Print Page | Close Window

High Compression E85 401 Build

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC V8 Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made V8 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38430
Printed Date: Mar/28/2024 at 11:28am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: High Compression E85 401 Build
Posted By: muttnïk
Subject: High Compression E85 401 Build
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 9:31am
I am just getting started on a 401 E85-only build.  I am looking for more information and experiences from people who have built naturally aspirated high compression engine for use with E85.  Cam selection is one area in particular where I still have questions.  I want to maintain driveability and low end grunt.


Here is an overview of the current plan:
  • 1978 401 Block - 20-thou overbore
  • stock forged crank - 10-thou under
  • stock forged rods
  • forged dome pistons - 13.5:1 static CR
  • 3220502-2 heads - valves unshrouded, mild port work, stock valves, roller rockers
  • I plan to run a flat tappet cam
  • naturally aspirated, MegaSquirt MPI
  • Edelbrock Torker intake
  • ~50lb/hr fuel injectors
  • LC-1 wideband O2 sensor
  • fuel composition sensor
  • Ford EDIS-8 ignition - full ignition timing control by MegaSquirt ECU
  • Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers to 3" single pipe

Truck is a '79 J-Truck used as a tow rig / daily driver.
  • TH400
  • BW-1339
  • 3.54 gears
  • 33" meats
  • 42gal Suburban fuel tank + 18gal stock tank as a reserve with transfer pump




Replies:
Posted By: Javelin74
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 10:15am
Interesting project you got there.  Good luck!  You may need to search around on some other forums for that type of info regarding E85 information.  I'll be following this with a lot of curiousity.


Posted By: billd
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 10:43am
My wife asked me why I did not do that when building the Eagle's 4.0.

I said I might try on another engine build - I've got a couple other engines to play with. (and if I can locate a cheap 4.0, it will go into the wagon and I might do an E85 build on that)

I'll be watching to see how you progress here.


-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com


Posted By: tsanchez
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 10:44am
For camshafts e85 generally does well with 10 degrees more duration than with gas but as a tow rig with that much compression you may get into preignition quicker. I would contact Tim Cole at comp cams and discuss your goals with him and see what he thinks.

-------------
http://s192.photobucket.com/user/antonsan/media/jav1_zps87a70dce.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: jcisworthy
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 11:00am
Dont know if its what you are looking for but I have a brand new solid lifter Comp cam for 100 dollars. I went with a bigger one.  Justin at race on e85 has a lot of knowledge about it. I am converting my car in a couple of weeks.  http://raceone85.com/" rel="nofollow - http://raceone85.com/  


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 11:13am
Get rid of the Torker intake. It's primarily for making high rpm power. Best for towing is an Offenhauser 360DP (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/OFY-6056DP/). Even a factory iron intake will be better for towing. Don't do anything but clean up the bowl areas of the ports. Small ports work better for low rpm power. Some of the Jeep rock crawlers have even been using 304 heads on 360s. The small ports increase low rpm power, at the sacrifice of high speed power (say over 3500 rpm), but they don't need power way up there. Revving the engine up then grabbing something is a quicker way to break axles and such than low end grunt. Since this is a street vehicle and you need more volume with E85, I wouldn't recommend something so drastic as 304 heads. With regular gasoline it might be worth it. Everything else looks good to me! I second calling Comp or Crower to ask about cam selection -- need a pros advice there!



-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: RADAMX
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 11:29am
I swapped my race car over to E-85 .It is 13 to 1 comp .
EFI
Runs good Pulls a couple hundred more on the stall.
One thing is when it is cold outside it is a mother to start.
not sure what that is all about .


Posted By: smills61074
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 11:50am
I posted a threat quite a while ago concerning E85.  Although it is a great idea, it is difficult to get gas that has a consistent mixture.  This will affect timing, detonation, etc.  I was dissappointed in the answers I got from everyone, but realize that unless it is a full blown race motor, the cost versus the performance is hard to justify.  The end result is cheaper gas, but you have to test each batch and adjust the octane accordingly.  I live in the midwest where there are plenty of E85 stations.  Please keep that in mind when you do your build.  E85 typically uses about 30% more fuel to get the same horsepower.  So, a 93 octane motor is what I am building.  I hope this helps you in your decision. 

