Hey guys,
 
been doing a little research and found that E85, the race fuel the American guys use is available here in Australia now. My question is, is it worth converting over and what will be required to run a 3sgte on this stuff?
 
A few quick things I have found
 
http://www.carsguide.com.au/site/news-and-reviews/car-news/caltex_rolls_outs_e85
 
http://www.powertune.com.au/e85&dualmaps.html
 
discuss please
 
Alex

The Caltex near the Ipswich cemetery has had E85 for probably a year now.
If my car was going I'd be running it on it.  It is actually E70-E85 based on seasonal variation though, and is mixed with 91 (?) ron fuel. 
 
IMHO to run it in a performance car you'd probably want to run a flex fuel sensor with map (primarily timing as it'll richen up as the fuel content increases) adjustment for ethanol content.  If you ran a really conservative tune you could probably get away with it.  It was about 10c cheaper then standard unleaded when I looked. 
 
Whats required?  E85 compliant fuel system.   I've heard of it making a mess of old gunked up fuel systems as well and people ending up with gummed up fuel injectors, so, its probably wise to run new rubber lines before running it.
 
I'll be running it once the MR is going again, wether or not it'll be the pump stuff or the gear you can buy in the drum (guaranteed 85% ethanol blended with premium unleaded) is yet to be determined.  The drum from race fuel suppliers runs you probably $2 a litre.

Not so sure it's manner from heaven. E10 was originally introduced as a green fuel, rated at 95, and attractively priced. Obviously a 91/ethanol mix..now it's being phased in replacing 91 unleaded (don't know why they call it that..nothings leaded) and rated 91. Obviously rubbish fuel/ethanol mix.
Notice the statement "up to 105 RON"? please define. Ultimately, no doubt, this stuff will replace 98, and will be rated at 98. The US E85 is minimum 105, no "up to" about it.
What happend to 100 optimax? 98/ethanol mix, and why hasn't Caltex explained why they are removing 91 from their sites and replacing it with low grade E10 at a higher price. So enjoy while it lasts. Ok if you have the latest performance car with multiple mapping to accomodate 95, E85 & E100.
The only good thing about it is the higher knock rating of ethanol, the worst thing is the cost..of gearing up for it plus burning 40% more.
I think maybe a 98(80%)/E85(20%) is a much better performance option, especially for anything with a stock ECU.

The main benefit of E85 compared to normal unleaded fuel, is that it is much more tolerant of knock due to the higher octane rating. This means that you can run significantly more ignition timing advance to achieve a substantial increase in power. Although this is the only benefit I can think of, it is quite a big benefit indeed. On normal fuel you will often be knock-limited before reaching maximum torque, but with E85 it's not unusual to be able to advance the ignition timing past the optimal point and still not get any knock. 
 
So, that's the benefit, now for the negatives.
Although it is true that fuel is cheaper per litre when mixed with ethanol, ethanol has a lower energy density...so it is consumed much faster than normal fuel. Basically, to achieve a suitable air/fuel ratio when running E85, you typically need at least 30% more fuel than you otherwise would with normal fuel under the same conditions. For this reason, you need new injectors with a much higher flow-rate, and a fuel-pump that provides sufficient flow too. As mentioned already, having ethanol mixed with the fuel will often destroy old fuel systems which weren't designed to be ethanol compatible. This means that running E85 (or any substantial percentage of ethanol), makes it compulsory to upgrade most of the fuel system. 
 
One more thing (not a pro or con, just some info)...as Totenkopf mentioned, modern cars which are 'flex-fuel-capable' from the factory, will have an Ethanol Concentration Sensor fitted. This tells the ECU the exact percentage of ethanol in the fuel, so it can adjust the air/fuel ratio and ignition timing accordingly.
Some aftermarket ECUs are designed to allow Flex-Fuel compatibility in a similar way. 

Im also planning on running E85, altho drum race E85 not pump, when my cars going again, however will have 2 maps on the ECU, E85 and Pump 98 PULP.
 
As said above, run cooler, high knock rating, but need about 30% more fuel, and i would replace all lines with Teflon lines or other E85 compatible lines, also wouldn't leave it sitting in the system for long periods of time, im planning to drain, fill / flush with pump fuel.

