Looking to switch to unleashed

[Livernois Motorsports]

There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

IHeartGroceries

Thanks for the reply

Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.

This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...

Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period

Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.

Here is a chart of GGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent


Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary

LME

The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.

Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?

I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.

At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.

After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?

These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.

Flame suit engaged.

I think people are confusing the Low Pressure Fuel Pump (LPFP) with the High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP). The Recall covered the LPFP on the 2013+ cars. While it does run a higher PSI than the 10-12 cars, the LPFP is not even close to hinderance on these cars. The HPFP is identical on every transverse 3.5 EcoBoost to date. MKS, SHO, Explorer, Flex, Etc. They all use the same 2010 engineering number and service part. Even when dropping to 500# in the rail, the LPFP doesn't skip a beat.

Now, circling back to a point that gets overlooked so often. This is as simple as we can make it. If a tune and bolt ons can max out the capability of the fuel system on E10, running ANYTHING higher than E10 will max out the system earlier, and since the GGE increases at a higher rate than the increase of power seen, you will be using E15, 20, 25, 30, etc to just make less power than you could being properly being tuned on E10.

And to answer the question on why these use 2175 when the pump theoretically can do 3000, research Euro standards vs. US standards for Gasoline. US Gasoline has too high of a PPM count of sulfur to run higher than 2175 reliably.

[FoMoCoSHO]

One of the rumors was that the LPFP didn't have the capacity to feed the high pressure system, so thank you for dispelling that myth.

Very interesting on the sulfer count being the issue, thanks for that info. i will definitely take a look.

What does GGE stand for?

[Livernois Motorsports]

There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

IHeartGroceries

Thanks for the reply

Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.

This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...

Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period

Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.

Here is a chart of GGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent


Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary

LME

The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.

Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?

I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.

At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.

After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?

These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.

Flame suit engaged.

Not sure if you agree or disagree. But the HPFP are exactly the same between a 2010 and a 2013 SHO. If you order a pump for a 2010 car today the number will cross reference to a 2013. It has an updated number but ford does this on tons of parts. The flow, pressure and internals are identical. There is no upgrade for 2013

The pump may go to a higher PSI but it will not maintain proper pressure when pushed to the limits. If you want to use any blend of Ethanol thats totally up to you. What we know and have seen its not something that we will recommend. I would be happy to show you or anyone the issues when making more power. We have offered several times.

I promise you get your car tuned properly, put a bunch of Ethanol an most likely the throttle will shut more than (trying to save the engine) it did with straight gas. It may go faster but several things can happen including starving the engine of fuel for very short amounts of time potentially causing damage. Hey nothing may happen but again we can't recommend that.

Another note with more percentage ethanol getting better gas mileage goes against tons of math data and manufacturers research out there. If you drive exactly the same way and same atmospheric conditions are present MPG will be less

Anyway hope this helps explain some of the reasons why we don't recommend it.

Were not saying this just to be difficult, its facts and we are very willing to show anyone anytime. Heck its good education for the community.

DM

[Courier6]

Pretty much all of me doesn't think any of these data loggers are doing repeated WOT pulls from 80 to 140 MPH. And if there are, please tell my it is being done at track or in at a place where the public safety is not being compromised.

[EcoPowerParts]

Hmm my throttle did shut ALOT when I would forget to turn on the aux fuel system when running E50....

Thank god the safety functions in the ECU saved my car over and over and over, one of the reasons I did the dual fuel pump setup instead of the separate fuel pump/cell setup.

[FoMoCoSHO]

There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

IHeartGroceries

Thanks for the reply

Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.

This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...

Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period

Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.

Here is a chart of GGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent


Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary

LME

The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.

Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?

I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.

At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.

After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?

These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.

Flame suit engaged.

Not sure if you agree or disagree. But the HPFP are exactly the same between a 2010 and a 2013 SHO. If you order a pump for a 2010 car today the number will cross reference to a 2013. It has an updated number but ford does this on tons of parts. The flow, pressure and internals are identical. There is no upgrade for 2013

The pump may go to a higher PSI but it will not maintain proper pressure when pushed to the limits. If you want to use any blend of Ethanol thats totally up to you. What we know and have seen its not something that we will recommend. I would be happy to show you or anyone the issues when making more power. We have offered several times.

I promise you get your car tuned properly, put a bunch of Ethanol an most likely the throttle will shut more than (trying to save the engine) it did with straight gas. It may go faster but several things can happen including starving the engine of fuel for very short amounts of time potentially causing damage. Hey nothing may happen but again we can't recommend that.

Another note with more percentage ethanol getting better gas mileage goes against tons of math data and manufacturers research out there. If you drive exactly the same way and same atmospheric conditions are present MPG will be less

Anyway hope this helps explain some of the reasons why we don't recommend it.

Were not saying this just to be difficult, its facts and we are very willing to show anyone anytime. Heck its good education for the community.

DM

There is a study written by the engineering department at MIT that talks about why certain blends get better fuel mileage than straight gas. Its pretty complicated and probably a good topic of discussion....for another thread. It can be found in one of the e85 threads.

On my end there is no disagreement about the HPFP, only change in the system from gen 4.1 to 4.2 is the LPFP.

[Livernois Motorsports]

There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

IHeartGroceries

Thanks for the reply

Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.

This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...

Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period

Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.

Here is a chart of GGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent


Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary

LME

The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.

Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?

I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.

At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.

After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?

These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.

Flame suit engaged.

Not sure if you agree or disagree. But the HPFP are exactly the same between a 2010 and a 2013 SHO. If you order a pump for a 2010 car today the number will cross reference to a 2013. It has an updated number but ford does this on tons of parts. The flow, pressure and internals are identical. There is no upgrade for 2013

The pump may go to a higher PSI but it will not maintain proper pressure when pushed to the limits. If you want to use any blend of Ethanol thats totally up to you. What we know and have seen its not something that we will recommend. I would be happy to show you or anyone the issues when making more power. We have offered several times.

I promise you get your car tuned properly, put a bunch of Ethanol an most likely the throttle will shut more than (trying to save the engine) it did with straight gas. It may go faster but several things can happen including starving the engine of fuel for very short amounts of time potentially causing damage. Hey nothing may happen but again we can't recommend that.

Another note with more percentage ethanol getting better gas mileage goes against tons of math data and manufacturers research out there. If you drive exactly the same way and same atmospheric conditions are present MPG will be less

Anyway hope this helps explain some of the reasons why we don't recommend it.

Were not saying this just to be difficult, its facts and we are very willing to show anyone anytime. Heck its good education for the community.

DM

There is a study written by the engineering department at MIT that talks about why certain blends get better fuel mileage than straight gas. Its pretty complicated and probably a good topic of discussion....for another thread. It can be found in one of the e85 threads.

On my end there is no disagreement about the HPFP, only change in the system from gen 4.1 to 4.2 is the LPFP.

I believe I know what document your talking about and I have read that. Its clearly a blend of more than just ethanol an gasoline, I believe it was three types of fuel.

What we were talking about was ethanol and gasoline by itself will not yield better MPG.


DM