1G on E85 with 14b

[1SloEvo]

I searched and didn't really find much info form people running the 14b on E85. In a few months or so, my 1G Laser RS should be there. Plan to push the turbo about as hard as it can go. What kind of power (Mustang Dyno) would you expect the 14b to be capable of making on a FWD 1G? It will be on the stock motor, ported intake and exhaust manifold, Evo throttle body, Evo fmic, ported 14b, 3" exhaust with o2 housing, intake, intercooler piping and tuned via AEM with SD and using a BCS instead of a MBC. Thanks for any input!

 

[dsmdeliveryboy]

I don't think anyone has really run a 14b on E85 because the 14b's maximum potential can be very easily reached without the use of E85 or Meth. Would be a cool thing to try though to see if you can get yourself a little more power up top.

 

[crash89]

If Im not mistaken I think MrPeepers ran E85 on the 14b and made it into the 11s and upwards of 300+ hp.. Im not sure of exact numbers, have to ask him.

 

[1SloEvo]

I don't think anyone has really run a 14b on E85 because the 14b's maximum potential can be very easily reached without the use of E85 or Meth. Would be a cool thing to try though to see if you can get yourself a little more power up top.

Well, I doubt the 14b can reach it's full potential on 91 pisstane. And E85 is more readily available and a hell of a lot cheaper than any race gas I've seen. Plus I've seen it make just as much power if not more than most cars running on C16 or even Q16.

If Im not mistaken I think MrPeepers ran E85 on the 14b and made it into the 11s and upwards of 300+ hp.. Im not sure of exact numbers, have to ask him.

I was guesstimating in the neighborhood of 300whp or so. That would be good power in FWD DSM that's 95% stripped out.

 

[Phil1320]

Well, I doubt the 14b can reach it's full potential on 91 pisstane. And E85 is more readily available and a hell of a lot cheaper than any race gas I've seen. Plus I've seen it make just as much power if not more than most cars running on C16 or even Q16.



I was guesstimating in the neighborhood of 300whp or so. That would be good power in FWD DSM that's 95% stripped out.

You should easily drop 300 plus to the front wheels if that engine is running well.

My car put down 295 AWHP and 337 TQ at 21 psi, with an AFC 2 and 550cc's....running VP C16

My Laser FWD's with filter, free mods, hollow cat at 17 psi put down 210 HP and 215 TQ to the ground.....blowing through stock exhaust....no portwork at all....just for a reference....

I think if you didn't put down over 300.....something isn't right........

Good luck....!

 

[1SloEvo]

What kind of dyno were you on? That's what will make the difference. 300whp on the local Mustang Dynos here would be no joke for a turbo that size. For reference, my stock Evo 9 put down right at 230awhp when it was stock, so you're looking at a 25% drivetrain loss on this dyno. I want to take the car down and dyno it completely stock. I bet it wouldn't even do 150whp. I know awd is way different than fwd, but the dynos locally read very low!

 

[dsmdeliveryboy]

What kind of dyno were you on? That's what will make the difference. 300whp on the local Mustang Dynos here would be no joke for a turbo that size. For reference, my stock Evo 9 put down right at 230awhp when it was stock, so you're looking at a 25% drivetrain loss on this dyno. I want to take the car down and dyno it completely stock. I bet it wouldn't even do 150whp. I know awd is way different than fwd, but the dynos locally read very low!

That is so true.. It seems like people in CA aren't throwing out dyno numbers as high as a lot of other people.

 

[Phil1320]

What kind of dyno were you on? That's what will make the difference. 300whp on the local Mustang Dynos here would be no joke for a turbo that size. For reference, my stock Evo 9 put down right at 230awhp when it was stock, so you're looking at a 25% drivetrain loss on this dyno. I want to take the car down and dyno it completely stock. I bet it wouldn't even do 150whp. I know awd is way different than fwd, but the dynos locally read very low!

That was on a Dynojet. I've done 304 on the Dynapacks. I know the Mustang is supposed to be the benchmark these days but I tend to stay as far away from all things Mustang as I can....

