Anything you can show me to back up that statement? I would agree that an ethanol blended 91 can be tuned to beat out straight 91 but not buying that the 87 with 10% ethanol would out perform it.
Yes, ethanol is very effective for knock suppression but there are plenty of other methods that can suppress knock in fuel.
I've got plenty of logs from working with my tuner on my mustang that show plenty of knock activity with ethanol blended 91 octane fuel. The inconsistency in the blend and the performance is very pronounced.
Chemistry. Ethanol isn’t just about knock prevention. Cooling, slower frame front, also contribute.
There was a VW tuner in Canada who documented it on several Dyno tuned GTI’s. On my phone, so can’t find the link currently. Might be able to find it later.
In addition, you cannot compare forced induction tuning to NA tuning on your Mustang. It is not the same. I should have clarified. I have no idea whether my first statement would be true on a NA motor. I have no data on that. On our EB motors 87 E10 when tuned has more potential for power than 94 E0 when tuned.
You could do a little experiment. Won’t be quite the same, but would be interesting all the same.
3 0-60’s in a row on 94 with the SCT tune.
Next tank run 87 E10 with SCT’s 87 tune and do 3 0-60’s in a row.
I curious how the first run compares in both cases, and then to see how much it falls off.
That is the biggest difference in my ZFG turned back E85 and 93. It is only slightly faster, but it sees a lot more consistency in heat, and doesn’t fall off as much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro