...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Lateral-G Open Discussions > Project Updates
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #851  
Old 09-08-2015, 08:55 AM
will69camaro will69camaro is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,477
Thanks: 265
Thanked 180 Times in 99 Posts
Default

That's an excellent output for the track day. Got some decent logging done.

Oil/Water temp look great for the temp and track duty. What is your prediction on the falling fuel pressure?
__________________
Texas A&M BSME 2008
1969 Camaro - Hugger Orange
1969 C10 SWB - Hugger Orange
1992 Corvette ZR-1
2021 Ford F250 Tremor
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 09-08-2015, 12:48 PM
Stielow's Avatar
Stielow Stielow is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,521
Thanks: 29
Thanked 2,272 Times in 613 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will69camaro View Post
That's an excellent output for the track day. Got some decent logging done.

Oil/Water temp look great for the temp and track duty. What is your prediction on the falling fuel pressure?
The car voltage is staying rock solid at 13.4 volts. I think I need to add another boost a pump or go to bigger fuel pumps. I will add two channels to my data logger to look at voltage at the pumps and make sure that is not the issue.

I also need to check the calibration of the sensor. I have chased data before to find out it is a sensor.

The learning curve on the fuel system on the E-85 has been a little rough but the results on track look very good so I’m sticking with it.

On the positive side the C&R cooling stack look like they work well and the bigger intercooler bricks are also keeping the inlet air temps down.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 09-08-2015, 12:58 PM
Muadi Muadi is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I had the opportunity to watch the runs on Monday. What a great car to watch on the track.
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 09-08-2015, 03:04 PM
will69camaro will69camaro is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,477
Thanks: 265
Thanked 180 Times in 99 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stielow View Post
The car voltage is staying rock solid at 13.4 volts. I think I need to add another boost a pump or go to bigger fuel pumps. I will add two channels to my data logger to look at voltage at the pumps and make sure that is not the issue.

I also need to check the calibration of the sensor. I have chased data before to find out it is a sensor.

The learning curve on the fuel system on the E-85 has been a little rough but the results on track look very good so I’m sticking with it.

On the positive side the C&R cooling stack look like they work well and the bigger intercooler bricks are also keeping the inlet air temps down.

Mark
I really am enjoying getting some knowledge dropped on me before I start my own journey with learning E-85 and the fueling requirements of a big power plant.

Hard to see from the logs on the screen. Was the pressure dropping the entire time during the pull or did it start to catch back up (possible issues of pump reaction being a dead head setup vs a return style fuel setup)?

You said you are using E-85 from the pump correct? Your system using a GM computer so have a flex fuel sensor installed to help the tune correct for variance in the ethanol content? (believe i've seen as low as 70% from other boards on the ethanol content).

William
__________________
Texas A&M BSME 2008
1969 Camaro - Hugger Orange
1969 C10 SWB - Hugger Orange
1992 Corvette ZR-1
2021 Ford F250 Tremor
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 09-08-2015, 05:09 PM
hersheys69z hersheys69z is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Smile

Is the next Stielow Camaro in the works yet?
Crossing my fingers for twin turbo awd on Z/28 struts since Mark likes to push the engineering envelope

Last edited by hersheys69z; 09-08-2015 at 05:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 09-08-2015, 11:19 PM
CarlC CarlC is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Vendor
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 641
Thanks: 12
Thanked 112 Times in 37 Posts
Default

All of the calc's should be right for E85 but the pressure is still falling during high-power application. Mark has been steadily increasing the power going to the pumps and doing some diagnostics/datalogging to see where the weakness lies. This has definately been the most challenging project to get sorted. Big power = no Easy Button.
__________________
http:www.vaporworx.com
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 09-09-2015, 11:35 AM
mikels mikels is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 145
Thanks: 1
Thanked 34 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will69camaro View Post
Hard to see from the logs on the screen. Was the pressure dropping the entire time during the pull or did it start to catch back up (possible issues of pump reaction being a dead head setup vs a return style fuel setup)?

You said you are using E-85 from the pump correct? Your system using a GM computer so have a flex fuel sensor installed to help the tune correct for variance in the ethanol content? (believe i've seen as low as 70% from other boards on the ethanol content).

William
We've had no issues running returnless fuel systems - even with big power / high flow - when you stage secondary pump to come in early enough to maintain stable control as fuel flow rates rise.

In Brian Thomson's Corvette, we have basically the same engine as JA2.0, but are running dual TI 267 pumps with staged Vaporworx PWM controlled system. Same E85 - same flow rate requirements. So far, has performed perfectly with no pressure falloff - although we have not yet tracked the car (coming soon!).

On both cars I integrated the flex fuel sensor to allow seemless transition between pump premium, E85 and everywhere in between. Mark even has the ECM measured ethanol percentage displayed on his dash. Yes, there is variation in ethanol %, but system accommodates all levels without issue.

