - to - Guide Clearance (Rocking Method)
Intake 0.069 mm (0.0028 in.)
Exhaust 0.098 mm (0.0039 in.)
Valve Lift (Zero Lash)
Intake 11.25 mm (0.443 in.)
Exhaust 10.90 mm (0.4292 in.)


VALVE SPRING
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Free Length (Approx)
Intake 49.0 mm (1.9291 in.)
Exhaust 49.0 mm (1.9291 in.)
Spring Force (Valve Closed)
Intake and Exhaust 313.0 - 354.0 N @ 40.12 mm(70.365 - 79.582 lbs. @ 1.5795 in.)
Spring Force (Valve Open)
Intake and Exhaust 776.0 - 870.0 N @ 28.88 mm(174.451 - 195.583 lbs. @ 1.137 in.)
Number of Coils
Intake 7.3
Exhaust 7.3
Wire Diameter
Intake and Exhaust 4.6 × 3.67mm
(0.1811 - 0.1445 in.)
Installed Height (Spring Seat to Bottom of Retainer)
Nominal
Intake 40.12 mm (1.579 in.)
Exhaust 40.12 mm (1.579 in.)


CYLINDER HEAD
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Gasket Thickness (Compressed) 0.7 mm (0.0276 in.)
Valve Seat Angle 44.5° - 45.0°
Valve Seat Runout (MAX) 0.051 mm (0.002 in.)
Valve Seat Width
Intake 1.75 - 2.36 mm
(0.0698 - 0.0928 in.)
Exhaust 1.71 - 2.32 mm
(0.0673 - 0.0911 in.)
Guide Bore Diameter (Std.) 6.975 - 7.00 mm
(0.2747 - 0.2756 in.)
Cylinder Head Warpage (Flatness) 0.0508 mm (0.002 in.)


OIL PUMP
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Clearance Over Rotors/End Face (MAX) 0.095 mm (0.0038 in.)
Cover Out - of -Flat (MAX) 0.025 mm (0.001 in.)
Inner and Outer Rotor Thickness 12.02 mm (0.4731 in.)
Outer Rotor to pocket (Diametral) clearance (MAX) .235 mm (.0093 in.)
Outer Rotor Diameter (MIN) 85.925 mm (0.400 in.)
Tip Clearance Between Rotors (MAX) 0.150 mm (0.006 in.)


OIL PRESSURE
SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION
At Curb Idle Speed (MIN)* 48 kPa (7 psi)
@ 3000 rpm 240 - 725 kPa (35 - 105 psi)
* CAUTION: If pressure is zero at curb idle, DO NOT run engine at 3000 rpm.

Notice the compression ratio not muh higher than ours.

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

And here is the same vehicle same motor non FFV

SPECIFICATIONS - 4.7L ENGINE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Engine Type 90° SOHC V-8 16-Valve
Displacement 4.7 Liters / 4701 cc
287 ( Cubic Inches)
Bore 93.0 mm (3.66 in.)
Stroke 86.5 mm (3.40 in.)
Compression Ratio 9.0:1
Max. Variation Between Cylinders 25%
Horsepower 235 BHP @ 4800 RPM
Torque 295 LB-FT @ 3200 RPM
Lead Cylinder #1 Left Bank
Firing Order 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2


CYLINDER BLOCK
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Bore Diameter 93.010 ± .0075 mm 3.6619 ± 0.0003 in.
Out of Round (MAX) 0.076 mm 0.003 in.
Taper (MAX) 0.051 mm 0.002 in.


PISTONS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Diameter 92.975 mm 3.6605 in.
Weight 366 grams 12.9 oz
Ring Groove Diameter
No. 1 83.37 - 83.13 mm 3.282 - 3.273 in
No. 2 82.833 - 83.033 mm 3.261 - 3.310 in.
No. 3 83.88 - 84.08 mm 3.302 - 3.310 in.


PISTON PINS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Clearance In Piston 0.010 - 0.019 mm 0.0004 - 0.0008 in.
Diameter 24.013 - 24.016 mm 0.9454 - 0.9455 in.


PISTON RINGS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Ring Gap
Top Compression Ring 0.20 - 0.36 mm 0.0079 - 0.0142 in.
Second Compression Ring 0.37 - 0.63 mm 0.0146 - 0.0249 in.
Oil Control (Steel Rails) 0.25 - 0.76 mm 0.0099 - 0.30 in.
Side Clearance
Top Compression Ring .051 - .094 mm 0.0020 - 0.0037 in.
Second Compression Ring 0.040 - 0.080 mm 0.0016 - 0.0031 in.
Oil Ring (Steel Ring) .019 - .229 mm .0007 - .0091 in.
Ring Width
Top Compression Ring 1.472 - 1.490 mm 0.057 - 0.058 in.
Second Compression Ring 1.472 - 1.490 mm 0.057 - 0.058 in.
Oil Ring (Steel Rails) 0.445 - 0.470 mm 0.017 - 0.018 in.


