Ethanol conversion?

[Dano58]

I don't know what exactly changed, but I was getting pretty dire
mileage, around 20 mpg, and when I started consistently going to the
E15 station, it rose up to about what I'd come to expect from a sube
wagon, around 24-25.

I don't really know a whole lot about how gasoline works, but ethanol
increases octane, doesn't it? I know that doesn't translate into
higher mileage, but it could have other beneficial effects on the
engine.

Perhaps it's the difference between winter formulation and a summer
one, which typically generates a little better mileage. At any rate,
if this is indeed a 'data point', you should have 'data', not just
anecdotal evidence.... ;-) And while it may indeed have a higher
octane, it also has a bit less energy available per gallon, so in
theory it should take MORE of it to generate the same sort of power
that a gallon of gas does - hence the understanding that it generally
provides fewer miles per gallons.

Dan D
'99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's)
Central NJ USA

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

"except to make the 'gasahol' hold a bit more water"

That is the whole point of Drygas, and that is what makes the water go
out the exhaust pipe. So, "little effect" except for getting rid of
the water.

Ben

You do not understand. Drygas is alcohol - just like ethanol, and it
has the same effect. Adding drygas to ethanol gasoline MAY get you
over the hump - but it is the ethanol in the first place that is
causing the problem by acting as a water sponge - absorbing water out
of the air. Just turns E10 into E10.05

 

[Uncle Ben]

You do not understand. Drygas is alcohol - just like ethanol, and it
has the same effect. Adding drygas to ethanol gasoline MAY get you
over the hump - but it is the ethanol in the first place that is
causing the problem by acting as a water sponge - absorbing water out
of the air. Just turns E10 into E10.05

My original point was to rebut the alcohol/gasoline scare -- all that
alcohol does NOT itself cause a separation of liquid phases. It is
the contaminating water that might cause separation, and that would
take a lot of water. If your fuel cap is on tight, you shouldn't be
getting much moist air in your tank.

Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

If the computer, O2 sensors, and fuel injectors cannot adapt 'rich'
enough you'll be running the engine very lean, which will destroy it
in short order.

I suspect the fellow who changes his injectors may have to run E85 at
this point? If he swapped out injectors that delivered more fuel given
the same 'signal' from the ECU, he may have a problem with the signal
being adapted 'lean' enough to run on 'straight' gas.

Perhaps a useful experiment would be to fill the tank with various
mixtures of 'gas' and 'E85' and see how much E85 it can tolerate?

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More information:

1. On YouTube there is a film that shows the inside of an engine,
unmodified, that has burned E85 for more than 100,000 miles. There is
no sign of damage. A possible explanation is that the very lean
mixture burns cooler than gasoline.

2. The guy with the enlarged injector diameters gets by on pure
gasoline as long as he uses a light foot on the accelerator. He does
not open the throttle more than 60% of wide open.

3. I am running E41 in my unmodified 1999 OB, and the performance is
fine. I will, however, out of fear, install a modification kit before
attempting E85 straight.

Ben.

 

[L. Ross Raszewski]

My original point was to rebut the alcohol/gasoline scare -- all that
alcohol does NOT itself cause a separation of liquid phases. It is
the contaminating water that might cause separation, and that would
take a lot of water. If your fuel cap is on tight, you shouldn't be
getting much moist air in your tank.

Ben

My mistake about the ethanol. Chemistry's never been my strong suit,
much to my father's chagrin.

But this water thing -- could thatr be what was behind the fact that
my car stalled in traffic right around when I switched to an ethanol
blend? (Took it to the mechanic, who spent all day looking at it and
couldn't find anything wrong)

 

[Uncle Ben]

But this water thing -- could thatr be what was behind the fact that
my car stalled in traffic right around when I switched to an ethanol
blend? (Took it to the mechanic, who spent all day looking at it and
couldn't find anything wrong)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If your car is not an old classic, it should have been made to accept
E10, and I have no idea why it stalled. I doubt that you filled up
with E85, so I won't speculate about dissolving varnish and clogging
your fuel filter. In short, I have no idea. It might be that
something entirely different caused the problem.

If you are adventurous, you might try to repeat the experience in the
interest of science. Good luck!

