You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FlexFuel Ecoboost
- Thread starter SilverFusion2010
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
Aftermarket companies are currently struggling to increase performance in direct injected engines. There are no aftermarket HPFP, no aftermarket injectors to help fuel increased fuel delivery. Tuning is a struggle. It’s apparent there’s many here who don’t understand the design of modern direct injected fuel systems. They are so very similar to high pressure common rail diesel systems that share many of the same issues tuning and failures.
Really? Livernois in MI is doing great things with the Ecoboost 3.5. IIRC they were getting 500HP out of it back in 2010-2011. I believe that they are also doing Ecoboost 2.5 (Mustang, Focus ST/RS) work as well.
Both Livernois and RTR/XDI make High Volume Pumps for Ecoboost applications. They are pricey though!
The tuners have been tuning the Ecoboost 3.5 since it's debut in 2009 with great results.
Aftermarket companies are currently struggling to increase performance in direct injected engines. There are no aftermarket HPFP, no aftermarket injectors to help fuel increased fuel delivery. Tuning is a struggle. It’s apparent there’s many here who don’t understand the design of modern direct injected fuel systems. They are so very similar to high pressure common rail diesel systems that share many of the same issues tuning and failures.
Really? Livernois in MI is doing great things with the Ecoboost 3.5. IIRC they were getting 500HP out of it back in 2010-2011. I believe that they are also doing Ecoboost 2.5 (Mustang, Focus ST/RS) work as well.
Both Livernois and RTR/XDI make High Volume Pumps for Ecoboost applications. They are pricey though!
The tuners have been tuning the Ecoboost 3.5 since it's debut in 2009 with great results.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
Aftermarket companies are currently struggling to increase performance in direct injected engines. There are no aftermarket HPFP, no aftermarket injectors to help fuel increased fuel delivery. Tuning is a struggle. It’s apparent there’s many here who don’t understand the design of modern direct injected fuel systems. They are so very similar to high pressure common rail diesel systems that share many of the same issues tuning and failures.
Really? Livernois in MI is doing great things with the Ecoboost 3.5. IIRC they were getting 500HP out of it back in 2010-2011. I believe that they are also doing Ecoboost 2.5 (Mustang, Focus ST/RS) work as well.
Both Livernois and RTR/XDI make High Volume Pumps for Ecoboost applications. They are pricey though!
The tuners have been tuning the Ecoboost 3.5 since it's debut in 2009 with great results.
You are correct, there are lots of companies that tune for Ecoboost engines 3.5L, 2.7L, 2.3L, 2.0L, 1.6L. Tuning alone will not allow E85 use, E30 is generally the maximum safe ratio. The topic was about E85 not Ecoboost tuning I was relating to tuning for E85. E85 can be used with fuel system hard part changes and until recently there’s been no options.
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
Aftermarket companies are currently struggling to increase performance in direct injected engines. There are no aftermarket HPFP, no aftermarket injectors to help fuel increased fuel delivery. Tuning is a struggle. It’s apparent there’s many here who don’t understand the design of modern direct injected fuel systems. They are so very similar to high pressure common rail diesel systems that share many of the same issues tuning and failures.
Really? Livernois in MI is doing great things with the Ecoboost 3.5. IIRC they were getting 500HP out of it back in 2010-2011. I believe that they are also doing Ecoboost 2.5 (Mustang, Focus ST/RS) work as well.
Both Livernois and RTR/XDI make High Volume Pumps for Ecoboost applications. They are pricey though!
The tuners have been tuning the Ecoboost 3.5 since it's debut in 2009 with great results.
You are correct, there are lots of companies that tune for Ecoboost engines 3.5L, 2.7L, 2.3L, 2.0L, 1.6L. Tuning alone will not allow E85 use, E30 is generally the maximum safe ratio. The topic was about E85 not Ecoboost tuning I was relating to tuning for E85. E85 can be used with fuel system hard part changes and until recently there’s been no options.
