New tuner for dam sure buddy

 

PLEASE tell us who your " tuner " is

 

good example

 

E-85 *is* an "intercooler".

 

talk to touringbubble

he has tuned 3 of my cars and im very happy with it. he is in Birmingham area and there is a e85 station by him so you can get tuned there and fill up and drive back.

Im in madison area.
dont see too many ebos in Huntsvegas area.

 

Stochiometric ratio of gasoline: 14.7 : 1
Stochiometric ratio of Ethanol: 9 : 1
Stochiometric ration of E85: 9.765 : 1

For every 1 unit of air you'd need 1.51 times as much E85 as you would need fuel.
(increase your fuel delivery by half again what it requires.)

Let's burn lL of fuel. It'd require 14.7L of oxygen, which equates to about 73.5 L of air. (The atmosphere is about 20% oxygen.) Total volume: 74.5 liters. It'd also produce 34.2 MJ of energy, considering complete combustion.

Now let's take that 74.5 liters of space, and fill it with an air/E85 mixture at 9.765 : 1. You'd need 1.495 liters of E85, and there would be just over 73 liters of air. (Yes, I know this isn't the 1.51 ratio as noted above. BUT remember that if you add fuel, it does in fact take up space that air would normally occupy, thus changing the available room you have to work with.) And now, with the added fuel at the correct ratio you'd end up producing 38.35 MJ of energy. Which is an increase of about 12% over gasoline.

Also note that vehicles aren't optimal combustion machines so you probably won't see those exact percentage numbers. BUT the point is, for a given amount of space E85 produces more energy at stociometric than gasoline does. Yay chemistry and math!

 

The math is wrong. It does not require 1.51 times the amount of fuel. 25% is a much closer number.

 

I don't want to open a can of worms, but Zen motors in Georgia is who gave me that information

 

Just don't go back there then, thats all.

 

not going to get into a debate on what you said and what we said. you obviously misunderstood the conversation all together. you don't want to open a can of worms... lol... i would never claim to know everything, but this is pretty ridiculous.

 

Lets hear the whole story.

i doubt that Zen has told you that you will not gain anything.

 

If I understand this right it is actually saying it requires 33 percent more fuel, which is pretty damn close to 25 percent. So my guess is the math is correct theoretically, however in practice the actual yield comes out to something a little smaller, with changing AFR's and what not. There is also a pretty good chance I'm not understanding this right, and am wrong all together though.

 

Ugh.
First, the stochiometric ratio used is from gas stochiometry, thus using molecular mass. That's why gasoline's 14.7:1, instead of the more obvious 12.5:1, as the reaction would normally imply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochio..._stoichiometry
Gasoline: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
Ethanol: C2H5OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 3 H2O

Stochiometric points: http://ethanolpro.tripod.com/id213.html

Energy densities of different fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...nal_components

OK. Now, basic math. To get from 1.0 to 1.5 you add half of the original back to the original. That's +50%. (And not 33%; you're stating a percentage of the original, not a percentage of the final product.)

If you're only running 25% more fuel than you were before you're either running dangerously lean, or you *were* running stuidly rich beforehand. In which case you *still* might be running lean.
Also, that doesn't take into account how the E85 cools the intake charge when atomized more than gasoline, and thanks to the Ideal Gas Law, the charge would decrease in volume (meaning more charge in the same volume, since your intake pipes don't shrink), thus needing even more fuel than the 50% increase. My post was just a point that for a given volume, a stochiometric blending of gasoline and air produces less heat energy than a stochiometric blending of E85 and air.

Something you're gonna want to look out for is that because you're running a whole lot more fuel, there's an increased risk of hydrolocking your engine, especially with high-compression pistons and heads.

OK. MPG's are a different thing. From Wyotech, the average MPG loss converting a naturally-aspirated engine to E-85 is about a 20% - 25% loss or so. Forced-induction engines only suffer about a 10% loss. The difference from the 50% more fuel and the 25% MPG loss probably comes from the efficiency increase that comes with burning a simpler fuel. (And forced-induction engines suffer less of a loss because they're able to take advantage of E85's higher octane rating easier than a naturally-aspirated engine, thus increasing efficiency more.)

 

This thread is three months old, as was this whole situation. When I called we talked about what to do next to the car, I gave him my mod list and he called
Me back the next day saying e85 wouldn't give any real gains so he steered me towards an intercooler. He even have me prices on intercooler kits. I still have it all written down where I took notes while talking to them. I remember us talking about the turbo being maxed out which is why he recommended the intercooler instead. Feel free to doubt me I really don't care since it was so long ago.

 

The sylencer you are!