Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About cgrey8

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/30/2009

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Acworth, GA (Metro Atlanta)
  1. That's a bit high given Regular E10 was only $3.42 a few days ago. It just went up to $3.50s yesterday so I expect the E85 will also rise. What happened to the days when E85 was a good 25-30% less than regular? The closest station to me is this one in Smyrna. But for that price, I could drive over to Sandy Springs. Last I checked there's a station over there selling for $3.20/gal. I would pay a little bit of a premium for E85 if it was convenient to get. But if I'm having to go out of my way AND pay more than I should, it's a real discouragement to bother. And when is the Acworth/Kennesaw area ever going to get an E85 station? Anybody heard any news on that? With ethanol prices being so high for so long, I expect anybody's plans to install E85 have been put on permanent hold. But I keep hoping maybe there's a station out there willing to give selling E85 a try in my area. With the new E15 allowance from the EPA, I'm just chompin' at the bit waiting for someone to install a blender pump around here. Ideally, I'd like to run an E30-E40 blend in my engine. E85 looses way too much fuel economy however a mix in the E30-E40 range seems to be about optimal blend for my engine. I can run the same amount of spark I can with 93 octane and a mix of E30 is significantly cheaper than Premium. I am building a high compression (high torque, mild HP) 331 stroker for my truck with the intention of hopefully getting access to E85 around here. I wouldn't bother with actually pumping E15, but most anywhere that dispensed E15 is likely to also have E85 or a blender pump to blend exactly the ratio I want to run. For all I know E85 might actually run better in a high compression 331 than it does in my stock 302 (97 Explorer engine). Thanks for the update...
  2. I haven't seen an update for this station's price in some time. Does it still offer E85?
  3. Interesting. I never found anywhere that quoted the actual conductivity of the fuel. 2000ohms/cm for E85 huh? Even with the E85 prices being on their head, I might still give it a try at least up to 50% in my truck as-is. It's easy enough for me to change the tune from E-10 to E-whatever so it's just a matter of guessing at a concentration, then watching the realtime datalog to see if the EEC is having to adjust rich or lean. Once I find the Evalue that runs Closed Loop with little or no adjustment, I know the concentration in the tank and go with that until I have to put more in the tank. I just wish I didn't have to drive nearly an hour to get E85.
  4. That sounds great. I just wish E85 was still cheaper than gasoline. I looked up the price of the closest E85 station's price and it's actually more expensive than regular gas. I'd still rather run the E85, but it's a little more difficult to encourage others to make their cars alcoholics. But I'm still sold... BTW for those that care, I was wrong on my the sending unit. 83-88 Ranger Fuel Level Sending Units Full = 10ohms Empty = 70 ohms 89-up Ranger Fuel Level Sending Units Full = 158 ohms Empty = 16 ohms Since my Ranger is 89, that means IF the ethanol had any bearing on the reading, it'd make my gauge read lower than actual until the level dropped below the sending unit.
  5. There are more than enough people that have done these conversions with no thought towards this at all that safety or functionality wasn't my main concern. My concern was that the connectors on the top of the fuel pump would corrode and either break off or cause intermittent bad connections with the pump over time like a battery cable will sometimes do. I talked to someone at TRE Performance to ask what their thoughts were to me using their pump in E85. They told me that they don't warranty the pump to work in E85, although they fully expect it would work just fine and know of other customers using it in E85 with no reported problems. They said they do have plans to manufacture and sell an E85-compliant pump that will shield the connections from the fuel, but no offerings expected any time soon. As for my setup, if nobody has taken the time to do anything special with protecting their pumps and there's no issues thus far, then I'm good with leaving well enough alone too. Worst case scenario, I would just install an external fuel pump that didn't submerge the electrical connections under the fuel. I just didn't want to do that if I didn't need to. Now what about the fuel level sensor which is also submerged in the fuel? Has anybody noticed that E85 causes their needle to report higher or lower than actual as compared to gasoline? If I remember right, the resistance on my fuel level sending unit increases as the fuel level drops. So it is possible that I could read a high fuel level on the gauge until the actual fuel level dropped below the "splash" level of the level sending unit in the tank. Once the level is below the sending unit, then the actual level resistance would be sent to the dash. I could believe that might cause the needle to stick at near Full for an extended period of time then in the matter of a gallon or so, drop to below 1/2 tank (level sending unit is located at about the 1/2 way point in the tank. Even if this was a known problem, it wouldn't be a show-stopper issue for me...just something I'd want to keep in mind.
