Ethanol, ethanol, ethanol!!!

Should you have any questions about ethanol, pick up the August issue of Discover magazine.

It's coming.

Anybody else wanna be a switchgrass farmer?

Good news! and can not wait!!! Capitalism is finally working in the auto fuel department.

Yeah I know….the construction company I work for got a 60 day contract last month to install two completely new wet rail lines here in Fort Worth to specifically unload ethanol. The one wet line they already had at the rail yard is taking its first delivery of ethanol this week actually. BNSF (the owner) is pushing us hard to beat the completion date if possible. They are really ready to deliver this stuff.

The more Ethanol the better. Ethanol seems to be the fuel that makes everyone happy (except big oil and the Saudis).

The big question is, will the Camaro be the first Ethanol powered sports car? 320HP AFM/DoD E85 5.3L is my prefered engine for the next Camaro. A higher compression version tuned for 91 octane and 350HP would be even better.

My favorite think about ethanol is that it's about 110 octane, which means we can run really high compression and/or high boost on what will eventually become known as "pump gas".

Forced induction cars will become more common, completely negating ethanol's energy density disadvantage.

Good news! and can not wait!!! Capitalism is finally working in the auto fuel department.

And by "capitalism" you mean "massive government kickbacks". (Not that the oil business hasn't gotten their share either.)

And by "capitalism" you mean "massive government kickbacks". (Not that the oil business hasn't gotten their share either.)

Heh...

Figured that one was coming...

And by "capitalism" you mean "massive government kickbacks". (Not that the oil business hasn't gotten their share either.)


No. I ment Big oil has stopped alternative fuels for a long time. I am aware that they paid large purses to government officals. I just like seeing a competing market-hence capitalism.

Guys,

I see a day when ethanol "refineries" can be packaged in small enough designs as to be at your household.......hell, there's been 'stills' in them thar' hills for centuries...

Seriously though, think about it......take all your grass clippings and wood debris...or people can join corn / switchgrass co-ops with local farms for raw materials.

I see a real opportunity for businesses etc.... :D

And by "capitalism" you mean "massive government kickbacks". (Not that the oil business hasn't gotten their share either.)

Hey.. it beats spending money fighting wars for oil.

Sometime only the government can afford to take risks on extremely large projects like this. I'm all for gov't help that takes us one step closer to 100% energy independence.

Guys,

I see a day when ethanol "refineries" can be packaged in small enough designs as to be at your household.......hell, there's been 'stills' in them thar' hills for centuries...

Seriously though, think about it......take all your grass clippings and wood debris...or people can join corn / switchgrass co-ops with local farms for raw materials.

I see a real opportunity for businesses etc.... :D

I thought about that with all the grass and leave pickups every fall/spring. It's a lot of Bio mass

LOL, this is a good reason for cutting my grass.

My favorite think about ethanol is that it's about 110 octane, which means we can run really high compression and/or high boost on what will eventually become known as "pump gas".

Forced induction cars will become more common, completely negating ethanol's energy density disadvantage.

I was thinkning the exact same thing, although I wonder if the engines will have to be built heavier to handle the higher compresion.

For my money though, I still favor diesels in everything non-performance. I can't remember but I read somewhere bio-diesel can be made out of many more things than can alternative spark-ignition-gasses.

No. I ment Big oil has stopped alternative fuels for a long time. I am aware that they paid large purses to government officals. I just like seeing a competing market-hence capitalism.

I know what you're getting at, but the economics of ethanol depend entirely on the level of government subsidy. The oil industry has recieved some direct and trillions in indirect subsidies, but nobody's paying them to pump it out of the ground.

Anyone who's lived in the midwest knows that ethanol subsidies are a huge political issue, and I wouldn't underestimate Detroit's political saavy with "E85", putting them in alliance with ADM and the farm lobby.

(Which isn't to say that I'm not a big supporter of energy independence!)

I know what you're getting at, but the economics of ethanol depend entirely on the level of government subsidy. The oil industry has recieved some direct and trillions in indirect subsidies, but nobody's paying them to pump it out of the ground.