-------------
68 Blue AMX Perfect California Body going for 401/6 speed
1 1/4 ton Power Wagon Ex Colorado Brush Truck
2006 Caddy CTS V with LS2 and manual trans Corsa Exhaust Beater car (daily driver)


Posted By: tufcj
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 12:24pm
You may want to re-think the 3.54 gears or go with smaller tires.  3.73s or 4.10s would be better with 33" tires.  Even building the engine for low-end grunt, your RPMs will be too low at cruise.  Google a "gear ratio calculator" and play with ratio vs. tire size.

Bob
tufcj


-------------
69 AMX
74 Javelin AMX
67 Rogue

If you need a tool and don't buy it...
you'll eventually pay for it...
and not have it.
Henry Ford


Posted By: muttnïk
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

Get rid of the Torker intake.


The Torker was not initially my first choice for this build.  I was originally thinking the Offy 5917 Equa-Flow.  The Equa-Flow almost looks like a MultiPort-Injection intake with its massive plenum and short runners.

I had not considered using a dual-plane intake for this build.  Since it is a dry-runner, my "build tech" and I decided on single plane and were not as concerned with runner velocity and keeping the fuel in suspension.

Also, my throttle valve at this time is a 2-barrel.  This project was originally going to be built with a 360 and the throttle valve I have is from a Dodge 5.9 Magnum engine.  Once it is running I was going to watch my vacuum readings at WOT to see if the throttle body is providing enough air.  Seems like the 6056DP would require a 4-barrel throttle body assembly?

What is your opinion of the 5917 or other single plane intakes for this application?  This is my first attempt at a multi-port injection conversion and I certainly do not have all the answers.


Posted By: muttnïk
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 12:41pm
Originally posted by smills61074 smills61074 wrote:

I posted a threat quite a while ago concerning E85.  Although it is a great idea, it is difficult to get gas that has a consistent mixture.  This will affect timing, detonation, etc.  I was dissappointed in the answers I got from everyone, but realize that unless it is a full blown race motor, the cost versus the performance is hard to justify.  The end result is cheaper gas, but you have to test each batch and adjust the octane accordingly.  I live in the midwest where there are plenty of E85 stations.  Please keep that in mind when you do your build.  E85 typically uses about 30% more fuel to get the same horsepower.  So, a 93 octane motor is what I am building.  I hope this helps you in your decision. 

I will be running a fuel composition sensor to take the guesswork out of the E85 mixture.  The ECU will adjust timing and fuel as needed to match the concentration of ethanol in the fuel.

I know that cost savings is not a justification for this build.  I also know that it will take quite a bit of tinkering to get my fuel and timing maps dialed in.  It is mainly just a project that interests me.

As for E85 availability... that is what the 60gal fuel capacity is for!


Posted By: muttnïk
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by tufcj tufcj wrote:

You may want to re-think the 3.54 gears or go with smaller tires.  3.73s or 4.10s would be better with 33" tires.  Even building the engine for low-end grunt, your RPMs will be too low at cruise.  Google a "gear ratio calculator" and play with ratio vs. tire size.

Bob
tufcj
I've pondered those 33" tires quite a bit myself.  I've got an old cracked set of 31s I can throw on for comparison.  I think 3.73s would be right in the sweet spot with 33s.  I am waiting to see how it actually performs on the road.


Posted By: tsanchez
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 1:10pm
33s and 354 gears will be right at 2400 cruise at 60, just right for economy and while not best for towing will be fine with a strong powerplant. I would use the torker over the offy intake. Make a 2 inch tapered adapter for the throttle body so the transition is smooth. Should run well and a camshaft in the .490 range 215 at .050 on a 112 lobe center should do well (hyd lifters)

-------------
http://s192.photobucket.com/user/antonsan/media/jav1_zps87a70dce.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: 6768rogues
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 2:56pm
Originally posted by tufcj tufcj wrote:

You may want to re-think the 3.54 gears or go with smaller tires.  3.73s or 4.10s would be better with 33" tires.  Even building the engine for low-end grunt, your RPMs will be too low at cruise.  Google a "gear ratio calculator" and play with ratio vs. tire size.

