Evening everyone!

My first post here, but I stumbled across your thread doing a google search and thought I should poke my head in and comment.

I'm the "amusing WRX guy"

Regarding ethanol damaging fuel system components it is absolutely essential that you separate the events and experiences of the 1970's from current day cars.
They simply do not apply.

When they first introduced gasohol here in the Denver Area in the late 1970's we too had some issues caused by the introduction of ethanol to the gasoline.
My 1968 VW fuel lines did exactly as discribed above and started leaking like a sieve. Holly carburators with rubber/cork composition gaskets started to leak, and some carburators ( Quadra Jet if I recall ---this was 30 some years ago) had foam floats that absorbed the ethanol and got heavy enough to cause flooding.

All that went away when Federal regulations specified fuel systems must be compatible with ethanol enhanced fuels.

There were also problems in the 1970's with stalling and other problems that turned out to be due to ethanol's very effective fuel system cleaning. It stripped all the varnish and crud out of the fuel lines and clogged the fuel filters. Replace the fuel filter --- problem was solved. This was a temporary problem caused by the crappy gasoline and oxidation products that had built up in the fuel systems in some cases for decades. Not a problem any more.

The cars with modern fuel systems and EFI engine control systems appear to be very tolerant to high blends of E85. Based on the experiences of hundreds of users of E85 in blends from 20% to 100% here in the U.S. and in Europe, you can make a few general observations.

Every auto that I know of that has been run on these blends that was manufactured after the mid 1980's will run normally on a blend of E85 up to at least 30% and some will go higher. In most of those cars at some fuel blend level above 30% (usually 33% -40%) the car will throw a CEL because the engine management system thinks something is broken because it is using all its fuel trim authority to get to normal mixtures. Note at this point it is fully capable of reaching and holding its designed fuel map mixtures in closed loop fueling. At blends up to about 50% even though the system has generated a CEL the car runs fine, shows not damage after extended use at this blend level, but at >50% blend levels the driver will begin to experience small drivability issues. Occasional stalling at traffic lights when you stop. A slight hesitiation might be noticed at midrange rpms as the ECU transitions from closed loop to open loop fueling.

For higher blends some sort of compensation is necessary to run them successfully. Increasing injector size by about 30% solves all the above problems at higher blend levels, but they now appear when you drop back to 100% gasoline. Some exprimenters are using adjustable fuel pressure regulators or othe tuning methods like programmable engine controllers to give themselves full FFV capability.


A large number of exprimenters like myself, have run up to 100% E85 for time spans of over 1 year and thousands of miles with NO detectable problems. This is inspite of us actively looking for them. My WRX just went over 78,000 miles last summer when I did some upgrade work. While I was adding the new radiator, larger front mount intercooler and all the other upgrades, I pulled off an OEM fuel line that had been in the car since I bought it in the spring of 2001 and had seen over 500 gallons of E85 blended in the fuel over a span of 2+ years. I cut the fuel line lengthwise and rolled it open. On examination it looked like a brand new fuel line. I then let it set and dry for a full week then repeated the test with a 180 degree back bend in the fuel line with the inside surface on the outside of the bend. There were absolutely no signs of cracking checking, or deterioration that made the rubber break down or get gummy. In short is showed absolutely no sign of ever being exposed to any fuel other than normal gasoline.

The same was done with fuel injector O rings.

There are a hand ful of cars that have plastic fuel tanks that may have issues but all the cars running normal steel fuel tanks and mild steel fuel lines have shown no problems of any kind. Fuel pumps appear to live out a normal service life span as none of us has had to replace a fuel pump that I know of since running high ethanol fuel blends.

I currently run 3 different cars on E85 blends, an '86 Subaru, an '88 Subaru and my 2002 WRX . The two older ones are untouched as far as any effort at conversion, and will run normally on up to 30% blends. They get a bit cranky at 50% and above blends, but will still start run and get you where you want to go on the higher blends. They just have some minor hesitation issues on the higher blends. The WRX has been converted with larger injectors, and runs normally on blends from 50% to 100% but gets some minor hesitations and no longer makes above average power on 100% gasoline.

