Ethanol mixture

[geokoppmann]

Depending on the maintenance level of you vehicle, the key to your performance may lie with the replacement of your fuel filter. Ethanol is 'almost' bullet proof with regard to is ability to dislodge crud in you fuel tank an lines. If you have it, ethanol will remove it and it will end up in you filter.

If your entire fuel system is 'crudded up' , the dislodged 'stuff' can mess up your injectors. With the continued use of ethnol blends the system should eventually clean itself UNLESS your fuel system was really dirty. Most people don't realize that 'discount' fuel stations buy their gas from 'the lowest bidder', (so to speak), and the octane rating and the cleanliness of what they sell is 'less than desireable.

AND, if you've ever filled up while the 'big, unmarked, silver tank truck' is dumping fuel in the underground storage tanks at that station, you're literally pumping all sorts of crud & water straight into you gas tank. That fact shows up very fast when you fill up a motorcycle that is on reserve. The substandard or dirty fuel will be immediately evident before your front wheel hits the pavement when leaving the fuel station.

Many of those 'unmarked' tank trucks never bother to purge their tank before picking up a load of a completely disimilar type of liquid from crude oil to diesel to 'whatever' is available to cover the expenses of a deadhead return trip to their home base.

[JCL]

OK, I understand the importance of fuel filtration, particularly with the solvency of E85. But, what does that have to do with the fact that ethanol fuel simply contains less energy? How do you explain similar fuel consumption in your anecdotal testing, from a fuel that doesn't have as much energy to provide to the engine? If everything worked perfectly, you would still use approximately 22% more.

Your comments regarding no-name stations, and filling up while a tanker is unloading, illustrate why that should never be part of anyone's routine. Keep to large name brand stations, and never fill up while fuel is being unloaded. Both are even more important if you move back and forth between gasoline and E85, as the ethanol will carry the water in suspension, instead of leaving it at the bottom of the fuel tank.

[Wagner]

Hydrogen baby

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by geokoppmann

IF that were the case then

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.


Good point JCL, seems people overlook the fact that E85 produces less energy the regular gasoline.


cough cough HYDROGEN cough cough

[noncom23]

Does the ethanol eventually break down to a sugar?

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.


Good point JCL, seems people overlook the fact that E85 produces less energy the regular gasoline.


cough cough HYDROGEN cough cough

[geokoppmann]

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.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by geokoppmann

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.

If you are purchasing fuel by volume, and burning it to convert energy, then volumetric energy content is the exact right scale to use. You are simply purchasing less energy in your gallon. There is no magic here. I would be interested in another hypothesis of why the fuel economy is so good, but let's respect the basics of chemistry.

I don't see the significance of the 105 octane. Unless you have modified your truck engine to require that octane (higher compression ratio via changes in pistons or combustion chamber, etc) it is irrelevant. It is simply an indicator of resistance to knock. I assumed you didn't modify your engine, since you switched back and forth between the two fuels. If you did modify your engine it explains the results on regular pump gas.

I don't see your point about the connection between fewer BTUs per gallon and more hp. If it makes more hp, great. You just can't get more hp out of the same volume of fuel, you will need more of it. This is a mileage question, not a hp question. I wouldn't worry too much about 12 hp, that is within the accuracy range of most dynos. Was it a different day, different ambient temperature, different barometric pressure?

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.......

I didn't say 33%, not sure where that came from. It is 26% for pure ethanol, so that will only be a 22% impact on E85. That is still all about mileage, not hp. Sure you can potentially develop more hp, you will just need more fuel to do so.

A FFV conversion unit does adjust the pulse width of the signal to the injectors.

It is logical IMO that it will need a different pulse width, so that it can put more fuel in to the engine. The fuel injector is injecting a certain volume, not a certain amount of energy. It will need 22% more to be precise. That is what I am asking about.

Maybe, just maybe, E-85 is just a 'better' burning fuel.

No arm wrestle here on the burning of E-85. I am not suggesting that it pollutes more, or even the same as unleaded. If we want to call that 'better burning' then great, no problem. I just don't see how 'better burning' translates into producing energy that wasn't there to start with.

Interesting discussion.

PS: It makes it easier to follow if you don't insert your comments in other's quotes. It makes it look like they are the previous poster's comments. Just a suggestion.

[NINCHS]

Which series is it? Indy cars maybe? I forgot, but I know someone is switching to ethenol this year.

I read thought that Full Flex website. Lots of happy people using it, though I'd like to see some type of forum like this with non-biased reviews.

Id be up for e85 if it doesnt hurt the car. After all it would be and american made fuel and help reduce our reliance on the middle east!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by geokoppmann

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.

This deserved a separate response, IMO.

Rightly or wrongly, as an engineer, I choose to believe that when I design something, I should include a safety factor. I don't expect the consumer to use up that safety factor and then blame me if the product fails. It might not fail. But if it does, I wouldn't be surprised, I may even expect it.

If you think that we can all go and use up the safety factors inherent in our vehicle's designs, then I suggest you try turbocharging your engine. There is a safety factor on peak cylinder pressure, you can go ahead and use it. Why wouldn't an automaker allow for that?