Anyone who's lived in the midwest knows that ethanol subsidies are a huge political issue, and I wouldn't underestimate Detroit's political saavy with "E85", putting them in alliance with ADM and the farm lobby.

I’m not very into economics on a global scale, but shouldn’t government subsidies tailor off once there is a larger movement towards ethanol? I mean once there is a larger demand for it, the money to make it will come from the people buying it not the government.

Am I thinking too simplistic and missing something?

I believe soybeans is one of the renewable crops that's used in biodiesel production. Just this weekend filled up with B20 Bio-Willie biodiesel at Carl's corner in Hillsboro Texas on the way to New Braunfels. On the way back to Dallas topped off the tank with more B20.

It would be nice to see some support of biodiesel by the manufacturers with increasing content of bio over the next X amount of years. Something with a progressive future roadmap to finally support 100% bio or a much larger percentage than what's available via on road pumps currently (B20 biodiesel 80% petroleum and 20% bio). You can get higher concentrations of bio all the way up to B100, it's just not readily available at station pumps. The manufacturers also haven't produced much documentation or certified their diesel motors with bio and what percentages are acceptable. Though I do think Dodge and or Cummins has issued a statement that it's okay to run B20 in their motors.

You got to start somewhere, and every little bit has to help in some small way.

Yes! My Tahoe's only averaging 15mpg and regular is now $3/gal. $75 fillups are like getting poked in the eye. There's only 1 E85 pump anywhere around here and its been out of order for as long as I can remember.

I’m not very into economics on a global scale, but shouldn’t government subsidies tailor off once there is a larger movement towards ethanol? I mean once there is a larger demand for it, the money to make it will come from the people buying it not the government.

Only when it's cheaper to make than gasoline. IIRC, its only recently that Ethanol finally became "energy neutral" -- meaning it that it actually produces as much energy as it takes to make. (Think of all the petroleum involved in farming, trucking, trains, fertilizer, etc.)

I'm not really sure what the break-even point is for Ethanol -- $5/gal gas? More? I'm sure someone here understands the production details and can fill us in.

I’m not very into economics on a global scale, but shouldn’t government subsidies tailor off once there is a larger movement towards ethanol? I mean once there is a larger demand for it, the money to make it will come from the people buying it not the government.

Am I thinking too simplistic and missing something?

You're right, and they will tail off.

Government traditionally gets involved in infrastructure, particularly with reference to utilities.

Power lines and powerplants are funded by the guberment, which is why utilities in large part are monopolys (sp?). The government agrees to fund the lines and the powerplant and grants the utility a license to operate them - which is why there is always governmental oversight of utilities.

E85 should be pursued in much the same way.

The guberment funds the infrastructure and grants licenses to use it - particularly things like ethanol conversion plants and pipelines. It would accelerate the entire process.

Bush, however, isn't inclined to do such things.

I'm a pretty staunch conservative in most cases, but governmental involvement is necessary here - much like it was with the transcontinental railroad. It's a huge investment that'll take decades unless the Feds step in.

Only when it's cheaper to make than gasoline. IIRC, its only recently that Ethanol finally became "energy neutral" -- meaning it that it actually produces as much energy as it takes to make. (Think of all the petroleum involved in farming, trucking, trains, fertilizer, etc.)

I'm not really sure what the break-even point is for Ethanol -- $5/gal gas? More? I'm sure someone here understands the production details and can fill us in.

Well it all depends on how far we push the technology. I feel the reason the subsidies are needed is because of the political power or the oil companies. Ethanol is a very good alternative; but who's going to invest Billions of dollars into an Ethanol infrastructure when The Oil Companies are in cahoots with the big wigs at the government.

I see the subsidies dropping of after an infrastructure has been established and demand increases.

The costs involved as far as Farming, Trucking, etc... are all valid point some of which can be improved tremendously.

As far as Trucking, you can build ethanol pipelines; but they just have to be slightly different (reason I don't know). So while we currently have to truck it everywhere, with an infrastructure we wouldn't have too.

