e85 and track days

bloke79 · 03-28-2022, 10:30 PM

Hi All,

Wondering if many of you running e85 without upgraded injectors/HPFP's do track days and had any issues with your tunes? I had a bit of a hunt around and couldn't find anything specific so thought I'd ask.

The reason for the question, is I'm running about e55-e60 (just switched to the bm3 multimap stage 2-93 + bm3 flex fuel sensor). I noticed that my car at WOT is looking to run mid-13's mid range down to very high 12's at top RPM.

I'm running a 15% torque reduction in 3rd/4th so it's making about 20-21psi (log attached below). There is some timing being pulled - but I had traction control on, and I know it definitely went off. It's not knocking and it's pulling like a freight train - so all should be OK there.

Doing a bit of a hunt around the forum I noticed a number of other WOT runs logged with BM3 are also quite lean (I think I saw one low 14's mid range and high 13's up top).

So - with all that preamble, is mid13's/high12's OK on these motors for track duties? From tuning evo's years ago, we'd usually aim for 12.1->12.3:1 on E85, but I profess to not being an expert on Direct Injection.

BM3 log attached
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6236...729b018affdee6

Appreciate any guidance!

Cheers,
Matt

Phatazz7 · 03-29-2022, 10:17 AM

I'm assuming you're referring to air fuel ratios here. simply put depending on how much throttle you put in you want to target 12's for full throttle as ideal ratio. There are so many other variables here that could cause a car to target 12's but never really get there. I think I and many others would be a bit lost at what you're asking? Did you have any issues during any of the runs to cause concern? High heat, Idle, break up? If not all appears to be well.

JustAnothaM4 · 03-29-2022, 03:09 PM

I assume you're talking about drag racing vs road course racing? That is definitely a no go for any HPDE / road course racing.

bloke79 · 03-29-2022, 05:28 PM

Thanks for the reply gents. Apologies if it wasn't clear. Yep - AFR's was what I was referring to.

Phatazz7 - no - no indications that anything was wrong other than the car targetting what I would say are lean AFRs.

JustAnothaM4 - Ahh, I'm talking about road course stuff (sorry, we call them track days here in AUS). I'm just running the OTS maps (multimap stage 2-93) - which I figure plenty others probably are too.

For clarification, my concern is it does seem too lean to me for any sort of sustained multiple full throttle pulls based on my non-DI experience. I don't want to take it to the track like this only for it to have issues.

Looking across this forum for e85 BM3 logs, and most of them look the same (very lean AFRs), but plenty of timing and no knock... Some examples here and here. These are from the Turbos, Lift Kit and Eu5 thead here: https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1846261

I think I only saw a single log which had logs which dipped into the 12's up top. Hence the Q! Looking at my logs - the car is targetting a 0.9 lambda (13.23:1 afr). If it were a fuelling limitation, I would have thought the target would be 12.3:1 (0.84 lambda), but the actuals can't make it there.

Cheers,
Matt

JustAnothaM4 · 04-03-2022, 06:32 AM

I would recommend PI over DI upgrades. Especially for the track. Everyone runs these cars extremely lean to make DI only work on E85. Much more dangerous to do that on the track where you will have extended sessions of high load.

bloke79 · 04-03-2022, 08:18 PM

JustAnothaM4 - thanks mate - yeah - it definitely seems that way. I think I'll stick with E85 for the street and pump fuel (or maybe up to e30) for track duties.

Fred E · 04-05-2022, 08:28 AM

I have (so far) done 3 track days with flex fuel as my only fueling modification and used various mixes of E% no lower than 40% and as high as 70%. I've logged a lot of these sessions and my tuner has not mentioned anything alarming with regards to fueling capacity. He has however mentioned more fueling headroom would be welcome, so I do have EU5 injectors standing by and have been eyeing the Dorsch lift kit. However, simply running < 60% ethanol is a far cheaper alternative.

In reviewing a log where I had 72% ethanol in the tank, my car was also targeting and attaining .9 lambda under load fairly often and sometimes a bit higher without any corresponding knock, misfiring, or large fueling corrections.

Considering the high heat and stress levels that a car is subjected to on the track, I don't think I would ever track a car without some amount of ethanol in the tank simply for the cooling effect it has and far lower propensity for knock or pre-ignition. Coming from tracking an aftermarket turbocharged BRZ (i.e. boost plus high compression engine) (which ironically was undoubtedly faster around a track than my F80), I would feel extremely uneasy tracking on pump gas. Old habits die hard, I guess.

bloke79 · 04-05-2022, 08:41 PM

Thanks Fred E - appreciate the response. Would you mind sharing one of those logs (happy via PM if you don't want to post on this thread). Good to hear you've done a few track days as the car is though.

