Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, customboss said:

Spent the day at the Ransom E Olds museum. Here’s an engine I raced for GM Motorsports. Where your 2.7 turbo comes from. 
D2AA63E3-BD65-4842-A7BB-3C967D4F69D9.thumb.jpeg.54c4654c70b8cbbdab2dd5d36dfdaf91.jpeg

6D0E9775-6F63-43B5-8BF3-0E9062AEC62B.jpeg

REO was Olds truck division.  Keep that in mind when you see the QUAD 4 which was designed by Oldsmobile. 

 

 

BF8A05A3-0605-43F9-9A8C-3E719089A8CA.jpeg

Edited by customboss
Add some pics
  • Like 1
Posted

My father (1917-1985) was an Olds man.  My earliest memories of his cars was of a 1955 Olds Super 88.  Fast car in its day.  

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Has anyone tried running E85 yet or maybe even a mix of E85 and 87?

 

I used to have a 2018 BMW with a 4 cylinder turbo, stock I would run about 7 gallons of e85 and fill the rest with 91, ran great, especially in boost. 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Slvrado said:

Has anyone tried running E85 yet or maybe even a mix of E85 and 87?

 

I used to have a 2018 BMW with a 4 cylinder turbo, stock I would run about 7 gallons of e85 and fill the rest with 91, ran great, especially in boost. 

I don’t think you can run E85 in these?

Posted
1 hour ago, Slvrado said:

Has anyone tried running E85 yet or maybe even a mix of E85 and 87?

 

I used to have a 2018 BMW with a 4 cylinder turbo, stock I would run about 7 gallons of e85 and fill the rest with 91, ran great, especially in boost. 

You can't run it straight but mix like you did with the BMW wouldn't be a problem.  I mix it in my 2019 with the 6.2.   Run 8 gallons of E85 and the rest 93 in a 24 gallon tank.

  • Like 2
Posted
17 hours ago, Slvrado said:

Has anyone tried running E85 yet or maybe even a mix of E85 and 87?

 

I used to have a 2018 BMW with a 4 cylinder turbo, stock I would run about 7 gallons of e85 and fill the rest with 91, ran great, especially in boost. 

E15 in the 22' Custom Trail Boss L3B runs great without but a hint of MPG loss.  The timing stability is better too.  The L3B is really interesting after a 3469 mile trip to Indiana, Michigan then back Colorado.  I tested a few different schemes enroute with a few notes to share later here. 

 

Tuning an engine for ethanol octane and mechanical energy capability is key. A turbo engine can use that clean cool burn capability. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

794666378_ScreenShot2021-11-20at11_40_47.png.0f4b529b114c59e45c6d03ea47912f91.png

17 hours ago, Mike Borowski said:

I don’t think you can run E85 in these?

Any modern engine can burn E85 but the pulse width, timing curve and fuel map will not be optimized nor are our gasoline spark engines designed to optimize the fuel. I had a 2011 VW GTI 2.0 with APR tune, down pipe etc and burned E85 90% of the time with great results and good MPG.  When we had to replace the turbo pressure relief valve at or over ~100,000 miles for worn out seal techs could not believe the carbon making GTI 2.0 T was so clean, literally no valve deposits, no pistons deposits, no turbo deposits. 

On stock engines you will get a MIL code for fuel density out of spec ( generally at 50% ETOH in fuel) and sensed lean which will over-fuel needlessly because it thinks its too lean for that fuel. Timing will go as far as ECM allows. Most summer E85 is about 70% ETOH and runs great.  

 

Non turbo engines really depend on tune and setup but the engines can't optimize its use but will run fine on it with degraded MPG because the engine was designed to gasoline which is heat energy rich not mechanical energy rich. 

Edited by customboss
add pics and video
  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 6/17/2022 at 5:58 PM, Black02Silverado said:

You can't run it straight but mix like you did with the BMW wouldn't be a problem.  I mix it in my 2019 with the 6.2.   Run 8 gallons of E85 and the rest 93 in a 24 gallon tank.


My biggest concern was eating away a fuel line or something, but most newer cars all the plastics and rubbers are designed for it since most gas has ethanol in it already. 

Posted
On 6/18/2022 at 9:52 AM, customboss said:

E15 in the 22' Custom Trail Boss L3B runs great without but a hint of MPG loss.  The timing stability is better too.  The L3B is really interesting after a 3469 mile trip to Indiana, Michigan then back Colorado.  I tested a few different schemes enroute with a few notes to share later here. 

 

Tuning an engine for ethanol octane and mechanical energy capability is key. A turbo engine can use that clean cool burn capability. 

Yeah i know for BMW’s they make tunes that bump up the injectors output to compensate for the fuels. Our trucks are still so new I doubt thats available yet. I may try a heavy mix like 15 gallons of e85 and 4-5 gallons of 87 and see how it goes; worst case scenario It throws a lean code and MPG is bad till i can get some more regular gas in the tank.

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted

Maybe we should start an E85 thread for the 2.7L and share data. The truck are designed for it but if we build data on it maybe we can get to safe usage levels. Here in california E85 is half the cost of 87 so being able to run a heavy mix of e85 would be nice, im sure others will benefit from the knowledge as well. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Slvrado said:

Maybe we should start an E85 thread for the 2.7L and share data. The truck are designed for it but if we build data on it maybe we can get to safe usage levels. Here in california E85 is half the cost of 87 so being able to run a heavy mix of e85 would be nice, im sure others will benefit from the knowledge as well. 

Running E100 isn’t unsafe in any modern engine. You’ll get a nuisance code via MIL and overfuel needlessly. Of course we already overfuel needlessly with gasoline at 100%. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, customboss said:

Running E100 isn’t unsafe in any modern engine. You’ll get a nuisance code via MIL and overfuel needlessly. Of course we already overfuel needlessly with gasoline at 100%. 

 

Which begs a question. If over fueling on alcohols how does that effect fuel dilution? Does it have a 'different effect' then gasoline? Would it even show up in the GC as fuel dilution? 

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Which begs a question. If over fueling on alcohols how does that effect fuel dilution? Does it have a 'different effect' then gasoline? Would it even show up in the GC as fuel dilution? 

Good questions.  

 

Density of ethanol is 0.79 kg/l, which is slightly higher than that of gasoline 0.7489 kg/l. Higher density improves volumetric fuel economy to some extent compensating a bit for lower BTU. The oxygen content of ethanol is 35%. 

 

Higher octane is another positive that compensates for an engine that can be tuned to optimize that benefit and most ECM's will try within limits of fuels mapping and physical capabilities of fuel delivery system.  

 

Our gasoline engines are  over-fueling with ETOH because the fuels system and engine are designed for gasolines lower per unit density and higher BTU and most importantly the density change has the non ETOH fuel map WRONGLY accommodating what it detects as a lean condition. 

 

It's more solvent and it burns cleaner so that physical property compensates to a degree for the poor tuning for ethanol. 

 

NO, ethanol will not show up as a gasoline reference GC.   Testing for ethanol would require the GC to be reset for that chem  signature.  Same as testing diesel, diesel crossover with gasoline is small. So always make sure the lab gets the fuel correct. 

 

ETOH has a positive cleansing affectation to the PCV/CCV and EGR systems because of the solvency and clean burn characteristics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...