About to start turbo build finally!

I'm finally about to start the build. I had a labor sponsor that didn't work out due to his schedule, so I have it all back and about to give it a go with some local friendly help.

I'm going to have the motor build though, so trying to find what my compression should be for a goal of 850rwhp on the S&H Performance 70mm stealth kit on 93 octane pump gas. If I am going to have to boost high around 20 - 23psi, my builder recommends not going over 9:1. Will that be too lazy before spool?

Thanks!

850 rwhp on 93??

That is whack

JUSTA3V said:

850 rwhp on 93??

That is whack

Click to expand...

Wish me luck.

Pump gas is very inconsistent, not to say it can't be done because it has there are just better safer options, most guys run e85 at that level. I'm in the middle of a turbo build myself and on pump 600rwhp is my limit and when I want more I'll be adding methanol.

I'm with 05sonic, anything over 600 rwhp on 93 pump is just asking for trouble. I run my street tune at 600 with 15# of boost and a mild tune, just to protect against a load of bad gas. Plus it's almost impossible to hook up over 600 on the street and the car is actually more fun to drive at the lower hp. Go with E85 or race gas if you want a max power tune but stay a little conservative with your 93 pump tune.

Well, if it helps any, it's going to be return style fuel system (Fore Innovations Stage 2), with plenty of headroom.

Its a function of cylinder pressure and temp and the octane of the fuel, not the fuel system. Yes you will want lower compression for higher boost and power on 93 octane to keep the motor alive. For 9:1 a reliable place to stop would be around 20psi or 700-750rwhp. If you trying to go past that might want lower than that, mid 8's.

I don't know who started this lazy down low or hurt spool rumor with a turbo and lower compression but its absolutely not the case and that kit design gets into boost as soon as you put your foot in it.

Seems like E85 would not only be safer but make more power. That's what I'll be doing.

Marble said:

Seems like E85 would not only be safer but make more power. That's what I'll be doing.

Click to expand...

I was hesitant because of the 30% more fuel required for power and at the time (2 years ago) when I was making the purchase, it wasn't as widely available near me.
That has since changed. Ill need to find out what size injectors I'll need (if 1000cc is not enough).
I believe the pumps I had from Fore allowed for 2.5gpm at WOT, and I believe they were also e85 compatible.

JeremyH said:

Its a function of cylinder pressure and temp and the octane of the fuel, not the fuel system. Yes you will want lower compression for higher boost and power on 93 octane to keep the motor alive. For 9:1 a reliable place to stop would be around 20psi or 700-750rwhp. If you trying to go past that might want lower than that, mid 8's.

I don't know who started this lazy down low or hurt spool rumor with a turbo and lower compression but its absolutely not the case and that kit design gets into boost as soon as you put your foot in it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

The speed shop couldn't find my fore innovations fuel system so gave me cash back. Since I have to purchase again maybe I should consider e85. A lot more stations near me have been getting it.
Honestly I think the system I had chosen previously was capable anyway. I'll talk to Justin at fore innovations.

Check out the division x fuel systems from lethal performance.

I run the 1400 hp e85 return system.

For what it's worth I do not believe e85 to be a long term solution. Every gallon of it is government subsidized so we don't pay the true cost. Secondly, it's not sustainable or available consistently across the country.
I just feel like it has a lifespan as far as America is concerned. Literally the only guys who run it these days are performance minded, many a customer has complained to me about the horrible mileage their flex fuel vehicle gets on E85, so no "savings" is worth running it outside of the performance world, thus, it will eventually disappear from the market.

RocketcarX said:

For what it's worth I do not believe e85 to be a long term solution. Every gallon of it is government subsidized so we don't pay the true cost. Secondly, it's not sustainable or available consistently across the country.
I just feel like it has a lifespan as far as America is concerned. Literally the only guys who run it these days are performance minded, many a customer has complained to me about the horrible mileage their flex fuel vehicle gets on E85, so no "savings" is worth running it outside of the performance world, thus, it will eventually disappear from the market.

Click to expand...

Gonna have to disagree. I don't think it will be as mainstream as gasoline, or even widely used, but i do think it will be around for a long time.

