Ethanol mixture
 

With the gas price hike here in US, and the apparent shortage of refining capacity, manufacturers are adding ethanol to more and more of the fuel they sell. Here in the Northeast, some, not all gas has ethanol added, at 7-10% rate. In the mid-west, all gas has ethanol added, and in some locales, as high as 15%. My question regarding the use of this mixed fuel to my local dealer netted uncertainty. Does anyone have any definitive info and/or data on the use of ethanol blends in our cars? Has BMWNA released any info?

Do a search on the forum, this has come up before. Also when you check ethanol mixtures make sure you aren't confusing E85 type fuels, where ethanol is added at a large quantity, versus the MTBE replacement ethanol additive use which was done on the east coast in the beginning of May.

Ethanol
 

Thanks. I'm aware of E85, and assume, when it arrives, that we will not be able to use it in our existing engines. I believe the high concentration in E85 corrodes injectors and other metallic elements. But somewhere I read or heard that ethanol, in what mixture I'm not sure, eats away at rubber seals, and that's the reason for my question.

E-85 (Ethanol) FFV Conversion works GREAT !
 

I'm just about to install an Full Flex Gold FFV, (Flex Fuel Vehicle), Conversion kit in my '01 BMW X5 3.0i with 81,xxx miles on the odometer to in order to permit it to burn 105 octane E-85 (Ethanol) while running at altitudes between 5,000' msl and 11,000 msl (mean sea level) here in Northern New Mexico.

My decision is prompted by the 4,000 mile, 5 month long succss I've had after installing the same kit in my '98 Ford F-150 4.2L V-6 5spd Auto with 98,xxx miles on the odometer. The results were an immediate 12HP increase and a 5.5 ft-lb Torque increase all recorded on two Dyno runs. The vehicle has considerably better throttle response at all RPMs.

All the old wives tales and negative propaganda about erroded injectors and other fuel system components caused by a high concentration of Ethanol have proved completely untrue. I've had NO PROBLEMS, (Zero, Zilch, Na Da), since the I started running on nothing but E-85 early last Sept., ('06). Even the fuel filter did not become clogged after the initial 500 mile usage.

Immediately after my Dyno runs I had the emissions tested at the City of Albuquerque's Main Testing Facility and again, the results were spectacular. Hydrocarbons registered at 10% of allowable. CO is at or near Zero % and CO2 is 15.2% where 16.0% CO2 is considered Optimum and 14.5% is Ideal.

The fuel usage I've recorded varies considerably as you would expect depending on my speed. On 95 mile trips at 78 mph on the interstate, my OEM use on 86 octane has averaged 15.5-16.7mpg depending on head winds and position of the tail gate.

Running on a full tank of E-85 over the same road, (to visit my daughter and our grandkids), I've averaged between 13.5-15.5mpg. When I reduce my speed to a max of 65-70mph the E-85 fuel burn averages 14.8-15.5mpg. On one 440 mile trip, (220 miles each way), iI locked the cruise control at 60mph running at altitudes up and down, and up again, between 4,500' and 7,800'msl and my E-85 fuel usage for the trip averaged 16.5 mpg. NOT to BAD for an OLD Pickup.

We haven't owned the X5 long enough to get good solid fuel usage records however, the former owner said he routinely got 24.5mpg in mixed city & 75 mph highway driving.

If anyone is interested in a copy of the Dyno runs or the Emissions tests I'll be glad to post them, (if I can figure out how), or I'll send them via email.

I'll keep you posted on the results of our X5's FFV Conversion.

Ethanol is HERE, NOW ! Its not a pie in the sky fuel that suffers 200 mile max range and handling/storage problems. It IS the IDEAL CLEAN BURNING fuel that can be burned in 'most' 1990 and later model gas vehicles IF they are in 'reasonable' operating condition. It will bridge the gap between our dependence on foreign oil and the more esoteric fuels which, most likely, will be produced domestically in the next 10-20 years.

how hard is that install? the website says its plug and play. how long did it take you?

Full Flex Gold Installation difficulties
 

It is turly 'plug & play' IF you can touch the top of your injectors. On the X5 they are right on top of the engine.