Not wanting to do too many high speed acceleration runs in *cough* Mexico *cough*, I went to a local dyno shop to run the car up to confirm things. This is multimap stage 2 (93), E75ish ethanol and a 15% torque limit in 5th gear. FYI - boost pressure is absolute in the log (hence being as high as it is) - deduct 14.7psi from the number to get actual. Spikes to 22, but just under 20psi for most of the run.

Copy of the dyno run is attached. The car made very good power (was a run in 5th gear on a dyno dynamics dyno - they read a bit lower than a mustang from what I understand).

The lambda reading matches what my log says - targetting 0.95ish through peak torque up to 0.9 at peak power.

The log of that run is here: https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=624b...0b4367395ae2ea

I logged EGT as well for this run and it hits a peak of 1000C - which I would have thought was very high - but once again, based on non-DI motor experience.

Now that I've got all the data - I've raised a ticket with the BM3 guys and asked the question, hopefully they'll be able to either confirm/deny whether it's an issue.

SYT_Shadow · 04-05-2022, 09:07 PM

Keep us posted

bloke79 · 04-06-2022, 11:24 PM

Update - spoke with the Bm3 folks. It's definitely leaner than it should be.

They've requested I reset adaptations and try again. Will revert once tested.

papasmurf_m3 · 04-11-2022, 02:48 PM

If you're going to beat the car on the track why not get a custom tune thats safe. Not a one size fits all tune?

bloke79 · 05-13-2022, 06:26 PM

Sorry for the slow update to this one - I was only just able to get back onto the dyno.

The PTS folk recommended resetting adaptations, which I’ve tried. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to have resolved the issue. The car is still targeting lean AFR’s. I tried a few runs on the dyno in succession, it seems OK, no sign of knock during the pulls and it pulls very cleanly.

papasmurf_m3 - re: getting a custom tune that’s safe. That might be my next step, however, as you can see from this thread: https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1919667 it looks like custom tunes are also lean.

flipm3 · 05-14-2022, 08:45 PM

In my humble opinion, I don't think there is much value in running an AFR on the leaner spectrum. With a thoroughly constructed calibration, good safe consistent power can be made on E85 matching or even surpassing the performance of some of these more aggressive tunes.

Get the proper supporting upgrades, good fuel quality, and an experienced tuner. You can no doubt enjoy full E85 at the track no problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAnothaM4

I would recommend PI over DI upgrades. Especially for the track. Everyone runs these cars extremely lean to make DI only work on E85. Much more dangerous to do that on the track where you will have extended sessions of high load.

I keep going back and forth on if it's worth doing a whole PI system for my track/road course build. I have been hesitant because it just adds more areas for potential fuel leaks, injector failures, and maintenance. Before making that big jump, I am planning to test something things to upgrade the DI side.

On EU5 injectors, I have been able to very safely run a richer 12.3-12.5:1, full E85, stable rail pressure, stable LPFP pressure, and moderate boost. I've beaten the living crap out of my car without any issues.

I just recently upgraded to the NostrumHP Stage 2 injectors for fun, just to provide extra headroom for the injectors as I request more boost in the future. I do plan to upgrade the HPFP and LPFP in a stepwise fashion after testing/datalogging.

I'm all about keeping things simple for my road course builds; less aniciliaries, less "extra" stuff LOL.

bloke79 · 05-16-2022, 01:52 AM

Thanks for the reply flipm3... I can see from your post in the other thread that you're running hybrid turbos, and 20/25psi on your track maps depending on track...

I'm only looking to run 20-21psi on stock turbos, so was hoping that the standard fuelling system was up to the job. Maybe the EU5 injectors will be necessary even on stock turbo/low-ish boost.