Sorry, that is an indefensible position.

It is like saying you can overinflate a tire, because those warnings on the side are just from overly-conservative tire engineers. If you overinflate it enough, you will get better mileage. So what?

Posters are here to get information. Yes, you can experiment with E-85 on your own vehicle. I for one am even interested in the results. Just don't drag others down the road with you, unless you are prepared to compensate them for your dangerous advice. The truth is that E-85 may work fine in a BMW. I understand that you haven't tried it yet. Until you do, selling others on the idea by insisting that nothing will happen, contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations, just seems wrong.

/rant off

[JCL]

Some background on ethanol fuel (just in case anyone wants to put it in their current BMW) Here is a recent BMW Service Bulletin regarding this issue. Highlights are mine, not BMW's. Readers can decide whether this was written by the lawyers or the engineers. I vote that it has an engineering basis, but that is just me.

Subject-Alcohol Fuel Blends in BMW Vehicles

All with gasoline engines

Fuel blends containing a high percentage (above 10%) of alcohol, mainly ethanol, are becoming more commercially available. Customers inquire about the possibility of using alcohol fuels (e.g. E85) in BMW vehicles

INFORMATION

Fuels containing up to and including 10% of ethanol or other oxygenates with up to 2.8% oxygen by weight, that is, 15% MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) or 3% methanol plus an equivalent amount of co-solvent, will not void the applicable warranties with respect to defects in materials or workmanship.
Although, usage of such alcohol fuel blends may result in drivability, starting, and stalling problems due to reduced volatility and lower energy content of the fuel. Those drivability problems may be especially evident under certain environmental conditions, such as: high or low ambient temperatures and high altitude.
Only specially adapted vehicles (FFV - Flexible Fuel Vehicles) can run on high alcohol fuel blends.
BMW, for the various technical and environmental reasons explained below, does not offer FFV models.

Usage of E85, or any other high alcohol content blend (e.g. E30) in BMW vehicles, will cause various drivability complaints (cold start problems, stalling, reduced performance, poor fuel economy, etc.), may cause excessive emissions, and may cause irreversible damage to engine, emission control and fuel delivery systems due to incompatibility of materials with alcohols.

General Notes Regarding E85 Fuel.

E85 fuel contains 85% (by volume) of ethanol and 15% of gasoline. Ethanol can be produced chemically from ethylene or biologically from grains, agricultural wastes, or any organic material containing starch or sugar. In the US, ethanol is mainly produced from corn and is classified as a renewable fuel.
Similar to gasoline, ethanol contains hydrogen and carbon; with additional oxygen molecules build into its chemical chain. This chemical structure makes ethanol’s burning process slightly cleaner compared to the gasoline (lower tailpipe emissions).
On the other hand, due to lower carbon content, ethanol provides 27% less energy (for identical volume) then gasoline, resulting in the reduced fuel economy of E85 vehicles (approximately 22% higher consumption). Increased fuel consumption requires the appropriately enlarged fuel tank capacities (usually 30% increase), and the specific DME calibrations for the E85 lower Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio (10 compared to 14.7 for gasoline engines).
E85 fuel volatility is typically lower then gasoline (RVP 6-10 psi, compared to 8-15 psi for gasoline). Lower fuel volatility will reduce vehicle evaporative emissions, but it may cause cold starting problems especially with lower ambient temperatures.

Under certain environmental conditions, mainly lower ambient temperatures, ethanol separates from gasoline/alcohol mixture and absorbs water. The ethanol absorbed water molecules are heavier then gasoline or ethanol, they remain at the bottom of fuel tank and when introduced into combustion process they tend to form an extremely lean mixture resulting in misfire, rough idle and cold starting problems.

Certain materials, commonly used with gasoline are totally incompatible with alcohols. When these materials come in contact with ethanol, they may dissolve in the fuel, which may damage engine components and may result in poor vehicle drivability.
Some metals (e.g. zinc, brass, lead, aluminum) become degraded by long exposure to ethanol fuel blends. Also, some nonmetallic materials used in automotive industry such as: natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamides, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermo & thermoset plastics degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol.

In order to safely and effectively operate a motor vehicle running on E85, the vehicle must be compatible with alcohol use. Some manufacturers have developed vehicles called FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicle) that can operate on any blend of ethanol and gasoline (from 0% ethanol and 100% gasoline, up to 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). Ethanol FFVs are similar to gasoline vehicles, with main differences in materials used in fuel management and delivery systems, and DME control module calibrations. In some cases, also E85 vehicles require special lubricating oils.

Aftermarket conversions of gasoline-powered vehicles to ethanol-fueled vehicles, although possible, are not recommended due to internal materials and DME software incompatibility, as well, as the high costs of conversion.

WARRANTY INFORMATION

Components damage/malfunctions, or any drivability problems caused by use of fuels containing more then 10% ethanol (or other oxygenates with more then 2.8% oxygen by weight) will not be covered under BMW warranties with respect to defects in materials or workmanship.