E 85

[FoMoCoSHO]

I've been waiting for this implosion.
Lots of silliness in here. Is there any data or facts?

Anybody want some E100?


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Nah, I'm good with my inexpensive E-98 blend.

When are you going to get a tune and start making some real power...? 

Just waiting on my cutout to come back from Mike/PPE

Dont need a cutout to run a tune...  :0

I'm a do it all at once type of guy.

Patience is allegedly a virtue.

[FoMoCoSHO]

I've been waiting for this implosion.
Lots of silliness in here. Is there any data or facts?

Anybody want some E100?

We have plenty that we have seen and also encountered ourselves. At the end of the say we would not risk our customer's engines over something like this. If people don't agree with us that is their right to do so, but that won't change our stance on what we know is right and wrong.

We take great pride in the trust bestowed upon us when we sell, install, or tune something on a customer's car. Part of that is being honest with them about our experiences, knowledge, and opinions. The most unfortunate part is that no one will realize we are right until it costs them an engine. I honestly hope that never happens to anyone in this community, but is the very reason behind why we won't offer it. Race gas tunes? Yes, Meth tunes? Yes, E85 between the fuel system and negatives with the fuel itself just make it unsafe in our opinion. Is there a day that even better regulation coupled with our upgraded fuel system might change that? I hope so, but that day isn't today.

You didn't even acknowledge the data provided because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[SwampRat]

I've been waiting for this implosion.
Lots of silliness in here. Is there any data or facts?

Anybody want some E100?

We have plenty that we have seen and also encountered ourselves. At the end of the say we would not risk our customer's engines over something like this. If people don't agree with us that is their right to do so, but that won't change our stance on what we know is right and wrong.

We take great pride in the trust bestowed upon us when we sell, install, or tune something on a customer's car. Part of that is being honest with them about our experiences, knowledge, and opinions. The most unfortunate part is that no one will realize we are right until it costs them an engine. I honestly hope that never happens to anyone in this community, but is the very reason behind why we won't offer it. Race gas tunes? Yes, Meth tunes? Yes, E85 between the fuel system and negatives with the fuel itself just make it unsafe in our opinion. Is there a day that even better regulation coupled with our upgraded fuel system might change that? I hope so, but that day isn't today.

You didn't even acknowledge the data provided because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You'll get there on your own time line   .

You documented plenty on this issue from your observation's and links to valid data points and sources .

[BiGMaC]

I've been quiet and followed with interest. Like iHeartGroceries I have looked hard to get facts rather than opinion and appreciate all who have appropriately contributed them and and their opinions.  I am ignorant as regards engine safety and E85 personally.  That said, I don't want the hassle of blending fuel for a DD and will bow to long term testing, recognizing the proprietary nature of some of the information posted here.  Regardless, I made the personal decision to void my warranty with performance mods that have proven safe in the long term because of the cost of these engines.  For me.... Thanks to all who choose to experiment with E85... I'll follow your exploits.  For now, as far as fueling, I'll go to the pump and run what I pump as time passes (in the warmer months the gas in AZ is E10 anyway).   Perhaps at future date.

[Livernois Motorsports]

You didn't even acknowledge the data provided because it doesn't fit your narrative.

No, I posted what is relevant based on our data collected and viewed here from our testing, we do not rely on someone else's data. Again, we can agree to disagree. You won't convince us to do it, only our own in house testing will do that, just like me telling you not to won't convince you not to.

[EcoPowerParts]

Play it safe man ...

Man ... Some folks a just hardheaded and as far as the current fuel delivery situation is concerned evidently he is unaware of the improved system in the 2013+ 3.5EB ...

When DeatschWerks gets there new high flow injectors to market later this year Hopefully  we will have a PLUG n Play upgraded fuel pump system.

I agree with 4DR .. its a shame that Livernois is not willing to utilize there resources  to develop this .

The LPFP has very little impact on fuel flow. We have tested all kinds of different pressures for the LPFP it had zero impact on the HPFP. The 2010-2014 Cars all use the same HPFP. Also, the injectors aren't the problem either. Putting larger injectors into a system that is losing pressure will only make it lose more pressure and at best bandaid the situation, but based on our testing, won't even do that. This isn't going to be a simple and easy fix for these cars.

I spoke with Dan on the phone and we're going to agree to disagree on this one. I did see a huge difference with dual in tank fuel pumps with a boost referenced return system. My testing and data says otherwise.

[Livernois Motorsports]

If anyone has time to kill we are more than happy to run their car on the dyno and show them the pressure loss and show them how much worse it is on anything more than E10. We're more than happy to devote a few days of our time so that you can see our concerns are valid.

We have tried numerous methods to assist fuel flow on the LPFP side on almost every ecoboost platform at our disposal, it has never effected pressure drop on the HPFP. We've even monitored pressure on the LPFP side and it doesn't drop in correlation with the HPFP pressure drop. This issue is that the HPFP can't keep up with the change in fuel demand so it starts to drain the rail. the HPFP can't keep up so pressure drops.

This offer is to anyone that is running any blend of E85, just call us to set up an appointment and we will show you this condition it's creating.

[FoMoCoSHO]

If anyone has time to kill we are more than happy to run their car on the dyno and show them the pressure loss and show them how much worse it is on anything more than E10. We're more than happy to devote a few days of our time so that you can see our concerns are valid.

We have tried numerous methods to assist fuel flow on the LPFP side on almost every ecoboost platform at our disposal, it has never effected pressure drop on the HPFP. We've even monitored pressure on the LPFP side and it doesn't drop in correlation with the HPFP pressure drop. This issue is that the HPFP can't keep up with the change in fuel demand so it starts to drain the rail. the HPFP can't keep up so pressure drops.

