Ethanol mixture

[geokoppmann]

JCL,

Thanx for that info, it is most informative.

On your previous response to my comments about overdesigning fuel system components; I obviously did not express myself clearly enough since it appears that you took it personally.

I had NO intention of demeaning any Engineer or any engineer's design practices I was only trying, (obviously unsuccessfully), to point out that the fuel systems in our late model vehicles would, in all likely hood, withstand an 85% Ethanol blend with no problems.

AND, since you referred to me ". . .selling others on the idea by insisting that nothing will happen, contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations, . . ." I need to clear the air in that regard. I'M NOT SELLING ANYTHING nor have I implied that I am !

I have no stake in either of the of the FFV conversion systems I'm using other than the $1,200.00 I've spent out of my own pocket to purchase the units online and pay for the Dyno runs and my mechanics labor to install them. I don't get a penny in compensation for what I've written I'm just very enthuisatic about the prospects for converting millions of older vehicles to enable them to burn something other than foreign oil.

I'm sorry you've taken my postings the wrong way. I though this was a forum for the presentation and discussion of ideas without letting personalities enter the discussion.

In any event, the following excerpts, from "The Auto Technicians Gasoline Quality Guide - changes in Gasoline III" [ http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pd...A/Gasoline.pdf ],
lend some credence to my argument about fuel sustem components. To wit:

Materials Compatibility: Auto manufacturers have, for many years,
used materials that are compatible with oxygenated fuels. However,
with the widespread use of oxygenated fuels and reformulated gasoline,
certain myths have resurfaced, so they warrant mention here.

In earlier versions of this manual this topic was covered in greater detail,
Including photographs from various tests and applicable service bulletins.
The information presented was segmented into two categories, metals and
elastomers.

Most metal components in automobile fuel systems will corrode or rust in
the presence of water, air or acidic compounds. The gasoline distribution
system usually contains water, and additional moisture may collect in the
automobile tank from condensation. Gasoline may also contain traces of
sulfur and organic acids. Gasoline has always been recognized as potentially corrosive. Pipelines which distribute gasoline routinely require that corrosion inhibitors be contained in gasoline to protect their plain steel pipe. Therefore, corrosion inhibitors have been routinely added to gasoline for many years.

MTBE is slightly soluble in water and could increase the water-holding
characteristics of gasoline by a very small amount. However, MTBE has
not been shown to increase the corrosion level of gasoline.

Alcohols are more soluble in water than MTBE. The addition of ethanol will
increase a gasoline’s ability to hold water. Therefore, an ethanol enhanced
gasoline may have a slightly higher moisture content than non-blended gasoline.

Several tests have been reported on ethanol enhanced gasolines. Vehicle
fuel tanks and fuel system components from autos operated for extended
periods on these blends were removed, cut open, and examined. These
tests have generally concluded that ethanol does not increase corrosion in
normal, everyday operation.

Auto manufacturers have indicated they do not have major concerns about
metal corrosion, provided that all fuels contain effective corrosion inhibitors
at the proper treatment levels. Responsible ethanol producers recognize that not all commercial gasolines are adequately treated for blending, and have, for some time, included a corrosion inhibitor in their ethanol. Additionally, there are ASTM specifications to ensure that fuel grade ethanol is suitable for addition to gasoline.

Many manufacturers utilize guidelines even more stringent than those
established by ASTM. Due to these controls and the addition of corrosion
inhibitors, you should not encounter ethanol-related corrosion problems.

Automobile and parts manufacturers have been responsive to the changes
occurring in today’s gasoline. Materials problems are less likely to occur with newer vehicles because of the upgrading of fuel system materials that has occurred since the introduction of higher aromatic unleaded gasolines and the addition of alcohols and ethers. All major automobile manufacturers have indicated that their late model vehicles are equipped with fuel system
components upgraded for use with these fuels.

While all auto manufacturers warrant the use of 10 percent ethanol blends and gasolines containing MTBE, their upgrading of fuel systems occurred at different times.

In general, 1980 and later model years should not experience problems with 10 percent ethanol blends or gasoline containing MTBE. Fuel systems in 1975 to 1980 model years were upgraded, but not to the same extent as later models. Pre-1975 models may have fuel system components that are sensitive to high aromatic gasolines, alcohols and ethers.

For more specific information on the various materials used in vehicle fuel systems, refer to Appendix A.

Other countries have been quick to identify fuel system materials which resist the changing composition of gasolines.

For several years the standard motor fuel in Brazil has been a blend of 22 volume percent ethanol in gasoline. Brazil also has over 5 million cars in operation on straight ethanol. Their ethanol program has been in operation for over ten years. The materials compatibility problems have been overcome. The benefits of their experience on a more severe application have assisted in identifying more suitable fuel system materials.

Numerous tests have indicated that materials compatibility on oxygenated fuels is no more of a concern than comparable hydrocarbon fuels and should not present any unique problems.

In the early 1980s, one area that presented problems in isolated cases was fuel filter plugging. Occasionally, in older model vehicles, deposits in fuel tanks and fuel lines were loosened by ethanol blends. When this occurs, the vehicle’s fuel filter may become plugged. This is easily remedied by a filter change. It is not likely that such problems will be experienced on late model vehicles.

Purolator Products addressed this issue several years ago with a 213 vehicle fleet test. This test program found no premature plugging and no failures related to gasoline-ethanol blends (see Figure 3-3 next page).

Figure 3-3 Excerpts from Purolator Products – Service Bulletin
Purolator Products has been actively engaged in laboratory and field test analysis to determine the effects of gasohol on gasoline filters and their related components. The satisfactory results generated by accelerated laboratory compatibility testing has been confirmed by extensive field testing. The results to date are very encouraging. No filter related failures have been observed.

The Auto Technician’s

Gasoline Quality Guide

[JCL]

Geo:

No harm, I am not taking it personally. I have tried to use facts, instead of hype. I simply found it a stretch to promote E-85, contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations. If you had tested it, and were provided data, that would be interesting. To promote it based on a test on a Ford pickup seems a stretch to me. There are a lot of readers here who wonder if they should just go try it on their BMWs. They are welcome to do so, but they should have the facts, and not hype. They also may want to consider the differences between a BMW engine and a Ford pickup engine. The use of alloys is one difference.

I couldn't see data which you presented that explained your fuel consumption on E85, when it is straightforward math to calculate what the fuel consumption decrease will be, for a volumetric measure. Bringing hp into it is not good science, it confuses the matter.

Presenting information and discussing it is exactly what this board is for. It isn't a closed shop. However, your enthusiasm may have gotten ahead of your data in this case. I am not anti-E85. However, presenting information on reformulated gasoline, MTBF, and oxygenated fuels, and applying it to E-85, just isn't right. Your last post (from an ethanol organization) is not discussing E-85, as far as I can tell, it is discussing replacing MTBE with Ethanol. That is a long way from E-85, which is what the manufacturers are warning about.

Good luck with your ongoing testing.

Edit: I read the link. Good information, if somewhat dated. The paper defines ethanol as a gasoline limited to 10% (what the standard was many years ago). It also gives the figures for heat content, so that fuel consumption reductions can be calculated for various blends such as E85, 85% ethanol. Anyway, it appears to be a sound reference document.

[geokoppmann]

JCL,

In response to your statement a few post ago; "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, . . . " again the "The Auto Technicians Gasoline Quality Guide - changes in Gasoline III [ http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pd...A/Gasoline.pdf ],
lend some credence to the fuel uage figures I posted below AND, for the record my 'plain jane' '98 F-150 is running on a 98,xxx mile 4.2L V-6 completely stock engine and fuel sustem. The only modifications i've made under the hood are the installation of a home made K & N cold air filter system and the Full Flex Gold FFV conversion kit. Oh, I almost forgot the 4:11 limited slip differential I installed 3-4 years ago before I happened on to the FFV conversion kit on the net.

Exerpts from the aforementioned " . Changes in Gasoline III":

Fuel Economy: There is a great deal of misunderstanding about
the fuel economy (miles per gallon) of various gasolines, especially
those containing oxygenates.

There are a number of variables that confound accurate fuel
economy measurements in anything short of a controlled test or
large well documented fleet study.

Besides fuel related factors, there are a number of vehicle and
climate related issues to consider. Vehicle technology, state of tune,
ambient temperatures, head winds, road grade, tire pressure, use of
air conditioners, and numerous other factors have an impact on fuel
economy.

Some of those that have been documented in testing are covered
In Table 3-2. Even, whether or, not, the car is level each time you
fill it can distort fuel economy readings by several percentage points.

Table3-2
Factors That Influence Fuel Economy of Individual Vehicles
Factor Fuel Economy Impact
Average Maximum
Ambient temperature drop from 77°F to 20°F -5.3% -13.0%
20 mph head wind -2.3% -6.0%
7% road grade -1.9% -25.0%
27 mph vs. 20 mph stop and go driving pattern -10.6% -15.0%
Aggressive versus easy acceleration -11.8% -20.0%
Tire pressure of 15 psi versus 26 psi -3.3% -6.0%

It is easy to see from Table 3-2 why an individual using
one or perhaps a few vehicles cannot make an accurate
determination of the fuel economy impact of various gasolines.
There are simply too many variables.

Through the course of a year, gasoline energy content
can range from 108,500 British thermal units (btu) per gallon
to 117,000 btu/gal. Winter grades are made more volatile
(less dense) to aid in cold start and warm up performance and
typically contain 108,500 to 114,000 btu/gallon. Summer
grades are of much lower volatility to minimize evaporative
emissions and hot start/hot driveability problems. Summer
grades will typically contain 113,000 to 117,000 btu/gallons.
So the energy content, and therefore the fuel economy, can
vary 3.4% to 5.0% just based on the energy content of the fuel.
Furthermore comparing the highest energy content summer
fuels to lowest energy content winter fuels demonstrates that
the variation in energy content is 7.26%. See Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Gasoline Energy Content
Conventional Content Gasoline - btu
Summer Winter
grade grade
btu btu
Maximum 117,000 114,000
Minimum 113,000 108,500
% 3.4 5.0
Difference between summer maximum and winter minimum-7.26%

The lower energy content of winter fuels and the other wintertime
influences on fuel economy can easily lead to reductions of 10-20%
in miles per gallon during the coldest winter months.

Oxygenated fuel programs, being wintertime only programs, have
therefore been incorrectly blamed for massive fuel economy losses
when, in fact, numerous other variables also contribute to fuel economy
losses during winter months.

The reduction in btu/gallon from the addition of oxygenates is generally
in the 2% to 2.5% range although fuel economy may not be that much
lower.

As an example, ethanol contains 76,100 btu per gallon. A 10 volume
percent ethanol blend would contain about 3.4% less energy per gallon.
However, in controlled tests the fuel economy loss has been far less than
would be indicated by the 3.4% lower energy content.

Table 3-4 lists the btu/gallon (energy content) of each of the four oxygenates
currently in use and also the energy content of resulting fuels when those
oxygenates are blended into a 114,000 btu/gallon base fuel.

The 2.0% oxygen level column is typical of reformulated gasoline while a
2.7% oxygen level is representative of gasoline sold in oxygenated fuel
program areas.

Comparing each of the blends in Table 3-4, you can see that a blend
containing 2.0 wt. % oxygen averages just under 2.0% lower energy
content. A blend containing 2.7 wt. % oxygen will average about 2.5%
lower energy content.

Table 3-4 Energy Content of Oxygenate Blends
(whenblendedwith114,000btu/gallonbasefuel)

Oxygenate Energy Finished Finished
Content blend blend
2.0 wt.% 2.7 wt.%
oxygen oxygen
(btu/gallon) (btu/gal) (btu/gal)

Ethanol 76,100 111,836 111,082
MTBE 93,500 111,745 110,925
ETBE 96,900 111,811 111,059
TAME 100,600 112,215 111,688

These projected fuel economy variations have been validated in numerous
controlled tests and fleet studies. The most recent of these studies, done in
1995, include a fleet test by the State of Wisconsin and a fleet analysis by
Lundberg Survey, Inc.

