EPA proves Drag Chevette WRONG

[old fastback 67]

Not doubting your experience, but Matthew Brusstar at the EPA stated in this article http://www.epa.gov/OMS/presentations/gni-mjb-051303.pdf that ethanol has a higher laminar flame speed than gasoline. See the chart on page 9. I saw a disagreement between Pro Systems and a Sullens guy and I know the facts. Here are the facts. EPA agrees with Pro Systems findings and COMPLETELY disagrees with Sullens.

[SWR]

Not doubting your experience, but Matthew Brusstar at the EPA stated in this article http://www.epa.gov/OMS/presentations/gni-mjb-051303.pdf that ethanol has a higher laminar flame speed than gasoline. See the chart on page 9. I saw a disagreement between Pro Systems and a Sullens guy and I know the facts. Here are the facts. EPA agrees with Pro Systems findings and COMPLETELY disagrees with Sullens.

Well,that's at stochiometic... and laminar burn. Done to see engine effiency and emissions,not max power. Add swirl or tumble,much richer AFR's ("we don't race at stoich" was said) and a more typical CR for a boosted application (I disagree that 19.5:1 is a typical turbo CR) and we're in a different league,yet again.

[jmarkaudio]

The issue was primarily over timing. Even though flame speed is higher, gas ignites at a much lower temp than E85, most likely why timing needs are close.

[banjo]

If I am reading the graph correctly, In any of the A/F ranges that you would actually run your engine in, the burn rate of ethonal is faster on all accounts. The only place where gasolines burn rate exceeds it is when the ratios go on the extreme lean side of 1.4 lambda(converted from lambda, gas at 20.5 and the ethonal at 12.6). Most likely an engine would not be able to run being this lean.

[Arthur]

Not doubting your experience, but Matthew Brusstar at the EPA stated in this article http://www.epa.gov/OMS/presentations/gni-mjb-051303.pdf that ethanol has a higher laminar flame speed than gasoline. See the chart on page 9. I saw a disagreement between Pro Systems and a Sullens guy and I know the facts. Here are the facts. EPA agrees with Pro Systems findings and COMPLETELY disagrees with Sullens.

Ground breaking first post, i know the earth shook in the southern hemisphere Merry Christmas to all.

[Eric68]

That's a good article, it's been around a couple years now. But you are taking it out of context.

The article is primarily about E100 and we are talking about E85. The 15% (sometimes as high as 30%) gasoline effects the burn properties of the mixture. In fact the amount of gasoline mixed into E85 is varied seasonally for that exact purpose!

So don't take that excellent information about ethanol and try to apply it directly to E85 -- E85 has a significant amount of gasoline mixed in with it and it behaves differently than ethanol or gasoline in there "pure" forms.

[Drag Chevette]

Ok guys,

I have to admit that BOTH, Patrick and MYSELF were right, and we were both wrong.....

and I admitted in the other post that I could have been wrong,

still waiting for patricks reply to admit he was or could be wrong..doubt he will!

As you have probibly seen by the other link posted E85 does Not burn like gasoline, and though I may have gotten my techinical terms mistaken it doesnt mean that I am wrong.

Laminar burn speed is a lab method measurement that may or may not translate to a running engine as those sort of measurements are extremely sensitive to testing method.

as you seen by that link that was posted, E85 has a funky curve to it.....and this is it in a nutshell!

In normal everyday terms, the numbers may vary per application but the principal is good....same motor, same deal.....just different timing!

say your car likes timing at idle(stioch) on gas at locked 37*

E85 will most likely also like timing at idle (Stioch) to be the same 37*

Patrick admittied to this and we agreed, ....but he stated at max power it likes to be advanced.....this is where I disagree with him.

Mr James said he was was testing at High rpm , max power, where his sensors (technology) told him the timing needs to be advanced....this is a true statement, I admit its a true statement on a dyno, but in the real world track I disagree.... read on.

It is possible that because of the fuel curve that the engine at max power may want 42* timing in it at this point vs my claim of 37*.... but given the choice I would go with the 37*

E85 by nature has a hard time getting started as the flame kernal is very very small in compareison to gas and is very slow to start, a high powered ignition will help, but in a regular ignition car it could be trouble.