I am currently upgrading it with even larger injectors, an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and an after market software package will be used to allow me to make real time tuning adjustments.

The performance tuning community is turning on to E85 very quickly and especially the guys with high compression engines and boosted applications love it.

By the way last winter on 100% E85 my WRX got between 92% and 93% of its gasoline fuel milage in spite of cold weather driving. E85 does not necessarialy reduce fuel milage by any significant degree. As an example Saab has a FFV model that get better power and fuel milage on E85 than it does on gasoline in Europe.

Larry

 

YEs, but the vehicle *HAS TO BE MODIFED* to run E-85 effectively. Damn![sm=chairshot.gif][sm=icon_stickpoke.gif]

 

Not at moderate blends !

With a 30% blend of E85 in the tank and the ECU is fat dumb and happy on every car we have tried it with. The normal adjustment range of the ECU is sufficient to handle between 30% and 50% blends on every OBDII car folks have given reports on.

In South Dakota they are starting to install "blender pumps" where you can pump dial-a-blend mixtures of E85 and gasoline. Lots of folks up there are running 20% - 30% blends with no tuning changes of any kind. The pump prices the fuel based on the blend you select, so it allows people to knock a few cents a gallon off their fuel costs with no modifcation or tuning expenses.

Back in the 1970's Brazil ran studies of ethanol and cars of the period (carburated fixed tuning) and they found that every brand on the road at that time, could run with out modification on a 20% ethanol blend. The modern cars with OBDII ECU's have even more latitude than those carburated vehicles, because the ECU can make real time changes in fuel air mixture based on what it sees at the oxygen sensor. As long as it can adjust the fuel trims to hit its normal design targets for exhaust gas oxygen, and it sees no knock (which won't happen on ethanol blends due to their higher octane) it does not care what fuel its burning and will merrily go on about its business.

Heres a news video on the blender pumps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaFo81saRDw

Larry

 

Hi Larry!

I think once summer 2007 hits and gas prices once again go up to $3.00/gallon, more and more people will try running blends of E85 in their vehicles. IMO if you've got a vehicle that's already modified with larger injectors and fuel management, it's dumb not to give E85 a try.

Next fill up in the Dodge, I'm going to try a higher percentage blend. Especially after I though about what someone posted about the Ram being able to make 22% more HP on stock injectors. I have no idea what the free percentage of injectors in the Ram is, but I'm going to try and find out. Next fill up will be 11 gallons of E85 and 20 gallons of regular unleaded. That should equate to a 30% blend of E85 (33% ethanol mixture). 33% ethanol will use up ~10% more injectors than gasoline.

If the 1:1 relationship between horsepower and extra injector room (22% more horsepower = 22% more injector) holds true, one could theoretically run up to 73% mixture of E85. I seriously doubt the 1:1 ratio though. Guess I'll find out.

 

Earlier in this thread was discussion about problems with ethanol production. The text below is from yesterdays NY Times article on a company working out way to make ethanol from things other than corn - cornstalks, saw dust, wood chips, fall leaves - you name it. Even if they are completely successful, there are more problems in ethanol production, but it would be a serious step forward anyway. Today there was a report of Bush talking to Detroit about plans for more flex-fuel engines - that may be straw grasping, but there's probably something to it as well. Especially so if so-called "cellulosic ethanol" production can be worked out.

November 13, 2006
Microbe maker raises $30 million in funding
Michael Kanellos, for News.com
Dartmouth start-up Mascoma has raised $30 million in a second round of funding that could help the company break out of the experimental stage.
The company is genetically engineering microbes that can break down waste products like wood chips and leaves and turn them into ethanol through fermentation.
Although ethanol produces fewer tailpipe emissions than regular gas, it's not an ideal fuel. Currently, ethanol is made out of crops like corn, which could also be sold as food, and it takes a considerable amount of water and energy to grow these crops and subsequently turn them into car fuel.
A number of scientists and start-ups are trying to solve the problem by developing ethanol from crops with very little independent value and then using single-celled animals, rather than expensive industrial machinery, to process it.
Dyadic, for instance, has genetically enhanced a fungus, called C1, that it says can break down other materials cheaply. Diversa, a San Diego company that tries to commercially exploit microbes from harsh environments (it found a valuable microbe in a Siberian cow pie once), said in July it was moving into biofuels.
The company's primary organism is Thermoanaerobacterium saccharolyticum, which can break down plant material in a warm environment.
Others, meanwhile, are concentrating on genetically engineering plants dense in cellulose that will produce more ethanol per acre than existing crops.
Mascoma has assembled an engineering team and built a lab for demonstrating its technology, but has yet to move into commercial production. The company was founded by Lee Lynd, an engineering professor at Dartmouth, and Charles Wyman, who now teaches at the University of California at Riverside.
Investors in the second round included General Catalyst Partners and Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers.