The Wisconsin Fleet Survey tested eight vehicles, ranging from 1979 to
1994 models, comparing their fuel economy on conventional gasoline to
that achieved on reformulated gasolines containing MTBE, ethanol, and
ETBE.

The average fuel economy loss for the reformulated gasoline was 2.09%.
The Lundberg Survey, analyzing fuel economy complaints in the
Milwaukee area RFG market, analyzed the fuel economy of several large
fleets totaling thousands of vehicles.

The survey compared the fuel economy of these fleets for January 1994
(on conventional gasoline) to January 1995 on reformulated gasoline.
The fuel economy loss for these fleets operating on RFG was 1.63%.

These tests and studies combined with numerous others leaves little doubt
that the fuel economy loss due to oxygen content is approximately 2.0%.

It should be noted that vehicle technology and state of tune also play a role
in fuel economy variations. For instance older vehicles, which operate rich
at specified settings may actually show a fuel economy improvement on
oxygenated gasolines. This is because the chemical enleanment from the
oxygenates results in more complete combustion of the fuel which partially
or totally compensates for the slightly lower btu value.

To aid in responding to questions about fuel oxygenates, a "Quick Rference Guide to Facts About Fuel Oxygenates" follows this chapter.

Oxygen Content and Enleanment: (Non-Feedback Systems)
Oxygenated fuels may contain up to approximately 3.5 weight % oxygen depending on oxygenate type and level.

This level of oxygen should not normally require any adjustments to the air/fuel ratio. However, you may occasionally encounter an auto which has the air/fuel ratio set lean. Since an increase in oxygen further enleans the fuel charge, these autos may display symptoms of enleanment (improper idle, engine dies). This can usually be easily corrected by minor adjustments to enrich the air/fuel mixture.

In those areas where vehicles are subject to Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) programs, care should be exercised to ensure that adjustment will not result in a failed emissions test.

(Feedback Systems) Newer vehicles are equipped with onboard computer control systems. These systems include oxygen sensors, installed in the exhaust manifold, to determine the oxygen content of the exhaust gases. Vehicles equipped with onboard computers will compensate for the oxygen content of the fuel when operating in the closed loop mode. The maximum level of oxygen permitted in gasoline is within the authority range of the sensor.


Q: Have there been any studies on how oxygenates
Affect driveability?

A: Yes, there have been a number of tests and fleet studies on the
effect of fuel oxygenates on vehicle driveability. These studies have
generally indicated that the average consumer will detect no difference
in vehicle performance. In fact, in some fleet studies, drivers have
indicated improved performance from oxygenated fuels. You should
not experience any driveability problems on properly formulated
gasoline/oxygenate blends.

Q: If oxygenates are acceptable fuel components, why do some
auto technicians believe they deteriorate vehicle performance?

A: Auto service technicians do not always have easy access to
information on fuel quality. Such a position may indicate that the
technician is unfamiliar with fuel quality issues or may not have
access to the latest information on the subject.

During the period of time that ethanol and MTBE have grown in use,
there have been a number of other compositional changes in gasoline.

However, many of those changes have not been brought to the attention
of the technician. This results in a perception that the major difference in
today’s gasolines is oxygenate content when, in fact, many other changes
have also taken place.

Q: Have any tests been performed to determine the
compatibility of oxygenates with fuel system parts?

A: Yes, several tests have been performed which indicate
that oxygenates are compatible with the metals and elastomers
in modern vehicle fuel systems.

Q. Will oxygenates result in reduced fuel economy?

A. The addition of oxygenates will result in a fuel economy
loss of about 2%. This has been confirmed through numerous
tests (See Chapter 3, pages 17 & 18). {See above}


Appendix A Fuel System Materials

A number of materials used in vehicle fuel systems have
been tested for use with oxygenated fuel components as part
of the process to secure EPA approval for their use.