 

[1SloEvo]

That is so true.. It seems like people in CA aren't throwing out dyno numbers as high as a lot of other people.

Give you another example. The shop that has always tuned my car has a record of right around 740awhp for their dyno record. My Evo now has a fully built 2.0 and fully built head with all supporting mods. On a custom ball bearing 6262 turbo kit at 36psi on E85, the car laid down 620whp. It also did 451whp on 91 creeping boost and untuned. Both are current records for any Evo or any street car on their dyno. The other Mustang Dyno a few minutes away from them has been confrimed on a handful of occasions to read with about 2% of what this dyno reads. The quickest Evo in Cali came off the other shops dyno making about 590-600whp and ran 9.90@146. Most cars running those numbers normally claim in the 700-800whp range...which is normally Dynojet numbers.

That was on a Dynojet. I've done 304 on the Dynapacks. I know the Mustang is supposed to be the benchmark these days but I tend to stay as far away from all things Mustang as I can....

You know why I like Mustang Dynos? Because I love running as quick or quicker than someone else while make less power!!!

 

[kp116]

Mr. Peepers ran a 14b with e85. Sidemount with a safc and went 12.004 @ 115mph and made right around 310awhp on a dynojet.

 

[1SloEvo]

Awesome. Thanks for the info. I'm hoping with everything ported (short of the head) and with some small cams and either an Evo or aftermarket FMIC that I can make at least 275whp...if not a bit better. At any rate, it will make for an interesting build since there is hardly anything documented here about people doing it!

 

[Steve93Talon]

Awesome. Thanks for the info. I'm hoping with everything ported (short of the head) and with some small cams and either an Evo or aftermarket FMIC that I can make at least 275whp...if not a bit better. At any rate, it will make for an interesting build since there is hardly anything documented here about people doing it!

I ran a 14b-7cm, HKS 272s (most likely killed torque and didn't gain any power up top), stock SMIC, stock 1G head/intake manifold, and made 289whp on VP 103 unleaded. This was AWD, on a dynojet. With a FMIC, less drivetrain loss from FWD, and E85 you should be able to hit close to 300whp on a Mustang pretty easily.

 

[1SloEvo]

I ran a 14b-7cm, HKS 272s (most likely killed torque and didn't gain any power up top), stock SMIC, stock 1G head/intake manifold, and made 289whp on VP 103 unleaded. This was AWD, on a dynojet. With a FMIC, less drivetrain loss from FWD, and E85 you should be able to hit close to 300whp on a Mustang pretty easily.

Yeah. I'm hoping it will crack 300whp. I would be very impressed.

Later on, I plan for my car to get a built motor and decent sized turbo, in which case a nice fmic would be needed. Would you guys suggest upgrading to an aftermarket fmic now and just have a new licp fabbed up when I go to the aftermarket turbo setup? Or would you suggest the Evo fmic with piping to fit for now since I already have the intercooler? I'm trying to stay budget oriented, but if it's going to cost me $300 to have some custom piping made, then I might as well go for an aftermarket setup.

 

[Phil1320]

You know why I like Mustang Dynos? Because I love running as quick or quicker than someone else while make less power!!!

I was just going to say, If I ran 11.4 with 265 AWHP that would be more impressive than with 295, so, Yes, I see your point.

Yeah. I'm hoping it will crack 300whp. I would be very impressed.

Later on, I plan for my car to get a built motor and decent sized turbo, in which case a nice fmic would be needed. Would you guys suggest upgrading to an aftermarket fmic now and just have a new licp fabbed up when I go to the aftermarket turbo setup? Or would you suggest the Evo fmic with piping to fit for now since I already have the intercooler? I'm trying to stay budget oriented, but if it's going to cost me $300 to have some custom piping made, then I might as well go for an aftermarket setup.

I run an EVO FMIC and there is evidence that I'm heating soaking it pretty good in the second 1/8. I would go to a large core right from the get-go. I won't be going back to the strip until I have a larger I/C. EVO FMIC would be a great 14b street core for lower boost levels but for the drags I think it's not fully up to the task.