Totally agree robk, you certainly know what your talking about. Trouble with this stuff is it would seem the quality isn't going to be consistant with world standard E85..if there is one, but when it's going to vary in quality, or more importantly octane rating, as tots said I think, your going to be restricted to a conservative tune, and all the benefits of optimising ign advance and MBT go out the window.
As a race fuel, the quality E85 is ideal, lets face it, alcohol cars have been around for years, so considering gearing up costs don't mean a lot, it's definitely a win. The problem is adapting this particular strain of E85 that Caltex is talking about to street driven cars, and particularly to older cars with stock ECU's or even older technology aftermarket ECU's is a bigger problem. Plus there's a large gap between running E85 and 98 that needs to be resolved. Its not like you can simply run dual mapping on the same injectors and switch over. Take that into consideration, plus the need to tune conservatively and the resultant reduction in ign optimisation, where the big gains come in, and the limited availability of the stuff locally, and one needs to think it through.
 
Your perfectly right about running 30% more in the real world, but you still need injectors 42% or even up to 50% larger, so in our case on the street, with dual mapping, you'll be looking at running 800-850cc injectors on 98 at a very low duty cycle and associated nozzle spray pattern issues. There's been a lot of success with this fuel in EU and US, but are we getting the same E85?
When you look at the other end of the scale, running 98 or even 95 in some cases, blending in levels of E85, there's some real gains to be made, without the all or nothing problem arising..I'm talking street use of course. For instance, running a  gen2 with stock ECU on say 50/50% with 550's, an extra 1-2deg initial advance, bigger pump, rail and AFPR can open up the JDM ign mapping, increased boost and offer a world of joy that wasn't there before..of course in this case limited by the HG and possibly ceramic turbo.. just as an example.
But my point is there's a lot of potential in this approach, where stock or smaller turbo's are concerned ie ct26/ct20b/hi-flow/28's etc., limited by the power potential of the inj sizing of course, but good honest gains for anyone in that bracket.
 
 
 
 
 

Ok, up early this morning, so I thought I'd give this stuff the acid test. Here's a ball by ball:
I'm running gen3 electronics with an ECU2 for trim as some might know, with a gt28/71.
I reset the U2 onto clean maps, removed the fcd clamp and set the base fuel pressure back to stock..so I'm running on OEM maping with no trim whatsoever. Also checked the base timing was stock.
I had 2/3's a tank full of BP98, so I went for a run to get used to stock mapping again..cruise, boost, WOT the lot.
I then headed down to Marsden and put 10 litres ( I tried checking the tank capacity earlier and got 4 different results, so I choose 52L) of this 'bio-flex' in and topped up with vortex (which I don't like).

Results: I'd noticed a slight hesitation off idle on 98 before, this was gone. Off boost torque was strong (and smooth) and the car was more responsive. General driveability was very different (good). Now for the real stuff..boost came on quicker and stronger, spool was noticeably earlier..and the car, under WOT, just wanted to keep boosting. I had to remember to keep it under 15psi for a real comparison (I later took it to 17psi, remembering I had stock FC). Conclusion-  best 14 bucks I spent all day.
Here's what was happening:
At idle, light throttle & cruise, the O2 sensor was doing the work and there was no appreciable change to EFI, apart from having 100 RON and full ign timing curve.
During boost with 98 on stock mapping AFR's didn't even look like getting into the 11's.
When running the 80/20 mix AFR's were still in the 10's, and I'm running all the VE upgrades, so if there was a chance of leaning out, I would have seen it, plus fuel pressure was rock solid at WOT. Plus ethanol doesn't need boost enrichment, so that works in your favor as well.
Give this a try guys, it's a safe mix on a stock ECU, this was a gen3 but gen2 would be no different, probably respond even a bit better. I wouldn't go past the 80/20 I tried without further testing and if it's a stock HG stay withing normal boost pressure.
 
I'm going to work up a set of maps for this blend because there's a lot of potential left in there. I'm also thinking of going to sard 650's and uping the ratio further, along with my 98 in a dual maping setup.
 

That's a lot of great info there MuMan thanks!

You know what, I might tickle my EVO 8 to use E85.  I'll need to throw some larger injectors in, but apart from that, I can modify the timing maps in the standard computer (ahhh, the joys of newer electronics).  I'll probably just increase injector size by the amount of extra fuel I need so I can essentially leave fuel maps untouched, and just tickle the timing maps with a few degrees of extra timing.

Would this 80/20 ratio be okay on the stock fuel system pump/lines/injectors/rail?  or detrimental?
Wonder if the consumption would change dramatically....I already get poor economy lol
Cheers