More ethanol facilities need to be built so we don't have to truck the corn/whatever long distances before it can be fermented. = Saves costs.

Farm equipment itself needs to be built to be more "Fuel Effecient". Something I don't think we've seen yet.

Utilizing waste products. Current farming methods extract hte corn/beans and shoot all of the waste onto the ground. That waste can be used to almost increase 50%+ the ethanol production out of an acre of land.

We have a long way to go, but I see it being a viable alternative. But I really do think the subsidizing is necessary given the Power of Big Oil (at this point anyhow).

Give ethanol a chance, and we might still be driving an IC engine in 100 years... ;)...

<== Hates the thought of an electric car. :)

Only when it's cheaper to make than gasoline. IIRC, its only recently that Ethanol finally became "energy neutral" -- meaning it that it actually produces as much energy as it takes to make. (Think of all the petroleum involved in farming, trucking, trains, fertilizer, etc.)

I'm not really sure what the break-even point is for Ethanol -- $5/gal gas? More? I'm sure someone here understands the production details and can fill us in.

Cellulosic ethanol is running at about $2.26/gallon right now (on an estimate basis), and corn ethanol is roughly $1.70 to produce.

Ethanol is energy positive, not energy negative - and we've just scratched the surface. As cellulosic ethanol comes on line, or if gassification reaches the possible potential, the costs will continue to drop.

E85 faces huge challenges...and I don't even think distribution is one of them. My biggest concern is that the fuel simply isn't as efficient as gasoline. That would be ok if the cost was considerably lower than gasoline, which right now, it is not. Much like the purchase of a hybrid car, the efficiency vs. cost curve has to become much more favorable if E85 is going to really cut our dependence on oil. I'd have to believe E85 prices would come down as it gets more commonplace in the market...but how do we get the ball rolling when gasoline is still a more cost-effective fuel?

I'll be very interested in what this article has to say.

As far as Trucking, you can build ethanol pipelines; but they just have to be slightly different (reason I don't know).

There are two main requirements:

1) Ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, so the pipeline needs to be designed with that in mind. Soft seals of the normal materials cannot be used.

2) Happily all existing pipelines ARE designed with that in mind, or can be easily upgraded relative to sealing. Sadly, petroleum products leave a gummy varnish on the inside of the pipes, which ethanol will quickly dissolve - which then would result in chewy little bits of dead dinosaurs clogging up your fuel filter and fuel injectors. Should the pipelines be built new, they can easily transfer both ethanol and gasoline as long as SOME ethanol is always pumped through to prevent the deposits from forming.



Utilizing waste products. Current farming methods extract hte corn/beans and shoot all of the waste onto the ground. That waste can be used to almost increase 50%+ the ethanol production out of an acre of land.

Which is the real elegance of switchgrass in a cellulosic process.

Grasses (and everything on a corn plant, except for the corn kernals themselves) break down into two primary materials, cellulose and lignin.

The cellulose is treated with an enzyme known as cellulase, which breaks it down into a useable sugar for fermentation into ethanol.

The lignin would seem to be useless after that, except for one thing - it burns quite nicely. So the lignin is then burned and some of the heat energy is used in breaking down the cellulose, while the rest of the heat energy is used to turn a turbine/generator set - generating electricity. The amount of electricity required to run the plant is only 50% of the energy generated in total, so the rest is sold off to the power companies.

Does anybody know if Ehanol or Bio-Diesel can be made from Bambo harvesting? I know from quite a few sources over the last 6 years that Bambo grows faster than just about anything on the planet (Although, I admit switchgrass is new to me).

I wonder if Cudzoo (sp?) vines would work....the people down south have that crud ALL over the place....