Cheers,
Matt

03-28-2022, 10:30 PM	#1
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	e85 and track days Hi All, Wondering if many of you running e85 without upgraded injectors/HPFP's do track days and had any issues with your tunes? I had a bit of a hunt around and couldn't find anything specific so thought I'd ask. The reason for the question, is I'm running about e55-e60 (just switched to the bm3 multimap stage 2-93 + bm3 flex fuel sensor). I noticed that my car at WOT is looking to run mid-13's mid range down to very high 12's at top RPM. I'm running a 15% torque reduction in 3rd/4th so it's making about 20-21psi (log attached below). There is some timing being pulled - but I had traction control on, and I know it definitely went off. It's not knocking and it's pulling like a freight train - so all should be OK there. Doing a bit of a hunt around the forum I noticed a number of other WOT runs logged with BM3 are also quite lean (I think I saw one low 14's mid range and high 13's up top). So - with all that preamble, is mid13's/high12's OK on these motors for track duties? From tuning evo's years ago, we'd usually aim for 12.1->12.3:1 on E85, but I profess to not being an expert on Direct Injection. BM3 log attached https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6236...729b018affdee6 Appreciate any guidance! Cheers, Matt Last edited by bloke79; 03-28-2022 at 11:38 PM..
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

03-29-2022, 10:17 AM	#2
Phatazz7 New Member 27 Rep 29 Posts Drives: BMW, Audi, Toyota Join Date: Apr 2019 Location: Chicago iTrader: (0)	I'm assuming you're referring to air fuel ratios here. simply put depending on how much throttle you put in you want to target 12's for full throttle as ideal ratio. There are so many other variables here that could cause a car to target 12's but never really get there. I think I and many others would be a bit lost at what you're asking? Did you have any issues during any of the runs to cause concern? High heat, Idle, break up? If not all appears to be well.
	Appreciate 1 bloke7957.00 Quote

03-29-2022, 03:09 PM	#3
JustAnothaM4 Major 884 Rep 1,262 Posts Drives: 2016 M4 GTS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cumming, GA iTrader: (4) Garage List 2016 BMW M4 GTS [0.00]	I assume you're talking about drag racing vs road course racing? That is definitely a no go for any HPDE / road course racing. __________________ 2016 M4 GTS Alpine White 2021 X5M Competition Marina Bay Blue Instagram: @JustAnothaM4
	Appreciate 2 SYT_Shadow11479.50 bloke7957.00 Quote

03-29-2022, 05:28 PM	#4
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	Thanks for the reply gents. Apologies if it wasn't clear. Yep - AFR's was what I was referring to. Phatazz7 - no - no indications that anything was wrong other than the car targetting what I would say are lean AFRs. JustAnothaM4 - Ahh, I'm talking about road course stuff (sorry, we call them track days here in AUS). I'm just running the OTS maps (multimap stage 2-93) - which I figure plenty others probably are too. For clarification, my concern is it does seem too lean to me for any sort of sustained multiple full throttle pulls based on my non-DI experience. I don't want to take it to the track like this only for it to have issues. Looking across this forum for e85 BM3 logs, and most of them look the same (very lean AFRs), but plenty of timing and no knock... Some examples here and here. These are from the Turbos, Lift Kit and Eu5 thead here: https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1846261 I think I only saw a single log which had logs which dipped into the 12's up top. Hence the Q! Looking at my logs - the car is targetting a 0.9 lambda (13.23:1 afr). If it were a fuelling limitation, I would have thought the target would be 12.3:1 (0.84 lambda), but the actuals can't make it there. Cheers, Matt Last edited by bloke79; 03-29-2022 at 05:43 PM..
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-03-2022, 06:32 AM	#5
JustAnothaM4 Major 884 Rep 1,262 Posts Drives: 2016 M4 GTS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cumming, GA iTrader: (4) Garage List 2016 BMW M4 GTS [0.00]	I would recommend PI over DI upgrades. Especially for the track. Everyone runs these cars extremely lean to make DI only work on E85. Much more dangerous to do that on the track where you will have extended sessions of high load. __________________ 2016 M4 GTS Alpine White 2021 X5M Competition Marina Bay Blue Instagram: @JustAnothaM4
	Appreciate 2 bloke7957.00 papasmurf_m3454.50 Quote

