370Z's and E85?

arnoldas

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

TopgunZ

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.

TopgunZ

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.

MightyBobo

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...

__________________
I don't own a car anymore.

MyKindaGuise

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.

__________________
|445whp398tq|
|BW S259 Turbo|3" Downpipe\Exhaust|ID1000|AeroMotive|Tial|EcuTek|BC BR|S0-4|MaffFab|
MKGs-Single-Turbo

1slow370

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.

__________________
ANSWER PRICE LIST
Answers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $0.75
Answers (requiring thought) - - - - $1.25
Answers (correct) - - - - - - - - - - $12.50

phunk

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

__________________

TopgunZ

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?

phunk

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.

__________________

phunk

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

__________________

1slow370

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.

__________________
ANSWER PRICE LIST
Answers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $0.75
Answers (requiring thought) - - - - $1.25
Answers (correct) - - - - - - - - - - $12.50

phunk

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.

__________________

TopgunZ

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.

MyKindaGuise

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

__________________
|445whp398tq|
|BW S259 Turbo|3" Downpipe\Exhaust|ID1000|AeroMotive|Tial|EcuTek|BC BR|S0-4|MaffFab|
MKGs-Single-Turbo

phunk

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.

__________________