Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » E85 Fuel Systems




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 1150 E85 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
Finally got the 1150 I converted for a friend of mine to the dyno. I was a bit upset that he didnt call me for tuning advice on the carb while at the session. However the carb did make good power but not as good as I think it can be.

My buddy is in Oregon and at about 4500ft above sea level. The baseline setup of the carb was:

Carb Setup
Banjos .184 - 1.010 Skirt
Booster Inserts 12 hole .070
Stake Tube 0.184
PMJ 93
SMJ 103
HSB 0.025
IAB 0.060
PV 4.5 Hg HF
PVCR 0.086
IFR 0.046
antisiphon 0.028
E-Holes .028-B-.028-B
Mainwell .175-.187 taper
MW Exit 0.175
Squirters .047 Hollow
Pumpcam Yellow #1
Accel Pump 50cc
T-Slot 0.105

Made this on the dyno with E85
----636tq.---750hp.------91--101 Jets

With a 3 circuit Gas carb went
----650tq.---769hp. ------------------

I feel with the way that there is more to be had. I want to try a bigger HSB with 92-102 jets. However I am still waiting to see his dyno sheets from the session to see how we can make it better. Overall I feel it was successful for the my friend. I feel in the end he will make the same if not a little more power and be saving about 5 bucks a gallon.

AJ


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Florida
Tell him to give it more jet. My 1150 without skirts ended up at .168 BLP jets, way bigger than a 100 Holley which is around a .128 BLP. I'd start with .155-.160 with the skirts.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
He did try running 96 - 106 jets and lost 30HP and 45 ft.lbs. I figured it would want more jet too. He went to the track this weekend so I am waiting for his call today to talk about it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
Mark I wonder if your mainwell size and emulsion setup forced the need for the bigger jets on your setup?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Florida
I've had 2 different sets of blocks on it. First set has #2 taper, about .164 at the bottom to .180's at the angle channel. I was up to .164 jets and still not enough. AFR's were .90-.95 at WOT, when the DA went to -444 ft at the Gators it went closer to 1.0. New blocks are #3 taper, .184 at the bottom to around .200 at the angle, angle channels are .184 and jets are .168. AFR's went right away to the .80's, ET picked up slightly. Also had my slotted booster inserts, changed them to 16 hole boosters and no difference. I also had to lower the IFR down with the larger mainwell blocks, which surprised me a bit. As far as emulsion, I have played with 1 or 2 e-bleeds and saw no significant change.

The first set of blocks are now on the skirted 1050, I forgot to put the SD card back in the Racepak so no logs this past weekend, I'll know something Saturday. I started with .158's in it, seemed a little rich, went to .152 and picked up .02 and 1 MPH. Car has been very consistent no matter where the jets have been, it isn't affected much by weather change.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
The IFR change is strange to me as well. When you ran the 16 hole boosters did increase the hole size or leave as standard for gas?

I have done emulsion testing on 4150s and saw the same thing as you, no significant difference in going from .024 - .029 2 or 1 above or below....Havent had the time to do that yet on the 4500's. This season I plan on some extensive 4500 testing as I will have 2 on my cars and 1 on my sisters car. We only need one TT anyway...LOL

I am surprised at the data on the larger mainwells. I would expect them to cause the fuel to be lazy with the emulsion and non skirted boosters on that combo.

The setup I posted above I thought would be lean ended up being rich based on the jet changes he made. However I want to see the dyno sheets to view exactly what happened. I cant imagine that the altitude difference would be that many jet sizes different from your setup. The small skirts that I put in this one wont cut CFM that much. I would expect if flowed it would still be around 1100 cfm. I expected them to pull more fuel but not enough to justify the jet difference from you setup to his.

AJ


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Florida
I'll be curious to see where the 1050 ends up being, I think the 1150 without skirts were on the edge of needing more fuel, why I think the larger mainwells helped. It ran well on my brothers car this past weekend, no direct back to back info but the weather was much worse than two weeks prior and his car was running almost identical ET, picked up 1/2 MPH. I have not seen any large gains like some see, however the converter stall is well above peak torque which is where alcohols usually show gains. Consistency has been great, and cost of course is much better!!!! \:D/


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
What skirts did you use on the 1050? I did mine with 1.010 skirts. I want to try it with smaller ones around .960 but need some data at 1.010 first. I arrived at 1.010 from talking with BLP about my figures.

I also have a rail car that I am looking forward to running again. Had it on E85 2 yrs ago when I was running it. Only ran 8.70's looking to run 7.70's now.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
ajcasini wrote:
He did try running 96 - 106 jets and lost 30HP and 45 ft.lbs. I figured it would want more jet too. He went to the track this weekend so I am waiting for his call today to talk about it.

So this engine lost power with bigger jets and its doesnt make as much as gas anyway so what you going to do about it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
Well first I want to look at the dyno logs to see what the curve looks like. Once I see this I can look at Air Bleeds vs jet to see what we need.

With the carb obviously being rich with my initial setup I may add to the HSB to flatten the curve on the high side. May be going rich with the 025 HSB.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Florida
My 1050 only has small skirts, .950 OD. I still have some work to do, it acts like the mains are coming on too soon. I'm going to recheck the float level and maybe lower it a little, see how it responds. It only has an .043 IJ and .063 IAB's, .028 MAB's and .152 jets at the moment. I don't understand him losing any HP, mine has not gained much but I believe the converter stall point and gear is part of it. While it helps ET being above the peak torque it also will show a lower gain as alcohol fuels boost more at peak torque than peak HP. I think a lot of guys showing large gains are either under carb'ed, under gear'ed, under converter'ed, or a combination of them.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Florida
One more thing to look at is engine temps they were running. I inadvertently left my fan off on a pass in cold weather, running water pump only. Even though I had a fair amount of heat in the engine already, it picked up time. And that was with my Sb2 on gas. Every engine once built will need a certain amount of heat to help vaporize a sufficient amount of fuel. It may be less when the weather warms up, but will still need a certain amount to run best. E85 needs more heat as the ethanol has a higher boiling point.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Rochester, NY
AJ - I'm interested in how you arrived at the .070 holes in the 12 hole boosters. I've been theorizing that I should keep the same relative area as existed between the stock banjo passage and the stock 8 booster holes. I calculated the stock ratio and then applied it to a banjo passage of .185 to come up with a need for 12 .063 holes. This is the configuration that's now in my 1050 conversion that should see the track in early May.

_________________
Mark Slayton
Rochester, NY
Quick Rod 130C
Super Comp 130C


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:37 pm
Posts: 24
Mark I came up with the .070 was looking at the area and volume that the hole size could pass. I need to grab my numbers but what I did was continually increased the area and volume of the passages up to the booster exit. Off the top of my head my area increased were:

MW 27%
Cross Channel 30%
Pin 31%
Banjo 32%
Booster insert 33%

So the same approach that is talked about with increasing pin hole size through all the channels I did that but using area and volume calculations.

AJ


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1150 Carb Conversoin
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Rochester, NY
Hmm....That's what I tried to do and I came up with the .063, but I only used the cross sectional area. I guess mine can always be enlarged so I'll run them next month and see what results I get. Thanks.

_________________
Mark Slayton
Rochester, NY
Quick Rod 130C
Super Comp 130C


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Racing Forum » E85 Fuel Systems


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron