Oxygenated fuel 20+ Horse power?

[BrazilianZ28Camaro]

David, I have a doubt about this kind of fuel blend.

Let's say we run a engine w/ 100% non oxigenated, no alcohol gasoline and the best power AFR is 13:1.

Now lets say I'm trying to go faster and add 50% of "dry" alcohol (wich would make best power at about 7:1 AFR)

Is correct to say that the new "required" AFR to the engine make best power will be the average of the AFRs from the above fuels? (13+7/2=10 AFR)

Seen to me that the gas in the mixture will burn rich and the alcohol in the mix will burn lean. If this is correct, there's no way the car will be faster. IMHO.

Can you please explain this logic?

Stan

I don't know how this "logic" can be valid or not but none of the fuels will be burning at the correct, best stoichometric ratio because the "compromised" AFR. The alcohol will be burned with too much air to make best power (lean burn) and the gas will be burned with too little air to best power (rich burn).

We know the alcohol have some O2 and would offset the gasoline rich burn condition a small amount.

Unless the 50-50 blend have new burn properties I cant see how this would make more power but hey, I'm way, way uneducated about chemestry.

[Stan Weiss]

I have a 400 ci engine @ 7000 RPM - ve = 100% - BP = 29.92 - Temp = 59 -- Mass airflow is 3720 lbs/hr
I am going to run half of the airflow on gas and half on alcohol
@ 12.5: A/F I need 148.8 lbs/hr of gas
@ 7.0 A/F I need 265.7 lbs/hr of alcohol
or 1.79 the alcohol than gas by weight for the same amount of mass airflow.

Stan

[andyf]

While we are on the subject are there any reports as to horsepower gain using MS109?

I've run A-B dyno tests with MS109 vs. VP110 with my 514 Mopar dyno engine. We didn't see any power gain when switching to the MS109. I'm sure it makes more power in some engines, but it didn't show any change for my engine. It worked just fine, but we never saw any significant power increase.

[andyf]

I've run dyno tests that lost power when switching to Q16. So I'd say that the results depend on the combination.

That does not seem right, did you add the extra fuel that was needed ?

Yes, we did a full jetting loop as well as a timing loop. It cost me about $1000 by the time I was done paying for dyno time, fuel and spare parts. I was hoping to find a little more power the "easy" way, but it didn't pan out.

[Mike Croley]

Oxygenated race gas like Renegade K-16 , will always make more power in a normally aspirated engine than non - oxygenated gasoline .

Sorry, that is not even close to being correct. There are several reasons.
The presence of oxygen (which has NO BTU value) must displace hydrocarbons (which do have BTU value), and so more fuel is needed just to get back to the same starting point.

If two fuels were identical in every respect except for oxygen content, some conclusions could be drawn with adequate testing and optimized tuning. But that is not the case. Oxygenated fuels are completely different in the composition, evaporation characteristics, BTU potential, ignitability, completeness of burn, etc, etc, etc.

The real trick to fuel evaluation (besides what the engine likes or does not like) is to know the distillation curve and the stoich value. Or a good fuel chemist.

That's an interesting hypothesis David , not correct , but interesting . As to larger jetting when using oxygenated fuels , i doubt that would come as much of a surprise to anyone . In fact , most oxygenated race fuels have that very suggestion in their spec sheets . In your final observation , you're right . The real trick to fuel evaluation isn't a trick at all . It's the lessons handed down from long hours on the dyno over decades by hundreds of thousands of engine builders learning what engines do or do not like .

[rookie]

While we are on the subject are there any reports as to horsepower gain using MS109?

I've run A-B dyno tests with MS109 vs. VP110 with my 514 Mopar dyno engine. We didn't see any power gain when switching to the MS109. I'm sure it makes more power in some engines, but it didn't show any change for my engine. It worked just fine, but we never saw any significant power increase.

If your engine needs VP110 then for an oxygenated fuel you might look at VP113 it's much closer in specs to the 110.
http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp-drag-racing.html

[David Redszus]

Oxygenated race gas like Renegade K-16 , will always make more power in a normally aspirated engine than non - oxygenated gasoline .

Sorry, that is not even close to being correct. There are several reasons.
The presence of oxygen (which has NO BTU value) must displace hydrocarbons (which do have BTU value), and so more fuel is needed just to get back to the same starting point.