Last edited:
SilverFusion2010
Thread starter
It just seems that it woul not be hard to add an alcohol concentration sensor and expand the fuel and timing tables. With up to 30 psi boost you should be able to make some silly power numbers
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
You are correct, there are lots of companies that tune for Ecoboost engines 3.5L, 2.7L, 2.3L, 2.0L, 1.6L. Tuning alone will not allow E85 use, E30 is generally the maximum safe ratio. The topic was about E85 not Ecoboost tuning I was relating to tuning for E85. E85 can be used with fuel system hard part changes and until recently there’s been no options.
Yeah - probably not worth Ford's effort to design for E85. As the owner of 2 EB 3.5's the gas mileage isn't that great when you put our foot into them (but it's fun) and will get good #'s if you show some restraint with the go pedal. Towing our trailer I've seen a low of 6 MPG (uphill in the wind) and a max of 11 (downhill or flat with no wind). Could only imagine how much worse that would be on E85.
You are correct, there are lots of companies that tune for Ecoboost engines 3.5L, 2.7L, 2.3L, 2.0L, 1.6L. Tuning alone will not allow E85 use, E30 is generally the maximum safe ratio. The topic was about E85 not Ecoboost tuning I was relating to tuning for E85. E85 can be used with fuel system hard part changes and until recently there’s been no options.
Yeah - probably not worth Ford's effort to design for E85. As the owner of 2 EB 3.5's the gas mileage isn't that great when you put our foot into them (but it's fun) and will get good #'s if you show some restraint with the go pedal. Towing our trailer I've seen a low of 6 MPG (uphill in the wind) and a max of 11 (downhill or flat with no wind). Could only imagine how much worse that would be on E85.
Originally Posted By: SilverFusion2010
It just seems that it woul not be hard to add an alcohol concentration sensor and expand the fuel and timing tables. With up to 30 psi boost you should be able to make some silly power numbers
You can open up the tables enough, tuning wise the programming is not the issue. The issue is the High Pressure Fuel Pump and injectors won’t flow enough fuel. There’s no need for a alcohol concentration sensor the O2’s compensate just fine. The problem is when you increase the concentration of alcohol you simply run out of fuel and go lean. Lean +boost=broken parts, burnt pistons, broken ring lands and so on. It’s realy eveident when you strap the vehicle down on the dyno and start playing with known concentrations of fuel, making pulls and watching the vehicles O2s and injectors/rail pressure react.
I completely forgot about the L83 being E85 compatible, the fuel system was designed from the start with excess capacity. If the Direct injection system has excess capacity built in then E85 is no issue.
It just seems that it woul not be hard to add an alcohol concentration sensor and expand the fuel and timing tables. With up to 30 psi boost you should be able to make some silly power numbers
You can open up the tables enough, tuning wise the programming is not the issue. The issue is the High Pressure Fuel Pump and injectors won’t flow enough fuel. There’s no need for a alcohol concentration sensor the O2’s compensate just fine. The problem is when you increase the concentration of alcohol you simply run out of fuel and go lean. Lean +boost=broken parts, burnt pistons, broken ring lands and so on. It’s realy eveident when you strap the vehicle down on the dyno and start playing with known concentrations of fuel, making pulls and watching the vehicles O2s and injectors/rail pressure react.
I completely forgot about the L83 being E85 compatible, the fuel system was designed from the start with excess capacity. If the Direct injection system has excess capacity built in then E85 is no issue.
There are so many things that are considered when the manufactures design a fuel system, and how the system will creat NoX emessions along with the design of the cylinder head and piston crown. NoX formation va. Prompt NoX and the creation of Thermal NoX va the Zel’dovich Mechanism which has to do with controlling flame temperature all play a part in the overall design considerations. NoX reduction, controlling the creation of NoX is ideal so you don’t have to work so hard to get it down to an acceptable PPm is the main goal. Comapanies like Volkswagen have paid dearly for there failures. The market and regulations are so tight, there’s so many considerations, like designing in excess capacity is really pumping loss, which when you think about moving extra fluid is nothing but extrapolate that out over millions of vehicles and if it cost the vehicle .008% energy loss due to parasitic loss then that may or may not be acceptable for the manufacturer. Vehicle volume plays a part as well, emessions warranty life, catalyst life and so on.