E85 startes to burn real slow (stioch) and as the pressures rise the fuel burns faster (max power)...
At 42* vs 37*your fighting negative crank pressure as the piston is compressing at this point.....making the flame that much harder to ignite because of the slow burn.
if you set the timing according to the 42*, the problem comes in even more....with the already small flame kernal and the added pressure of trying to start a flame, the slow burn down low and the lower rpm where Torque is applied, the advance in the timing is adversely working against the motor where the torque is applied, in effect hurting your 60' and the stop light to stop light launch. ....it may work great up top and at high RPM but it kills the low rpm fuel/spark ratio.

Now this may or may not be ok for street,I dont know... but it sux for racing.

ALOT of drag racers have found more power by putting a high speed retard system in their vehicle....to kill timing at high rpm and cylinder pressures...MSD Makes a box for this.

NOW, If you start with the 37* like it was on gas, the engine will respond better and like it more because of the ease of ignition and the slow burn.
the fuel by nature and design automaticly needs more advance under high cylinder pressure (as my James stated), when you hit the high pressure that Mr James spoke of needing.... Now if your running the origonal timing of 37* ..and it falls 5* below optimal timing that Mr James spoke of, you have in a built in spark retard thats built into the fuel, not the ignition system..

this is why I believe leaving the timing where it was is the best way to go...starts easier, makes more torque (not fighting the crank,) and has a built in retard.....

but hey, I dont have fancy test equipment, I just have real world and track testing to back me up.....
I think his pressure traces are only applicable to the instrumented engine, a different engine running a different carburetor may or may not show a need for more/less total ignition timing, because of the interaction of spark quality, fuel atomization, fuel air mixture, mixture motion in the combustion chamber, piston crown shape and combustion chamber shape and their effect on wet flow and mixture motion.

I really do find all the technical stuff interesting ,and Im amazed by alot of it.

and though my technical knowledge may not be the best,and I may be off a tad on some of my terms.

I can build you an E85 carb that will run just as good if not better than anyones out there..including Pro Systems E85 carb....

so while he may have the Dyno tuning wrapped up....I have yet to see a Dyno go down the track...... a dyno will get you close at best.

real world tuning is whats needed with E85,.....and when it comes to E85 tuning in the real world, I have a network of friends that are second to none.

So, tell me again whos wrong?

thanks.

[PRO SYSTEMS]

Drag Chevette,

You just keep digging yourself in deeper. There is so much stuff wrong with what you wrote above I can't even begin to address it. Big words, only mask lack of understanding among the less intelligent.

But on the bright side I did make you infamous on our website.

Check out the link: http://www.prosystemsracing.com/amerigo.html

Read that and you'll see your multiple errors up above.

I have to take this website off my bookmarks, I only came back in here to day cause I was asked to review the graph for someone as they felt it was being misinterpreted...and it unfortunately it was.

Patrick James
Signing off.

[Greezer]

Have a nice day

[Drag Chevette]

You just keep digging yourself in deeper.

and I plan on digging deeper until I know all there is to know.

There is so much stuff wrong with what you wrote above I can't even begin to address it.

Cant?.....more like wont,
attacks my carbs without knowing,
attacks my methods of tuning without knowing the full story,
attacks me and my way of business.....

but yet cant offer an answer....or solution!
yeah , I want someone like that building me a carb.

Big words, only mask lack of understanding among the less intelligent.

what dont you understand?....im sure we can help you.


anyone besides me see how Patrick can come on here and attacks but not offer and real world advice that can be put to practical use?

If My carb tune is wrong, whats wrong with it Mr James?

My pcvr too big, my air bleeds too small, what is it Mr James?

if Im incorrect, can you prove it?

NO, because you only know how to attack....proven when you attacked not one but many on your web page.

I dont know how many E85 carbs Pro Systems are sending out a week. but im doing 1-2 E85 carbs a week, which isnt too bad for someone that according to Mr James doesnt know what he is doing.

oh yeah, ZERO RETURNS!

had any returns Mr James?....I know that answer...lol

its no wonder he has to go on his web page and talk about me, he wont do it on here, or to my face...573 694-4088..he has not even seen my numbers and continually tells me that im wrong, but yet he....in the middle of talking about Ignition timing, starts spouting off about fuel volume on his web page.......give me a break, one subject at a time there MR James.

he cant tell me im doing anything wrong because he simply doesnt know what im doing.... other than I have been doing E85 carbs and will continue.
he picks apart all that he can to make himself look better while the world "knows"....

I dont care if he has the fastest E85 car in the world, most of us bracket racers cant afford a $45,000 engine to race....much less an $80-100,000 car.

