For those who have doubt in the Vortech kit please read.

[DJCarbine]

Originally Posted by Sonolin

Ouch...

My mileage on crap cali 91 is 22-24 mpg avg. I'm going to be in v8 territory with e85

Do you drive hard?

I get 28.5 mixed with tune/borla UEL/afe intake

[Sonolin]

Originally Posted by DJCarbine

Do you drive hard?

I get 28.5 mixed with tune/borla UEL/afe intake

Yea, I have a problem with driving a little too hard... I'm working on that .

I'd love to get 28.5 mpg.

I also do mostly city miles so that probably is another reason.

[DJCarbine]

Originally Posted by Sonolin

Yea, I have a problem with driving a little too hard... I'm working on that .

I'd love to get 28.5 mpg.

I also do mostly city miles so that probably is another reason.

When I installed my UEL and invidia N1, I tend to keep the rpm lower to hear the boxer "rumble" better. I went from 24mpg to 28.5 lol

Loud exhaust = better fuel economy, it's science!

[skatery1989]

Originally Posted by Sonolin

Ouch...

My mileage on crap cali 91 is 22-24 mpg avg. I'm going to be in v8 territory with e85

Ya I have been seeing 17-20 when lately but have also been the car hard latley.

[continuecrushing]

Originally Posted by Darren Orange

And we are not seeing any major hit(not that I care) in mpg? I hear that these cars tuned to E85 maintain pretty much the same mileage. Is that true?

Originally Posted by 2forme

No, I went from 29-30 down to 22-23.

Originally Posted by King Tut

Where did you "hear" that?

I've seen the same thing as Darren Orange, there was a few threads(ill have to search for them) where e85 people were reporting mpg's just slightly lower than regular pump gas(like pump they got 32, on e85 they were at 24/25/26)

[sw20kosh]

You need something like 30% more e85 to equal pump gad. E85 is less energy dense so the engine needs to burn more of it.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by sw20kosh

You need something like 30% more e85 to equal pump gad. E85 is less energy dense so the engine needs to burn more of it.

Is the same still true with forced induction? I get the whole energy density argument completely with N/A, but if people are getting higher HP/FT-LB with E85 that makes me think forced induction uses it more efficiently.

I'm researching right now what my forced induction options are. I don't want overkill, but I'm used to low 5s in 0-60 and low to mid 13s on a 1/4 mile. At the same time, I see a lot of guys going with modest Avo turbos and getting near stock MPGs with good reliability. But I'm totally open to an SC if it's a solid option. Working off the powertrain makes it sound like you'd take a bigger MPG hit than a turbo, though. Sorry, I know my questions are all over the place.

[sw20kosh]

NA or FI doesn't make a difference. The engine needs a set amount of fuel per volume of air. FI increases the volume of air going into the engine and thus more fuel must be provided.

E85 is less energy dense than pump and thus in all applications more E85 must be injected to maintain the Air-Fuel ratio.

Hope that makes sense?

Centri Superchargers maybe consume 1-2 mpg more when cruising. It is negligible.

[Darren Orange]

Originally Posted by Shutter

I've seen the same thing as Darren Orange, there was a few threads(ill have to search for them) where e85 people were reporting mpg's just slightly lower than regular pump gas(like pump they got 32, on e85 they were at 24/25/26)

Yes...now I recall it! The reason for E85 to have "less power" is because of the crazy high octane. If a car is not setup to burn at that "octane" level then fuel will go unburned. FI supposedly fixes this issue allowing the engine to burn the fuel more completely. The same way an engine that needs higher octane will detonate with lower octane, if the octane is too high it won't burn all the fuel losing performance and getting worse fuel economy.


Found it on wiki bingo...

Fuel economy
In theory, all fuel-driven vehicles have a fuel economy (measured as miles per US gallon, or liters per 100 km) that is directly proportional to the fuel's energy content.[54] In reality, there are many other variables that come into play that affect the performance of a particular fuel in a particular engine. Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle will result in a 34% reduction in miles per US gallon, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline. Since ethanol has a higher octane rating, the engine can be made more efficient by raising its compression ratio. In fact using a variable turbocharger, the compression ratio can be optimized for the fuel being used, making fuel economy almost constant for any blend.[25][26] For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect is small (~3%) when compared to conventional gasoline,[55] and even smaller (1–2%) when compared to oxygenated and reformulated blends.[56] For E85 (85% ethanol), the effect becomes significant. E85 will produce lower mileage than gasoline, and will require more frequent refueling. Actual performance may vary depending on the vehicle. Based on EPA tests for all 2006 E85 models, the average fuel economy for E85 vehicles resulted 25.56% lower than unleaded gasoline.[57] The EPA-rated mileage of current USA flex-fuel vehicles[58] should be considered when making price comparisons, but E85 is a high performance fuel, with an octane rating of about 94–96, and should be compared to premium.[59] In one estimate[60] the US retail price for E85 ethanol is 2.62 US dollar per gallon or 3.71-dollar corrected for energy equivalency compared to a gallon of gasoline priced at 3.03-dollar. Brazilian cane ethanol (100%) is priced at 3.88-dollar against 4.91-dollar for E25 (as July 2007).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel"]Ethanol fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[s2d4]

^^^ you are funny

[Sportsguy83]

Originally Posted by Shutter

I've seen the same thing as Darren Orange, there was a few threads(ill have to search for them) where e85 people were reporting mpg's just slightly lower than regular pump gas(like pump they got 32, on e85 they were at 24/25/26)

So, going from 32 MPG to 24 is a 25% drop in fuel economy, or 1/4 less fuel economy....


You consider that "slight"??

[ft_sjo]

How much is E85 compared to petrol over there? Fuel economy should be based on cost per mile, not fuel used per mile.

[Sportsguy83]

Originally Posted by ft_sjo

How much is E85 compared to petrol over there? Fuel economy should be based on cost per mile, not fuel used per mile.

The term "Fuel economy" can be based on either money OR consumption. Its not exclusive to cost.

Economy is not a term reserved for "money".

There is no reason why not to base fuel economy in fuel used per mile. after all, every car manufacturer and their ads use it

[ft_sjo]

Originally Posted by Sportsguy83

The term "Fuel economy" can be based on either money OR consumption. Its not exclusive to cost.

Economy is not a term reserved for "money".

There is no reason why not to base fuel economy in fuel used per mile. after all, every car manufacturer and their ads use it

Sure, that's true. One method tells you how many miles you get to a tank, the other tells you how many miles you get to your dollars.

Both have their purposes - I assumed your comments about the economy being more than slight were more based around the cost rather than capacity. My bad.