Sponsored

E85 vs no Ethanol

samd1351

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Threads
107
Messages
870
Reaction score
1,519
Location
Olathe, KS
First Name
Sam
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GT, 1999 Ranger
In another group, one guy was looking for 93 octane with no ethanol. And yet, a lot of people are running E85, which is 85% ethanol. What is the downside to 10% ethanol?

Just trying to figure this out.
Sponsored

 

armykyle1 [HACKED ACCOUNT

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Threads
74
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
620
Location
Gulf Coast
Vehicle(s)
2018 GTPP premium
Not really a downside. When I'm on 93, I prefer non ethonal because my car will sit for 3-4 weeks sometimes. But my car also sits with E85 in it too lol.

It's more of a preference thing.
 

Jay-rod427

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Threads
29
Messages
2,422
Reaction score
1,009
Location
Kansas
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT C/S
The only time no E has a purpose is things not designed to use e10. Like small engines, mowers, trimmers, generators, etc. But most modern ones have adapted to accept up to e10. Old things even 10% ethanol is harsh on the fuel system that was never intended to see ethanol. From a performance standpoint e10 93 will be superior to e0 93, and e85 will smash them both. Even at 10% E the benefits can be seen such as evaporative cooling of the combustion chamber. However e10 87 is a step backwards because the base 90% fuel is even worse and has the 10% ethanol for timing increase compared to e0 87. The e10 91-93 is tricky because unless you test the small amount the legal verbiage is UP TO 10%. one station could be 1%, the other 10%, or some sneak up to 15% because until recently Ethanol was cheaper than gasoline.

Hard parts cooperation with ethanol not withstanding up to 10% does not effect fuel trim tuning as it's within factory parameters. But I think it was early-mid 2000's when manufactures started adjusting base factory tunes to more readily accept e10. By adjusting base fuel stoich from classic 14.7:1 to 14.3:1 or so.
 
OP
OP
samd1351

samd1351

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Threads
107
Messages
870
Reaction score
1,519
Location
Olathe, KS
First Name
Sam
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GT, 1999 Ranger
Thanks for everyone's explanation. Very helpful. Now a new question. How much would an E85 tune for a manual transmission car vs the FP Power Pack 2? Would it be night and day type difference?
 

EFI

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 19, 2015
Threads
62
Messages
4,819
Reaction score
4,134
Location
Masshole central
Vehicle(s)
5.Br0
Thanks for everyone's explanation. Very helpful. Now a new question. How much would an E85 tune for a manual transmission car vs the FP Power Pack 2? Would it be night and day type difference?
Depends on who tunes for the E85, but typically straight E85 tunes are quite a bit more powerful than 93 gas tunes. Somewhere between 15-20 extra hp and a more aggressive pull down low since they can quickly ramp up the timing.
 

Sponsored

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,543
Reaction score
3,521
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Thanks for everyone's explanation. Very helpful. Now a new question. How much would an E85 tune for a manual transmission car vs the FP Power Pack 2? Would it be night and day type difference?
I know a guy who decided the FP PP2 would be better than a Lund tune. I advised against this.
He purchased regardless (warranty reasons) and thought it was great. Warranty ran out, he bought a Lund 93 tune and was much happier with that. He then added E85 and can’t stop smiling.
 

WildHorse

N/A or GO HOME
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Threads
217
Messages
8,601
Reaction score
6,666
Location
Home World: CLASSIFIED
First Name
ⓇⒾⒸⓀⓎ ⓈⓅⒶⓃⒾⓈⒽ
Vehicle(s)
'17 S550
Vehicle Showcase
1
In another group, one guy was looking for 93 octane with no ethanol
My logs show my car loves 91 E10, hates Shell 91 E0, and is fucking in love with 94 E10. Those who have a hate on for ethanol are stuck in the early 80's. If there was pump E85 available in my area, I'd run it always. Others say, 'it's 3% less mileage with E'. Oh yah? With shell 91 E0 I was averaging 17.3 mpg, with 94 E10 17.5 mpg in town. So much for there less mileage theory at least in my case.
 

bootlegger

Enginerd
Joined
Jul 12, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
1,765
Reaction score
593
Location
Mount Pleasant, SC
First Name
James
Vehicle(s)
Ex 2008 Mustang GT Owner
2018 GT with 10,300 miles. 9500 of the miles straight E85. Love it. If you have E85 pumps near you it should be a no brainer decision to dump the pump gas...
I don't think my car has had 93 in it for 2 years now. All E85!
 
OP
OP
samd1351

samd1351

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Threads
107
Messages
870
Reaction score
1,519
Location
Olathe, KS
First Name
Sam
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GT, 1999 Ranger
Many thanks for the input. But this now requires another question or two.

To run E85, I need new injectors, correct? Do I need a flex tune as well, in case we're traveling and I can't find E85? How does the switching of the fuel work? Would I need to switch back to the stock throttle body and closed intake box, or can Lund work with those? Probably should start a new thread for this.
 

Sponsored

WildHorse

N/A or GO HOME
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Threads
217
Messages
8,601
Reaction score
6,666
Location
Home World: CLASSIFIED
First Name
ⓇⒾⒸⓀⓎ ⓈⓅⒶⓃⒾⓈⒽ
Vehicle(s)
'17 S550
Vehicle Showcase
1
To run E85, I need new injectors, correct?
Not with your stock 15-17 intake manifold. The flex tune automatically learns the new ethanol content.
 

Zinc03svt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2018
Threads
30
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
1,269
Location
usa
Vehicle(s)
stang
Depends on the tuner. Some like you to bump up to 47 lbs to run a straight E85 tune on a 15-17 s550.
 

WildHorse

N/A or GO HOME
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Threads
217
Messages
8,601
Reaction score
6,666
Location
Home World: CLASSIFIED
First Name
ⓇⒾⒸⓀⓎ ⓈⓅⒶⓃⒾⓈⒽ
Vehicle(s)
'17 S550
Vehicle Showcase
1
 




Top