Like Carl says - big power & high flow rates mean no easy solution - but we will get there!

Carl has been great to work with as development continues on Jackass 2.0 and TA Corvette systems. Having a system that will meet WOT E85 fueling requirements while delivering stable flow rates on gas @ idle WITHOUT fuel heating issues is an incredible demand. All this would not be possible without his support.

Primary reason we went to E85 was not for power, but for cooling. Power gains are just side benefit (6-8% is what we measured).

I think we have reached a practical limit for the Thomson Automotive 7.0L SC package. We've passed point of diminished returns as far as lap time reduction (will still help in 1/4 mile and standing mile events). However, as Mark can also attest - being traction limited to ~80-100 MPH is something you'll never tire of!

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 09-09-2015, 11:58 AM
wiedemab's Avatar
wiedemab wiedemab is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Batesville, IN
Posts: 1,473
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikels View Post
However, as Mark can also attest - being traction limited to ~80-100 MPH is something you'll never tire of!

Dave
I don't think I've ever owned anything that would spin the tires at 100mph with bald tires on the snow! Yeeehaw!
__________________
__________________
Brandon Wiedeman
'72 Suburban
'67 Chevy II -
https://lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=46846

I have about 3 lifetimes worth of projects planned out in my head!
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 09-09-2015, 12:22 PM
will69camaro will69camaro is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,477
Thanks: 265
Thanked 180 Times in 99 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikels View Post
We've had no issues running returnless fuel systems - even with big power / high flow - when you stage secondary pump to come in early enough to maintain stable control as fuel flow rates rise.

In Brian Thomson's Corvette, we have basically the same engine as JA2.0, but are running dual TI 267 pumps with staged Vaporworx PWM controlled system. Same E85 - same flow rate requirements. So far, has performed perfectly with no pressure falloff - although we have not yet tracked the car (coming soon!).

On both cars I integrated the flex fuel sensor to allow seemless transition between pump premium, E85 and everywhere in between. Mark even has the ECM measured ethanol percentage displayed on his dash. Yes, there is variation in ethanol %, but system accommodates all levels without issue.

Like Carl says - big power & high flow rates mean no easy solution - but we will get there!

Carl had been great to work with as development continues on Jackass 2.0 and TA Corvette systems. Having a system that will meet WOT E85 fueling requirements while delivering stable flow rates on gas @ idle WITHOUT fuel heating issues is an incredible demand. All this would not be possible without his support.

Primary reason went to E85 was not for power, but for cooling. Power gains are just side benefit (6-8% is what we measured).

I think we have reached a practical limit for the Thomson Automotive 7.0L SC package. We've passed point of diminished returns as far as lap time reduction (will still help in 1/4 mile and standing mile events). However, as Mark can also attest - being traction limited to ~80-100 MPH is something you'll never tire of!

Dave
Carl has been excellent in my dealings with him so far as well. We discussed two CTS-V versus three when I had ordered. As plans always seem to change and the project snowballed even further, I'm going to be pushing the two more than I had originally intended.

I am very aware of the benefits on the sensor, and sadly holley has not made a compatible sensor available yet on their standalone engine management systems, but I am told they are working on it. 6-8% when you're talking 1000+rwhp cars adds up however. I'm hoping to make north of 1000rwhp on pump 93, so the benefit of E-85 with cooling as well as the benefit of resistance to pre-detonation, I'm hoping we can add timing and see more than just the 6-8% gain. I'll find out more when I get to testing and maybe by then holley will have their system of ethanol content working by then!

Looking forward to traction at 100mph issues!

William
__________________
Texas A&M BSME 2008
1969 Camaro - Hugger Orange
1969 C10 SWB - Hugger Orange
1992 Corvette ZR-1
2021 Ford F250 Tremor
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 09-09-2015, 03:12 PM
mikels mikels is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 145
Thanks: 1
Thanked 34 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will69camaro View Post
I'm hoping we can add timing and see more than just the 6-8% gain.
We are adjusting timing based on ethanol % and 6-8% is typical. I've never seen E85 gain more than that without additional airflow (in this case would be boost).

Did find higher percentages of ethanol (up to 85%) to be very knock resistant - when trying to hook the spark curve on dyno, would reach point where additional timing made no more power - but still did not generate knock. On pump gas typically start running into knock issues simultaneously with power gains flattening out - if not before (this on high cylinder pressure engine).

You are correct though that while 6-8% may not sound like much, when added to numbers in the mid 900's, it's quite a bit!

All numbers I quote are engine dyno as well - 1000 RWHP is a staggering number - and nearly impossible to achieve while maintaining the driveability level we have with this package.

Dave

Last edited by mikels; 09-09-2015 at 03:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net