HOWEVER, on my '98 F-150, they're burried beneath the air intake plenum (12 bolts -3" long), and just about evey sensor connection known to man for engine operation. All together about 2 hrs twisting wrenches and a gasket (if you're not careful removing the plenum.).

Most of the Subaru's and older Ford Taurus' are a piece of cake. I haven't had any experience with any others.

Shortly tho, I will be installing a 4 cyl Full Flex Gold [www.fullflexint.com] unit on my '01 BMW K1200LTC touring motorcycle.

(WHY a motorcycle -? you ask ?) Well, its just to prove that it can be done and that it will work on yet another 'older' engine.

Be prepared to replace all your fuel lines as running E85 will eat up your hoses. Roundel magazine had a write up on this and specifically stated "no BMW made is built for E85 fuels".

IF that were the case then all of the vehicles mfgr'd since 1990 would have already fallen apart since 10%-15% ethanol has been the winter oxygenated blend in gasoline sold in many, if not most, urban areas with air polution problems.

(The 'oxygenated' fuel blends have raised hell with the fuel systems on my early to mid 80's motorcycles but not on either of my two '01 BMW K1200LTC's.)

Why would any vehicle mfgr. who has sold in a USA market, (since 1988 when EPA mandated an ethanol mix), install any fuel system component that is designed to withstand 'just a little bit' of Ethanol and not 100% ethanol ? From what I've read, they usually design with 200-400% safety factors so why would they not do so where the 'probability' of their product using a corrosive fuel exists ?

All of this is not to say that there have not been fuel system problems with the blending of Ethanol in to gasoline in th U.S.

When you cut thru the 'anti ethanol' hype and study the reports of 'the problems' they almost always involve boats; offroad vehicles; lawmowers; hand held gas powered trimmers; etc. that were never designed to store or burn any fuel other than straight 86 octane gasoline or fuel/oil mix of it.

The aforementioned 'engines with ethanol caused problems weren't included in the 1988 EPA 'proclamation' so their fuel systems ARE as the were originally designed back in the 60's; 70's or early 80's and most people who use them don't pay any attention to, or understand, the E-10 (Ethanol) stickers on the pumps from which they but their fuel.)

The automotive vehicles that have experienced supposed 'ethanol related' problems have been those which have had little or no maintenance or which have been abused and are prime candatates for the scrap yard crusher.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicle) conversions on the roads all over the USA and the biggest problem they've faced is having any crud that's accumulated in their gas tanks or fuel lines cleaned out by the ethanol within the first 500 miles or so with the resultant plugged up fuel filters. Once a clean fuel filter is installed, they're off and running.

If automotive fuel line and fuel hose failures were really a big problem, the millions of FFV conversions that been installed in Brazilian cars over the past 20+ years would never have gotten off the ground.

In any event, bring 50% German and having been raised by a man who learned his trade as a
Machinest in 1920's Munich, I feel VERY confident that my trust in the German mindset of NEVER designing or making ANYTHING that is not able to withstand whatever a human being can throw at it is not unfounded. I lived that mentality growing up at home and I understand throughly.

I miss good 'ole gasoline.
At one point, we has ethanol in our gasoline only during winter gas.
Then, it was yearly.
The same rules applied to out nextdoorneighor NJ.

Prior to Ethanol year round, I used to fill up anytime in Jersey with ethanol free gas and I swear, the cars ran more responsive

Geokoppmann:

Your enthusiasm is evident, and your interest in the environment is commendable. However, I wonder why you are seeing a drop of only 2 mpg when any chemical engineer will tell you that volumetrically, ethanol has about 26% less energy content. E85 should, therefore, have approximately 22% worse fuel consumption. While the AKI, or octane, is higher, your engine can not take advantage of that without remapping. So, something doesn't add up.

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.

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.

Hydrogen baby :)

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 ;)

Does the ethanol eventually break down to a sugar?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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 ]

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

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

hahahaha :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :thumbup:

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, I had forgotten this thread. Wonder what ever happened with the Flex Fuel 3.0 X5? I'm betting the fuel consumption increased. ;)