Allen

 

I thought that alcohol made from any wood product was methanol.

 

Alcohol "cooked out of wood" is methanol. Years ago, they used to cook the wood at high temperature without oxygen, and pine tar, turpentine, and wood alcohol (methanol) were distilled out of the gas that cooks out of the wood. This is how it got its common name.

What they are talking about is several different processes that will break down the cellulose into simple sugars and then it will be "brewed" into ethanol (so call grain alcohol)

It is a different process and the chemical makeup of the alcohol produced is different as well.

One of the issues driving this process is that ethanol is much safer to handle and much less corrosive than methanol. Most methanol is infact made from petroleum as it is much cheaper to produce that way than the traditional high temperature decomposition of wood.

Methanol is a skin absorbed poison where ethanol is relatively benign by comparison ( we all know the consequences of excess exposure to it.)

It also breaks down quickly in nature so the down side of leaks or spills is much less serious than methanol.
Performance wise methanol and ethanol are very similar in real world performance.

Larry

 

I know you know this, Larry, but in case somebody else doesn't, the chemical makeup of "ethanol" produced from cellulose or from corn or by any other method is identical. But processes of producing "alcohols" from wood are different and the chemical makeups of the "alcohols" produced can different as well. But ehtanol is ethanol and methanol is methanol.

Allen

 

I had to write a college paper on this subject so I want to throw my two cents in. As far as damaging the engine and the fuel system this is true and untrue. The fuel system won't be runined as long as it is a newer car and doesn't have rubber in it. Rubber will dry up and crack.If I remebercorrectly the engine has to have copper or bronzegaskets in it otherwise they all get ruined due to the heatfrom the ethanol. If anything running one tank that is part ethanol is good for your truck. The reason is because the ethonal burns hotter which will help clean the carbon deposits out of your vehicle. It will also clean out your fuel lines wich will cause the filter to get clogged but, it is easy to change.While running the ethanol mix you will get less power and less mpg. It's not the same as race fuel.The reason for the loss in power is because it burns so much cleaner there is less gas emisions which is what expands the cylinder. Because it burns cleaner it robs power and mpg. The reason it helps with the emissions is also because it burns so muchhotterwhich burns up the other gasess. Ethanol has more energy in it then gas but it burns so efficientthat there is littleexhaust gas and more heat. I wouldn't run ethanol in anon flex fuel engine very often maybe once a year or so. More then this and you do run a risk of ruining the engine. You can make you engine a flex fuel engine be changing the gaskets in it. As far as the fuel system I really don't think there is aton of things you have to do to it. You might get better results by putting in bigger injectors but other then that there I would expect everything to work just fine.


I think I made a mistake. Mass can't be destroyed or created. Mass can only change forms. Sothe exhaust gas burnning up is incorrect. Actually ethanol if I remeber correctly a breaks more completly then gas does. That is why ther is less gas. The mass is the same its just smaller particles wich of course don't create the same pressure but, because of the ethanol breaking down so far you have more heat. I could be completly wrong it has been awhile since chemistry. Since i am going into electrical engineering I see more physics then chemistry.

 

Wut ever happened to this dark_horse guy? Did the e-85 eat up his Ram?

Also did a Dodge Ram have a 31 gal tank? He said 11 gallons of e-85 and 20 gallons of gas . My dodge has a 27 or 28 gal tank.

just wondering


jeff
USMC