Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JAE on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
E85 Fuel 2
- Thread starter steve383
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Lou Scannon
Automotive
If I'm not mistaken E-85 stands for 85% Ethanol, 15% gasoline, so as a fuel its properties are going to be governed mainly by ethanol. So major rework of the carb would be needed, and I wouldn't assume all the materials in the fuel system of a non-E-85 vehicle would be compatible.
The 15% gasoline is included in the blend for a number of reasons, among them making the fuel unappealing to drink, making its flame visible as a safety feature, and enhancing evaporative properties at low temperatures, i.e. for cold starting performance.
The 15% gasoline is included in the blend for a number of reasons, among them making the fuel unappealing to drink, making its flame visible as a safety feature, and enhancing evaporative properties at low temperatures, i.e. for cold starting performance.
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
If the car isn't labeled for E-85, don't put it in the tank.
Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
E85 is not what you would want to run in an older vehicle. First - it has roughly 30% less energy than normal gasoline - as it carries an oxygenate with each mole of alcohol. Additionally, it is really tough on rubber components, it tends to dissolve rubber hoses.
In Sweden Ford Focus is availible as Flexifuel model. It can run on E85 or pure gasoline and all mixtures in between. I would imagine that those who drives this cars use gasoline during the winter, due to cold starting problems with alcohol.
Emissions of CO2 are down 70-80 % with E85 and fuel consumption are up by 35 %.
Soon SAAB will be on the market with a flexifuel car. Acording to SAAB, max power on E85 = 180 HP and on gas only 150 HP. E85= (RON)104
Benefits for driving flexifuel are less tax and free parking.
Emissions of CO2 are down 70-80 % with E85 and fuel consumption are up by 35 %.
Soon SAAB will be on the market with a flexifuel car. Acording to SAAB, max power on E85 = 180 HP and on gas only 150 HP. E85= (RON)104
Benefits for driving flexifuel are less tax and free parking.
GregLocock
Automotive
"Emissions of CO2 are down 70-80 % with E85 and fuel consumption are up by 35 %."
Fuel consumption increases, but CO2 emissions drop? 70-80%? By burning partially preburned hydrocarbons? I don't think so.
Irritatingly the only emissions info I can find is in Swedish
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Fuel consumption increases, but CO2 emissions drop? 70-80%? By burning partially preburned hydrocarbons? I don't think so.
Irritatingly the only emissions info I can find is in Swedish
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Lou Scannon
Automotive
Any CO2 analysis needs to look at the complete fuel production, refining & delivery process as well as the conversion to exhaust products in the automobile heat engine. For example, the carbon in the ethanol molecules is derived from the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place, so that part of it should be a zero sum result. On the other hand, current methods of ethanol production are heavily reliant on petroleum powered production methods (i.e. farm equipment). This ends up being the same order of magnitude of net CO2 production as bypassing all the intermediate steps of farming, brewing, etc., and putting the petroleum to more direct use in the end user's heat engine. In other words, the production methods of ethanol heavily influence whether or how much it is CO2 friendly.
Is CO2 really an issue anyway, environmentally? -- well, that's another debate.
Is CO2 really an issue anyway, environmentally? -- well, that's another debate.
Plenty of good info at the Renewable Fuels Association's website:
patprimmer
New member
Change the injectors by the appropriate amount for the required AF ratio change. The computer won't know about the change in fuel and the extra flow for the same injector cycle rate.
Make sure you use an injector that is made of materials suitable for E85.
Regards
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Make sure you use an injector that is made of materials suitable for E85.
Regards
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Brazil has been using 100% ethanol, distilled from sugar-cane, since the late 70´s/early 80´s and sells at a price 30% lower than petrol.
The all-ethanol IC engines have a higher compression ratio than petrol engines, viz. 10.5-12:1 vs 10:1 max., respectively, which somewhat offsets the higher consumption of ethanol for equal power output. Other side benefits include more output power at max. revs and peak torque developed at lower revs.
The carburettors were nickel-plated to withstand ethanol fuel, and the fuel pump, lines and tank are made of a more resistant material. A 1/2-gallon petrol cannister + delivery pump was on tap for temporary connection (automatic) to the carburettor for cold-start on cold days.
As EFI hit the market, some manufacturers released ethanol EFI engines, but am not sure if the relevant components like injector pump, injectors etc. are SS.
Since the last 12 months, a host of manufacturers have released EFI FLEX-FUEL engines that allow the user to alter the petrol/alcohol mix AT WILL, depending on consumer preferences of relative fuel price, availability etc.
Ethanol is cheapest - and dirt cheap - in regions which concentrate on ethanol production.
The all-ethanol IC engines have a higher compression ratio than petrol engines, viz. 10.5-12:1 vs 10:1 max., respectively, which somewhat offsets the higher consumption of ethanol for equal power output. Other side benefits include more output power at max. revs and peak torque developed at lower revs.
