# E85 in Greensburg/Latrobe **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [February 23, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/e85-in-greensburg-latrobe/204642 "2010-02-23T20:47:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 24
**Author:** ![tjZ28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 12:35pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/e85-in-greensburg-latrobe/204642/24 "2010-03-13T12:35:46Z")
> [@sinim"](#): > > Is it really worth it in the end. I mean, it’s borderline how much you save between the price difference and drop in fuel economy…if you save anything at all. Depends on the vehicle and current price difference. The cost benefit vs. “premium” pump gas (which is only 91 octane for me out in CA, but I think you fuck-sticks still have 93) might not seem so great. But once you consider that most of us are finding it out-performs ~110 unleaded (even though E85 is only ~104 octane) which is damn near $10/gallon it start to make a lot more sense. > [@Are you kidding? GM insanity inside.](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/are-you-kidding-gm-insanity-inside/42024/6): > > It would be worth it if you had a steady supply available and you built your motor to run 12.5 or 13:1 compression!! I’m only at 12:1 compression because I wanted to be able to run 91 (with a different tune of course) when I needed to and I’m still seeing pretty good results. > [@Are you kidding? GM insanity inside.](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/are-you-kidding-gm-insanity-inside/42024/7): > > you get what 30% less fuel economy and it definatley doesnt cost 30% less so no reason to get it unless you want to be a tree hugger I think one person posted the 30% figure on the internet and everybody just ran with it. It comes from the theory that by weight E85 has ~30% less stored energy. What nobody is taking into consideration is that BSFC is much better on E85 since you can run so much more timing and get a more complete/efficient burn. I think the fuel consumption per HP at part-throttle is a lot closer than most would expect. I don’t have a lot of street miles on the new setup but **I’m seeing within 10% fuel economy of my old combo, BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE NEW COMBO IS A 427 WITH A MID-240S/MID-250S CAM VS. THE OLD 348 WITH A 224/230 CAM**. It’s hard to say I’ve lost any fuel economy with E85… oh and that’s also on 80# injectors up from 42s. > [@Are you kidding? GM insanity inside.](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/are-you-kidding-gm-insanity-inside/42024/8): > > E85 is higher octane and works very well with turbo setups. You can see a 12% increase in power with no changes to boost by running E85. It allows for cooler charge temps along with a cooler running motor. So its deffently worth to run it just pain to find that fuel Yuuuuuuuuup, though it works great w/ NA motors too given enough compression (any stock LSX is enough, though more is better). The cooling advantage is huge for guys that do a lot of road-course stuff like me. I’m seeing at LEAST 20 degrees cooler oil and water on E85. In fact, on the freeway the car is running around 145\* which is cooler than I’d like, but the thermostat is still closed at that temp so I can’t really make it run hotter. On the dyno with back to back to back pulls it was still only seeing 180. > [@FS: '92 Civic Hatch](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/fs-92-civic-hatch/27633/39): > > What are your plans? I am running just shy of 500hp with regular pump gas and I think that is pretty damn good. I guarantee with no change other than E85, the necessary supporting mods (bigger injectors and perhaps pump/lines/rail etc if required to support the injectors), and of course a tune you’d see at least 550. I’m not saying 500 is bad by any means. But that’s just like saying “my car runs bottom 10s on pump gas and I think that’s pretty damn good.” Sure as hell is, but wouldn’t 9s be better? Here’s my dyno graph NA on E85: We haven’t done the 91 octane power-tune yet but I’ll be sure to post it once we do. We have more work to do though first. You can see it really lays-over on the top end, but this cam should pull stronger to 7k. The car is running the stock Ti catback and the stock 85mm MAF (in front of a 102/102 TB/intake) so we think those are really restricting things up top. We don’t want to mess w/ the 91 tune 'til we fab a better intake w/o MAF (it’s going to go Speed Density) and play around with exhausts. -TJ --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/e85-in-greensburg-latrobe/204642)._