Those injectors and that pump will not have any issues what so ever making anything I'd say comfortably up to or around 700 whp. We run the id1000s on a customer evo here and it made 614 on e85.

I'm on the dyno right now before was amuse r1 straight pipe and k&n drop ins making 293whp and 241tq as of right now with stillen intakes and amuse y pipe on e85 with stock cats until the long tubes get here next week and it's 327whp and 263 tq

would it be worth it for me to convert to e85 if i only have gen 3 cai and test pipes? and if it is would thses injectors be a good choice? and would that be the only thing i have to change, the injectors?
6 1000cc Injectors Nissan All 350Z 370Z G35 G37 GTR I35 M35 Skyline VR38DETT | eBay

Unless E85 is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, you have an excellent source that doesnt change composition, or and you are staying N/A? No.

If you absolutely must be unique? Sure

If you are running forced induction? Definitely.

not worth it for you. 1000cc would be too big for NA and E85 too

what size would you recommend to use with e85, im really thinking about it because there are over 5 gas stations in my town that sell e85, and is it safe to make an e85 map and a 93 map for when getting a tune? like would i be able to use e85 and then fill up with 93 and switch the map and use it?

How much money would you save burning E85 on a yearly basis? Then, compare to the cost of doing this E85 conversion on an N/A car.

I suspect you'll find, that the cost to transform the car will easily top the minuscule amount of money you'd save burning E85, but that's just a guess.

I would save 700 a year, and do you think the mega fire injectors are good? The ones that I posted before, they are under 300 and a fuel pump is around 100 dollors so it would pay of in around a year, and another reason I wana do it now is because I haven't got a tune yet so I need one either way so might as well convert to e85

What is the price of E85 there versus 91?

Don't ask me on the injectors lol, no clue there.

No 91 where I live, only 93 and it's at 4.29 per gallon right now and e85 is anywhere from 3.30 to 3.50

You realize that you'll need to burn about 30% more E85 to get the same HP as 93, right? Which pretty much eliminates your gains...maybe even costs you more.

He is correct, your not running e85 to save gas but to make power. It will cost more in the long run. Tank for tank with mpg's.

even if e85 is a dollar cheaper? what mpg do people get with e85 on the Z does anyone know?

Likely few if any know (or care) in an N/A Z.

But the facts remain the same - you need to burn about 30% more fuel to get the same horsepower with E85. So take whatever gas mileage you get right now with 93, and subtract 30% or so. That'd be close to your mileage.

E85 never was intended to be a gas saver...back when it first came out, it was significantly cheaper, but it's cost has almost stabilized to the point where its comparable to run E85 or traditional unleaded. In fact, I'd say your E85 prices are obnoxiously high, considering I pay $3.70 or so for 91/93 here...

Lmao. I knoooow... So convenient but those moments that you JUST don't wanna go that way. I have one 3 minutes down the road but i have a regular station right around the corner and from there it's 2 minutes to the freeway. I hate when I need gas some days lol

Has anyone noticed a gain in spool time with the E85?

Why would you see that? The same amount of air is being used, it just takes more fuel to burn it.

i think it does spool faster. colder air= denser air= cooler engine

So you're saying that, because of the fuel in the motor, the volume of air exiting through the exhaust will be higher than if you ran 91/93?

Think about that for a sec before you answer btw :-p

you will NOT save money changing to E85. It will cost you around $1000 for quality injectors, pump, and retune. You will never see that money back. Fuel mileage drops CONSIDERABLY after you switch. On top of that, your gauge that reads fuel mileage and miles until empty will no longer work. Well, they "work" but their readings are WAYYYY off, they are useless. It will tell you that you have 40 miles until empty and then 2 minutes later your -- until empty. E85 conversion is for highly modified cars, not mostly stock ones. Do it if you must, but just know that going into it, you are losing money and features and convenience of any gas station you want, and getting nothing in return. A tuner might find a few HP in it... but youll never know if its from the E85 or just the retune in general. Plus these cars dyno's are so inconsistent from pull to pull, that you might think you made HP when its just the variance you see pull to pull, day to day, anyways

i though about it and i guess ill just stay with 93 for now, thanks

So if you were to go with a twin turbo setup and 1000cc injectors and an aeromotive 340lph. Would you need anything else to make low 500whp #'s with E85?

Can the rest of the system handle it? I have a return fuel system in my 350. Wondering if i should swap it to the 370.

I am bumping this thread as I never received a response to my last post in this a few months ago and hoping to get some feedback.

I am the new #006 on the list for the fast intentions twins and am looking at swapping my ID1000's and 340lph pump from my 350 to the 370. However, I am in Denver and we have a 17% loss of power here due to altitude.

I am looking to put down 525ish whp with E85 on the F.I. kit. Is this capable with what im throwing at it? I was hoping to avoid the frs since ive read threads where the 370 isnt so keen on that.

Seems like a large fuel setup, I cant imagine it couldn't handle it...

That said, fuel systems aren't my forte. Posting in the Forced Induction section may yield better results, as this thread was more about tuning an N/A 370 for E85...