There are two Ethanol plants going up here in SW Kansas with the possibility of one here in Ford County being built. I've heard the idea tossed around a couple of times, but no action yet. The fact of the matter is, Ethanol is going to be our next fuel. But the Federal Govt. needs to step up and tell these oil companies to get with it. I actually think that they could take some of their tax breaks away if they don't start at least researching this fuel and taking steps to build an Ethanol Fueling Station, and Delivery Infastructure. Gas here in Dodge City is 2.94 cents a gallon. And as far as i'm concerned that is outright bull****. But another way to get this going and get the message out is to pressure our lawmakers to get on it. Start writing your congressmen, and senators. Call them, e-mail them, just start hounding them about it. As a consumer I want ethanol, and I want it asap.

This is a very eye opening thread...:thumb:

How much cheaper per gallon (percent wise) at the pump does ethanol need to be in order to break even with cost per mile?

Also, Im curious as to what effect this would have on gasoline prices. I dont know if gas follows a normal supply vs. demand chart, esp with how greedy everyone in the oil game is.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think ethanol needs to beat the price of gasoline by about 15% to match the cost per mile.

Cellulosic ethanol is running at about $2.26/gallon right now (on an estimate basis), and corn ethanol is roughly $1.70 to produce.

After a few billion in subsidies -- I'm curious about the real cost.

Ethanol is energy positive, not energy negative

Well, Wikipedia and other sources indicate this is debatable. I'm not in any real position to say either way, but it doesn't seem like a super obvious win.

Look -- I have nothing against ethanol, and I'm all for technical R&D and infrastructure investement to establish it as an energy source. But if the goal is energy independence and getting the oil companies out of politics, we would all be much better off if the feds simply increased the EPA fleet average requirements by a few MPG.

I also don't think GM or anyone here is really naive -- we all know that Detroit is pushing for E85 so they can pay lipservice to fuel economy without having to make major changes to their product line to meet higher EPA regs. If $3 gas is bugging you, I suggest getting a 30MPG vehicle instead of begging the government to bail you out by handing a chunk of your paycheck to "big corn".

I also don't think GM or anyone here is really naive -- we all know that Detroit is pushing for E85 so they can pay lipservice to fuel economy without having to make major changes to their product line to meet higher EPA regs. If $3 gas is bugging you, I suggest getting a 30MPG vehicle instead of begging the government to bail you out by handing a chunk of your paycheck to "big corn".

Increasing gas mileage requirement is only a temporary band-aid. Even if we reduce our consumption, other parts of the world will increase.

And I don't see any real concern of "big corn" as you put it. The difference is that the raw materials needed to make enthanol as FAR easier to get ahold of then the materials needed to make gasoline. As others suggested you could very well make your own with your grass clippings & other organic waste as opposed to having to drill miles into the earth from some off-shore drilling platform.

The more readily accessible something is, the less chance there is of it falling into "the hands of the few".

And I don't see any real concern of "big corn" as you put it.

ADM + Pals is a enormously powerful lobby in Washington ... certainly rivaling Big Oil.

And you guys sound like a bunch of hippies with your grassclipping-powered Camaros :p

I also don't think GM or anyone here is really naive -- we all know that Detroit is pushing for E85 so they can pay lipservice to fuel economy without having to make major changes to their product line to meet higher EPA regs. If $3 gas is bugging you, I suggest getting a 30MPG vehicle instead of begging the government to bail you out by handing a chunk of your paycheck to "big corn".


Once they start building 30mpg diesel Chevy Colorados then I'll buy one. Right now you can't get a high milage diesel engine so we are all locked into "gas pigs". An Aveo won't haul sheet rock, 1200lbs. of crush stone, or my 2000lbs. boat so I'm stuck with the Colorado, the most fuel efficent gas pickup you can buy.

There is no such thing as an energy positive fuel. Law of entropy gaurantees that. Oil is a positive for us only because we didn't exert any energy making it. But it certainly doesn't produce more energy than it took to create.

Ethanol doesn't have to be a net energy gainer...I think the biggest advantage is it is very renewable, relatively clean, and lessens demand/dependence on foreign oil.

Just look at Brazil's ethanol market. They import NO oil at all. 100% domestic oil plus domestic ethanol from sugar cane. YOu get your choice of either or a blend at the pump.