  6. I've been researching what it'd take to do an E85 conversion for about a year while my area drags its feet actually getting an E85 pump. But assuming they do, I think I know all the pieces of the conversion (255lph fuel pump, 39lb EV6 injectors, tune changes, stainless gas tank snorkel inlet, etc). I'm hoping I can do the conversion in conjunction with a high-compression, tight-quench, 331 stroker build so I can get even more out of the high octane availability of E85...hopefully enough that I don't realize any fuel economy loss. However in my research, I've read numerous times that ethanol is electrically conductive unlike 100% gasoline which conducts no electricity. Like most electrically conductive liquids, this is a lot of why ethanol is corrosive to metal, but it is particularly more corrosive to metals that have an electrical charge on them (think terminals of a battery). In fact in the early FFVs, mfgs used a conductance sensor in the fuel tank to test the conductivity of the fuel. The more conductive it is, the more ethanol the fuel contains and thus the EEC adjusts accordingly. But more to the point, mfgs put special fuel pumps that do not expose the fuel pump electrical connections to the fuel, as most standard fuel pump connections do. Here's what my fuel pump looks like: http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/additional-prod-images/en/US/ar1/E2061/2/image/8/[/img] Notice how the spade connectors on top of the pump are completely exposed to the fuel in the tank. And here's a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0L (FFV) fuel pump: http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/ar1/E2258/image/8/[/img]http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/additional-prod-images/en/US/ar1/E2258/2/image/8/[/img] Notice how the FFV Ranger fuel pump doesn't expose the connections to the fuel. Unfortunately, nobody that I've found makes a high-flow E85-compliant fuel pump which insulates the electrical connections from the fuel. So, my questions are: Has anybody found a problem with their fuel pump's electrical connections corroding off or causing problems running E85? Is there any known coating (i.e. Silicone gasket) that I can put on the exposed connections to protect from from the E85 in the tank that won't also be eaten up by the E85? Thanks for any/all comments and experiences shared.
  7. Anybody looking to do tuning on Ford EECs should check out what BinaryEditor (BE) with the Moates Quarterhorse (QH) can do. I've personally worked on the 89-93 Mustang 5.0L definition files, with A LOT of help of another guy that lives in the UK. The 89-93 Mustang EECs consist of 3 strategies GUF1, GUFA, and GUFB often referred to as the GUF* or GUFx defs. They are so similar that any discussion of one 99% chance applies to the other 2. Since I had influence on how the def files were developed, I made sure they support E85 conversions without Injector Slope trickery the way all the other defs for BE AND other tuning softwares require. I've personally done a lot of work on those 3 defs for general EEC tuning. But because I have aspirations of doing an E85 conversion at some point, I made sure some E85 support was put into them. Unlike most any other tuning software, the GUFx defs have a scalar setting, Z_AFR, to let you adjust what kind of fuel you are using. You can literally load the Quarterhorse with 4 identical tunes, where the only difference is the Z_AFR scalar and the Injector Cranking PW function to varying concentrations of ethanol. So when you can't get E85 and have to fill with gasoline, you can flip to a tune that is setup for lesser concentrations of ethanol (i.e. E40 or E50). In the winter when E85 is actually E70, you can flip to a tune that's setup for E70. And when having to run gasoline, you can flip to a tune to run straight gasoline or E10 (assuming you live where E10 is forced on you). Another nice benefit of the QH over the TwEECer RT (the next best thing to the QH), the QH can execute a tune of a different strategy than the EEC you are running it on. The most common scenario is someone with a GUF1/A9P EEC wants to run