lol e85 is old news man. I'm using it. I made 406 hp and 414 torque on the evo 8 16g.

 

I'm not fooling with the stuff for a few reasons. My cars are all daily drivers, it's not accessible to me plus I don't feel like being bothered with replacing my fuel feed and return lines. The numbers on a dyno look good and all that but I'd rather have a motor that can make "E85 numbers" using pump gas. That way when I say my numbers are 6XXwhp and 6XXtq on 30psi I could always say now imagine what I'd make on E85 :lol:.

 

See I would rather push my setup to the max and get the most out of it I can the simplest way possible. None of the lines need to be changed on DSMs(maybe same for 3Gs?). So wouldn't guys pushing the stock block want to do the same thing? Push the block to it's limits without the risk of knock?

Btw bostonhatcher, that's pretty good for the 16g...I also like your mounting for the rear diff, I considered it for mine but don't think it will be necessary

 

E85 is pointless on a stock motor 3g, you can makes it out with pump gas and a 16g turbo

 

I just don't see how it's pointless on a stock block turbo 3G...how can it not help get more power out of them?

 

Your limited to a certain torque before a rod will let go, a differnt fuel wont change that. If you cant max out the stock block on 93 you need a new tuner.

 

Does knock not contribute to throwing a rod though? 2Gs have weak rods yet people make a lot more power on the stock block using e85 rather than pump gas...would it not be safe to assume the same for 3Gs?

 

Not the same, If you had a built sohc or a head swap and would make power past 5.8k rpm then yes you could make more hp as hp it tq x rpm. But with a stock motor 3g your limited to around 350whp and you can hit that on pump gas. So No you will see no benifit from using e85 unless your tuner is retarded and cant tune for shit.

 

e85 is pointless on stock 4g64.

e85 would benefit a turbo 4g64 regardless of turbo size. The 4g64/4g63 rods are quite strong for the toothpick they are and the bearing clearances are pretty big from the factory. The weakpoint in 4g64's is the cam. No matter what turbo it's only going to flow a certain cfm before hits a wall. The wall is about 350 whp. The rods could easily take 500 whp with a safe tune. That being said, if you throw a 35r on a 4g64 like zeeshan did, it's only going to make 350whp on pump gas. With e85 it's going to make close to 450-500 whp from it's burn efficiency and advanced timing (with same airflow) which will put you right at the limit for the setup.

The 4g64 cam is built for low-mid range torque. Low lift (achieve high velocity for low piston speed) and a very low valve overlap. More overlap will shift the powerband to the right and the higher lift with more duration will allow much more airflow. The ports are enourmous and at most would need cleaned up for more velocity for anybody's need on this forum.

 

This was what I was thinking. You gain more power from e85 because you can do so much with timing...rev limit shouldn't hinder that.

 

Um no. You can only make a a certain hp at a certain rpm before the rods will fail becuase the tq required to make more hp will be over the limit. You "COULD" make 450whp on stock 4g64 rods "IF" your reved it out to 7k+ and had a head/intake manifold to make power at higher rpm. With the stock 4g64 sohc head and intake manifold power falls off between 5.5-5.8k so with a 340wtq max you can ONLY make 350-370whp out of a stock 4g64 motor. No matter what fuel, HP = Tq x rpm / 5252.

So again if your tuner cant max out a stock motor 4g64 even with a smaller turbo you need a new tuner. PERIOD!

Hatcher you should already know all this but I guess not.....Oh and your stock cam theory is wrong, its the intake manifold that makes the power fall off. Proof? Here you go http://www.club3g.com/forum/rs-gs/118271-just-broke-357whp-15psi.html

 

You ninja, I was searching for that thread. ^^^ :lol:

Torque is torque, 350 on pump is 350 on E85. And timing will not net you 300whp!! Jesus christ I have this arguement every week with my DSM buddy. Advancing timing isn't what gives you RPM potential, it has nothing to do with the fact that the stock 64 chokes at 5.5k. Placing where it breathes is how you place your power band. Its the same logic you use when chosing cams.

 

I have it saved in my favorites. Almost noone knows about that thread. Sometimes Ill be talking to someone that even posted in the thread and forgot it existed.

 

If e85 has nothing to do with torque then how do people switch from pump gas to e85 and gain 40wtq by just changing the tune?

This isnt meant to be sarcastic, I am genuinely curious how they do this with no other changes

 

Right you can make more hp on e85 BUT it does NOT change how much torque the motor can take. So on a stock motor 4g64 you will Not make more hp with e85 vs 93 unless your tune is shitty on 93. Because the max the motor can take can be reached on 93 with a good tune.


No matter what, this does not change: Hp = Tq x RPM / 5252. So with a 340tq limit the most Hp you can make at 5500rpm is 350. NO MATTER WHAT!!!

 

HOLY SHIT I definitely wasn't aware of the manifold being the problem. I've never actually tested it, just kind of assumed of other setups testing.