CONNECTING RODS
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Bearing Clearance 0.015 - 0.055 mm 0.0006 - 0.0022 in.
Side Clearance 0.10 - 0.35 mm 0.004 - 0.0138 in.
Piston Pin Bore Diameter .025 - .048 mm
(Interference Fit) 0.001 - 0.0019 in.
Bearing Bore Out of Round (MAX) 0.004 mm 0.0002 in.
Total Weight (Less Bearing) 555 grams 19.5771 ounces


CRANKSHAFT
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Main Bearing Journal Diameter 63.488 - 63.512 mm 2.4996 - 2.5005 in.
Bearing Clearance 0.004 - 0.034 mm 0.0002 - 0.0013 in.
Out of Round (MAX) 0.005 mm 0.0004 in.
Taper (MAX) 0.008 mm 0.0004 in.
End Play 0.052 - 0.282 mm 0.0021 - 0.0112 in.
End Play (MAX) 0.282 mm 0.0112 in.
Connecting Rod Journal Diameter 50.992 - 51.008 mm 2.0076 - 2.0082 in.
Bearing Clearance 0.010 - 0.048 0.0004 - 0.0019 in.
Out of Round (MAX) 0.005 mm 0.0002 in.
Taper (MAX) 0.008 mm 0.0004 in.


CAMSHAFT
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Metric Standard
Bore Diameter 26.02 - 26.04 mm 1.0245 - 1.0252 in.
Bearing Journal Diameter 25.973 - 25.995 mm 1.0227 - 1.0235 in.
Bearing Clearance 0.025 - 0.065 mm 0.001 - 0.0026 in.
Bearing Clearance (MAX) 0.065 mm 0.0026 in.
End Play .075 - .200 mm 0.003 - 0.0079 in.
End Play (MAX) .200 mm 0.0079 in.


VALVE TIMING
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Intake
Opens (BTDC) 4.4°
Closes (ATDC) 239.1°
Duration 243.5°
Exhaust
Opens (BTDC) 240.5°
Closes (ATDC) 13.2°
Duration 253.70°
Valve Overlap 17.6°


VALVES
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Face Angle 45° - 45.5°
Head Diameter
Intake 48.52 - 48.78 mm
(1.9103 - 1.9205 in.)
Exhaust 36.87 - 37.13 mm
(1.4516 - 1.4618 in.)
Length (Overall)
Intake 113.45 - 114.21 mm
(4.4666 - 4.4965)
Exhaust 114.92 - 115.68 mm
(4.5244 - 4.5543 in.)
Stem Diameter
Intake 6.931 - 6.957 mm
(0.2729 - 0.2739 in.)
Exhaust 6.902 - 6.928 mm
(0.2717 - 0.2728 in.)
Stem - to - Guide Clearance
Intake 0.018 - 0.069 mm
(0.0008 - 0.0028 in.)
Exhaust 0.047 - 0.098 mm
(0.0019 - 0.0039 in.)
Max. Allowable Stem - to - Guide Clearance (Rocking Method)
Intake 0.069 mm (0.0028 in.)
Exhaust 0.098 mm (0.0039 in.)
Valve Lift (Zero Lash)
Intake 11.25 mm (0.443 in.)
Exhaust 10.90 mm (0.4292 in.)


VALVE SPRING
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Free Length (Approx)
Intake 49.0 mm (1.9291 in.)
Exhaust 49.0 mm (1.9291 in.)
Spring Force (Valve Closed)
Intake and Exhaust 313.0 - 354.0 N @ 40.12 mm(70.365 - 79.582 lbs. @ 1.5795 in.)
Spring Force (Valve Open)
Intake and Exhaust 776.0 - 870.0 N @ 28.88 mm(174.451 - 195.583 lbs. @ 1.137 in.)
Number of Coils
Intake 7.3
Exhaust 7.3
Wire Diameter
Intake and Exhaust 4.6 × 3.67mm
(0.1811 - 0.1445 in.)
Installed Height (Spring Seat to Bottom of Retainer)
Nominal
Intake 40.12 mm (1.579 in.)
Exhaust 40.12 mm (1.579 in.)


CYLINDER HEAD
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Gasket Thickness (Compressed) 0.7 mm (0.0276 in.)
Valve Seat Angle 44.5° - 45.0°
Valve Seat Runout (MAX) 0.051 mm (0.002 in.)
Valve Seat Width
Intake 1.75 - 2.36 mm
(0.0698 - 0.0928 in.)
Exhaust 1.71 - 2.32 mm
(0.0673 - 0.0911 in.)
Guide Bore Diameter (Std.) 6.975 - 7.00 mm
(0.2747 - 0.2756 in.)
Cylinder Head Warpage (Flatness) 0.0508 mm (0.002 in.)