This offer is to anyone that is running any blend of E85, just call us to set up an appointment and we will show you this condition it's creating.

Could you give some insight as to the RPMs you are seeing this at?

All I've seen in my logs is a linear increase in rail pressure peaking at 2600-2700 on straight 93 and 2300-2400 on the corn. (At 30%)

Also, I'd like to know the specific data you guys log in an attempt to pare down the parameters to maximize Torque's read speed yet get the data needed to figure this out. Right now I'm looking at 18 parameters on a .25 read rate. I can increase that to 1/10th of a second but I'm not sure with that many parameters of the accuracy.

I'm also thinking about logging with Fortran to see where the data lines up with Torque.

[Livernois Motorsports]

Could you give some insight as to the RPMs you are seeing this at?

All I've seen in my logs is a linear increase in rail pressure peaking at 2600-2700 on straight 93 and 2300-2400 on the corn. (At 30%)

Also, I'd like to know the specific data you guys log in an attempt to pare down the parameters to maximize Torque's read speed yet get the data needed to figure this out. Right now I'm looking at 18 parameters on a .25 read rate. I can increase that to 1/10th of a second but I'm not sure with that many parameters of the accuracy.

I'm also thinking about logging with Fortran to see where the data lines up with Torque.

The problem is is it's not RPM based, it's based on demand. The other issue is the method you are utilizing to log it with. These aftermarket loggers don't look at the right data. We have our own hardware that allows us to datalog exactly what is needed. It also can happen much faster than what you are saying your refresh rate is. I know we have posted in depth about the problems with these aftermarket loggers, but they just don't gather or report the correct information.

We had a customer that swore their car had all kinds of problems because of what these apps reported to him (mind you, never once did it run poorly), so he drove well over 1000miles to come here. When it got here we put it on the dyno, and logged it with our proper setup, and our wideband on the dyno and the data was completely different than what he had and exactly as it should be. We reran it with his hardware and it yet again showed completely different data than our system, then we reverified with ours on the 3rd run and it was perfect.

Unfortunately to properly tune and understand these cars means going deep into the computer and really understanding the logic behind it. This is something that can't be bought unfortunately.

[FoMoCoSHO]

Is that true with all devices such as the itsx and mycal?

Because it has occurred to me that Torque isn't always (never? lol) telling the truth.

I mean, it is a $5.00 app and all.

[Livernois Motorsports]

The Mycal (save for the touch screen for 2010-2012) can't log actually. This was by design as until we can release a logging system that actually logs the right data it's borderline useless. But yes, this goes for every tuner brand out there today. Life would be easier and our development would have cost much less if we could use a commercially available device to log with. However, the plus side is we do it all here on our own cars so we get a huge understanding on how these processors really work.

[IHeartGroceries]

I'm on the E for tuning side.
For TUNING.

Not the running E, hoping Ford built in some kind of magical mystery tune in the stock ECU tables.

My point was, there's mistruths about ethanol in general here.

To argue about quality and such for ethanol heavy fuels, but ignoring all of the potential quality problems in Super grade is ridiculous.

My photo was just used as a credential.

I'd been asking about this in other threads, before I knew this thread existed. My concern has always been the fueling capacity. It is the same concern that crops up on every forum for every platform, interested in tuning for E. I wish those in the know would post data or proof regarding the upgraded fuel system in the 13+. So far, there's not even agreement on that. So, I'm still wondering where's the data regarding the OE equipment limitations. Hardly anybody runs pure E85 anyway. E30-E50 works fine, stays safe (avoiding gumming issues and such), and produces results. And likely does away entirely with messes like water meth injection.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[FoMoCoSHO]

The Mycal (save for the touch screen for 2010-2012) can't log actually. This was by design as until we can release a logging system that actually logs the right data it's borderline useless. But yes, this goes for every tuner brand out there today. Life would be easier and our development would have cost much less if we could use a commercially available device to log with. However, the plus side is we do it all here on our own cars so we get a huge understanding on how these processors really work.

Interesting.

Sounds like a void screaming to be filled.

[FoMoCoSHO]

I'm on the E for tuning side.
For TUNING.

Not the running E, hoping Ford built in some kind of magical mystery tune in the stock ECU tables.

My point was, there's mistruths about ethanol in general here.

To argue about quality and such for ethanol heavy fuels, but ignoring all of the potential quality problems in Super grade is ridiculous.

My photo was just used as a credential.

I'd been asking about this other other threads, before I knew this thread existed. My concern has always been the fueling capacity. It is the same concern that crops up on every forum for every platform. I wish those in the know would post data or proof regarding the upgraded fuel system in the 13+. So far, there's not even agreement on that. So, I'm still wondering where's the data regarding the limitations. Hardly anybody runs pure E85 anyway. E30-E50 works fine, stays safe (avoiding gumming issues and such), and produces results. And likely does away entirely with messes like water meth injection.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

My info on the LPFP comes straight from a Ford dealership service and parts department.

The dialogue started with the 2103 fuel pump recall as to why the gen 4.1 didn't have it.

In fact I will ask the person involved to post up, he's been a valuable source of info.

[Livernois Motorsports]

The Mycal (save for the touch screen for 2010-2012) can't log actually. This was by design as until we can release a logging system that actually logs the right data it's borderline useless. But yes, this goes for every tuner brand out there today. Life would be easier and our development would have cost much less if we could use a commercially available device to log with. However, the plus side is we do it all here on our own cars so we get a huge understanding on how these processors really work.

Interesting.

Sounds like a void screaming to be filled.

we've been working on something for years, the problem is that the hardware and the way it works is very different than today's "logging devices" work. When we get it correct, we will be releasing this correct solution, but not until it's 100%