ethanol

[arrow]

I, just recently, put about 3/4 tank of E 85 fuel in my 2007 Flex Fuel Ford F150 5.4. Didn't know what to expect since this was the first time I have tried it. The engine ran noticeably better (smoother idle, better response). I have seen that Fords produce 10% more HP with E85. Sure felt like it ran stronger.

I did a test of using the vehicle the same way I did on the previous tank of regular (90% gas). I got 14.8 mpg on the E85 vs. 17.1 on the Regular gas. E85 was $1.99 vs. reg gas at $2.69. I would have to get over 20mpg on Reg gas to be better off with regular at that price difference. As a result, I'm good with E85. I have to say that I felt empowered to be using a fuel made from a renewable source.

As Duffster said: Every little bit helps!

My question here is if every car was getting 15% less gas mileage with E85 meaning we have to burn more stuff to go the same distance as with gasoline , are we actually keeping the air cleaner? My next question concerns diesel. It is a dirtier burning fuel. But if cars were getting 58 mpg with efficient diesel engines, is the air still more polluted than with gasoline cars getting 25-30 mpg? I also wonder how many cars it would take to equal the emissions coming out of one Boeing 737.

 

[AKfish]

My question here is if every car was getting 15% less gas mileage with E85 meaning we have to burn more stuff to go the same distance as with gasoline , are we actually keeping the air cleaner? My next question concerns diesel. It is a dirtier burning fuel. But if cars were getting 58 mpg with efficient diesel engines, is the air still more polluted than with gasoline cars getting 25-30 mpg? I also wonder how many cars it would take to equal the emissions coming out of one Boeing 737.

Certainly, good questions to ask... Ethanol does not increase the levels of climate altering gases; CO2, CO, methane, etc. That is one of the most important benefits of biofuels - the combustion provides a "zero sum" gain in climate change gas production.

And biofuels do not have the same types of polluting combustion byproducts as fossil fuels. So, the net change with biofuels is cleaner air and a lessening of climate altering gas production.

Diesel is "dirtier" than gasoline ONLY by virtue of particulates - soot. Diesel is a "cleaner" fuel than gasoline by virtue of less NO, NO2 and other smog gases generated. The newer formulation of diesel with Ultra Low Sulfer content is a cleaner and less soot producing fuel. Therefore, with less smog contributing gases than gasoline; it could be argued that with more miles traveled per gallon burned (58, etc.) that diesel cars, trucks are a better transportation option than the pure, fossil-fueled gasoline automobile.

As for the 737 - recent tests by the major jet engine manufacturer (GE) using bio-Jet fuel from Camellia (sp?) indicate that performance and reliability of operation with the new fuel is just fine. So, if refiners of bio-jet fuel achieve the necessary scale of production needed for airline uses - the FAA could sign off on the safety of the fuel.

Any change is disruptive... but it's a naked fact for all of us!! It happens, it's happening and it doesn't EVER stop! No matter how much any one of us "screams into the darkness against it"!

AKfish

 

[big bubba]

Thanks for feedback on this....my '92 toyota has 185k on the engine, never used oil, 185 lb compression on all 4 cyl. started using 10% ethanol mix for a few years (now switched over to straight dyno gas)....but shows now shows typical signs of valve seal leakage (puff, & slight oil consumption) could the ethanol have attached the valve seals? thanks again bb

 

[jas67]

Every little bit helps



You may need a tune up

I have a '67 Pontiac Firebird. It definitely doesn't like ethanol -- esp. since it sits all winter long without being driven. I definitely hope that they don't raise the ethanol content to 15% has is bring proposed. Modern electronic-fuel-injected vehicles can automatically adjust the fuel mixture to compensate for ethanol, but a carburetor can not. The loss in fuel economy is more than just the lower energy content of the fuel, but also lost efficiency. This also goes for all my non-diesel powered equipment, as all the small gas engines that I have are carbureted (my garden tractor is a diesel ).

 

[BJN644]

I have a snowmobile and a lawn mower, both carbureted that had to be richened up to run right. The snowmobile's 2 stroke engine would have melted down if I had not noticed the problem.

I don't want to start another ethanol rant,but you can't convince me that the amount of energy used to produce ethanol from start to finish is lessening our use of foreign oil.

 

[vsteel]

I have a 1970 Nova SS and it has no problems with 10% mix. I have ran it for over 20 years with no issues.

I personally love the 10% mix, my vehicles. It removes carbon and water out of the gas tank. Yes there are plastics that are hurt with the mix, but cars stopped getting those plastics in the late 70s to the early 80s.

As for the fuel difference yes it doesn't get as much mileage but you have to remember its about 10% and the ratio is at 10%, so you are getting about 1% less mileage. But then you have to figure in the bonus you get in octane from the alcohol and can run greater timing. It also greatly helps emissions from the extra oxygen in the combustion chamber.