That's the model we need to be going after and is probably much cheaper in the end than a conversion to hydrogen cars. Want to talk about expensive or energy net loss? Recovering hydrogen out of water or oil to power as-yet not invented "affordable" fuel cell cars.

At least Ethanol wouldn't require 100% new fueling infrastructure as much of the delivery process would be the same as gasoline.

I'm as anti-tax and anti-big government as they get, but I am like my friend Pacer on this issue and I see a role for Govt to play subsidizing ethanol to get it to market faster. Big oil is fairly well subsidized through tax breaks (indirect subsidy), but dollars are dollars. If the playing field is level and the market price for oil/gas is high enough as it is right now, ethanol has a fighting chance.

Hell we are subsidizing farmers to NOT grow stuff to keep prices up at the grocery store. Why not pay them to grow switchgrass instead?

ADM + Pals is a enormously powerful lobby in Washington ... certainly rivaling Big Oil.

And you guys sound like a bunch of hippies with your grassclipping-powered Camaros :p

Again, how would they prevent people from refining it on their own?? Oil companies have the power to do so because of the enormous cost involved in drilling and refining oil.

There is no such thing as an energy positive fuel. Law of entropy gaurantees that. Oil is a positive for us only because we didn't exert any energy making it. But it certainly doesn't produce more energy than it took to create.
Academically correct, but hardly relevant.

Ethanol doesn't have to be a net energy gainer...I think the biggest advantage is it is very renewable, relatively clean, and lessens demand/dependence on foreign oil.

If it is not an net energy positive, it doesn't reduce dependance on oil at all. It just shift the demand from one place to another.

Look, I know it works in Brazil, but they have a different climate with different crops. And I agree that it could work here, it should be tried. But if you want a substantial reduction in foreign oil dependance, it's not the short-term answer -- and just as a factual matter the people pushing it as a "magic bullet" are primarily motivated by corporate welfare politics.

An Aveo won't haul sheet rock, 1200lbs. of crush stone, or my 2000lbs. boat so I'm stuck with the Colorado, the most fuel efficent gas pickup you can buy.

Nothing personal, but I'm having trouble feeling sorry for a guy with a 2000lb boat who can't afford the gas to tow it around. Bottom line is that fuel consumption is a lifestyle issue, and the long-term trends in gas prices are going to cramp that kind of lifestyle.

If it is not an net energy positive, it doesn't reduce dependance on oil at all. It just shift the demand from one place to another.

Petrolium isn't the only source of energy for ethanol refinement: Coal, Wind, Hydro-Electric, & nuclear power.

Nothing personal, but I'm having trouble feeling sorry for a guy with a 2000lb boat who can't afford the gas to tow it around. Bottom line is that fuel consumption is a lifestyle issue, and the long-term trends in gas prices are going to cramp that kind of lifestyle.

I don't use it much (its a 1972), but when I do, it needs to be towed, 5 gallons is consumed everytime I use it. I could get a second car for the days I'm not towing/hauling, but not everyone is in a position to own more than one car at a time. Long-term trends in gas prices are going to make diesel trucks a must.


Don't forget, we don't need to run on 100% Ethanol as a nation. We just need enough to stop importing from outside North America. If we all ran E40 and B40 we could probably acheive that goal. Plug-in hybrids would help too. I drive over 60 a day maybe once a week.

There is no such thing as an energy positive fuel. Law of entropy gaurantees that. Oil is a positive for us only because we didn't exert any energy making it. But it certainly doesn't produce more energy than it took to create.
This is technically true, but you're missing something.

Most of the potential energy in corn ethanol (and other crop-based ethanols) comes from the sun. Generally, we don't account for solar power when calculating the energy required to refine a fuel, because it costs nothing, requires no effort, and is, for all reasonable intents and purposes, infinite.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to nag me about what we're going to do in five billion years when the sun either collapses or goes nova, I direct you to my use of the word "reasonable". The absence of the solar energy required to refine our ethanol will be the least of our problems at the time. ;)

With that in mind, an energy-positive fuel is indeed possible.