Ben

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

If your car is not an old classic, it should have been made to accept
E10, and I have no idea why it stalled. I doubt that you filled up
with E85, so I won't speculate about dissolving varnish and clogging
your fuel filter. In short, I have no idea. It might be that
something entirely different caused the problem.

If you are adventurous, you might try to repeat the experience in the
interest of science. Good luck!

Ben

Phase separation will do that. Did it just cool off at about the time
it happened?

 

[L. Ross Raszewski]

THe main reason I thought of it was that the weather had been all over
the place that week

 

[Dominic Richens]

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.h...

The article's main points against ethanol are (1) it causes smog, (2)
it costs more energy to make it than you get back, and (3) E85 is very
inefficient. I believe all three are wrong.

well, it is businessweek. If it were, say, Nature, New Scientist or even
Scientific American it would probably say something quite different.

Ethanol as a fuel is great, except that it is more expensive to produce than
straight gasoline. By "expensive" I mean compared to the 100:1 ratio of
gasoline, in terms of energy you get for energy you put into making it.
Pimental says it's less than 1:1, but his "studies" are weighted to say
that. Even if it was 10:1, it's still way more expensive that gasoline. If
society as a whole was able to reduce it's liquid energy consumption by 10
fold we might be okay - but current energy policies of the western world are
not going to make that happen anytime soon.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Ethanol as a fuel is great, except that it is more expensive to produce than
straight gasoline.  By "expensive" I mean compared to the 100:1 ratio of
gasoline, in terms of energy you get for energy you put into making it.
Pimental says it's less than 1:1, but his "studies" are weighted to say
that.  Even if it was 10:1, it's still way more expensive that gasoline. If
society as a whole was able to reduce it's liquid energy consumption by 10
fold we might be okay - but current energy policies of the western world are
not going to make that happen anytime soon.

If you Google that question, you'll find the Pimental is alone in that
contention. Many studies after his refute it. The ratio is 1.67:1
even for corn. For sugar cane, it is 8:1. Brazil has been using it
for thirty years, now without subsidies.

In fact, it is gasoline which costs more to produce than you get back
from it, according to Robert Zubrin's book. Where do you get that
100:1 figure?

 

[-rick-]

Just as a data point, I started routinely using E15 about a month ago,
and noticed a consistant 20% *increase* in mileage.

???

I get about 10% less mpg with 10% ethanol. Some of that is
temperature.

 

[turkey]

For decades now and all small, foreign, fuel efficient (relatively)
cars, I have noticed a 10-15 per cent drop in mileage to the point
that most of the time without knowing the exact dates, I could tell
the gas station they had started the winter blend. I have had people
wash this off with assertions it was just colder, and of course that
should play a small part in the scenario, but warm periods in the
winter never seemed to make a difference in this decrease in mileage.
Only the end of winter gas improved things. The more fuel efficient
in summer, the higher the percentage lower, generally.

 

[Uncle Ben]

I get about 10% less mpg with 10% ethanol.  Some of that is
temperature.

That is curious. For a week recently I ran E29 (29% ethanol) in my
1999 OB 2.5L and got 15% less mpg. That's a mild disappointment, but
I'm still saving money, because I pay about $3.00 per gallon of E85
I'm mixing in, and gasoline costs about $4.00 per gallon. Down 15%
and up 25%

So I don't think the mpg penality is linear with the concentration.
There is more to learn about this.

Now I'm running E60 (on my way to straight E85). This is after
installing a flex-fuel converter. I'm eager to find out how it works
out. More info in the thread "E85 - experience."

Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

DO NOT just dump a tankful of E85 in your car! Seehttp://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/conversion.php The major issue
they discuss is a potential increase in emissions (which could be a
felony). The ethanol content can also dry out any rubber hoses are
seals over time, leading to all sorts of issues with leakage.

Dan D
'99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's)
Central NJ USA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It was May 7th that I started this thread asking the question what
would happen if I did as Dano58 said not to do: just fill up my
unconverted 1999 OB with E85 and ran it. Since then I have learned a
lot from reading and from experimenting.

The National Ethanol Vehcle Coalition has this www.E85.com webpage
that Dano58 refers to, and it does warn against filling with E85
without conversion. Moreover it says that no conversit kit has been
approved by the EPA.

