Growing up doesn't have to suck

[iamdub]

I'll see what I need for a pulley size. I've got a few laying around too. looks like I'll need a longer belt with my setup but no big deal.

I'm going to try and pulley it where it's happy but not to much extra since it does see a lot of high rpm. I've got an under drive crank pulley on it now and have over driven the alt to get it back up to just a bit faster than stock.

I forget yours is a "special case" involving a Corvette.

I wouldn't consider mine to be overdriven. Comparing this alt to the incorrect one I was sent, they're the same, just with different cases for their respective mounting configurations. That wrong alt is the same as what's on the turbo'ed I4 engines in the Cadillac CT4 and CT5. Those turn 6,300+ RPM and the pulley is 54mm. Mine is set to shift at 6,000 but has hit near 6,300 and the pulley I put on is 56mm, so I'd say it's safe.

 

[j91z28d1]

makes sense.

 

[iamdub]

Since installing that smaller alternator pulley that I painted, the center of the idler has been bothering me. So I painted it. It'll match better once it gets some dust on it.


Before:




After:

 

[89Suburban]

Since installing that smaller alternator pulley that I painted, the center of the idler has been bothering me. So I painted it. It'll match better once it gets some dust on it.


Before:

View attachment 399995


After:

View attachment 399996

Yeah that bothered the sht out of me, thanks for taking care of that. >salute< carry on...

 

[iamdub]

Left the house with the DIC displaying "27 MILES TO EMPTY" to go to the nearest source of E85- a RaceTrac 22 miles away. Grabbed $30 worth which was 11.721 gallons at 2.559/gallon. Went for a steady cruise in the opposite direction, away from town, to avoid traffic lights, etc. to let the fuel composition relearning get its stuff together as quickly and accurately as possible. I don't know if that's even necessary with the physical sensor. But, whatever. Made a U-turn and went home, totaling about 36 miles of mostly cruising after the refueling.

I noted an average of 18 MPG at 70 on my test course home:





That's pretty good MPG if there's any decent amount of Ethanol in this load. I pulled into the shop and realized my RH headlight was out. Popped the hood to get a fuel sample and gave the headlight a slap and it lit up. Collected the sample and saw that the headlight didn't come on when I turned the key on. I removed the air filter box to replace the bulb. Just used a stock one from a spare headlight housing. Cleaned the air filter and reassembled it all. Threw the Autel on it to see what the PCM had the alcohol content at then closed up shop.

Alcohol content is showing 62%:





It's been almost three years to the day that I've been running it with this seal. Actually over three years installed. Looks like it's still holding up 100%:

 

[randeez]

Left the house with the DIC displaying "27 MILES TO EMPTY" to go to the nearest source of E85- a RaceTrac 22 miles away. Grabbed $30 worth which was 11.721 gallons at 2.559/gallon. Went for a steady cruise in the opposite direction, away from town, to avoid traffic lights, etc. to let the fuel composition relearning get its stuff together as quickly and accurately as possible. I don't know if that's even necessary with the physical sensor. But, whatever. Made a U-turn and went home, totaling about 36 miles of mostly cruising after the refueling.

I noted an average of 18 MPG at 70 on my test course home:

View attachment 401123



That's pretty good MPG if there's any decent amount of Ethanol in this load. I pulled into the shop and realized my RH headlight was out. Popped the hood to get a fuel sample and gave the headlight a slap and it lit up. Collected the sample and saw that the headlight didn't come on when I turned the key on. I removed the air filter box to replace the bulb. Just used a stock one from a spare headlight housing. Cleaned the air filter and reassembled it all. Threw the Autel on it to see what the PCM had the alcohol content at then closed up shop.

Alcohol content is showing 62%:

View attachment 401124



It's been almost three years to the day that I've been running it with this seal. Actually over three years installed. Looks like it's still holding up 100%:

View attachment 401125

whats up with the traction and abs lights?

 

[iamdub]

whats up with the traction and abs lights?

Failed left rear wheel speed sensor. Well, it's the right rear now cuz I swapped 'em to diagnose. Just not a priority at the moment. Also kinda fun not having the traction nannies disciplining me.

 

[randeez]

Failed left rear wheel speed sensor. Well, it's the right rear now cuz I swapped 'em to diagnose. Just not a priority at the moment. Also kinda fun not having the traction nannies disciplining me.

safety should be priority no.1

 

[iamdub]

safety should be priority no.1

Absolutely, and I've been cinching my seatbelt down a little tighter lately. All good!

 

[iamdub]

It takes almost 24 hours to finish separating in the tube. So, I checked it this evening:





The line is fuzzy. But, if it were the meniscus, it'd be just under 65%, like 62% to 63%. The sensor settled at 62% yesterday, so, I think it's doing great! It's only my second time testing it, but it was pretty much the same last time- within 2% of the water test. Due to the variables involved and the fact that it is consistent with reading that 2% differential, I'm gonna say it's pretty damned accurate. It's WAY better than the virtual sensor consistently calculating as much as ~30% low. Yeah, some new and different oxygen sensors might would've helped that. But, I did the physical sensor conversion for much less and I'm convinced my 23K-mile "wrong" O2 sensors are perfectly fine for their regular fueling duties.


Speaking of fueling, I'm gonna call this load E64. I was averaging 18 MPG on my test course yesterday. If E85 is 27% "weaker" than E0, then this E64 should only be 20% weaker than E0. Meaning, I should have a 20% drop in MPG from my norm with all other factors the same. My norm on E10 (I never bother with E0) is 22MPG at 70MPH. Drop that MPG by 20% and I'm at 17.6MPG. Considering that's actually E10 and not E0 I'm comparing to the E64, it's scaled down a tiny hair. So, it all checks out beautifully.


֎֎BONUS ROUND֍֍

If you wanna compare costs: 93 (E10, but actual % unknown) from that same station was $3.65 at the time of fueling. To break even with the reduction in MPG on E64, the price of the E64 would have to be 20% lower. At $2.55, it's 30% lower. More power at a lower cost = win.