Bob
tufcj

I agree. I had a 76 J-10 that I bought new with the 360 and a truck 4-speed. I went to 33-ish sized tires and it was a dog with the stock 3.54 gears. I went to 4.10 gears and it really came alive and its gas mileage improved. With an automatic and no lock up converter, you might have good results with 3.73 gears.


-------------
Content intended for mature audiences. If you experience nausea or diarrhea, stop reading and seek medical attention.

Located usually near Rochester, NY and sometimes central FL.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/04/2012 at 5:56pm
DUH!! I forgot all about the EFI! The DP would be a waste with that. I still don't like the Torker for that application, but a single plane is definitely needed for the 2V TB. For towing you might be just as well off with the stock 2V intake. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: jcisworthy
Date Posted: Apr/08/2012 at 6:03pm
I am converting to E85 in a week or so but does the variation in mixture make that much of a difference? I was told for the winter the mix it is as low as 70% to compensate for the cold weather and for easier starting but even at that is that drastic enough to worry about? I live in the North East now so the car will not see winter although I will drive it in the cold before the salt and snow. I have heard of hard starting in the cold but have not used it yet to know. 

It seems the benefits out weigh the negatives to me especially when I have to run "high octane" in my car now at 450 + a gallon and yesterday I was staring at the E85 price at 339 a gallon, which I am told is 105 octane, while I pumped in 93 octane at 469 a gallon. 

I am also told 20 degree cooler engine temps, better throttle response, far less engine deposits, clean oil throughout in between oil changes and it is readily available here. My fuel system is modified for the conversion I am just waiting to tune the car in at the local quarter mile track which opens nest Saturday weather permitting, so I can order a conversion closer to what the car needs. When ordering a kit they want to know jet sizes, sqirters, power valves etc. 

Now I have a 9.5:1 cr 401 which runs as hot as 235 degrees on a hot day going down the highway with a new 3 row radiator seven blade fan and factory shroud in a 68 Javelin. This summer I have a ported Indy head, 11:1cr 434 stroker going in so the conversion is looking to the near future but I really think it will work well for the current combo as a fill the tank and drive it situation after it is tuned for the conversion. Maybe if I was looking for every last hundredth I would have to test every batch but I am thinking I will not notice the difference in a almost daily driven high performance car?  


Posted By: smills61074
Date Posted: Apr/09/2012 at 11:11am
     I know there are others out there that have used the E85 successfully.  The truck I have at work is a Ford F150.  It can burn E85 or regular gas.  Or, half and half.  The computer just adjusts for it.  My truck gets goes from about 16 miles per gallon down to less than 12 when I run the E 85.  Other than that, you cannot tell the difference.  E85 is currently subsidized by the government.  I believe the subsidies are ending soon.  So, the price is going to go up.
      I am positive that the mixture has to be very consistent to run consistent times at the drag strip.  I also know you have to play with the timing and fuel mixture to adjust for changes in the E85.  Otherwise, you can run lean or have detonation problems.  Both of which are very hard on your engine.  There are quite a few websites, on the internet, that both praise and complain about the use of E85.
      I was really enthusied when I started researching the use of E85.  I was going to build a 13:1 compression 401.  Then, I got so many mixed reviews it kinda scared me away.  From a physics aspect, the E85 is less volitle.  So, you can run higher compression.  It also cools the incoming air, as it is vaporized, which allows for more air to flow into your engine.  In theory it is better.  
    But, you also need a complete fuel system that cannot corrode.  The alcohol is what a chemist would call hygroscopic, which means it attracts moisture from the air.  This is why the water in it will corrode your fuel lines, etc. 
       I am really glad that you brought this topic up again.  I am sure many old schoolers out there that will try to get you to shy away from it.  I think the possibility is there, you just need to sample any of the E85 and adjust the mixture to keep it consistent.  The motor you are currently running is probably about as low as you can go with compression to use E85.  Since E85 is not as volatile, it needs more compression to burn efficently.  When I started talking about 13:1 compression, I was told that I would need to o-ring the block, or I would have head gasket problems.  There appear to be benefits, as well as problems.  The carburators are not cheap.  There are places that will make the necessary changes, so the carburator can supply more fuel and will not corrode.  Hopefully, I can at least point you in the right direction.  In the end, I want to know how yours worked out.  I have not built my motor yet, so I can still switch directions.  Feel free to PM me as you progress.  I would like to learn from your experience, as well as others.       