Post-1980 vehicle fuel systems typically utilize materials that are
compatible with oxygenates and high aromatic gasolines.

Pre-1980 and especially pre-1975 vehicle fuel systems may
contain materials that are sensitive to high aromatic concentrations,
ethers, or alcohols.

Table A-1 lists typical metals and the fuel system parts where they are
likely to be used. The metals listed in this table were tested with ethanol
blends and other alcohol-blended fuels by immersing metal coupons
(1"x1" metal strips) in both the liquid fuel and the vapor phase of the fuel
for 30 days at 110° F.

Test results indicate that “overall, no oxygenated fuel/metal combination
weight change (in ‘dry’ or ‘wet’ fuels) was significantly different from that
observed for the base unleaded gasoline.”

Table A-2 lists elastomers and non-metal materials along with their most
typical use in the vehicle. These materials have also been tested in oxygen-
ated fuel formulations. Results were generally comparable to that of gasoline not containing oxygenates.

Table A-1 Uses in Vehicles - Metals

Aluminum alloy Carburetor, accelerator pump, fuel pump casing

Magnesium alloy Fuel pump casing, plate on steel, brass component
specialty-purpose two-cycle engine, transmission housings

Copper Brass and bronze

Zinc Brass, air cleaner, carburetor

Carbon steel Fuel line, fuel pump fittings and casings, fuel filter, fuel tank,
carburetor fuel inlet, accelerator pump

Cartridge brass Fuel line fittings, carburetor jets and inlet needle, fuel bowl float,
power valve, valve seats

Aluminum bronze Fuel pumps, fuel distribution system

Stainless steel Carburetor fuel inlet needle, carburetor springs, catalytic converter,
EGR valve

Aluminum alloy Carburetor, accelerator pump, fuel pump casing, fuel tank fill pipe,
(cast) intake manifold

Iron (cast) Carburetor body, iron plates, engine block, intake and exhaust manifolds

Zinc alloy (cast) Carburetor body, plate on steel, carburetor diaphragm

Terne plate Fuel tank, fuel line, air cleaner assemblies

Alloy Typical Use
The materials listed in Table A-1 have been tested with various alcohol blends.
There were no significant differences between the performance of the alcohol blends
compared to a base unleaded gasoline.

An additional reference on

"The Compatibility of Reformulated and
Oxygenated Gasoline with Fuel System Materials

(DAI Informational Document # 970201, February 1997)" from

Downstream Alternatives Inc., P.O. Box 190,

Bremen, IN 46506-0190.
[ http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pdf/DAI970201.pdf ]

[Wagner]

Wow a battle of cut and paste.....continue

[JCL]

Geo:

You just proved my point. From your rather lengthy cut and paste document:

Lots of things affect fuel consumption - agreed.

Ethanol fuels have less energy and you will burn more - agreed. They even use the same 76,000 BTU figure that I used.

You are still using a document describing oxygenated fuels, and those with up to 10% ethanol, to try and support a hypothesis for E-85, which is 85% ethanol.

Also, as Wagner nicely pointed out, cutting and pasting takes up a lot of space. We can read the link.

Cheers

Jeff

[geokoppmann]

Engines burning Ethanol actually utilize their available fuel more efficiently. THAT is why I'm seing so little loss of gas mileage when burning E-85.

May I direct your attention to this study "ECONOMICAL,
HIGH-EFFICIENCY ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALCOHOL FUELS" by Matthew Brusstar of EPA and Marco Bakenhus of
FEV Engine Technology, Inc. Auburn Hills, Michigan.
[ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentation...-isaf-no55.pdf ] in which you'll see that, like the exerpts pasted in my previous posts indicate, the 26% btu difference between Ethanol and 86 octane unleaded gasoline does not mean that you'll see anywhere the same percentage loss of fuel economy between the two fuels.