a GUFB-based X3Z tune as their starting point. A more interesting scenario is 90 3.8L SC V6 T-bird which has a GURE EEC strategy can use the QH to run a GUFB-based tune. The GURE strategy is supported by BE, but to tune a GURE-based tune requires that you purchase the GURE def file from one of the two guys that maintain GURE (I don't require payment for maintaining the GUFx EEC defs). But someone found that GURE EECs are physically similar enough to the GUFx EECs that you can run a GUFB-based tune on a T-bird GURE EEC no problem and glean the benefits and maturity of the GUFx defs that very few of the other supported defs benefit from. I have no doubt that other EECs from similar year vehicles could also do the same thing. For those interested, here are the 89-93 Mustang EEC catch codes that belong to each of the GUFx defs... GUF1 (used on automatic GTs): A9P A9M (some mislabelled A9Ms from Ford are actually A9Ps) A9T (Police/State Patrol Mustang Tune, not emission legal for civilian use) C3W C3W1 GUFA (California Emissions): A9S 8LD GUFB (used on Manual GTs): A9L A9M A3M A3M1 A3M2 D3D X3Z (93 Cobra w/24lb injectors & 70mm Cobra MAF) S0Z (Japanese 5.0L with all emissions stuff disabled) For more info on EEC Tuning, visit the FAQ section at the EECTuning.org website.
  8. Direct Injection solves problems that traditional Port Injection or Throttle-Body Injection have with regard to wall wetting transients. It's how these newer Low Emission Vehicles (LEVs) and Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) get such amazing control of the AFRs at any throttle condition (steady state, tip-in, tip-out, etc) and thus reduce emissions produced by excessively rich or lean burns. But direct-injection systems, like the new Ford EcoBoost Direction Injection system, run in excess of 2100 PSI fuel pressure...yes 2100 PSI! That's because the fuel gets injected directly into the combustion chamber similar to the way a diesel engine injects...when both valves are closed and the piston is on its way up for the compression stroke. The fuel pump has to create enough pressure to overcome the combustion chamber pressures during the compression stroke and inject the entire payload of fuel in the time between when the intake valve closes and when the power stroke begins. At one point I'd read that the direct injection is only done up to about 3000RPMs. Above that, there's just not enough time to get the entire payload of fuel injected into the cylinder before the spark begins ignition. Once the engine is above 3000RPMs, traditional port injection takes over. But its interesting that they are using pressure pulses to create water hammer in an effort to build the pressures they need. That's just neat! And of course any vehicle setup to be a FlexFuel vehicle could easily have the EEC adjust the fuel pressure to get the intended fueling needed and use traditional fuel trim controls from that point on. But circling back to the guy's concern about getting the computer to run ethanol without tripping the CEL (Check Engine Light), I'm wondering if an adjustable FPR isn't just what he needs.
  9. That actually works with some vehicles? I guess I can see that...gradually getting the computer to learn down to the AFRs necessary to burn E85 correctly. But wouldn't it be just as easy to increase the fuel pressure on the fuel rails? Assuming you have a return-style fuel system, I'd assume you can buy an adjustable FPR, and simply boost the fuel pressure by the same ratio as E85 needs to be over-fueled. For instance, Fords generally run around 39PSI on the fuel lines (no vacuum on the FPR). Boosting that to around 50PSI is often enough to keep the computer from complaining. This isn't as easy of an option on returnless fuel systems where the EEC is monitoring a fuel pressure sensor and controlling the fuel pressure by adjusting the speed of the fuel pump. Although I have to believe somebody has come up with an adjustable Fuel Pressure Sensor that will, in effect, lie to the EEC about the fuel pressure so the EEC believes it is maintaining stock pressure, but is actually running the rails at a much higher pressure.