The carburettors were nickel-plated to withstand ethanol fuel, and the fuel pump, lines and tank are made of a more resistant material. A 1/2-gallon petrol cannister + delivery pump was on tap for temporary connection (automatic) to the carburettor for cold-start on cold days.
As EFI hit the market, some manufacturers released ethanol EFI engines, but am not sure if the relevant components like injector pump, injectors etc. are SS.
Since the last 12 months, a host of manufacturers have released EFI FLEX-FUEL engines that allow the user to alter the petrol/alcohol mix AT WILL, depending on consumer preferences of relative fuel price, availability etc.
Ethanol is cheapest - and dirt cheap - in regions which concentrate on ethanol production.
i heard over the weekend on the pat goss radio show that a sponsored guest is driving a 1985 buick or cadillac across country on the southern route and back on the northern route using only e85. the mechanic guest said they had to put in different metering rods and jets and change timing a little. nothing drastic though. it sure could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Lets see now;
All parts are vehicle specific:
Fuel tank;
Fuel pump;
All fuel lines;
Fuel injectors;
Computer reflash to E-85 specs;
Unique sensors;
EPA emission certification for the package which doesnt exist;
and this is only for E-85 fuel.
Cost? I would expect about $3000 to $5000USD, parts only, another $1,000 labor.
Retrofits will never happen, entirely not feasible.
I was asked about 3 years ago to explore the market for retrofits, I was told it had to be below $1000 USD to even come close to attracting the customers interest. Toss in that the fuel may cost more, obtain about 60% of the milage, and have durability problems with corrosion (no arguments please, it happens), and there is no market.
Franz
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
All parts are vehicle specific:
Fuel tank;
Fuel pump;
All fuel lines;
Fuel injectors;
Computer reflash to E-85 specs;
Unique sensors;
EPA emission certification for the package which doesnt exist;
and this is only for E-85 fuel.
Cost? I would expect about $3000 to $5000USD, parts only, another $1,000 labor.
Retrofits will never happen, entirely not feasible.
I was asked about 3 years ago to explore the market for retrofits, I was told it had to be below $1000 USD to even come close to attracting the customers interest. Toss in that the fuel may cost more, obtain about 60% of the milage, and have durability problems with corrosion (no arguments please, it happens), and there is no market.
Franz
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Maybe, but these are technical issues, not political. These changes are needed when running any E-? fuel much over 10%.
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
I was making reference to real technical issues like exhaust valve lubrication with the lead in the exhaust, as well as the supposed 'knock' problems that taking the lead out would produce. Plus efficiency losses that lower compression ratios would produce.
Now, after years of using unleaded, I don't drive down the road worrying about whether my exhaust valves are going to survive or not, although I do still deal with more pinging than I would like to have to. And, I miss the raw power that some of my old leaded gas engines had.
My point was that the paradygm of the industry at the moment the debate was raging was from the point of view of having (needing) the lead, and how it (the thinking) changed when the political climate dictated that the change was going to have to occur.
In todays political and global economic climate, a similar metamorphasis can and just might occur. It certainly did for Brazil as Paulista noted above.
As the old warden said in Cool Hand Luke, " Luke, you just have to get your mind right". Sometimes political and economic realities do that for us whether we want it or not. It looks like ethanol is coming on just like unleaded gas did. Some technical merit, lots of political (including environmental) combined with economic pressure.
rmw
Now, after years of using unleaded, I don't drive down the road worrying about whether my exhaust valves are going to survive or not, although I do still deal with more pinging than I would like to have to. And, I miss the raw power that some of my old leaded gas engines had.
My point was that the paradygm of the industry at the moment the debate was raging was from the point of view of having (needing) the lead, and how it (the thinking) changed when the political climate dictated that the change was going to have to occur.
In todays political and global economic climate, a similar metamorphasis can and just might occur. It certainly did for Brazil as Paulista noted above.
As the old warden said in Cool Hand Luke, " Luke, you just have to get your mind right". Sometimes political and economic realities do that for us whether we want it or not. It looks like ethanol is coming on just like unleaded gas did. Some technical merit, lots of political (including environmental) combined with economic pressure.
rmw
Oops, RMW, I think I may have replied to your message. I was replying to "gootot" asking about a retrofit option.
Your concerns are all real, I remember very well all the rhetoric in the mid 1970's, but what we got out of all of that mess was a nice running, clean, efficient vehicle. The performance and engine life of todays vehicle is unsurpassed. Just this morning, I was reading about the new '06 Mustang, being the most powerful Ford has ever offered, all that and meeting EPA too.
The issues with valve recession was real and happened plenty, but only for a couple of years. The knock and lower compression problems were solved with EGR and better design cam specs, plus decently designed pistons and combustion chambers.
As for "gootot" questions, retrofitting a modern era non-E85 vehicle for E-85 use is not feasible.
Brazil's autos are fuel specific, manufactured that way. The few years they retrofitted vehicles were dismal failures, even the government picked up the tab on many of them. Early in my career I fielded such a question from an engineer in Brazil, he told me that they had no choice but switch. They spent more on retrofitting vehicles, paying for the change over, engineering additional applications, and working out the fuel storage issues than they have saved using Ethanol.