Geothermic heat is another source we don't usually account for, and that makes gasoline and other petroleum-based fuels energy-positive as well.

more info....

http://news.com.com/Report+Forget+fueling+cars+on+corn+or+soybeans/2100-11389_3-6092888.html




Report: Forget fueling cars on corn or soybeans

By Michael Kanellos

Story last modified Tue Jul 11 13:58:06 PDT 2006

Ethanol from corn and soybean biodiesel aren't going to solve the energy crunch, according to a new report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Even if all of the corn produced in the U.S. last year were used to make ethanol, it would quench only 12 percent of the country's gas thirst, the report said. If the soybean crop were consumed as fuel, it would displace only 9 percent of the country's demand for diesel. Any appreciable upsurge in the use of those plants for fuel would also cut into the U.S. food supply.

The report, however, isn't dour about the potential use of biofuels. Instead, it advocates trying to develop high-cellulose plants that can produce higher levels of fuel, such as switchgrass, an approach that's been advocated by other scientists.

Switchgrass and similar plants have the potential to produce more energy than equivalent amounts of crops like corn that have been bred for food. Additionally, high-cellulose plants don't need fertilization and, since they are inedible, their use wouldn't affect food supplies.

These fuel plant crops also don't need much water and, conceivably, could be grown on land too dry for food crops. Like corn ethanol or soybean diesel, fuel made from these plants would result in lower tailpipe emissions than standard car gas. Synthetically produced fuels could also displace regular gas over time, the report stated.

Contrary to other recent studies, the report also found that both corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel supply more energy than is consumed in producing them. Corn ethanol delivers 25 percent more energy, while soybean diesel gives off 93 percent more energy than is required to harvest the crop and process the plants.

News of the report was first covered in the journal Nature.

Brazil is not a valid comparison. Their entire fuel consumption is but a wee fraction of the US, so to bring up their lack of dependence is irrelevant, against our usage levels.

Ethanol needs to be part of the mix moving forward, as does a REDUCTION IN TOTAL CONSUMPTION, on an individual basis. There is no way around it, IMO. I think hybrid technology is key to that (why people insist that the tech as it exists must be the mature form is beyond me- Intel's first processor wasn't a Core Duo, ya know;) ), as are new lightweight alloys.

You're right, and they will tail off.

Bush, however, isn't inclined to do such things.

I'm a pretty staunch conservative in most cases, but governmental involvement is necessary here - much like it was with the transcontinental railroad. It's a huge investment that'll take decades unless the Feds step in.


Doesnt he have oil interests with Saudi's? (If i'm wrong let me know) :D

World needs alternative fuel sources to oil...hopefully without the reliance on oil we can turn the middle east into insignificant desert it is.

Doesnt he have oil interests with Saudi's? (If i'm wrong let me know) :D

World needs alternative fuel sources to oil...hopefully without the reliance on oil we can turn the middle east into insignificant desert it is.

I dunno, India is just kind of important... ;)

I dunno, India is just kind of important... ;)


Eh? India is part of Asia...besides Australia needs India to play cricket against. :D

I find it funny that some people will whine all day about how we need to reduce our need for imported oil. Then when something like E85 comes along they will give you all the excusses in th world why we should do something else, ei hybrids, electrics, etc.

Will E85 or E100 save us from imported oil? We won't know until we try and get there. Even if it doesn't completely eliminate out dependency on forgein oil, it will GREATLY readuce our need while at the same time decrease car emissions. Some say that E85 engines get less milage then gas engines. True, but I wonder what a engine setup to run ONLY E85 will get in milage. Since you will be able to increase compression, therefore increasing efficiency, milage will also increase. Also, since milage on a current FFV is less on E85, some complain about the need for E85 to be priced less then gas. While this is true, once E85 becomes completely intergrated at every gas station, the rules of supply and demand should take hold and help drive down prices of both gas and E85 at the pump.

To say that since it has been studied and suggested that since we can not completely rely on E85 for our energy needs, there is no need for it to be pursued if complete foolishness. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is a lot better and easier then anything else anyone has suggested and put us in a better energy position in the future.