Reasoning:
1) I think flex fuel vehicles get worse gas mileage is because they are gas limited in their compression ratios. If they bumped compression ratios to only run on E85 (15:1ish), i think gas mileage would be very similar.
2) We are continually finding new ways to increase efficiency of the retrieving ethanol process.
3) If we ever start making some out of sugar cane like Brazil, that will reduce the cost and increase production efficiency as well.

Graham3913 said:

Gonna have to disagree. I don't think it will be as mainstream as gasoline, or even widely used, but i do think it will be around for a long time.

Reasoning:
1) I think flex fuel vehicles get worse gas mileage is because they are gas limited in their compression ratios. If they bumped compression ratios to only run on E85 (15:1ish), i think gas mileage would be very similar.
2) We are continually finding new ways to increase efficiency of the retrieving ethanol process.
3) If we ever start making some out of sugar cane like Brazil, that will reduce the cost and increase production efficiency as well.

Click to expand...

Literally none of that will ever happen.

RocketcarX said:

Literally none of that will ever happen.

Click to expand...

How do you know that? We've already increased production efficiency by much more than it used to be from corn.

As you can see our ethanol production has risen over 7% in the last 2 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_by_country

Read the last section titled "What’s Next? Cellulosic Ethanol"
http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/ethanol
Specifically the parts that say we currently only tap 1/3 of the energy from sugarcane, the other 2/3 remains locked in leftover cane fiber (this also happens with corn). Also the part that says once they perfect the large scale manufacturing of the "cellulosic ethanol," prices will come down, and production of ethanol could double.

RocketcarX said:

For what it's worth I do not believe e85 to be a long term solution. Every gallon of it is government subsidized so we don't pay the true cost. Secondly, it's not sustainable or available consistently across the country.
I just feel like it has a lifespan as far as America is concerned. Literally the only guys who run it these days are performance minded, many a customer has complained to me about the horrible mileage their flex fuel vehicle gets on E85, so no "savings" is worth running it outside of the performance world, thus, it will eventually disappear from the market.

Click to expand...

Subsides ended a few years ago. The subsidies that were in place gave gasoline blenders a $.40 per gallon tax break for each gallon of ethanol blended, not directly for e85.

So when the subsides ended all fuel prices were affected, not just e85.

It is true that a motor designed for gasoline won't get the mpg of a motor designed for e85. Unfortunately a motor designed to use ethanol efficiently won't survive on gasoline.

I see a 15 to 20% difference in fuel use going from 92 pump gas to e85. That's real world driving in town and on the highway. However, my motor is 12:1 and the tune is for e85. Not just the stoich is changed but so are all the spark advances throughout the load and rpm ranges, not just spark advance at wot.

Ethanol will always be in need due to lead free gasoline. It's the only way to boost octane without the use of lead or mtbe.

Gasoline is subsidized. Ethanol not so much. But I don't think gasoline is going away any time soon. This brings up another issue, why are the oil companies given subsidies? They always have profits even when the price of oil is down.

RocketcarX said:

For what it's worth I do not believe e85 to be a long term solution. Every gallon of it is government subsidized so we don't pay the true cost. Secondly, it's not sustainable or available consistently across the country.
I just feel like it has a lifespan as far as America is concerned. Literally the only guys who run it these days are performance minded, many a customer has complained to me about the horrible mileage their flex fuel vehicle gets on E85, so no "savings" is worth running it outside of the performance world, thus, it will eventually disappear from the market.

Click to expand...

The savings for me is paying $3 per gal vs $20-$25 for race fuel, and I make the same or more power.

raredesign said:

I was hesitant because of the 30% more fuel required for power and at the time (2 years ago) when I was making the purchase, it wasn't as widely available near me.
That has since changed. Ill need to find out what size injectors I'll need (if 1000cc is not enough).
I believe the pumps I had from Fore allowed for 2.5gpm at WOT, and I believe they were also e85 compatible.

Click to expand...

Each car is a little different, but my buddy is 950 rwhp, turbo, thru a 4r70w running e85. Hes using the ID1000 and he's low 80s in duty cycle so he's almost maxed out.

Graham3913 said:

Reasoning:
1) I think flex fuel vehicles get worse gas mileage is because they are gas limited in their compression ratios. If they bumped compression ratios to only run on E85 (15:1ish), i think gas mileage would be very similar.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of science? Because science says you get worse fuel economy on E85 because it has 30% less energy than gasoline.

following