Now, on the positive side:
Ethanol is a great fuel, E-85 works well. The 15% gasoline helps with cold weather ignition and gives the flame color when burning outside the engine. E-85 has not shown to have any significant valve wear problem, if the engine is run normally, but if the engine is not used regularly, there are some corrosion issues in the intake manifold, or in other areas where aluminum or magnesium, or pot metal is exposed to ethanol.
I drove several of the research vehicles, they perform well with plenty of power, but at the 30% fuel milage penalty.
Not contesting the use of Ethanol or E-85, but the option of making a user acceptable retrofit system has too many negatives to offset the positive attributes. Remember, I am only referring to the post by "gootot", not the original thread.
Franz
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Your concerns are all real, I remember very well all the rhetoric in the mid 1970's, but what we got out of all of that mess was a nice running, clean, efficient vehicle. The performance and engine life of todays vehicle is unsurpassed. Just this morning, I was reading about the new '06 Mustang, being the most powerful Ford has ever offered, all that and meeting EPA too.
The issues with valve recession was real and happened plenty, but only for a couple of years. The knock and lower compression problems were solved with EGR and better design cam specs, plus decently designed pistons and combustion chambers.
As for "gootot" questions, retrofitting a modern era non-E85 vehicle for E-85 use is not feasible.
Brazil's autos are fuel specific, manufactured that way. The few years they retrofitted vehicles were dismal failures, even the government picked up the tab on many of them. Early in my career I fielded such a question from an engineer in Brazil, he told me that they had no choice but switch. They spent more on retrofitting vehicles, paying for the change over, engineering additional applications, and working out the fuel storage issues than they have saved using Ethanol.
Now, on the positive side:
Ethanol is a great fuel, E-85 works well. The 15% gasoline helps with cold weather ignition and gives the flame color when burning outside the engine. E-85 has not shown to have any significant valve wear problem, if the engine is run normally, but if the engine is not used regularly, there are some corrosion issues in the intake manifold, or in other areas where aluminum or magnesium, or pot metal is exposed to ethanol.
I drove several of the research vehicles, they perform well with plenty of power, but at the 30% fuel milage penalty.
Not contesting the use of Ethanol or E-85, but the option of making a user acceptable retrofit system has too many negatives to offset the positive attributes. Remember, I am only referring to the post by "gootot", not the original thread.
Franz
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Franz,
I think what you and I are both driving at in response to Steve383's question is that there is a right way and a wrong way to do this, especially if it comes to a point that it has to be done (whether political, economic, or otherwise.)
Similar discussion could be had with the R-12 to R-134 changeover machinations of a few years ago. With the age of some of my vehicles, I am still in the middle of all that. I refuse to convert some of my older vehicles. I hoarded enough of the old stuff to get by for some time.
I was also one that thought Diesel was cool technology and got caught up in the GM 5.7L conversion engine and the earlier Ford 6.9's. Helped contribute to the 'learning curve' of the times regarding that technology. Wouldn't trade my Power Strokes for those old engines ever.
I was one of those that got caught up in the leaded vs unleaded rhetoric, and thought that life was over when lead was taken out of the fuel. Now I wouldn't go back for any reason. Maybe it will be the same with ethanol for some.
Your points are excellent and well taken. If someone thinks that they are going to get from here to there by converting an existing gasoline fueled auto, I think they are going to be in for big problems and big disappointments as you so well point out.
I hope they listen to you. If they don't they will be the ones giving the concept a black eye.
The more I hear about it, (E-85) the more I like it, but I will not be one caught up in trying to convert an existing system.
rmw
I think what you and I are both driving at in response to Steve383's question is that there is a right way and a wrong way to do this, especially if it comes to a point that it has to be done (whether political, economic, or otherwise.)
Similar discussion could be had with the R-12 to R-134 changeover machinations of a few years ago. With the age of some of my vehicles, I am still in the middle of all that. I refuse to convert some of my older vehicles. I hoarded enough of the old stuff to get by for some time.
I was also one that thought Diesel was cool technology and got caught up in the GM 5.7L conversion engine and the earlier Ford 6.9's. Helped contribute to the 'learning curve' of the times regarding that technology. Wouldn't trade my Power Strokes for those old engines ever.
I was one of those that got caught up in the leaded vs unleaded rhetoric, and thought that life was over when lead was taken out of the fuel. Now I wouldn't go back for any reason. Maybe it will be the same with ethanol for some.
Your points are excellent and well taken. If someone thinks that they are going to get from here to there by converting an existing gasoline fueled auto, I think they are going to be in for big problems and big disappointments as you so well point out.
I hope they listen to you. If they don't they will be the ones giving the concept a black eye.
The more I hear about it, (E-85) the more I like it, but I will not be one caught up in trying to convert an existing system.
rmw
- Status
Similar threads