If two fuels were identical in every respect except for oxygen content, some conclusions could be drawn with adequate testing and optimized tuning. But that is not the case. Oxygenated fuels are completely different in the composition, evaporation characteristics, BTU potential, ignitability, completeness of burn, etc, etc, etc.

The real trick to fuel evaluation (besides what the engine likes or does not like) is to know the distillation curve and the stoich value. Or a good fuel chemist.

That's an interesting hypothesis David , not correct , but interesting . As to larger jetting when using oxygenated fuels , i doubt that would come as much of a surprise to anyone . In fact , most oxygenated race fuels have that very suggestion in their spec sheets . In your final observation , you're right . The real trick to fuel evaluation isn't a trick at all . It's the lessons handed down from long hours on the dyno over decades by hundreds of thousands of engine builders learning what engines do or do not like .

Sorry Mike, but it is absolutely correct.
Just because a fuel contains an oxygenate, does not mean it must be run richer or with larger jets (or re-mapped). What matters is not oxgenate content but rather fuel stoichiometic value. And that comes as a big surprise to some folks who sell fuels.

Experience with a specific engine is indeed valuable and the engine is the final determinant in fuel selection. But builders might not have any experience with newer fuel blends or blends with altered characteristics. Now you can either spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours, through a trial and error process, trying to find the right fuel blend for that engine.

Or you can enlist the assistance of someone who knows fuel blends, and when coupled with in-cylinder combustion pressure measurement, will find the correct solution very, very quickly. Without the destruction of engines that normally accompanies trial and error tuning.

I don't know how this "logic" can be valid or not but none of the fuels will be burning at the correct, best stoichometric ratio because the "compromised" AFR. The alcohol will be burned with too much air to make best power (lean burn) and the gas will be burned with too little air to best power (rich burn).

The alcohol and gasoline do not burn separately. The required fuel ratio is a function of the weighted mass average of the stoich value of each fuel component. Gasolines typically have many components, (50 for race fuels, 450 for pump gas), each with different characteristics. Alcohols typically only have two components, alcohol and water.

As the blend components of a fuel are changed, so are ALL the aforementioned characteristics that affect optimum evaporation, ignition and combustion.

One might ask, why do Formula One teams have very close working relationships with oil company fuel chemists?
Maybe they know something.

[dieselgeek]

For those of us running EFI is there a ballpark figure of how much to enrich the WOT settings when using MS109? Say if you are at 13:1 A/F ratio for WOT throttle would you want to be at 12.8:1 when using MS109 or even richer? In the video with the carb it said to go up 5 jets sizes for instance.

Alan, in my experience, it's anyone's guess where your AFRs will end up, especially when measured at the collector. Best bet is to run the typical tuning sweeps and find out where it's happy.

CDMBill on here, built a really nice big block Ford at 588" and here's how it did on the MS109:

a best of 1014 HP @7500 and 808 Ft lb @ 5800 on VP MS 109 unleaded and 1006 HP @ 7500 and 793 Ft lb @ 5800 on 76 100 unleaded. The motor likes 28 degrees total with either fuel and we found that 26 degrees was virtually as good on the 100 when we ramped the curve up to 30* in smooth steps starting at 6000.

In his case we picked up a few hp on the MS 109. We didn't test Q16 on his engine as it was built to be a pump gas motor. Per Bill, engine specs are:
588" TFS A460 heads and tunnel ram manifold, twin Accufab dominator flange throttle bodies, 11.86:1 compression, 282/294/113 Comp roller cam with .825/.815 lift. Engine built by Dougan's Racing in consulation with Lem Evans, George Klass, Wilson Manifolds

Here's a dyno video from Vrbancic's back in August, just before Drag Week: http://youtu.be/msBeVfZgP-Q

The misfire at high RPM on a couple of the pulls ended up being a broken weatherpack pin, we got our numbers after sorting that out.

[1989TransAm]

"Alan, in my experience, it's anyone's guess where your AFRs will end up, especially when measured at the collector. Best bet is to run the typical tuning sweeps and find out where it's happy."

I figured that might be the case but always looking for a shortcut and not having to re-invent the wheel so to speak.