-------------
68 Blue AMX Perfect California Body going for 401/6 speed
1 1/4 ton Power Wagon Ex Colorado Brush Truck
2006 Caddy CTS V with LS2 and manual trans Corsa Exhaust Beater car (daily driver)


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/09/2012 at 2:52pm
One of the reasons you lose gas mileage with E85 is that it takes more to get the same power at the same compression. The higher octane lets you boost compression. Most of the multi-fuel cars run around 10:1 and use the computer to control detonation when running regular gasoline. You should be able to run 11:1 with E85 only easily. I don't know how high you can go, When  the vehicle is tuned specifically to run E85 it should improve a bit, but will still burn 20-25% more by volume than a gasoline engine -- and it won't run on gasoline very well.  I know there are a few on here running in the 12-13:1 range. The old trick was to use copper head gaskets (or o-ring), but the new Cometic multi-layer steel gaskets seal real good at high compression. I think I might would try 12:1 with those, but wouldn't want to go any higher.  Note that I have no experience running anything over 10:1 -- so I might just be overly cautious, but from what I've read 12:1 is a good stopping point as things start to get expensive over 12:1.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: jcisworthy
Date Posted: Apr/09/2012 at 5:02pm
I have talked to a guy who has been running it in his race car for the last 6 years and says he made no changes to his fuel system other than provisions for the necessary volume of E85 and checks the system every year with no signs of corrosion as of yet. He never drains the system or fogs it etc, he is not running anything special for fuel line etc with turbo and a carburetor. I know about the use of more fuel to make the same power but it would be about 24 dollars cheaper right now to fill my tank. Now if the price goes up because of loss of funding then that will be a different story but right now it is much cheaper than high octane and WAY cheaper than race fuel. I suppose if you do not try you will never find out right and I can always switch back easy enough because I am installing a conversion kit in my carb so going back is easy. My fuel system is fine for both set ups and there are inexpensive test kits to check for ethanol content so that should not be much of an issue either. If I have to bump or retard the timing a couple degrees here and there not a big deal. I suspect I will not have to worry about it much, especially with the current 9.5cr motor in the car now. Maybe with the 11:1 stroker motor but I dont think the compression is that high there to worry about it either. If a 85% mixture is 105 octane than a 70% mixture should still support 11:1 just fine but maybe not. 


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/10/2012 at 6:22am
Modern fuel systems and materials don't have a problem with E85. Old ones (say prior to around 90) do. Most of us with old cars have replaced everything that would be a problem. Steel fuel lines don't have issues with E85, but many have even replaced those. 

With the 9.5:1 motor you'll probably notice a slight drop in power and more than a slight increase in fuel consumption. 3-4 mpg is more noticeable than you would think, especially on a long trip. IIRC gasoline has to be around $5 per gallon before you can break even with the lower cost of E85. That's in a flex fuel vehicle which typically has a compression ratio of 10:1 or 10.5:1. By purpose building an engine with 11-13:1 compression you gain some power an efficiency back, though you still use more volume -- just not as much as with lower compression. You lose the option of running straight gasoline though. I think you can go with 12:1 and use copper or Cometic MLS gaskets. You might want to drill for an additional head bolt for each cylinder. I don't know much about the extra head bolt as far as placement, but it is commonly done on very high compression AMCs. IIRC it's a 3/8" head bolt on the outer edge where there is the biggest gap between bolts.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: smills61074
Date Posted: Apr/10/2012 at 7:40am
I understand the issue about gas mileage.  The horsepower gains are not significant.  I do believe that some of the turbo engines, and super charged engines have the best possiblilty for horsepower gain, due to the cooling affect crated by the E85 when it is mixed with air.  This is still a good topic, because it makes other aware of something that will probably evolve into more horsepower. 

