Stage 1 + E85 vs Stage 2 + 91/93 Octane

[303 Spartan]

I'm curious to get some input on this from others on this forum. There are endless threads and posts discussing Stock vs Stage 1 vs Stage 2 with regular fuel. However, there is surprisingly little data showing Stage 1 + E85 metrics (or Stage 2 + E85, for that matter). In fact, I have yet to find a single dyno for a Stage 1 E85 B8/B8.5 S4.

I did find a Youtube video comparing Stage 2 93 octane vs Stage 2 E85 which resulted in a 27whp/31wtq increase across the power band, just from switching the fuel to E85 and adjusting the tune to compensate. Granted, the dyno runs don't appear to have been back to back so other factors such as a significant change in ambient temps could have been a real factor. Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGhVrZhy4fc

The information I've found indicates that the jump from Stage 1 to Stage 2 on either 91 or 93 octane seems to be around a 10whp/20wtq increase across the power band. Based on this very limited data, it would appear that a Stage 1 + E85 car could potentially yield more power than a Stage 2 91/93 octane tune. Essentially, I'm looking to find more data to prove or disprove this theory. I imagine this information does exist and I've just failed to locate it.

The reason why I'm focused on finding some accurate information on this is that for those of us with easy access to E85, it would make Stage 1 + E85 a much more cost effective way to achieve the same or more power than making the jump to Stage 2. Especially when you factor in the cost of improved cooling on Stage 2, for when ambient temps get above 75 degrees in the summer months and heat soak becomes a real issue.

With all that said, I do understand that E85 does have some serious drawbacks. For instance, on E85 I average about 220 miles per tank, compared to over 300 on 91 octane. And when the ambient temperature drops below 30 degrees, the car has a tough time starting and throws lean codes. So in the winter I still need to switch back to a 91 octane tune/fuel. However, E85 provides much more knock protection and prevents the car from making major timing adjustments due to heat soak, which lends to more consistent power, even in hot conditions.

I'm hoping to avoid a debate between the advantages/disadvantages of drivability/convenience between 91/93 and E85. Instead, this long winded post is really just a hunt for some real dyno metrics of Stage 1 + E85. Ideally, a direct comparison between Stage 1 + E85 vs Stage 2 91/93 octane. But I imagine that may be too specific and tough to get.

[Sick S4]

If you go E85 you will need to upgrade your HPFP as well. keep this in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxon]

Since epl is the only company who tunes full e85 I doubt you'll get a lot of feedback.

I'd take a race Map stage 1 (e85) over 93 octane stage 2 though

[theweebabyseamus]

A lot of people don’t, but you should be doing improved cooling on Stage 1 also.

[303 Spartan]

If you go E85 you will need to upgrade your HPFP as well. keep this in mind.

EPL has confirmed that at stage 1 the OEM HPFP is adequate. I've ran the EPL Stage 1 E85 tune for a few months and many fill-ups. 0 issues aside from decreased fuel economy. Much smoother idle, too.

Since epl is the only company who tunes full e85 I doubt you'll get a lot of feedback.

I'd take a race Map stage 1 (e85) over 93 octane stage 2 though

Maybe I need to be the one to go get some dyno numbers. Unfortunately, I'm up at 5200ft above sea level so my numbers are not going to reflect what most others would see. But we could compare it to someone else at this elevation running Stage 2 to get an idea of the difference.

Stage 1 E85 over Stage 2 93 is my inclination as well. Upgrading the pulley and flashing a new tune is simple enough. However, doing that then shelling out another $1k or so to upgrade cooling, just to ensure you don't lose the extra power every time it gets above 75 degrees, is not appealing. Especially if it will just end up with essentially the same power as I already have with Stage 1 on E85.

A lot of people don’t, but you should be doing improved cooling on Stage 1 also.

This is an interesting point. Prior to switching to the E85 Stage 1 tune, I definitely experienced loss of power due to heat soak in the 90 degree summer heat while on Stage 1 91 octane. However, switching to E85 eliminated that issue.

[theweebabyseamus]

When my car was stock I noticed sometimes it pulled better than other times. Stage 1 was the same. My heat exchanger upgrade made it pull hard a lot more often.

I was really tempted to go EPL in large part because of their full E85 file. More hp and not having to calculate E85 ratios seemed like a win-win.

[303 Spartan]

When my car was stock I noticed sometimes it pulled better than other times. Stage 1 was the same. My heat exchanger upgrade made it pull hard a lot more often.

I was really tempted to go EPL in large part because of their full E85 file. More hp and not having to calculate E85 ratios seemed like a win-win.

Yeah, being able to just fill up with E85 and move on is pretty great. I guess I'm just curious on whether I'm leaving considerable HP/TQ on the table with Stage 1 E85 compared to Stage 2 91 octane (no 93 available here).Or am I actually in a better spot, performance wise.