I would rather support a bracket racer like you guys than someone like that.....

if he leaves this forum, good bye.

[Larry Sockwell]

ALOT of drag racers have found more power by putting a high speed retard system in their vehicle....to kill timing at high rpm and cylinder pressures...MSD Makes a box for this.

but hey, I dont have fancy test equipment, I just have real world and track testing to back me up.....

I think his pressure traces are only applicable to the instrumented engine, a different engine running a different carburetor may or may not show a need for more/less total ignition timing, because of the interaction of spark quality, fuel atomization, fuel air mixture, mixture motion in the combustion chamber, piston crown shape and combustion chamber shape and their effect on wet flow and mixture motion.

so while he may have the Dyno tuning wrapped up....I have yet to see a Dyno go down the track...... a dyno will get you close at best.

real world tuning is whats needed with E85,.....and when it comes to E85 tuning in the real world, I have a network of friends that are second to none.

I won't bother with reading the other thread but it seem to me that you and Mr. james are speaking in two different tongues.

I would like to point out a few things about E85 tuning that I have learned in the last two years.

E85 burning engines, I've worked with 4 of them, ALWAYS responded to more timing at the bottom of a gear change. This is usually dependant on the amount of enrichment required for maximum acceleration. This requires a "slew rate" type of ignition to work. This may or may not be a result of the engine's efficiency, or lack of it......but it lowered the lap times and that is simply a fact, not a theory.

Linear ignition timing has not provided maximum acceleration, or the most efficient use of E85 fuel, in any of the engines I have worked with to date.

Upper rpm timing retard has done nothing aside from making the exhaust temps go up. No measurable difference in the incremental lap times were recorded and no measurable difference in the rate of acceleration in any gear was found with upper rpm spark retard. Again, not a theory, but a racetrack proven fact.

2-6 degrees of added timing throughout the entire rpm range was needed to achieve maximum acceleration rates.

Data collection in a racing environment is a golden egg, so to speak. My own experience tends to contradict some of what you're saying, but I'm not here to challenge anything you say. I'm merely providing you with my experience with tuning in a racing environment. Take it for what it is.

I'm sure Mr. James' data collecting is much more extensive, and expensive, than my own with the Motec stuff I get to work with, but I then I wouldn't expect any less of a pro.

I suppose what I'm politely trying to say is that he's a lot more experienced than you and I both. We speak hammer and anvil and he speaks 5 axis machine.



Larry

[stealth]

In the spirit of the holidays, maybe you guys could agree to disagree.

Honestly, to me this post doesn't really matter, but what would matter is for Patrick and others that might get upset, depriving the rest of us by leaving the site.

Might we just let it lie....

mike

[Drag Chevette]

Might we just let it lie....

mike

Larry, thank you for offering some usable insight,and not just saying "your wrong" I would like to talk(not argue) to you more about your findings....maybe in a PM...or new post if your ok with that.

Mike.....let it lie....agreed, tell mr James.......

[spyder]

Does it really matter if someone knows all there is to know about the science involved? I realize there's a saying "knowlage is power" but you don't need all the facts to make something work. If someone can build a carb to run very well on E-85 they must be doing something right. Doesn't matter if they are right or wrong about how fast it burns.

[Eric68]

Hell that's no good.

The subject of the post is no good.


No point in personal attacks, not like this. You know, just 6 mos ago I mashed a man in the face because I didn't like what he was saying (rant categorizing all females as whores). I don't regret it because it stopped his mouth and didn't have to hear it anymore, but I wish I hadn't gone there. In my case it was necessary, for my fueled rage, to channel his negative energy back to it's origin. In this case I cannot understand why the thrashing and bashing. It's fine for anyone to think whatever they like - right or wrong. It's OK too, to let somebody be wrong without a mob mentality as defense, or to somehow demean. I don't blame Mr. James for not wanting to participate in the activities/antics of this forum, whatever. I'm sure it won't make a difference in his daily life. There are probably many of us who would appreciate his knowledge and advice, as well as those who would disagree, some vehemently. Same can be said for Drag Chevette Dude, either way. I'm seeing a big time guy and a not so big time guy clash. Big whoop. You take a hyd roller I'll have a solid flat. Bob uses C16 and Ron alky hall. Some turn the other cheek some brawl. There, how's that for babble-on?

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Well said.

Kind of dissapointed in both parties honestly. It would be nice to have a technical discussion, even some disagreement, without going after blood.