 

[pneumo]

Speaking of dyno numbers, a few days after I got the 14b record I did a few dyno runs at Full Function with the same tune and same gas. I made 324AWHP on their Mustang dyno. See link in profile <-
<-

 

[1SloEvo]

Pretty amazing how quick you can get a DSM to run with a turbo that small that holds power for less amount of time than it takes to piss. Crazy how it just peaks out and then the power is just gone.

Dave, how close you think I can get to that kind of power? And do you think the bigger cams made it harder for that small of a turbo to hold power up top? I know Kyle (slow/ass/rs) had an issue like that with his Evo 9. He went from Cossie M3 cams (280/272) to FP4r (very aggressive 272/272) and he made about 15-20 more whp and it held way better since everything was matched up better. Just curious since I'm keeping an eye out for a cheap set of cams.

 

[pneumo]

Pretty amazing how quick you can get a DSM to run with a turbo that small that holds power for less amount of time than it takes to piss. Crazy how it just peaks out and then the power is just gone.

Dave, how close you think I can get to that kind of power? And do you think the bigger cams made it harder for that small of a turbo to hold power up top? I know Kyle (slow/ass/rs) had an issue like that with his Evo 9. He went from Cossie M3 cams (280/272) to FP4r (very aggressive 272/272) and he made about 15-20 more whp and it held way better since everything was matched up better. Just curious since I'm keeping an eye out for a cheap set of cams.

That's a tricky question! Cams will let the boost drop off quicker, but it's because the larger cams can flow more air, and the turbo can't keep up. The 14b record is full of paradox's. What makes more power: max out the 14b with stock cams at 25psi? Or max out the 14b with big cams at 15psi? Here's another variable: Bigger cams are usually geared toward high rpm power, does that help or not?
My answer was to use medium cams and set my cam gears for better midrange power. That's why my peak torque occurs later than most 14b dyno charts.

How close you can get to this power level depends on the number of waking hours per day you spend obsessing about every detail that might have the slightest role in adding power. GL

 

[1SloEvo]

Thanks Dave. I think what I'm going to plan is to run a smaller set of cams, max out the boost and just have everything ported as much as necessary to get every little ounce of flow from it at that kind of boost. But I think I'll run cam gears as well to try and dial in the power curve to try to make it as broad as possible while still having peak power be as late as possible. So if I can get peak power to hold longer but make a few less peak torque, that will be what I will shoot for.

Did you read my question on EE about the intercooler and piping? Just curious as to your thoughts. It's on my newer thread about building the car up! All these great things are in due time. Just take it one step at a time once I get back and get her going at the track. You know me though...I love getting every ounce of power out of a setup...so I'll keep tweaking and tweaking to get the 14b to do the most I can!

 

[Nate Crisman]

I did something interesting tonight....I ran 3 passes on normal 93 pump gas then drained the tank and put in 5 gallons of E85 for a somewhat back to back test. I was exhausted from working 2nd shift all week and just didn't have the energy to swap on the hoosiers or do any of the weight loss stuff (seats out, exhaust off). I knew the 60' times were going to be horrendous with these bald 215/45/17 decade old kumho H rated tires. Even if I bogged off the line, they would break loose as boost came up in first gear.

I had literally swapped the DSMlink chip in this afternoon and got it working about 4:30pm, so I basically went to the track with a completely untuned car and just winged it. I worked on the VE map 3 times on the way over to the track and got the A/F dialed in and smoothed out the timing curve. So tonight was an experimental night to learn the DSMlink software and screw around with an alcohol fuel for the first time.