I've read that E85 provides similar performance gains of 100 octane and some even claim it equates to a 104 or 105 octane rating. If that's true, then APR's website actually has a solid comparison.

APR Stage 1 (100 octane) - 391whp / 356wtq
APR Stage 1 (104 octane) - 395whp / 358wtq
APR Stage 2 (91 octance) - 372whp / 358wtq
APR Stage 2 (93 octane) - 388whp / 368wtq

In my case, since it's either E85 or 91 octane, I may be better off sticking with Stage 1 and E85 rather than Stage 2 and 91 octane. But for those in areas that have access to 93 octane, that provides a solid 10tq bump across the power band. However, this may all be apples to oranges in reality.


EDIT: Just realized APR provides WHP/WTQ numbers as well as crank numbers, so I updated this post with power to the wheels.

[Gtotherock]

Even stock I could get my car heat soaked but I’m in southern FL. At Stg 1 heat soak was more prevalent. Went e85 tune and car pulled super hard mid rpm but fell on its face at the end of the power band (6500-7400rpm)<thinking because I have stock fuel pump or the high humidity here in FL, but who knows. Made the switch to Stg 2(SP) and car pulls hard throughout the entire powerband, people said it has more downlow than stg1, but I also notice that it pulls stronger up top as well. Running full e85 will speed up the “wear n tear” of the engine because car requests way more ethanol than gasoline( this I’ve heard from both Tony(EPL) and my master mechanic at my local Audi)
Definitely makes sense. Stg 2- I’m running the 3-4 gallons of e85 and 93 pump for the rest. Perfect mixture from my logs..


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[JD S4]

I’m Stage 2 EPL and will run you. Live on Boulder.


Sent from my

[cspcrx]

I have been on APR stage two for almost 2 years now. I run the 93 octane tune all the time. I just add in 4-5 gallons of E85 to my 91 octane fill up and get 94-95 octane fuel. Car and tune love it.

[303 Spartan]

... Running full e85 will speed up the “wear n tear” of the engine because car requests way more ethanol than gasoline( this I’ve heard from both Tony(EPL) and my master mechanic at my local Audi)
Definitely makes sense. Stg 2- I’m running the 3-4 gallons of e85 and 93 pump for the rest. Perfect mixture from my logs..

Most E85 pumps around the Denver metro area are more like E70-E75 just about all the time. With 4 gallons of E85 in your tank you're around E30-E35. I find it hard to believe that the difference between the two content levels are drastic enough to create noticeably more wear and tear over the course of say 100k miles.

The concern of additional wear and tear with E85 used to be a major concern in the Evo/STI world, as well. However, at this point there are quite a few of us who have run E85 on those platforms for countless miles (I put over 80k on full E85 with my old STI) and never had an issue of anything related to the engine wearing out/breaking down faster because of how the car handled E85. Now, the additional power increase that can be obtained with E85 can definitely force engine/drivetrain parts to wear out quicker, but those same parts will fail with 93 octane if the power levels were equal.

With that said, I know this is an entirely different platform than the Evo/STI and I'm not saying that E85 is perfect. In fact, it does have major draw backs like gas mileage being pretty terrible and low temps making it nearly impossible to start the car. I've just seen absolutely no proof over my years of messing with it in my cars and researching it on other platforms, that running E85 (properly tuned) for a set mileage number wears anything out within the engine faster than running 93 octane for the same mileage, with power levels being equal. On older cars, E85 would wear out fuel lines/pumps faster but those parts have been updated by car manufacturers significantly over the past 15+ years and that is no longer an issue.

It is recommended to upgrade the fuel pump/injectors in some cars (including the HPFP in this one at Stage 2) before running E85, but that's due to the OEM pumps not being able to handle the flow, rather than those parts wearing out faster.

I’m Stage 2 EPL and will run you. Live on Boulder.


Sent from my

I know you and I discussed meeting up previously so I could get a better feel of what your stage 2 setup feels like. Now I'm thinking we should get both our cars on a dyno back to back to give us some direct comparison numbers. Then we can have some solid metrics to rely on.

I know Boost Creep is up in your area. He was always my go-to for tuning in my Subaru days. I imagine he would let us use his dyno for this test for a small fee.

The only issue is I have to wait until it warms up for more than a few days to go back to E85. As long as the mornings average temps of 30 degrees or below, I'll have to stick with 91 to avoid having trouble with the car starting.


But I do really want to have this direct comparison because it will help answer the question that stemmed this entire thread:

Does a Stage 1 E85 B8.5 S4 put down more or less power throughout the power band than a Stage 2 91/93 Octane B8.5 S4?

[Jpsmoov]

Does a Stage 1 E85 B8.5 S4 put down more or less power throughout the power band than a Stage 2 91/93 Octane B8.5 S4?