That warning is obsolete. The EPA Memorandum 1A dates from 1997 and
discusses the interpretation of a 1974 memorandum warning that
alteration of a vehicle's emission control system with the intent to
evade that control is punishable by law. In 2008, however, the EPA
approved one conversion kit, Full Flex, that permits any fuel between
pure gasoline and pure ethanol to burn in a car without lighting the
MIL (CEL). That makes it pass New York's inspection.

The NEVC also states that conversion is very difficult. I have made
this conversion on my car. If the fuel injector connectors are wthin
easy reach, the conversion takes 5 minutes. It took me longer,
because the Subaru boxer engine has its fuel injectors very hard to
get at.

What the conversion does is to insert a control box in the electrical
feed to the fuel injectors so as to lengthen the pulse from the ECU to
the injectors and thus increase the richness of the fuel mixture.
Ethanol has oxygen chemically included in it, with the result that
there is too much oxygen in the normal car's mixture, causing the MIL
to come on. The box does is to extend the range of mixtures that the
ECU can create, solving that problem.

If one ignores this problem, what happens is that the mixture burns
hotter than normal. If pure gasoline were to burn hotter than normal,
NOx emissions would result with bad effects on the atmosphere.
Ethanol, however, burns much cooler than gasoline. I would like to
see test results on the emissions of an engine burning ethanol too
lean.

If one's car is very old -- 1950's, say, -- the natural rubber in
hoses might be affected by ethanol. But since the 1980's IIRC, the
government requires cars to be compatible with E10, and the
manufacturers replaced rubber with neoprene or the like. It happens
that neoprene resists attack by ethanol and gasoline at any
concentrarion.

If ethanol were a risk to the atmosphere then why has the March of
Dimes endorsed its use? The facts are that ethanol produces much
cleaner emissions than gasoline.

Ethanol is clean, cheap, and enhances the performance of a car. My
old, all-wheel-drive, automatic shift Outback feels like it wants to
run. Its 0-60 mph time is 12.35 seconds, which ain't bad. It's not
for nothing that Indy cars this year will be running on pure ethanol.

Come on in! The water's fine!

Ben

 

[dnoyeB]

???

I get about 10% less mpg with 10% ethanol. Some of that is
temperature.

Makes no sense. Means ethanol contributed nothing
toward your mpg. You would get the same thing if you put 10% less fuel in
the tank. Which would cost you 10% less.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Makes no sense.  Means ethanol contributed nothing
toward your mpg. You would get the same thing if you put 10% less fuel in
the tank. Which would cost you 10% less.

Makes a lot of sense. Suppose I invent a fuel that gets you 200 mpg,
but it costs $200 per gallon. Would you go for it? No. MPG isn't the
object; it's MPD: miles per dollar.

On E60 (on my way to E85) I get 15% less mpg, but it costs 25% less.
That means I am getting 13% more miles/dollar than on gasoline. The
calculation is (1-0.15)/(1-0.25) = 0.85/0.75 = 1.13.

Not to mention that with ethanol I pollute less, I cause less money to
flow to bad people, and I enjoy driving more, because I get higher
torque and higher horsepower. My old 1999 OB goes 0 - 60 mph in under
12.5 seconds.

Ben

 

[Steve Daniels]

My old 1999 OB goes 0 - 60 mph in under
12.5 seconds.

Wow.

My Audi will do that in six.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Wow.

My Audi will do that in six.

Congratulations! My GF's Porsche will do it in even less. But she
doesn't have AWD and AT.

 

[Steve Daniels]

Congratulations! My GF's Porsche will do it in even less. But she
doesn't have AWD and AT.

I do. It's really sweet. I wonder how much I'd lose if it were
set up to run alcohol?

 

[Uncle Ben]

I do.  It's really sweet.  I wonder how much I'd lose if it were
set up to run alcohol?

You could find out. If you know how much gasoline is left in your
tank -- just a few gallons -- add just enough E85 to make the
concentration E30. It isn't enough to light your trouble light.
Drive it a while to let your ECU adjust the mixture. Then see if your
performance is worse or better and let us know. It won't hurt your
car.

Ben