Here's the runs:
13.351 @ 104.91 1.812 ~19psi boost.
13.178 @ 104.74 1.853
13.076 @ 105.09 1.814 Last pass on 93 gas
13.009 @ 106.95 1.812 First pass on E85.
12.882 @ 108.49 1.863
12.841 @ 109.06 1.910 (bogged launch)
12.792 @ 108.98 1.771 (spun in first a bit)

No video or pics. I'll post some screen shots and datalogs for anyone intersted in them. I want to see about overlaying the calculated HP/TQ graphs and map sensor between the 93 and E85 runs.
changed the global fuel adjustment in DSMlink by changing the stoiciometric value of the fuel from 14.7 to 9.8. That took my global adjustment from like -42% to -13% I think and that made up the majority of the difference in energy content between gasoline and ethanol. After that I kept trimming away at the VE map to lean it out more after each run. (trying to aim for about 11.0 A/F on the gasoline scale wideband) BUT I wasn't running pure E85...there was some residual 93 pumpgas that you can't drain out of the tank as well as what was in both long lines, rail, injectors, filter, and pump. I might have been running something like E70? I think you need to fill the tank a couple times with E85 before it becomes absolutely pure. on gasoline I saw a maximum injector duty cycle of 62%, on E85 I was running about 80%. Same 40psi fuel pressure and similar high 10's A/F ratios. Running an intank walbro 255 and FIC 750cc injectors.

Remember, Im only running a little 14b that makes a whopping 32lb/min of airflow and barely can keep above 20psi. I might be able to max out these 750's on E85 with a 16g?

Logs are of the 13.0 pumpgas run and the 12.7 E85 run

 

[1SloEvo]

Good info. Thanks. Looks like the little bit of work you got in right there paid off very well. I'm sure with some better tires and 60s along with more time to fine tune the car, you would be deep into the 12s. Glad to see some good info and testing from E85! Thanks again!

 

[Nate Crisman]

Screwing around trying to figure out how to overlay charts exported from link logs. This is the best pumpgas vs the best E85 run in 3rd gear. Ideally to make a "dyno chart", I would get better info doing a full pull to redline in 3rd gear but all I'v got is dragstrip logs. so...it illustrates the point that the E85 tune/boost/fuel makes significantly more area under the curve, hence the mph gain. The E85 made way more power in the area that boost spiked up higher, but the power difference tappers off with rpm since I'm at the limit of the turbo. With a turbo that could hold boost to redline, you would see that difference in power held out the whole way.

Red = Pumpgas Torque
Yellow - Pumpgas HP
Green = E85 Torque
Blue = E85 HP

Data is exported from DSMlink logs, with HP/TQ calculated from RPM/vehicle weight/gear ratio. I have no idea if the actual #'s are accurate, but they are ballpark if a little high.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[1SloEvo]

Good info, but I hope you have them labeled incorrectly...unless you made a lot more power on pump gas than E85!

I would guess those power figures are probably right inline with what it would make on a Dynojet...or within probably 5-10%, which isn't bad for computer software going off the RPM/weight/gearing.

 

[Boug]

Red = Pumpgas Torque
Yellow - Pumpgas HP
Green = E85 Torque
Blue = E85 HP

Data is exported from DSMlink logs, with HP/TQ calculated from RPM/vehicle weight/gear ratio. I have no idea if the actual #'s are accurate, but they are ballpark if a little high.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I did a quick look using an online horsepower calculator and with your best E85 E/T and trap speed with an estimated weight of 3,300-lbs., it came out to 322hp @ the flywheel. Of course, we know that there is "x" percentage of difference for what's actually hitting the wheels. Never-the-less, those are great times with the small turbo.

In October, I plan to have everything ready to see what I can pull out of the 14b before I step up to a larger turbo. Hopefully I can contribute something worthwhile to the community.

 

[SBR Joe]

Yeah I myself am planning on an E85 switch soon as well on my 14b car. Its running 115 turbo blue now and runs good, im going to make another trip to the track before i switch to E85 and link though. Now that i have the suspension and about 30 more whp than the last trip, im certain 11's will be in the lineup. I just want to get the best run out of it i can now, then make the switch and see what kind of gains i see from it.

 

[1SloEvo]

Did you ever get a chance to go back out to the track? And have you switched to E85 yet? Just curious of the performance difference.