[Zer0DazE]

I'll explain it to you. The reason a motor bends or breaks a rod is due to detonation. If you eliminate it with a quality fuel your motor will handle more power.

If detonation is the issue, then why not just properly tune the engine for 93? (this is a rhetorical question)

E85 has it's benefits, but they could be a double edged sword. E85 has a faster flame front than gasoline, and is more resistant to detonation. So what would happen if you advanced ignition timing and increased cylinder pressure, even if you weren't seeing detonation? Think you might bend a rod? The stock rods can only take so much stress, using a different fuel isn't going to change that.

Though applying the stress differently might allow for some leeway.

 

[Zer0DazE]

Because the fuel is more efficient.

E85 is not more efficient than gasoline. If it were, then you wouldn't need to use more of it to make the same power as would with gasoline. Perhaps "efficient" wasn't the word you were looking for.

E85 has more tolerance for error.

This is true, and the cooler burn doesn't hurt either.

If you have 2 identical stock engines running the exact same setup and making the same power, the e85 will be safer to daily than the 92-93 octane one.

The connecting rod has a specific tensile strength, exceed it and bad things happen. Though how and when this pressure is applied make a difference.

In addition faster flame travel means you can get the same combustion peak pressure in less time, which means you can give it less timing to peak the combustion event at the same point in engine rotation.

This sounds good in theory, but all the E85 cars I have worked on needed wanted more timing to make power. So does the it really change when that pressure is applied?

You are going to need to do a lot of math to figure this out.

Take a look at this.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/59952/676953430.pdf
There is a section that talks about cylinder pressure. The graph for gasoline and e85 are very similar, but E85 needed to be fired at 18* BTDC to make the same force as gasoline at 10.5*.

This means there is less pressure building over the time the rod/crank is at a poor angle before/right after TDC and less stress on things like the rod and ring lands.

I can see where this would be true, but in real world tuning on the dyno I have found E85 likes more advance. See above.

turboprelude95 is correct. It's a combination of the parts and the tune. You can make more power than most think you can on a stock bottom end (with either fuel), but it comes at a cost. Fatigue, and over time that will come back to bite you in the ass.

 

[Zer0DazE]

More advance to make the same power as 93 gasoline? Or to make the most power with e85?

My argument is that you can make the same power safer with e85, not that the max power you can make with e85 will be safer than the max power you can make with pump gas.

I have never tried to make the same power, though it would be an interesting test. Having moved across the country, I no longer have access to a dyno. I might be able to peak someones interest with a dyno, and get him to run some tests.

I can agree with you in it being safer in some aspects, but not without cost (reduced fuel mileage, and cost of injectors). As mentioned it is more resistant to knock, especially at higher intake temps (say pushing a smaller turbo way too hard) when compared to gasoline. So while you are "safer" in that a bad tune (or bad tuner) may not kill the engine with knock, a proper tune would makes this sort of a moot point.

The OP is using a stock block, it's not like he is trying to make 400whp. It seems like a waste just so you can get away with a less than optimal tune, and achieve worse fuel mileage.

The last post by Lamp Post does change things a bit. It would appear that he has plans to put in a "built" engine in the future. So I guess you could call this preparation for something bigger.