10% is a great thing. The problem is once you get over that you see huge diminishing returns. As an additive alcohol is great, but trying to use it as a motor fuel isn't that good. The issue is how much diesel it takes to make the fuel. Right now we are trying to make it out of corn which is about a 4 to 1 return. It takes 1 gallon of diesel to make 4 gallons of alcohol. Countries that use it use things like sugar cane which has a 12 to one return. They are also in warmer climates. (Alcohol doesn't like to run as a motor fuel in below freezing, either a motor needs to start on gas and then switch over or a small heater is needed to heat the fuel to get it started.) Yes there is switch grass which does have a 17 to one return and grows about anywhere, but I think a better option is biodiesel either through thermal depolymerization or alge.

 

[arrow]

Thanks AK for my enlightenment. Still, it would be a tougher country if I were emperor. The only way you'd be able to drive an automatic car is if you had a handicap sticker at least until someone invents the fusion motor.

 

[JohnBarlow]

Ethanol is a "stronger" electrolyte, so you need to watch out for dissimilar metals in your fuel system. If you think back to basic science class, putting a strip of copper and a strip of iron into a lemon - you get a battery. In the process some metal leaves one strip and deposits on the other. Same thing in your fuel system, even when you run ordinary petrol through it - but with straight petrol it is a slower process than with alcohol added.

Most people won't notice any problems (metal / electrolyte wise) with 10% alcohol, but your problems do increase with higher percentages.

Also note that a lot of carburetor float bowls are made with "cheap" pot-metal (an alloy of several metals), and you can end up with holes in the float bowl (more notable on older single-cylinder engines such as chainsaws).

Bottom line - if you want to reduce your fuel dependance on other countries, drive a lot less. We don't have an "obvious" replacement for crude oil, and the world is going to produce less crude oil every day. ASPO International | The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas

What I want to do is make my own alcohol to fuel a chainsaw, because I can stop driving, but the chainsaw is one petrol-powered device I want to keep using. My problem is the side-effects of the alcohol: negative lubrication (need more oil in the fuel - maybe vegie oil ?); adjusting the air/fuel mix (carb adjustment, increase jet size); what material the seals are made from; electrolysis.

 

[James48843]

Thanks for feedback on this....my '92 toyota has 185k on the engine, never used oil, 185 lb compression on all 4 cyl. started using 10% ethanol mix for a few years (now switched over to straight dyno gas)....but shows now shows typical signs of valve seal leakage (puff, & slight oil consumption) could the ethanol have attached the valve seals? thanks again bb

Not likely- but possible. All the auto manufactuers were required to switch from natural rubber products (seals, hoses, etc) to ethanol-compatible when "gasohol" first came out in the late 1970's. In fact, it was an SAE engineering standard that required it, and everything built since about 1982 SHOULD be fully compatible with ethanol at the E10 level no problem. That said, some of the Japanese manufacturers were slow to switch.

Since it's a 1992, I would also add that 185 miles on a 4-banger is pretty good, but it could be just normal wear you are seeing. Valve seats should not really be affected- ethanol in fact burns cleaner, so that shouldn't be the issue.

 

[James48843]

You think 10% or 15% is bad, wait until they shove E85 down our throats. I tried some E85 in my flexfuel '08 GMC pickup because GM sent me 3 coupons worth $10 towards E85. I tried $10 at a time and topped off with regular unleaded. The truck ran like crap with E85. Not only poor mileage and performance, it would shake at idle like it was missing. I would hate to thinkg how it would run with a complete tank of E85. I won't buy it ever again.kj

It actually takes a few miles for the computer sensor in a flex-fuel to sense the alcohol content, and make adjustments to the engine. Try burning a couple of full tanks of E85. I would also say take a look at buying it at a different station than you did the first time. Some stations don't clean their tanks properly when they convert over to E85, and so the first 6,000 or 8,000 gallons pumped get 20+ years of gasoline varnish sludge mixed in. It's not the E85 that is responsible- it is an irresponsible gas station owner who didn't clean his tanks properly.

Personally I have a flex-fuel Dodge Stratus- and have burned ONLY E85 since I bought it in 2007. I am a retired U.S. Army officer, and I will NEVER buy foreign fuel--gasoline-- (imported oil) again. Our country's freedom should not be tied to imports of energy from the middle east- and I don't care if I get a few less miles per gallon- my money is going to mid-west farmers instead of mid-east terrorists. That's important to me.

That said- I get about 22 MPG on E85, and 26 MPG on gasoline. If the price difference is 15% or better, I am better off financially.

And our nation is better of financially as well. Think about it this way:

At 20 MPG, a person will spend about $20,000 for fuel over a 100,000 mile life-span of a car. Either than $20,000 is going to Hugo Chavez in Venezualia and Saudia Arabian oil sheeks, or

that $20,000 could be going to an American farmer in Iowa.

I'll chose the American farmer.

How about you?

P.S. Visit E85 Prices, click on your state to find local E85 stations. And there is a nice E85 forum there too. good luck.