[Mike Croley]

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on this one David . But i'll leave you with a couple of observations . One , it seems odd that the very oil company fuel chemists ( from every race fuel manufacturer in fact ) you refer to keep coming up with oxygenated fuels to make more power . Seems like they would be risking their reputations , and the reputations of the companies that employ them . Of course we both know that isn't the case .
But here's another observation . Given an average race engine , lets say a V8 , normally aspirated , optimized on 110 octane leaded race gas . You then add an oxygenate , from 2% to 4% by volume to the above mentioned 110 leaded race gas and optimize the engine to the new fuel as any good racer would . The engine would of course gain HP in the latter configuration over the former .

[dieselgeek]

One , it seems odd that the very oil company fuel chemists ( from every race fuel manufacturer in fact ) you refer to keep coming up with oxygenated fuels to make more power . Seems like they would be risking their reputations , and the reputations of the companies that employ them . Of course we both know that isn't the case .

Claiming a fuel change alone will always make more power in any engine is salesmenship, nothing more. That's like claiming any simple speed part is guaranteed to make power... the fact is, both cases always require the correct supporting parts, assembly, and finesse to meet the marketing claims.

[rookie]

The claim that Anything does Everything Always is absolute proof that there are no absolutes…except for this exception

I think this is a good reason to focus on actual experience with a little explanation of what has been experienced, good or bad, this will provide the most productive data for those wishing to try oxygenated fuel.

[jmarkaudio]

If an oxygenated fuel improves early vaporization, improving mixture distribution and/or an engines ability to burn the fuel more completely, it is likely to see an improvement. Improve the engines mixture distribution and burn characteristics and the value will likely diminish or go away. I think a fair amount of weekend racers that are likely to try an oxygenated fuel will see gains as the engines they run are not highly optimized combinations.

[Stan Weiss]

Stan, I wonder if you could post this as once again I seem to be part of, and at odds with some ST posters. This time on the subject of the VP
oxygenated fuels test/discussion.



First let me say that guys like ‘dieselgeek, David Redszus, and a few others have raised important issues about the success or otherwise of using
oxygenated fuels. There is, as with most automotive endeavors, far more to it than meets the eye. Obviously VP and all the other pro fuel blenders
appreciate the complexities involved. A representative of VP called me (not any of the others) and asked if it would be possible to test the effect of
one or more grades of oxygenated fuels and how much it would likely cost to do this and make a short video of the test engine producing the results as
my tests would be more acceptable to end users than any VP did.


As VP’s luck would have it we were already doing some dyno testing on my 496 big block to finish the tune ready for it to be sold. In so many words I
told VP’s vice pres. Steve Scheidker that he had called at a very opportune moment. Because a suitable engine was already on the dyno I would, as a
favor, run a test against the best street fuels Terry Walters (TWPE in Roanoke) and I had so far found. So VP sent out about 10 gals of the
appropriate fuel (101 octane MS109).



This test was very convenient for me as I am currently doing a new version of the Cartec book ‘Super Tuning Holley Carbs’. So I needed to do tests
like this anyway. The video was a bonus for VP. However VP’s tech guys had voiced the concern that it is important that end users are sufficiently
well informed about the correct use of oxygenated fuels. Well that’s a subject I have to cover complete with the photo’s of what to do etc for my book.
So how much more work would it be to video this for VP and youtube – about 2 days work. I made it clear to VP that I would only do this if the
demand, as indicated by the hits on the actual dyno test, showed that the interest was there.



And to the comment made by some less than generous soul – no, the addition to the dyno test video won’t happen regardless. I cannot afford (nor my
videographer Nigel Thurlow or engine builder Terry Walters) to waste 2 days, endure expenses for such (about $300) and on top of that loose the
income from such just to see myself on youtube. If you personally are not interested in information on how to get the best from the use of oxygenated
fuels then fine – as an ST poster it is your choice - don’t visit the Youtube dyno test. On the other hand if you do want to know than register your vote
by visiting the dyno test – it is as simple as that. I am looking for votes one way or the other so my time is used constructively. There is no underlying
plot here to take over the world or anything like that.



Oh and by the way after this is all done, whether or not I go the next step with the instructional part of the video, VP does owe me a favor or two. In
my business it’s the dishing out and repaying of favors that makes what I do a viable business. Usually most of the companies I deal with are aware
that I have, during my 45 year career, made literally dozens of millionaires so things may not be such a drain on a companies resources as might at
first be supposed.

DV

[ZIGGY]

I think a fair amount of weekend racers that are likely to try an oxygenated fuel will see gains as the engines they run are not highly optimized combinations.

X2 based upon my experience with some circle track stuff.