  10. There's enough difference that in your case, I would recommend ditching the 92 Explorer EEC and MAF in lieu of an 89-93 Mustang A9P and stock GT MAF or larger aftermarket MAF, re-pin the wiring harness where necessary (probably only a wire or two difference if that assuming the engine is currently MAF-based), and then tune the Mustang EEC to control your 4.0L as a 4.0L V6. The 89-93 Mustang EEC pin-outs are quite prevalent across the Internet. To get your Explorer EEC's pin-out, refer to a shop manual like the Ford Shop manual or a Haynes/Chilton manual. The ExtremeExplorer.com forum, RangerPowerSports.com forum, TheRangerStation.com forum may also have that pin-out too. I don't frequent them to know for sure what all they have. The 92 4.0L is an excellent engine to adapt. The sensors, connectors, and all that are from the same era as the 89-93 Mustang EEC and thus are compatible. Using Mustang EECs on engines other than a Mustang 5.0L is pretty common because of the great aftermarket tuning support these EECs have. The 89-93 Mustang EECs have been broken out completely by the aftermarket DIY tuning community AND have a few available hacks to endow the EEC code with functionality beyond what Ford intended. The most common alternative engine applications for these EECs are on a larger engine like an SBF 351w or Ford BB. MassFlo sells a Ford BB EFI conversion kit for old Ford FEs and 460s with the chipped Mustang EEC as the brain. There are a few people using these on V6s, but V6s are just not commonly modded. The good news for you is your application is not a terribly complicated mod to do and the guys on the EECTuning.org forum can point out all the places you'll need to tweak. If you ever get curious to attempt it, I recommend you download a program called BinaryEditor (aka BE). That's the software used to actually edit the tune with. Even unregistered, you can view the Mustang EEC's tune information to see what all is available and even save changes. To communicate with a Moates Quarterhorse using BE, you'll need to license it. Also, there's a good bit of generic info about getting into EEC Tuning for Fords over on the EECTuning.org forum in the FAQ section. I HIGHLY recommend you read that thread about Things to know BEFORE buying a TwEECer or Quarterhorse. Here's the thread if you care to read it for yourself: eectuning.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12137 Once you get the Mustang EEC running your 4.0L V6, modifying the tune to "know" it is running E85 is not bad. The topic of what and how to tweak in the EEC has been discussed on the EECTuning.org forum a few times. In fact just yesterday I answered a question about E85 after reading some posts over here.
  11. I'm new to the board, but not new to the concept of doing an E85 conversion. I've been researching for some good time ways to do just that in my daily driven project, an 89 Ranger Supercab with a 97 Explorer 5.0L V8. It's controlled by an 89 Mustang EEC (A9L) and tuned with a Moates Quarterhorse tuner/datalogger. And to augment the datalogging, I have an Innovate LC-1 WB. At some point, I want to bore-n-stroke it to a 331, ditch the crappy Explorer cam, as well as clean up the stock GT40p heads & Cobra-inspired Explorer intake with a porting job. The intention for the build isn't max power, it's to get more off-idle torque without hindering fuel economy. As I said, this is my daily driver, so I need to get at least 20MPG in Atlanta stop-n-go. And most of the time, this setup can do that. But I keep thinking to myself, this build would be a good time to convert over to E85 or at least build a solid foundation for doing that. So I've been holding off until a brave station opens up an E85 pump around here. So far, it's just a waiting game. But it is inspiring to hear all of you guys talking about how much better your vehicles run on E85. I do have some questions on some specifics, but I'll start separate threads for those questions. This was more just introducing myself... In return if there are any 89-93 Ford Mustang guys around here that would like to know more about how to get into EEC Tuning, I think I can help there. I've got a number of Tech Docs and FAQs over on the site I admin that help would-be Ford DIY tuners get started off on the right foot with what they need to know.
  • Create New...