^ The only thing I'm whining about is the fact that Corn Ethanol really only exists because the government pays people to make every last drop of it.

If govt. R&D investement can get a sustainable business going based on Switchgrass or Soy or even Corn, I'm all for it. Same with fuel cells or better batteries or anything else that move automotive technology forward.

Bottom line is that fuel consumption is a lifestyle issue, and the long-term trends in gas prices are going to cramp that kind of lifestyle.

I agree it is a lifestyle issue, but some people really do need full size trucks and don't use them just as the transportation to the Grocery Store. I will soon be one of those people. My wife and I own 5 horses on our property, our daughter is learning how to ride, and will soon be getting into 4H and Rodeos. I'm not going to strap a Cobalt, Civic, Caliber or other econoboxes to a loaded Horse Trailer and expect to go anywhere. I'm obviously going to need a truck, and i've chosen one of the biggest gas guzzlers out there. Why b/c it has 345hp and the torque I need in a 1/2 Ton Truck and it's even a Quad Cab. I also plan on doing improvements to my property over the next year or two and I will need something to haul the crap i'm buying. My Camaro is in Hutchinson KS, with a cracked block and since other things are coming first I feel inclined to go get it. Well can't pull a Loaded Car Trailer with a Caliber, but I can damn sure do it with a Hemi. So as much as it is a lifestyle choice for me it is also a necessity. As a person who would actually use his truck for work, and as a consumer I want to see Ethanol on the market. I want to see some of my hard earned money stay in my pocket instead of going to Big Oil. I guess the point to this rant is, some people need big trucks, and big SUV's for projects and Work and don't just use it to impress Joe Blow down the street.

I agree it is a lifestyle issue, but some people really do need full size trucks and don't use them just as the transportation to the Grocery Store. I will soon be one of those people. My wife and I own 5 horses on our property, our daughter is learning how to ride, and will soon be getting into 4H and Rodeos. I'm not going to strap a Cobalt, Civic, Caliber or other econoboxes to a loaded Horse Trailer and expect to go anywhere. I'm obviously going to need a truck, and i've chosen one of the biggest gas guzzlers out there. Why b/c it has 345hp and the torque I need in a 1/2 Ton Truck and it's even a Quad Cab. I also plan on doing improvements to my property over the next year or two and I will need something to haul the crap i'm buying. My Camaro is in Hutchinson KS, with a cracked block and since other things are coming first I feel inclined to go get it. Well can't pull a Loaded Car Trailer with a Caliber, but I can damn sure do it with a Hemi. So as much as it is a lifestyle choice for me it is also a necessity. As a person who would actually use his truck for work, and as a consumer I want to see Ethanol on the market. I want to see some of my hard earned money stay in my pocket instead of going to Big Oil. I guess the point to this rant is, some people need big trucks, and big SUV's for projects and Work and don't just use it to impress Joe Blow down the street.

***ACK!!!***

Get a Chevrolet man!

At the very least wait until the 900's debut and check one out... if you still decide on the Ram, welp - that's cool... but you'll kick yourself later if you don't at least look at the new Silverado.



PS - Have I gone into my "the Hemi is the best copy of an LSx on the market today" speech lately?

I've seen a photo of the new Silverado and the styling just did it in for me. It actually reminded me of a smaller Ford SuperChief Concept. And with the possible teaming up of Nissan/Renault and GM. I'm just disgusted with GM right now and not really intrested in their new products. If the build a certain one in 2009 I might change my mind. If they don't partner up with Japance :D Also keep in mind i'm buying a used Ram not a brand new one. I think the MSRP's on the brand new ones are insane.

I've seen a photo of the new Silverado and the styling just did it in for me. It actually reminded me of a smaller Ford SuperChief Concept. And with the possible teaming up of Nissan/Renault and GM. I'm just disgusted with GM right now and not really intrested in their new products. If the build a certain one in 2009 I might change my mind. If they don't partner up with Japance :D Also keep in mind i'm buying a used Ram not a brand new one. I think the MSRP's on the brand new ones are insane.