OIL PUMP
DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
Clearance Over Rotors/End Face (MAX) 0.095 mm (0.0038 in.)
Cover Out - of -Flat (MAX) 0.025 mm (0.001 in.)
Inner and Outer Rotor Thickness 12.02 mm (0.4731 in.)
Outer Rotor to pocket (Diametral) clearance (MAX) .235 mm (.0093 in.)
Outer Rotor Diameter (MIN) 85.925 mm (0.400 in.)
Tip Clearance Between Rotors (MAX) 0.150 mm (0.006 in.)


OIL PRESSURE
SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION
At Curb Idle Speed (MIN)* 48 kPa (7 psi)
@ 3000 rpm 240 - 725 kPa (35 - 105 psi)
* CAUTION: If pressure is zero at curb idle, DO NOT run engine at 3000 rpm.

Notice many differences?

 

[millhouse]

Oh and figures since your making your argument on new cars use high comp. here the info on the 07 durango FFV

Notice the compression ratio not muh higher than ours.

Actually, that proves my point just that much more. While that particular expample has a lower compression than much of the competition...you'll notice no difference in hp and torque. They are most likely thowing gobbs of timing at that combo just to get back to stock h/p and torque levels while running e85. The computer system likely far more advanced...and there is far more engineering put into getting stock h/p levels out of that lower compression (relatively speaking) setup.

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

Actually, that proves my point just that much more. While that particular expample has a lower compression than much of the competition...you'll notice no difference in hp and torque. They are most likely thowing gobbs of timing at that combo just to get back to stock h/p and torque levels while running e85. The computer system likely far more advanced...and there is far more engineering put into getting stock h/p levels out of that lower compression (relatively speaking) setup.

I do give you that we do use pretty complex and capable PCM's on our products maybe thats why they give so many problems, lol but yea. My point is you CAN make stock HP levels, or better with E85 properly tuned. GM Advertises more power on E85 Not an insane amount but more non the less. We both agree E85 contains less energy per square unit but that shouldnt rule it out as a good alternative fuel. Its still usuable and sometimes works pretty well.

 

[blksn955.o]

A few months ago on MSN news or CNN they had an article about both Ford and GM confirming they are making more power with E85 than regular fuel in back to back tests on the same car tuned for power and mpg using regular gas and E85. IIRC one was like 20-30hp more. Of course this does bring the point that its the volume of E85 to get that number as more power means more fuel. The article went on to lightly discuse the use of more aggressive timing but that they found a sweet spot that also did not hurt the mpg of E85 coming in less than the 30% as they used less aggressive tables for the non-performance areas of the tune to get something around high teens to low 20's in extra fuel needed. They found the added benifit of a cooling effect as the alch. content cooled off the intake charge adding more power as well.

You also can increase the comp by filling the space with more fluid...again finding the sweet spot of extra fluid, timing, and compression for an effective E85 setup.

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

A few months ago on MSN news or CNN they had an article about both Ford and GM confirming they are making more power with E85 than regular fuel in back to back tests on the same car tuned for power and mpg using regular gas and E85. IIRC one was like 20-30hp more. Of course this does bring the point that its the volume of E85 to get that number as more power means more fuel. The article went on to lightly discuse the use of more aggressive timing but that they found a sweet spot that also did not hurt the mpg of E85 coming in less than the 30% as they used less aggressive tables for the non-performance areas of the tune to get something around high teens to low 20's in extra fuel needed. They found the added benifit of a cooling effect as the alch. content cooled off the intake charge adding more power as well.

You also can increase the comp by filling the space with more fluid...again finding the sweet spot of extra fluid, timing, and compression for an effective E85 setup.

Thank you.

 

[millhouse]

I’m not sure what any of that proves. I’d venture to say that those hp increases once again can be directly connected to higher static compression ratios, modern head & valve designs with variable valve timing…as well as modern computer control. I’m not arguing that it can’t be done….but to think that retrofitting a e85 setup on a mustang is going to yield any performance benefits (again, assuming stock compression ratios) is beyond pushing it. For a vast majority of stangers out there…the only result in swapping over to e85 will be decreased fuel economy, the possibility of decreased horsepower, the need for separate summer/winter tunes (e85 in the northern states becomes e70 for cold start issues) and higher milk, cheese and beef prices.

 

[GTA_V6_Mustang]

I’m not sure what any of that proves. I’d venture to say that those hp increases once again can be directly connected to higher static compression ratios, modern head & valve designs with variable valve timing…as well as modern computer control. I’m not arguing that it can’t be done….but to think that retrofitting a e85 setup on a mustang is going to yield any performance benefits (again, assuming stock compression ratios) is beyond pushing it. For a vast majority of stangers out there…the only result in swapping over to e85 will be decreased fuel economy, the possibility of decreased horsepower, the need for separate summer/winter tunes (e85 in the northern states becomes e70 for cold start issues) and higher milk, cheese and beef prices.

Agreed assuming stock cars your right.