E50 tune?

[K4fxd]

Knowing the content between E30 and E 85 is either important or its not.

If the flex logic it turned on it is not important with the caveat that many flex inputs are not included with the factory gen3 tune.

I doubt any big name tune shop will take the time to custom make an E50 tune. It is easy to do just will take a few revisions to get everything correct.

Other than the 3-5 people in that thread it doesnt seem like theres anyone but Lund doing it for guys like me.

I think this will change when more shops find the PCMtec software.

Sponsored

 

[Jjmoberg]

If the flex logic it turned on it is not important with the caveat that many flex inputs are not included with the factory gen3 tune.

I doubt any big name tune shop will take the time to custom make an E50 tune. It is easy to do just will take a few revisions to get everything correct.


I think this will change when more shops find the PCMtec software.

i guess the thing that still puzzles me is if the E content isnt important as long as its over 30, shouldnt everyone with access to flex fuel or true E85 just be running an E85r tune? At least the NA guys.. But if thats true why is everyone testing E content? Assuming the tanks arent filled with gas, any E51-83 pump should be fine. And if so I would just take a Wengerd E85 and be done with it.

will be nice when more tuners take advantage of the PCMtec.

 

[Pistol_91]

I'm confused as hell here. Are you worried about breaking the car or something? Just stick to 93. From the head ache you seem to be making it, doesn't seem e85 is even worth that extra little tiny bit of power you'll never notice on a butt dyno.
It's easy. If you're using only 93
Run a 93 tune
If you're mixing 93 and flex fuel/e85/e50/e whatever
Run a flex tune
If you're strictly running flex fuel/e85
Run an e85 tune.
The car adjusts constantly. No need to over think it.

 

[Jjmoberg]

Its called doing research and making the best decision. Half the dudes on here say the gas tunes NA dont give you shit. So id rather run the ethanol thats 2 miles from my house. But i want to do it the best way possible. As we all should. If everyone said as long as you are above E50 just run an E85 tune thats what id do. I just dont want to pop a piston after that and then a bunch of people say i should have been running a milder tune or been running flex.

 

[engineermike]

…my original question when i posted this thread was E50 tune? So that question still remains. If i know all the pumps near me will test from 51-83% and I am NA why cant i just run an E85 tune if max timing is down at 30%? If an E85 tune isnt safe for 51-83% then my soft E50 or E70 or whatever question still remains. … What would be the point of the user selectable tunes at all if there is no difference NA from 30-85%??

In order to answer that question you have to understand how the oem logic and control works. For flex fueling you enter a range of possible stoichiometric a/f ratios. Ford default is 10.3 - 14.1 if I recall correctly, which correlates to e77 - e10. The logic adjusts the stoichiometric ratio within that range until the short term fuel trims are 0.

For dedicated non-flex tunes you have to enter a fixed stoichiometry. If you enter 9.8/1 (e85) and then you fill up with e50, then your fuel trims will be 15-20%. You’re getting pretty close to an MIL in the base case. So in order for fuel trims to be low, you’d need to specify an accurate fixed ethanol content.

Keep in mind also that the ethanol % affects way more than just a/f ratio and spark timing. If you go into pcmtec and search for ethanol, methanol, enthanol, ffv, alcohol, pm, and flex you’ll find a myriad of changes from di/pi blend during cranking to predicted egt to torque control. It’s dizzying.

Lots of tuners dont do flex anymore. There must be a reason.

I can only theorize about this. For one, if the tuner is using hptuners then they don’t have access to all the needed parameters to do it properly, namely fuel line volume, which can cause the learning to lock in prematurely. Another is that the fuel trims need to be near zero for it to learn accurately so perhaps they don’t want to take the extra time perfecting everyone’s maf curve. Another still, is that some claim that something like an air leak that would cause high fuel trims could also cause incorrect ethanol learning and thus too much timing, etc.

One of the major tuners posted a video not that long ago basically admitting they were using knock advance to get the added timing in their flex tunes. This means they were letting it bounce off of knock retard when on pump gas, which is pretty much a terrible way to do it. Unlike the gen2, the gen3 has the ability to float timing and even max load as a function of learned ethanol, so there’s no reason to make it hit knock every time you go wot on gasoline. I’m honestly still shocked that a big name tuner was managing flex timing like that.

 

[Jjmoberg]

In order to answer that question you have to understand how the oem logic and control works. For flex fueling you enter a range of possible stoichiometric a/f ratios. Ford default is 10.3 - 14.1 if I recall correctly, which correlates to e77 - e10. The logic adjusts the stoichiometric ratio within that range until the short term fuel trims are 0.

For dedicated non-flex tunes you have to enter a fixed stoichiometry. If you enter 9.8/1 (e85) and then you fill up with e50, then your fuel trims will be 15-20%. You’re getting pretty close to an MIL in the base case. So in order for fuel trims to be low, you’d need to specify an accurate fixed ethanol content.

Keep in mind also that the ethanol % affects way more than just a/f ratio and spark timing. If you go into pcmtec and search for ethanol, methanol, enthanol, ffv, alcohol, pm, and flex you’ll find a myriad of changes from di/pi blend during cranking to predicted egt to torque control. It’s dizzying.



I can only theorize about this. For one, if the tuner is using hptuners then they don’t have access to all the needed parameters to do it properly, namely fuel line volume, which can cause the learning to lock in prematurely. Another is that the fuel trims need to be near zero for it to learn accurately so perhaps they don’t want to take the extra time perfecting everyone’s maf curve. Another still, is that some claim that something like an air leak that would cause high fuel trims could also cause incorrect ethanol learning and thus too much timing, etc.

