My FA20 NA Dyno Results and Analysis - Stock, 98 RON, and E85
 

Hi all, sent my car for a tune on 98 RON (Aus) (which is apparently equal to 93 over in the US) back 9 months ago. Just got it retuned for E85 (and flex). All in all, very happy with the results from Tunehouse Racing in Sydney. They use a Dynapack hub dyno.

Engine mods:
Grimmspeed Dry-con panel filter
Tomei UEL Catless headers
Invidia Q300 Cat-back
Zeitronix ECA-2 Ethanol Content Analyser

Typically, dyno results can vary wildly due to calibration differences or due to the type of dyno used, so what we always want to look for when comparing dyno results is the % difference. Luckily, it seems that between my first tune in March and my most recent tune, Tunehouse did a base run to calibrate the two 98 tunes. Hence I could combine the three runs together for comparison purposes. I painstakingly plotted out the dyno charts from Tunehouse as accurately as I could into Excel so that I could present it all on the one graph.

One note about my 'stock' run is that it was performed with all the bolt-ons already installed. Hence why I've labelled 'stock' in inverted commas.

Peak Torque:
'Stock' - 161.7 Nm (119.2 ft.lbf)
98 Tune - 183.2 Nm (135.1 ft.lbf) (113%)
E85 Tune - 207.3 Nm (152.9 ft.lbf) (128%; 113% of 98 Tune)

Peak Power:
'Stock' - 108.5 kW (145.4 hp)
98 Tune - 121.9 kW (168.5 hp) (112%)
E85 Tune - 141.4 kW (189.6 hp) (130%; 116% of 98 Tune)

Now, I've never been a huge fan of comparing peak torque and peak power so I integrated the torque curve to find out the increase in the area under the graph. Using this metric, I approximately calculated:

Area Under the Torque Graph (2000 - 7200 RPM)
'Stock' - 100%
98 Tune - 123%
E85 Tune - 136% (111% of 98 Tune)

Also interested in the increase in area relevant to your day to day driving

Area Under the Torque Graph (2000 - 4000 RPM)
'Stock' - 100%
98 Tune - 133%
E85 Tune - 149% (113% of 98 Tune)

Further analysis below:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...523ca124_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...2353c218_b.jpg

Stock vs 98 Tune

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...f8c2eca1_b.jpg


98 Tune vs E85

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3b579111_b.jpg

Nice! Thanks for the detailed post. How good is Aussie E85!?! Guaranteed 107 octane!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I was a little dubious at first from the Whirlpool forums but the E85 from my local United was E82. Apparently for NA, above E50 suffers from the law of diminishing returns so I'm not too concerned. I'm yet to try an E50 blend though.

This is worth a read. You might know it already but it discusses the diminishing returns concept you mentioned.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app


How to run E85 on stock 86 BRZ FRS with OFT tune

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Thanks for the link, indeed I've seen that post. The threat of poor quality E85 is one of the reasons I chose to install a flex sensor. It's just good practice overall. I'll report back once I've had a chance to run E50.

Yeah keep us posted on that. Nothing like first hand data.

Have fun!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Nice results. Congrats!

Love flex fuel! Nice results

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Nice results, congrats!

So I've driven around a bit on E85, E50 and back on 98.

There is definitely a drop down in torque across the high range from E85 to E50. There is a drop down again from E50 to 98 noticeable now through the mid range. Obviously these are subjective feelings just based on the butt dyno.

For day to day driving, I doubt I would even be able to tell the difference between E50 and 98 but I would notice it if I were to push above 3.5K. But as a blanket statement - you get used to what you drive. I don't miss E85 as much as I thought I would while driving on 98. I do miss it in certain situations when trying to accelerate hard.

Whilst I appreciate the data, I really have trouble believing a 30% gain over stock with E85, headers and a tune. Especially considering your "stock" values include already-installed bolt-ons.

If you account for a 15% drivetrain loss, it'd mean you're pulling 243 crank Nm on a 2.0 N/A, i.e. 121.5Nm/L.
Not even a 992 GT3 or a 458 pull that kind of specific torque, and their values are reached at 6000+ RPM, not 4700RPM like your car. Granted, they don't run on E85, but they're 6-figure cars with record-breaking engines.

I appreciate you collecting the data in a clearer manner than most performance shops, I just think the gains seem a little too good to be true.

Have you ever used E85?
in particular, have you ever passed from the 95 Ron (98 ron in Australia is not particularly better than our 95ron in europe), to E85 in the same car?

Octanes make magic things in the FA20


Ok that i'm boosted, but in my car the difference between 95ron and racing fuel at 103 ron is almost 80ps
And E85 has like 107ron, so imagine.

I haven't but my mechanic (who specializes in 86's & rotary maintenance & prep) told me he never saw more than around 15% over stock with UEL + tune + flexfuel.

189hp @hubs would be about 225-230hp at the crank, which is within what I'd expect for the type of mods OP has.
It's both the torque on E85 and the 145hp @hubs stock that bother me.