-------------
68 Blue AMX Perfect California Body going for 401/6 speed
1 1/4 ton Power Wagon Ex Colorado Brush Truck
2006 Caddy CTS V with LS2 and manual trans Corsa Exhaust Beater car (daily driver)


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/10/2012 at 5:52pm
I wasn't even considering a turbo! That would be the way to go. Turboing is basically the same as adding compression, you're just stuffing the air in. Normally you wouldn't be able to go but 5-6 psi on a 8.5-9.0:1 engine, but with E85 you can turn the boost up (10-15 psi) and get your power and gas mileage back. That is probably the best way to go.

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: muttnïk
Date Posted: Apr/26/2012 at 9:48am
I have been away messing with my ECU and Flex Fuel sensors, waiting for word from my "build engineer" that the rotating assembly and block are ready.  I heard from him yesterday and we talked cams.  His idea on the target cam profile is 230 to 240 @ .050 duration, a .480 to .520 lift, and 112 to 115 degrees lobe separation.  The feedback he has been getting from several cam manufacturers is that an even higher duration cam, at or above 260 would be more appropriate.  His opinion is that they are just not wrapping their minds around the E85 efficiency/tow vehicle aspects of this project, and are primarily basing their recommendations on the 13.5:1 CR figure.  

From tsanchez' suggestion I have to wonder if the 230 to 240 duration is still too much to maximize efficiency, although I am sure at our CR it would be a fine running engine.
Originally posted by tsanchez tsanchez wrote:

Should run well and a camshaft in the .490 range 215 at .050 on a 112 lobe center should do well (hyd lifters)

I have lately been reading about "downspeeding" on engines optimized for E85.  In essence the engine is built to produce mid/low range torque with high compression.  Higher gear ratios are used to decrease engine speed, basically "lugging" the engine.  My taller 33" tires and 3.54 gears work well with this scenario.  This downspeeding concept seems to me to favor a decreased lobe separation to lower the power band (although not to the point of causing reversion)?

On a side note, I have been looking at the AMC 502 head flow numbers published by Ken Parkman.  Are those numbers legit?  I notice they are included in the Stan Weiss flow table.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/26/2012 at 10:24am
A lot of modern GM V8s are using the "downspeed" theory even with regular gasoline. The engine isn't lugging, but it is being loaded at low rpm. This gives good pulling power without the need to rev the engine much. A GM truck without a load (just a couple passengers) will easily run 65-70 at 1600-1700 rpm in OD on the Interstate, and won't mind running 1400-1500 at 50-55 in OD. Try that in a early 90s vehicle (don't know when GM started this, guessing late 90s) and gas mileage will go DOWN even if the engine will pull without lugging. I tried it with my 4.6L stroker, didn't work. Ran 3.08 gears and would run 65 mph @ 1800 rpm. That wasn't enough for the cam I had (just a little more than stock... stock may have done better!). I've found that most AMC engine (especially the sixes) need to run at least 2000 rpm for an economical cruise with the stock cam. That was 72 mph with 3.08 gears. So I had to run 70 or more to use OD, and 2000 rpm was only 50 mph in direct drive (3rd gear -- using an early Jeep AW4). At 2500 rpm the Jeep EFI computer will start to enrich the mixture for more power. I've found this to be true for the Renix and HO computers, at least through 1995 (Chrysler made some mods in 96 and may have changed this, but I don't think so). At 2400 rpm I was only going 60 mph. The 3.08 gears weren't working! Too many times you can't run 70 but want to run over 55, and I don't particularly like running 2400 rpm for extended periods. Went to 3.55 gears with the same cam and gas mileage went up by 2 mpg on average. I probably gained 1 mpg on the highway and 3 mpg in town. I measured the gain on a long trip with a good bit of driving around at the destination (to and from the 2002 Kenosha Homecoming from Biloxi, MS). With the 3.55 gears I'm running 62 mph @ 2000 in OD, 75 mph @ 2400. This is pretty good, since I prefer to cruise in the 65-70 mph range. I'm seeing another 2 mpg gain on average since I changed back to a 4.0L (but hopped up -- bored out throttle body, bigger injectors, 99 intake -- close to the same power as the 4.6L stroker w/stock TB and "right sized" injectors) and swapped in a low speed torque cam. With the new cam the smaller engine feels a lot better and will pull a bit more gear easily. Would love to have 3.31 gears now, but will settled for going form a 65 series to a 70 series tire next time I need them. That will drop 75 rpm. Not much, but cheap enough. Two series number (from current 215/65R15 to 75) would drop 1300 rpm, but I don't know about the looks with that tall a tire. Going to a 3.31 gear would drop rpm by 143. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: muttnïk
Date Posted: Apr/29/2012 at 8:45am
Thanks Frank, for the response.  It sounds like I need to get myself an O/D on my truck.  My numbers in direct drive (ignoring any torque converter response):