One of the major tuners posted a video not that long ago basically admitting they were using knock advance to get the added timing in their flex tunes. This means they were letting it bounce off of knock retard when on pump gas, which is pretty much a terrible way to do it. Unlike the gen2, the gen3 has the ability to float timing and even max load as a function of learned ethanol, so there’s no reason to make it hit knock every time you go wot on gasoline. I’m honestly still shocked that a big name tuner was managing flex timing like that.

Now thats good info! Thanks! And Merry Christmas!

Unless new quality flex tunes come out before i am ready i will likely do the Lund PCMtec user adjustable tune. And a 91 base tune to get the MAF curve right.

 

[ChitownStang]

In order to answer that question you have to understand how the oem logic and control works. For flex fueling you enter a range of possible stoichiometric a/f ratios. Ford default is 10.3 - 14.1 if I recall correctly, which correlates to e77 - e10. The logic adjusts the stoichiometric ratio within that range until the short term fuel trims are 0.

For dedicated non-flex tunes you have to enter a fixed stoichiometry. If you enter 9.8/1 (e85) and then you fill up with e50, then your fuel trims will be 15-20%. You’re getting pretty close to an MIL in the base case. So in order for fuel trims to be low, you’d need to specify an accurate fixed ethanol content.

Keep in mind also that the ethanol % affects way more than just a/f ratio and spark timing. If you go into pcmtec and search for ethanol, methanol, enthanol, ffv, alcohol, pm, and flex you’ll find a myriad of changes from di/pi blend during cranking to predicted egt to torque control. It’s dizzying.



I can only theorize about this. For one, if the tuner is using hptuners then they don’t have access to all the needed parameters to do it properly, namely fuel line volume, which can cause the learning to lock in prematurely. Another is that the fuel trims need to be near zero for it to learn accurately so perhaps they don’t want to take the extra time perfecting everyone’s maf curve. Another still, is that some claim that something like an air leak that would cause high fuel trims could also cause incorrect ethanol learning and thus too much timing, etc.

One of the major tuners posted a video not that long ago basically admitting they were using knock advance to get the added timing in their flex tunes. This means they were letting it bounce off of knock retard when on pump gas, which is pretty much a terrible way to do it. Unlike the gen2, the gen3 has the ability to float timing and even max load as a function of learned ethanol, so there’s no reason to make it hit knock every time you go wot on gasoline. I’m honestly still shocked that a big name tuner was managing flex timing like that.

I'm running the Livernois Flex Tune in my 21 Mach 1 for over a year now. It runs strong, very noticeable when I run E70 which is all I use since its at my gas station mile from the house.
I switch to 93 for the winter or when I go to the Track. I've had 0 issues with how the car runs but yo make me wonder if I should be concerned how Livernois does their Flex, do they do this Knock advance? Livernois does have there own tuning device.

 

[Jjmoberg]

I'm running the Livernois Flex Tune in my 21 Mach 1 for over a year now. It runs strong, very noticeable when I run E70 which is all I use since its at my gas station mile from the house.
I switch to 93 for the winter or when I go to the Track. I've had 0 issues with how the car runs but yo make me wonder if I should be concerned how Livernois does their Flex, do they do this Knock advance? Livernois does have there own tuning device.

i talked to them. They didnt really want to give me any details on their tables or general methodology

 

[engineermike]

I haven’t looked under the hood of a livernois tune but a really good logger could decipher how they’re doing it. You have to be able to log borderline timing (not actual timing) and learned ethanol to know.

 

[K4fxd]

Livernois is one I would trust. IIRC all their tunes are CARB compliant. I don't know for a fact but I believe they use actual Ford software.

Lund is using PCMtec but I still would not use them due to their customer service, or lack their of, and I doubt they do anything to the MAF curve other than get it close enough. Just my opinion.

 

[Jjmoberg]

Livernois is one I would trust. IIRC all their tunes are CARB compliant. I don't know for a fact but I believe they use actual Ford software.

Lund is using PCMtec but I still would not use them due to their customer service, or lack their of, and I doubt they do anything to the MAF curve other than get it close enough. Just my opinion.

Its certainly a concern…

 

[Jjmoberg]

Livernois is one I would trust. IIRC all their tunes are CARB compliant. I don't know for a fact but I believe they use actual Ford software.

Lund is using PCMtec but I still would not use them due to their customer service, or lack their of, and I doubt they do anything to the MAF curve other than get it close enough. Just my opinion.

I would trust Livernois if i knew they were editing all those tables to make the learning and maturing work right. And getting the timing to come in right. And the fuel line volume…..

 

[engineermike]

@K4fxd I've theorized the same about livernois. They appear to have a Roush-like relationship with ford, which is a good thing.

 

[K4fxd]

I would trust Livernois if i knew they were editing all those tables to make the learning and maturing work right. And getting the timing to come in right. And the fuel line volume…..

After looking at many "tunes" I'm also very skeptical, one reason I learned to tune.

I'm assuming here so grain of salt.

I think if a company spends the time and money to get a CARB cert they probably do things correctly.

 

[Jjmoberg]

After looking at many "tunes" I'm also very skeptical, one reason I learned to tune.

I'm assuming here so grain of salt.

I think if a company spends the time and money to get a CARB cert they probably do things correctly.

The interesting thing is for lots of us its probably not too big of a deal for the months youre running E. If the tune is generally safe, and what comes out of the pump is always in that 55-75 type range its probably good to go. For me i need to know someone is gonna take the time to get my MAF right on the initial gas tune. I have a Soler TB and swapped to the GT350 intake tube with a Airraid oiled blue filter. Im sure I am flowing 5- 10% more air or something like that.

Sponsored