[JP374]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

I would check it when you fuel up then your good. I use a Bluetooth OBD2 dongle and the torque pro app on my phone. Whenever I get E at the pump I simply plug the OBD2 device in and check E content via App. After that I don't look at it again till I get fuel next.

Ok sounds easy enough. I’ll have to invest in one of those Bluetooth dongles and tq pro app.

So say I did fill it up and was at e70 and tuned for e60 would I be good to drive it easy, no WOT until I had room for another gal or so of 93?

[KingLT1]

you are not going to be hard tuned for a specific amount of Ethanol. Flex fuel means exactly that...you can run E10 pump gas all the way up to 85% Ethanol and the ECU will correct the tune.

So u could drive it around on full E85 with no problems across the country long as you don't go WOT unless the fuel system can keep up.

More Ethanol requires more volume, that is why reducing Ethanol percent often frees up fuel system headroom.

Even the stock fuel system wouldn't have any problem running full E part throttle cruising. The Ecu is in closed loop targeting Stoich which is lean and there is no strain on the fuel system. It's not till you enter Power Enrichment mode that you need to worry about having enough fuel system for the power your engine is trying to make on a given precentage of Ethanol.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

In that thread it says you aborted testing any further because you were out of fuel.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showp...2&postcount=55

Yes but I never specified how much, it was a long time ago in car years LOL

I ran out of fuel at 700 RWHP, the pulley combo was too aggressive.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

Yes but I never specified how much, it was a long time ago in car years LOL

I ran out of fuel at 700 RWHP, the pulley combo was too aggressive.

So you ran out of fuel @ 700whp with a stock cam LT1 using LT4 fueling @ E60 targeting .82 lambda?

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

So you ran out of fuel @ 700whp with a stock cam LT1 using LT4 fueling @ E60 targeting .82 lambda?

Best of my recollection it was a long time ago sorry.

[JP374]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

So you ran out of fuel @ 700whp with a stock cam LT1 using LT4 fueling @ E60 targeting .82 lambda?

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

Best of my recollection it was a long time ago sorry.

No disrespect but it seems like you are confusing your LT4 ZL1 testing with the LT1 SS.

Your 125whp flex fuel package on a LT4 ZL1 made 661whp on E65...and you said in the video it was starting to drop high side pressure above that.

LT4 has a larger fuel lobe then a LT1...so I don't see how a LT1 can go further then a ZL1 with LT4 fuel system. Especially when a LT4 engine can run a little leaner then a LT1.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

No disrespect but it seems like you are confusing your LT4 ZL1 testing with the LT1 SS.

Your 125whp flex fuel package on a LT4 ZL1 made 661whp on E65...and you said in the video it was starting to drop high side pressure above that.

LT4 has a larger fuel lobe then a LT1...so I don't see how a LT1 can go further then a ZL1 with LT4 fuel system. Especially when a LT4 engine can run a little leaner then a LT1.

NO sir I am not your reading to much in to the text I am typing.

Sorry if it's confusing you.

My 2016 LT1 car was at 620 what ever then when I added the pulley on the bottom it was way too much and the test was a bust, it made 700 real early and started popping so we aborted the testing and never found the actual RWHP number the LT4 fuel system will support in the LT1 with stock cam.

I assure you it is not out of fuel at 620 or 630, or I never would have attempted a pulley change,

Trust me it is NOT far off from the LT4 because the LT1 have more compression and can make a little more power on same amount of fuel.

[ZO6Ted]

So the compression comes close to making up the difference in fuel lobe?

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by ZO6Ted

So the compression comes close to making up the difference in fuel lobe?

Don't read to much in to this.

If we compare to Identical engines one with more compression will always make more power.

Ted.

[ZO6Ted]

Thanks for the reply I always learn so much when you two guys (and a select few others) start talking. This is an incredible site. Thanks again for sharing.

[CamOnlyJabroni]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

NO sir I am not your reading to much in to the text I am typing.

Sorry if it's confusing you.

My 2016 LT1 car was at 620 what ever then when I added the pulley on the bottom it was way too much and the test was a bust, it made 700 real early and started popping so we aborted the testing and never found the actual RWHP number the LT4 fuel system will support in the LT1 with stock cam.

I assure you it is not out of fuel at 620 or 630, or I never would have attempted a pulley change,

Trust me it is NOT far off from the LT4 because the LT1 have more compression and can make a little more power on same amount of fuel.

Are you targeting the same Lambda with an LT4 vs. LT1 at WOT?

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by CamOnlyJabroni

Are you targeting the same Lambda with an LT4 vs. LT1 at WOT?

Typically yes .82

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

NO sir I am not your reading to much in to the text I am typing.

Sorry if it's confusing you.

My 2016 LT1 car was at 620 what ever then when I added the pulley on the bottom it was way too much and the test was a bust, it made 700 real early and started popping so we aborted the testing and never found the actual RWHP number the LT4 fuel system will support in the LT1 with stock cam.

I assure you it is not out of fuel at 620 or 630, or I never would have attempted a pulley change,

Trust me it is NOT far off from the LT4 because the LT1 have more compression and can make a little more power on same amount of fuel.

No sir I am not confused...I can go back to 2017-2019 and bring up posts that we have taken part in where it has pretty much been stated several times that 620whp is where a stock cam LT1 maxes the LT4 fuel system @ E60. That isn't a hard number buy any means.. there are variables to consider such as what gear the car was pulled in, tires, correction factor. Those factors alone can account for 20-40whp in either direction. ADM performance posted data of similar results in the past. They needed the LPE pump to get to 675-680whp, but the LT4 fuel system was limited to 620whp @ E60 on their in house builds.

We know the stock LT1 fuel system will not keep up on E85 with any boost.. We know the LT4 fuel system adds around 100whp of fuel system headroom over the LT1. So 580ish whp on full pump E with LT4 fuel parts. Drop back to E60 and that will extend out quite a bit.

When you tested your SS back in 2018 with the Whipple, you posted results of 616whp @ 9psi on E60. Just curious why didn't you post any results of higher E content at the same pulley? When I spoke with you back then you made it sound like that you could not run a higher blend of E that is why you posted the results on E60. That is also why I purchased the LPE HPFP which allowed me to run pump E without mixing @ 8psi but I was near the fuel systems limits.


So aside from dyno numbers this has been my findings on my own personal car.

-LT4 injectors, LPE HPFP, LT4 low side with JMS. Was able to run E82 @ 8psi with a Rotofab, 95mm tb, and cat deletes. .82 lambda 20 degrees of timing. Injector MS 5.9-6.0ms, high/low pressures holding.

-Swapped to Rotofab big gulp and 3.375 pulley and ran out of fuel. Had to drop back to E60. .82 lambda, 19 degrees timing, 5.9-6.0 IPW.

-3.25 pulley and 103 tb. Ran out of fuel again, had to drop back E40. 18 degrees of timing, .82 , same IPW.


I would be curious to see some of your data on stock cam LT1 cars with boost running blends of E and mods.

I agree the LT1 makes more power per psi due to the compression increase but the pistons rings likely will not survive long running leaner then .82. The LT4 engine can be ran leaner...I have read you and others cite running them around .84. Therefor the larger fuel lobe and leaner mixture should be able to go a little further then the LT1. Now if you run them both at the same AFR then yea I agree.

Either way I will continue to do my own R&D and go with what I find works. The OP is free to chose his own path that he is comfortable with.