That's identical to my setup. E85 has a much higher burn rate especially on a turbo setup. Flow Calculator

Should be good for 500whp at 80% duty cycle.

well the altitude doesn't affect the fuel system to what you would think, what you are going to need to find out is if the turbos will be able to spin fast enough to bring pressure up to your power goals, if youre injectors support the power at ground level you'll be fine at altitude. it's like driving an old carb'd car to denver runs fine at sea level but once you get up the mountain you run rich because you get the same amount of fuel but less air.

Your setup will have no problem making 525rwhp with ID1000 and Aeromotive 340 and E85. I have done this, and more.

At altitude it is more work for your turbo system to provide the airflow to make the same HP as down here, but the fuel requirement for that HP does not change.

Turbocharged vehicles do not experience anywhere near a 17% loss at altitude. Even the SAE correction rules state that no barometric pressure correction should be applied to boosted engines using absolute pressure controls. The difference up there, for turbo cars, is very minimal once the turbos have spooled. This has been proven 100 times over but none of the shops in Colorado want to believe that they arent actually breaking every record ever set if only they had run at sea level :bowrofl:

Huh....well my last dyno corrected was 490, uncorrected was 403. where did I lose 90 hp at if its not the altitude? have you ever experienced that kind of loss from humidity?

And if turbocharged vehicles lose nothing to altitude why do they run full seconds slower at our quest quarter mile speedway?

I know you have a car, that it was on a dyno of some sort, in environmental conditions that can occur on planet earth. I know that you have 2 different numbers, and that someone or some thing applied some unknown correction for unknown reasons. ;) I can't do much with that.

Just because someone's correction gave you 90hp, doesn't mean you ever lost 90, which was my point to begin with.

I will make some assumptions that you applied SAE correction to your dyno graph using the dyno software, and that's where you are seeing a 90hp difference. If that is the case, that is wrong. Dyno software SAE correction does not take forced induction into account, and using it on boosted cars at high elevations creates false high numbers. Particularly with turbo chargers... Supercharger cars seem to get along with SAE OK since they will operate at a static ratio

I originally researched this years ago when a Denver TT 350 went on a road trip to the east and stopped in Chicago for a comparison pass on my same model dynojet 248. He made far less than this corrected numbers in Denver.

And since I don't personally have any comparison graphs to show you, I googled it and found this right away: Altitude Dyno Comparison - evolutionm.net

If you continue to search, you can find endless examples of this. There are far too many complexities and variables to attempt and apply any static % number to correct for altitude on a boosted car. You can give it something, but let it be known that giving it SAE is wrong. And half the guys give it SAE then also add another 17% for themselves. Lol and god forbid its not on a dynojet, there's another 15%!!! Lol

turbo cars lose power at altitude if they don't turn up the boost, or if it isn't set from absolute pressure. if you read from barometric pressure like with a hand vacuum gauge car making 10(24.7 absolute) psi at sea level has more air than a car making 10(22.2 absolute) psi in denver. if you have an electronic boost controller that references an absolute pressure sensor instead of a baro pressure sensor then you will make the same power regardless of elevation.

I think all boost controllers and gauges are referencing relative pressure... So the same boost setting will always leave them with a 2.6 psi (absolute) disadvantage, also less efficient intercooling from less air density. They have reasons to lose power in Denver, just not nearly as much as they pass off.

So why is it that to reach my uncorrected 400 hp I needed 11psi where guys in cali and such are doing it off 7?

And if your car is running 11's at sea level and u brought it to bandimere at 6000ft you would run 12's.

Are you running a 100% identical setup to "the guys in cali"?

You need to give me more details, this information is way too vague to begin to analyze. You may be comparing to the highest HP/quickest ET of them all at sea level and assuming you would do as well? Well I'm in Chicago and my 370z didn't run a 12.9 bone stock like another guy did somewhere else - altitude isn't everything.

Again, you do get a loss from altitude, but you do not get as much as a loss as SAE will wrongly tell you. The SAE, literally says, that their own correction factor for altitude cannot be applied to boosted engine. You can literally find endless discussion about this. SAE in Denver on a turbocharged vehicle will always produce grossly inflated numbers... It was predicted by the SAE, and it was proven by the tuning/racing industry.

Anyway, your altitude would suggest that it would take at least 2.6 psi more boost to make the same uncorrected power as at sea level on a turbo vehicle. Probably a little more due to reduced intercooler efficiency.

Because a boost gauge is a relative pressure gauge. It measures the difference between the pressurized air and atmospheric pressure.

Doesn't it measure vacuum pressure and forced pressure in the manifold?

Yes but it measure relative to the atmosphere pressure. Atmospheric pressure is zero on a boost/vacuum gauge, at any altitude. So you have to run 2.6psi more boost on the gauge to get the same air pressure in your manifold as the same exact car at sea level. So if you drove down to sea level. And ran the same boost gauge pressure, you will get 2.6psi more manifold pressure than you did in Denver, and make more power (and lean out if you're in a car without MAF sensors or absolute MAP reference, or if you don't have enough fuel for the extra HP)