Soooooo whats the deal here? Any answers?

[4RCFED]

Curious as well. Bandimere has a test & tune I think April 14th & 15th, you guys should run em'.

[Jeagle]

Curious as well. Bandimere has a test & tune I think April 14th & 15th, you guys should run em'.

Curious also.

303 Spartan - where did you land?

[doady22]

I’d be down to run or dyno, I’m apr dual pulley and run the 93 file with 3 gallons of e85 and the rest 91....Huge difference from stage 1 which is what the car was when I bought it. Dual pulley = game changer as far as tq goes

[jimrobbington]

Curious as to why OP hasn't thought of running stage 2 93 Oct file with a 91/E85 blend?

Even on stock software, a 3 gallon mix of E85 in a full tank made quite a difference in day to day performance, especially in summer. I live in castle rock, 6700 ft elevation. Just installed an upgraded SC pulley, still running stage 1 software (034 91 oct) I'm hoping to overcome elevation with the new pulley since I was only seeing 10 psi before. I'm waiting for 034 to let me keep a flash cable, then I will upgrade to stage 2 probably and try out the 93 Oct file.

No matter what you decide, I would say at least upgrade your supercharger pulley. Low/mid range is instantaneous, very fun!

Sent from my SM-G930VC using Tapatalk

[JD S4]

Most E85 pumps around the Denver metro area are more like E70-E75 just about all the time. With 4 gallons of E85 in your tank you're around E30-E35. I find it hard to believe that the difference between the two content levels are drastic enough to create noticeably more wear and tear over the course of say 100k miles.

The concern of additional wear and tear with E85 used to be a major concern in the Evo/STI world, as well. However, at this point there are quite a few of us who have run E85 on those platforms for countless miles (I put over 80k on full E85 with my old STI) and never had an issue of anything related to the engine wearing out/breaking down faster because of how the car handled E85. Now, the additional power increase that can be obtained with E85 can definitely force engine/drivetrain parts to wear out quicker, but those same parts will fail with 93 octane if the power levels were equal.

With that said, I know this is an entirely different platform than the Evo/STI and I'm not saying that E85 is perfect. In fact, it does have major draw backs like gas mileage being pretty terrible and low temps making it nearly impossible to start the car. I've just seen absolutely no proof over my years of messing with it in my cars and researching it on other platforms, that running E85 (properly tuned) for a set mileage number wears anything out within the engine faster than running 93 octane for the same mileage, with power levels being equal. On older cars, E85 would wear out fuel lines/pumps faster but those parts have been updated by car manufacturers significantly over the past 15+ years and that is no longer an issue.

It is recommended to upgrade the fuel pump/injectors in some cars (including the HPFP in this one at Stage 2) before running E85, but that's due to the OEM pumps not being able to handle the flow, rather than those parts wearing out faster.





I know you and I discussed meeting up previously so I could get a better feel of what your stage 2 setup feels like. Now I'm thinking we should get both our cars on a dyno back to back to give us some direct comparison numbers. Then we can have some solid metrics to rely on.

I know Boost Creep is up in your area. He was always my go-to for tuning in my Subaru days. I imagine he would let us use his dyno for this test for a small fee.

The only issue is I have to wait until it warms up for more than a few days to go back to E85. As long as the mornings average temps of 30 degrees or below, I'll have to stick with 91 to avoid having trouble with the car starting.


But I do really want to have this direct comparison because it will help answer the question that stemmed this entire thread:

Does a Stage 1 E85 B8.5 S4 put down more or less power throughout the power band than a Stage 2 91/93 Octane B8.5 S4?

I think Hofame is the only one around here who has done it and dyno’d. He made 400whp on full E85 stage 2 — *CORRECTED FOR ELEVATION**

I’ve been running the Stage 2 93 on 91 + E85 and it runs well.


Sent from my

[JD S4]

Curious as well. Bandimere has a test & tune I think April 14th & 15th, you guys should run em'.

Blah. My car won’t be ready by then

Maybe early May I’ll be ready to roll and go to the heartbreaker at Red Rocks


Sent from my

[jimrobbington]

I think Hofame is the only one around here who has done it and dyno’d. He made 400whp on full E85 stage 2 — *CORRECTED FOR ELEVATION**

I’ve been running the Stage 2 93 on 91 + E85 and it runs well.


Sent from my

Is that the dyno I've seen Hardey post on FB?

Sent from my SM-G930VC using Tapatalk

[303 Spartan]

Whoops! I forgot about this thread.