GM's 2.2 turbo in the Buick Verano and Regal is FlexFuel.
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
There are so many things that are considered when the manufactures design a fuel system, and how the system will creat NoX emessions along with the design of the cylinder head and piston crown. NoX formation va. Prompt NoX and the creation of Thermal NoX va the Zel’dovich Mechanism which has to do with controlling flame temperature all play a part in the overall design considerations. NoX reduction, controlling the creation of NoX is ideal so you don’t have to work so hard to get it down to an acceptable PPm is the main goal. Comapanies like Volkswagen have paid dearly for there failures. The market and regulations are so tight, there’s so many considerations, like designing in excess capacity is really pumping loss, which when you think about moving extra fluid is nothing but extrapolate that out over millions of vehicles and if it cost the vehicle .008% energy loss due to parasitic loss then that may or may not be acceptable for the manufacturer. Vehicle volume plays a part as well, emessions warranty life, catalyst life and so on.
I know EGR was the de facto way to control NOx via dilution and lower combustion chamber temps - then how come Toyota was able to eliminate the EGR valve on their VVT-i cars while Honda still uses one to this day? Could it be that Toyota designed some slight overlap between the closing of the exhaust valve and opening of the intake valve to allow for a quasi-EGR effect?
There are so many things that are considered when the manufactures design a fuel system, and how the system will creat NoX emessions along with the design of the cylinder head and piston crown. NoX formation va. Prompt NoX and the creation of Thermal NoX va the Zel’dovich Mechanism which has to do with controlling flame temperature all play a part in the overall design considerations. NoX reduction, controlling the creation of NoX is ideal so you don’t have to work so hard to get it down to an acceptable PPm is the main goal. Comapanies like Volkswagen have paid dearly for there failures. The market and regulations are so tight, there’s so many considerations, like designing in excess capacity is really pumping loss, which when you think about moving extra fluid is nothing but extrapolate that out over millions of vehicles and if it cost the vehicle .008% energy loss due to parasitic loss then that may or may not be acceptable for the manufacturer. Vehicle volume plays a part as well, emessions warranty life, catalyst life and so on.
I know EGR was the de facto way to control NOx via dilution and lower combustion chamber temps - then how come Toyota was able to eliminate the EGR valve on their VVT-i cars while Honda still uses one to this day? Could it be that Toyota designed some slight overlap between the closing of the exhaust valve and opening of the intake valve to allow for a quasi-EGR effect?
Originally Posted By: nthach
I know EGR was the de facto way to control NOx via dilution and lower combustion chamber temps - then how come Toyota was able to eliminate the EGR valve on their VVT-i cars while Honda still uses one to this day? Could it be that Toyota designed some slight overlap between the closing of the exhaust valve and opening of the intake valve to allow for a quasi-EGR effect?
That's how it's been done for years on nearly all makes that ditched EGR. Can't say why Honda still uses EGR - perhaps their engineers are not that great?
I know EGR was the de facto way to control NOx via dilution and lower combustion chamber temps - then how come Toyota was able to eliminate the EGR valve on their VVT-i cars while Honda still uses one to this day? Could it be that Toyota designed some slight overlap between the closing of the exhaust valve and opening of the intake valve to allow for a quasi-EGR effect?
That's how it's been done for years on nearly all makes that ditched EGR. Can't say why Honda still uses EGR - perhaps their engineers are not that great?
SilverFusion2010
Thread starter
I still say they should produce a flex fuel ecoboost. Particularly since the newest version has dual injection.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JasonC
GM's 2.2 turbo in the Buick Verano and Regal is FlexFuel.
2011 Buick Regal Turbo will be E85-capable
General Motors describes the 2011 Buick Regal Turbo as "the first direct-injected turbocharged production car capable of running on any blend of gasoline or E85 ethanol."
Again I'm wrong on this one.
GM's 2.2 turbo in the Buick Verano and Regal is FlexFuel.
2011 Buick Regal Turbo will be E85-capable
General Motors describes the 2011 Buick Regal Turbo as "the first direct-injected turbocharged production car capable of running on any blend of gasoline or E85 ethanol."
Again I'm wrong on this one.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 97
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 915