04-03-2022, 08:18 PM	#6
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	JustAnothaM4 - thanks mate - yeah - it definitely seems that way. I think I'll stick with E85 for the street and pump fuel (or maybe up to e30) for track duties.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-05-2022, 08:28 AM	#7
Fred E New Member 14 Rep 18 Posts Drives: Tanzanite F80 Join Date: Jan 2021 Location: NJ iTrader: (0)	I have (so far) done 3 track days with flex fuel as my only fueling modification and used various mixes of E% no lower than 40% and as high as 70%. I've logged a lot of these sessions and my tuner has not mentioned anything alarming with regards to fueling capacity. He has however mentioned more fueling headroom would be welcome, so I do have EU5 injectors standing by and have been eyeing the Dorsch lift kit. However, simply running < 60% ethanol is a far cheaper alternative. In reviewing a log where I had 72% ethanol in the tank, my car was also targeting and attaining .9 lambda under load fairly often and sometimes a bit higher without any corresponding knock, misfiring, or large fueling corrections. Considering the high heat and stress levels that a car is subjected to on the track, I don't think I would ever track a car without some amount of ethanol in the tank simply for the cooling effect it has and far lower propensity for knock or pre-ignition. Coming from tracking an aftermarket turbocharged BRZ (i.e. boost plus high compression engine) (which ironically was undoubtedly faster around a track than my F80), I would feel extremely uneasy tracking on pump gas. Old habits die hard, I guess.
	Appreciate 1 bloke7957.00 Quote

04-05-2022, 08:41 PM	#8
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	Thanks Fred E - appreciate the response. Would you mind sharing one of those logs (happy via PM if you don't want to post on this thread). Good to hear you've done a few track days as the car is though. Not wanting to do too many high speed acceleration runs in cough Mexico cough, I went to a local dyno shop to run the car up to confirm things. This is multimap stage 2 (93), E75ish ethanol and a 15% torque limit in 5th gear. FYI - boost pressure is absolute in the log (hence being as high as it is) - deduct 14.7psi from the number to get actual. Spikes to 22, but just under 20psi for most of the run. Copy of the dyno run is attached. The car made very good power (was a run in 5th gear on a dyno dynamics dyno - they read a bit lower than a mustang from what I understand). The lambda reading matches what my log says - targetting 0.95ish through peak torque up to 0.9 at peak power. The log of that run is here: https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=624b...0b4367395ae2ea I logged EGT as well for this run and it hits a peak of 1000C - which I would have thought was very high - but once again, based on non-DI motor experience. Now that I've got all the data - I've raised a ticket with the BM3 guys and asked the question, hopefully they'll be able to either confirm/deny whether it's an issue. Attached Images Last edited by bloke79; 04-05-2022 at 08:57 PM..
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-05-2022, 09:07 PM	#9
SYT_Shadow ///M Powered for Life 11480 Rep 10,328 Posts Drives: E90M/E92M/M4GTS/M4GT4/X5M Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Greenwich, CT iTrader: (2)	Keep us posted __________________ DIY: S65 Rod Bearings E9X PFC Z54 BBK on F8X BK harness bar + seats: fit 6 tires in an M3 do88 Cooling Goodies GTS Twins: GTMore project
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-06-2022, 11:24 PM	#10
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	Update - spoke with the Bm3 folks. It's definitely leaner than it should be. They've requested I reset adaptations and try again. Will revert once tested.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-11-2022, 02:48 PM	#11
papasmurf_m3 Captain 455 Rep 844 Posts Drives: YMB F80 M3 Join Date: Apr 2019 Location: LA iTrader: (0)	If you're going to beat the car on the track why not get a custom tune thats safe. Not a one size fits all tune? __________________ 60-130 mph 6.72 secs 1/2 mile trap speed 158 mph ecutek - bend calibration pro tune - flex fuel - mpe - stock turbos - oem+
	Appreciate 2 Fred E13.50 c4ss102.50 Quote

05-13-2022, 06:26 PM	#12
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	Sorry for the slow update to this one - I was only just able to get back onto the dyno. The PTS folk recommended resetting adaptations, which I’ve tried. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to have resolved the issue. The car is still targeting lean AFR’s. I tried a few runs on the dyno in succession, it seems OK, no sign of knock during the pulls and it pulls very cleanly. papasmurf_m3 - re: getting a custom tune that’s safe. That might be my next step, however, as you can see from this thread: https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1919667 it looks like custom tunes are also lean.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-16-2022, 01:52 AM	#14
bloke79 Private First Class 57 Rep 145 Posts Drives: 2017 BMW M4 Competition Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Melbourne, Australia iTrader: (0)	Thanks for the reply flipm3... I can see from your post in the other thread that you're running hybrid turbos, and 20/25psi on your track maps depending on track... I'm only looking to run 20-21psi on stock turbos, so was hoping that the standard fuelling system was up to the job. Maybe the EU5 injectors will be necessary even on stock turbo/low-ish boost. Cheers, Matt
	Appreciate 0 Quote