Yes e85 WILL increase your torque without changing boost. My car jumped over 100 ft/lbs at 21 psi on both fuels. I took it to 25 psi avg and called it good.

 

Hatcher your really missing the point, a stock 4g64 block can only take 340~wtq. So yes on e85 you "can" gain hp/tq that wont change what the block will hold.

 

There is nothing new about e85. The point he is making. Is whether you run more boost without knocking using e85, meth, nitrous, or even using co2 to cool down the intercooler, the 4g64 can only handle so much power. Factory rods break a little over 300 lbs of tq. Maybe somebody has pushed it further, but most of us have street cars and stay fairly conservative on our hp and tq addictions.

 

Don't mind my grammar, I'm on my phone at work

 

STM's Ricer made WELL over 700 awhp on the stock evo rod:

It's a cast piece not forged. Where is a pic of the 4g64 eclipse rod?

 

1/3 of the way down from the small end is why an Evo rod can handle more torque for a given level than any other 7 bolt.

 

You're still missing the point that horsepower doesn't break rods, torque does.

 

Engine speed (hp) can easily break rods. Especially with a heavy piston. Besides the point here is Ryu's stock block dyno graph:

More info here:

590whp 576wtq@40.2psi FPred/Stock Block (TTP TUNED) - evolutionm.net

 

Torque and tensile breakdown break rods. Meaning either torque/compression snaps them or they literally tear due to revving and high RPMs. Mitsu's stock rod bolts love to let go.

 

Nobody said it couldn't be done, what we said is that its not practical for a street car. I dare you to push 500whp daily on a stock bottom end. Drive it to work, school, dinner, to the market and see how long it lasts.

 

Ryu's been doing it for a couple years. I think he's crazy but he's getting away with it.

 

The crazy thing is that with almost any material, fatigue is introduced at about half the ultimate tensile strength. I've studied graphs in my engineering classes that analyze tensile strength (0.5-1.0) vs. load cycles and even at 0.5 it takes about half a million load cycles to fatigue the material and break and if he's been driving it for a couple years he's well beyond that meaning those rods aren't even at half the ultimate strength of the rod.

Also you can make 500 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 rpms and 6000 rpms and it's a totally different load on the rod. Saying that a rod can only take x amount of torque is somewhat of an estimate. A rod can also handle more if it's lower compression more boost to make teh same torque vs. more compression lower boost (more progressive burn and force to achieve same torque)

 

Also you can make 500 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 rpms and 6000 rpms and it's a totally different load on the rod. Saying that a rod can only take x amount of torque is somewhat of an estimate. A rod can also handle more if it's lower compression more boost to make teh same torque vs. more compression lower boost (more progressive burn and force to achieve same torque)

Are you serious? You truely do Not know what your talking about.

 

We still have a larger bore and a longer stroke. The heavier rotating mass wil affect the stress put on the internals

 

It's not the fact that it's heavier it's the rod ratio (rod angle) that puts more stress on the rod and piston skirts. Although it's kind of a trade off because stroker motors make more torque with the exact same amount of air in the chamber as a 2.0 just because of the mechanical efficiency of the stroke (force x radius = torque). 2.4 has a 50 mm radius while the 4g63 has 44mm radius.

 

If you don't understand this I can explain but I don't feel like writing a paper if you already do.

 

Weoght does make a difference. For example, my bikes engine is vertical, however the small stroke and light rotating assembly allows it to rev to 18k rpms. If that assembly wasn't lightweight, no way would it be able to hit those revolutions. The rod angle definately makes a difference, but you can't discount the weight difference. The piston, the longer rod, the crank all weigh more and due to the slightly larger surfaces, those internals are also exposed to more friction.

 

There is actually discussion about this on dsmtuners and the 2.4(basically the same motor in the 3G) at say 5800rpms would have nearly the same load/wear and tear as a 2.0 at 7800rpms or so. (keep in mind these arent exact numbers but you get the idea. With the amount each is revved to, they have the same amount of stress. There have been numerous 7bolt 2.0s making 350whp+ and no bad rods (driven daily) I really don't see how the majority of you (save bostonhather) can say the engine can't handle it when none of you have ran e85 and tried. I of course haven't but you can't say something can't happen until you try it and prove it wrong. Not on pump gas because they are completely different.

 

Weoght does make a difference. For example, my bikes engine is vertical, however the small stroke and light rotating assembly allows it to rev to 18k rpms. If that assembly wasn't lightweight, no way would it be able to hit those revolutions. The rod angle definately makes a difference, but you can't discount the weight difference. The piston, the longer rod, the crank all weigh more and due to the slightly larger surfaces, those internals are also exposed to more friction.

 

And there's so many variables that can't be covered by your explanation. The strength of the rod, rod bolts after x amount of heat cycles, whether there is adequate lubrication to maintain the integrity of the metal surfaces. I mean, how many rod BOLTS have failed? Many...

 

Rod bolts fail from rpm's not load from the piston. Lubrication should be fine as long as you have the proper clearances matching the proper weight oil.