"The Auto Technicians Gasoline Quality Guide - changes in Gasoline III [ http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pd...A/Gasoline.pdf ],
(copied in previous posts), indicates that the "projected fuel economy variations have been validated in numerous controlled tests and fleet studies. The most recent of these studies, done in 1995, include a fleet test by the State of Wisconsin and a fleet analysis by Lundberg Survey, Inc.

The Wisconsin Fleet Survey tested eight vehicles, ranging from 1979 to 1994 models, comparing their fuel economy on conventional gasoline to that achieved on reformulated gasolines containing MTBE, ethanol, and ETBE.

The average fuel economy loss for the reformulated gasoline was 2.09%."

The two (2)+% loss in fuel economy is a far cry from the 26% difference in the btu energy content of each fuel and as shown in the "High Efficiency . . " report I cited at the beginning of this post, the unexpectedly high Brake Thermal Efficiency of each Ethanol/Gasoline Oxygenated blend from E-10 to E-100 readily explains the smaller than expected loss of fuel economy when buring Ethanol.

[Sedoy]

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Wow a battle of cut and paste.....continue

hahahaha

[geokoppmann]

The highlighting in my previous post was entirely unintentinal. Sorry for the 'extra' bold stuff.

I still haven't figured out this word processor - it seems to do 'strange' things at times.

Does anyone else have a problem cutting and pasting within the text of a post ?

When right clicking a highlighted passage I am not shown a 'cut selection' however, I've found that I can hold my right button and then move the highlighted stuff around in the text with the ball.

[JCL]

Geokoppman:

I am going to leave the bold fonts off, they come across as yelling. EDIT: Just saw your recent post. Sorry, I don't know why it happens. It has happened to me to. I use preview to check.

With the greatest of respect, you are mixing up facts left, right, and centre.

As I pointed out above, the Auto Technicians Guide to Reformulated Fuels, which you reference, is not talking about E85. It is talking about oxygenated gasoline, limited to 10% alcohol. Most of the figures quoted are for 2.5% alcohol. That is in the range of what we are burning today. When the report was written it was a new idea.

Once again: Pure ethanol has significantly less energy on a volumetric basis.
Applying math, 85% ethanol has only 85% of the impact on fuel consumption that the volumetric heat content would suggest.
Applying math, 10% ethanol has only 10% of the impact.
Applying math, 2.5% ethanol has only 2.5% of the impact. Interestingly, the report referenced above used 2.5% ethanol blends, and reports a 2% fuel consumption increase. Seems very reasonable.

If I understand your post correctly, you are burning E85, and not seeing any fuel consumption impact. I suggest that you are not seeing an impact because of the variability in your testing. It isn't real.

You are confusing things further by saying that it burns better. You propose that the combustion process is so much better that it 'finds' the lost energy. It is the same combustion process. You haven't modified the engine. It has the same compression ratio, the same intake system, etc.

If you believe that the new link you have attached supports this 'better burning' then please go back and read it. They used a 1.9 litre VW turbodiesel, with a 19.5:1 compression ratio. They then ran that engine as a spark-ignited engine. The higher compression ratio supports the greater efficiency. They got a higher efficiency because they used a prototype engine, they didn't achieve this by changing an engine to another fuel.

When you converted your Ford pickup, did you put a diesel engine in there? Did you modify the compression ratio? Or does it use the same Otto cycle, with the same parameters, but with a different fuel? I acknowledge that the injectors are changed, they have to be to pump more fuel in.

I think it is great that you are supportive of alternative fuel technologies. I don't think it will save the planet, but it probably can't hurt. What I am asking you to do is to use real engineering, and real science, instead of the hocus pocus approach. Perpetual motion hasn't been created yet, and there are well-accepted principles associated with the conservation of energy.

Anyway, I'm done. Have a great day.

[sedate_driver]

Originally Posted by JCL

Geokoppman:

I am going to leave the bold fonts off, they come across as yelling. EDIT: Just saw your recent post.

With the greatest of respect, you are mixing up facts left, right, and centre...

Anyway, I'm done. Have a great day.

Jeff, I just stumbled upon your earlier posts here and must say I admire your clarity of thought, good natured humour, and, most importantly, your patience.