Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WagnerX5
That is the case...read Roundel. The fuel lines in a BMW weren't meant to received large doses of alcohol base fuels like E85.
Re-read the roundel statement: 'the fuel lines weren't MEANT to receive . . . ' it doesn't say they CAN'T or, that they WON'T, withstand alcohol based fuels.
Why would anyone choose to believe that a automotive mfgr. would install any material that was able to withstand the effects of only 'a little bit' of a corrosive substance that has been mandated for use in their product ? To protect their 'six', just like Roundel article does for BMW, they will over design everything that has any chance of coming in contact with the corrosive substance to beat hell. To do anything less would guarantee very expensive product recalls not to mention many, many unhappy customers.
Good point JCL, seems people overlook the fact that E85 produces less energy the regular gasoline.
Has anyone considered that the 'volumetric energy' may just be the wrong scale to use when comparing 105 octane Ethanol 86 octane unleaded gasoline ? If the 33% less volumetric Btu's were an accurate indicator then the 12 Horsepower increase demonstrated by four Dyno runs on my '98 Ford F150 couldn't happen BUT, it did ! AND, the Torque increased 5.5 ft-lbs.
I had "Dyno Edge" in Albuquerque, New Mexico run two 'before' [on 86 octane unleaded gasoline] and, four 'after' [100% E-85 - no unleaded gas in the tank] Dyno runs on my '98 Ford F-150 XLT 5spd auto. My full tank of E-85 (blended to 85 (+/- 2) % enabled the 98,xxx mile 4.2L V-6 SFI engine to produce 12.2 more HP and 5.5 ft-lbs of Torque.
SO, it would 'seem' that the old 'anti ethanol' saw of 33% loss of gas mileage just doesn't add up when E-85 enables an internal combustion engine to develop more power at the rear wheels where a Dynomometer can measure it.
BTW; 4,000 miles and six months and counting and the 'old' pickup hasn't developed a single leak or a sputter.
cough cough HYDROGEN cough cough  |
This is a good 'old anti ethanol' saw which can be simply answered by HERE and NOW - E-85 is HERE, NOW; hydrogen 'ain't' !.
Hydrogen would be the 'ideal' clean burning automotive fuel IF you could store enough of it in your mid-size hybrid, (or even your full size Ford Crown Victoria), to get you more than 200 miles down the road without having to face a lenghtly refueling stop.
CNG (Compressed natural Gas); LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and LPG (Propane) are also 'realitively' clean burning automotive fuels BUT they too sufffer from the same storage problem that Hydrogen has. You can't get anywhere once you leave the city limits.
Believe it or, not, there are many places in this world where 200 miles between fuel stops just won't cut it EVEN IF a suitable fueling facility were available at your destination (which they're NOT - and that isn't likely to improve much in the next 10-15 years).
As for the 'cough, cough' portion of the quote; The two widely separated Emissions tests that the City of Albuquerque Main Testing Facility ran on my FFV converted '98 F-150 (immediately after the Dyno runs with a full tank of E-85), refute the 'anti ethanol' naysayers claims that Ethanol, when burned in a converted auto engine, will polute 'almost as much' as if the engine were running on 86 octane gasoline.
The Emissions tests conducted at highway speed RPMs (2270-2500) showed; Hydrocarbons at 13-17 ppm (where 100 ppm is max allowable; Carbon Monoxide at 0.00%-0.01% (where 1% is allowable); CO2 at 15.2%-15.3% (where 16% is considered optimum and 14.5% is considered ideal); Oxygen ranged between 0.04%-0.3% (where the 'least possible' is considered ideal).
Maybe, just maybe the 'slight loss in fuel consumption when burning E-85 in
A FFV conversion unit does adjust the pulse width of the signal to the injectors. After that, maybe, just maybe, E-85 it is just a 'better' burning fuel (than unleaded gasoline). If I anyone is interested, and I can find a way to do it, I'll could post copies of my Dyno curves and Emissions tests.