3.54 w/ 31"
45: 1824
55: 2230
65: 2635
75: 3040

3.54 w/ 33"
45: 1714
55: 2095
65: 2475
75: 2856

After speaking some more with different cam grinders, and catching a bit of guff from Howards Cams we finally had a very good discussion with the guys at Lunati.  They carefully considered our use case and helped us select a cam that should work well to build low/mid torque and efficiency at our 13.5:1 CR.  It is their 64502 cam: 220 / 226 duration @ .050 with a .507 / .527 valve lift with a 1.6:1 rocker and a 112* lobe separation.

I talked yesterday with my engine builder about the AMC 502 head flow numbers, particularly those published by Ken Parkman.  I told him that those numbers appear to be reliable.  He has never built an AMC engine and was absolutely blown away by the head performance.  I also showed him the numbers for Bulltear's CNC ported 502 heads.  What impressed him most is that the flow does not drop off at higher lifts up in to 600 and 700 range.

Since roller rockers are in the plan anyway, we are now considering using a set of Harland Sharp 1.7:1 rockers to take advantage of the higher lift.


Posted By: A0M797X112187
Date Posted: Apr/29/2012 at 10:19am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

I wasn't even considering a turbo! That would be the way to go. Turboing is basically the same as adding compression, you're just stuffing the air in. Normally you wouldn't be able to go but 5-6 psi on a 8.5-9.0:1 engine, but with E85 you can turn the boost up (10-15 psi) and get your power and gas mileage back. That is probably the best way to go.
To paraphrase a favorite movie of mine, turbo's and E85 go together like peas and carrots....
 
One of my non-AMC cars has a turbocharged, 8.6:1 compression 357" engine with Accel DFI engine management that I recently converted to E85.  I had been running 11psi manifold pressure on 91 octane pump gas and that pushed my http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/C7Z/Zephyr/ZephyrTimeslips092410.jpg" rel="nofollow - 3500lb car to the 10.80's  and a http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/C7Z/Zephyr/ZephyrDyno10_30_2010_RPMa.jpg" rel="nofollow - dyno verified 543rwhp  with my timing limited to 22 degrees. 
 
I began mixing in 110 octane unleaded race gas for a 25% blend and bumped the boost up to 15psi which put me in the 10.40's.  I only mention this because my next step was a switch to E85 with no change to my tune whatsoever other than increasing fuel by 50% accross the map and my times dropped to 10.20's at the same 15psi.  At 17psi and 2 more degrees of timing, it has run a best of 10.03 @ 136mph.  I have run as high as 23 psi with no improvement in ET because, I believe, I am "blowing through" my converter at this power level.
 
Several people I know are running as high as 11:1 compression AND 25psi of manifold pressure on E85 as high as 7000rpm with no problems whatsoever and a nearly stock timing curve.
 
All this leads me to believe that a high compression NA motor will thrive on E85 just like the turbo cars.


-------------
-D Payne     AMO 2834 ( Expired )     NAMDRA 3770


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/29/2012 at 1:41pm
Since my J-10 isn't going to be doing any heavy towing I'm thinking a 232 six with 5-7 psi will be good. After looking at some figures I'm actually considering putting the little Ford (Merkue XR4ti) 2.3L turbo motor I have in it. About the same power levels as a NA 302 V-8, just at a bit higher rpm. Hmm.... would make the J-truck crowd pull hair out and swear at me for sure!


-------------
Frank Swygert



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net