I ended up making the switch from full E85 Stage 1 to Stage 2 91 + 3 gal E85. Per EPL's recommendation I run the 93 octane file with 3 gal of E85 at each fill up. Long story short... Stage 2 has been fantastic. In my opinion, Stage 2 has considerably more low end TQ than Stage 1 full E85. 2500rpm - 4500rpm feels much stronger, and that's the RPM range I'm in 90% of the time. And now I'm averaging 290-300 miles per tank, even with 3 gallons of E85. On full E85 I was lucky to hit 210 miles per tank, and that's not an exaggeration. Sometimes it was closer to 185 miles per tank.

Sorry I couldn't get you guys numbers. But in the end, ~200 miles per tank is just too low for a daily driver.

[doady22]

I avg 210 miles per tank w/3 gallons of E85, which comes out to 15.5mpg, all city driving plus lead foot=terrible gas mileage, but that’s ok I’m more about smiles per gallon!

[jimrobbington]

Whoops! I forgot about this thread.

I ended up making the switch from full E85 Stage 1 to Stage 2 91 + 3 gal E85. Per EPL's recommendation I run the 93 octane file with 3 gal of E85 at each fill up. Long story short... Stage 2 has been fantastic. In my opinion, Stage 2 has considerably more low end TQ than Stage 1 full E85. 2500rpm - 4500rpm feels much stronger, and that's the RPM range I'm in 90% of the time. And now I'm averaging 290-300 miles per tank, even with 3 gallons of E85. On full E85 I was lucky to hit 210 miles per tank, and that's not an exaggeration. Sometimes it was closer to 185 miles per tank.

Sorry I couldn't get you guys numbers. But in the end, ~200 miles per tank is just too low for a daily driver.

nice! If I were you, I'd test the E85 you are mixing, might need a little more than 3 gallons to hit 93 octane. Just tested the E85 from the Valero on Broadway as 470 and it's barely E70 ;(



Sent from my SM-G930VC using Tapatalk

[303 Spartan]

nice! If I were you, I'd test the E85 you are mixing, might need a little more than 3 gallons to hit 93 octane. Just tested the E85 from the Valero on Broadway as 470 and it's barely E70 ;(


Sent from my SM-G930VC using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's consistent with most stations in CO. I have always used the station right by my neighborhood and it has always tested E72 - E76. I'm still hesitant to put in any more than 3.2gal of E85 on a non-E85 tune. But maybe I'll try 4gal next time.

[jimrobbington]

Fairly certain there are quite a few members running 4-5 gallons on non E85 tunes. I believe EPL claims anything under E33 is safe.

[Chris@EPL]

If you put in too much you will just get a lean code and then at that point you can dial back. About 4 gals is close to the max you can add with a gas file without the HPFP kit.

[303 Spartan]

^ Well there we go. I may try bumping to 3.5gal but won't push it any further than that.

[jimrobbington]

Should be plenty to get you safely to at least 93 oct.

[4RCFED]

93oct file and I run 3.5-4 every fill up.

[MN Blue S4]

93oct file and I run 3.5-4 every fill up.

What's the advantage of doing that? You don't need to run any E85 on any of the EPL 93oct tunes as long as you are using 93oct fuel, right?

[Chris@EPL]

They are in CO so 91 is the highest that they have.

[jimrobbington]

They are in CO so 91 is the highest that they have.

This, we have crap fuel and have to blend our own 93 oct.

Sent from my SM-G930VC using Tapatalk

[theweebabyseamus]

This, we have crap fuel and have to blend our own 93 oct.

Sent from my SM-G930VC using Tapatalk

Same in CA. I even went from 2 gal per tank to 3 and noticed the difference.

[wangshuo1989]

In WA we have 92 fuel, and unlike CA, E85 is nowhere to find here.

[4RCFED]

What's the advantage of doing that? You don't need to run any E85 on any of the EPL 93oct tunes as long as you are using 93oct fuel, right?

Yeah, crap fuel. Most of us up here have been mixing 2- 2.5 gallons E85 even stock tuned for around 2 1/2 to 3 years. Now I bumped it up to almost 4 gallons after EPL gave me the go ahead. No problems or codes and we get the added cooling/octane benefit of E85.

[Mike Literous]

We have e85 readily available in Australia. And it’s genuine e85 not a winter blend.

I’ve got an apr stg1 tune (mon93) which it seeems I can use a mix of approx 3.5 gallons (15ltr) out of 60ltr. This will work out at e20 or so.

On octane level will have 75% of mon93 and 25% of mon107 giving just over mon96 which is around ron102.

Does the ecu in the Audi try to continue to aim for the same lambda numbers therefore giving extra injector duty?

Also there is internet chat over using a high volume fuel pump so u can use greater ratio of e85. Is there enough injector capacity to use full e85 with the hvfp? Could I use the 100 or 104mon tunes?

[Jacksav1502]

No you don’t

[Fresh.S4]

baaack from the dead!

i ran apr stage1 100oct on e40(autotech hpfp), 206mm; for 10k miles no problem