Ahhhh....

I see...

Welp, just between you and me....

DCX vehicles have HORRENDOUS resale values, which makes them BARGAINS on the used market! Were I looking for a used truck, I'd probably look at a Dodge first too.

PS - Have I gone into my "the Hemi is the best copy of an LSx on the market today" speech lately?

Nope but damn I used to have a link to a long engineering article that compared the all to familiar similarities of the power plants. So feel free. :D

I think a frequent visitor of our very little form has a considerable amount of info with the power plants in the upcoming GMT-900 trucks. I wish we new a little of what this person knows. :D

Corn farmers are almost as bad as pharmaceutical companies!

Anyway, if I have to get a mileage penalty from running that junk, I would appreciate a price break.

Corn farmers are almost as bad as pharmaceutical companies!

Anyway, if I have to get a mileage penalty from running that junk, I would appreciate a price break.

1) E85 is less expensive than straight gas.

2) You get more performance from that "junk", btw... the engine will advance spark timing because E85 has a higher octance rating.

Corn farmers are almost as bad as pharmaceutical companies!

Anyway, if I have to get a mileage penalty from running that junk, I would appreciate a price break.

If not E85......then what?

If not now.......when?

If we aren't willing to make adjustments to getting off our "oil binge"...then what hope do we have for telling the ME to FO....much less the availablility of future fuels? :confused:

the engine will advance spark timing because E85 has a higher octance rating
Not quite.

Some engines will advance spark timing, but no street car that I know of today will advance it beyond what 93 octane can handle. Pure ethanol is 110 octane (E85 would be maybe 100, but I'm guessing).

At 93-octane timing levels, you're still not going to get as much power out of ethanol as you would out of 93-octane gasoline. You have to go quite a bit higher.

Corn farmers are almost as bad as pharmaceutical companies!

Anyway, if I have to get a mileage penalty from running that junk, I would appreciate a price break.

What do you suggest as an alternative in the short term?

We're gonna get a price break on oil in the near future..... right... All new record high yesterday $76 a barrel. Only thing we're gonna get is something broken off in our @sses and our pockets emptied.

Some engines will advance spark timing, but no street car that I know of today will advance it beyond what 93 octane can handle. Pure ethanol is 110 octane (E85 would be maybe 100, but I'm guessing).


E85 is 105 Octane

Not quite.

Some engines will advance spark timing, but no street car that I know of today will advance it beyond what 93 octane can handle. Pure ethanol is 110 octane (E85 would be maybe 100, but I'm guessing).

At 93-octane timing levels, you're still not going to get as much power out of ethanol as you would out of 93-octane gasoline. You have to go quite a bit higher.

This is incorrect. Under full throttle conditions, the lower ability to carry energy in ethanol is easily offset -shoot in more fuel and allow the more efficient combustion to do the rest (spark timing).

Ideally, E85 engines would be able to increase static compression at the same time, but I don't know how you could do that and still handle E10 or pure gasoline.

Alcohol, as used in alcohol funny cars, carries less energy than gasoline on a per unit basis, and they're radically faster than anything powered by gas.

How? They dump the stuff in by the gallon.



***EDIT: I think valve timing could be adjusted to get higher dynamic compression with relative ease. ***

***EDIT #2: Here's an even better idea - Variable Boost Forced Induction. Up the boost with an active wastegate coupled to the PCM!!! Hellfire and brimstone, that one is CAKE. Look at how many jackass ricers have boost controllers on Civics. If those dip****s can do it with a turd like that, GM's Powertrain engineers can do 10 times better.***

This is incorrect. Under full throttle conditions, the lower ability to carry energy in ethanol is easily offset -shoot in more fuel and allow the more efficient combustion to do the rest (spark timing).
Does ethanol eliminate the dangers of running lean? AFAIK, it does not, but I could be wrong. Assuming I am correct: You can't just "dump in more fuel". The car needs to be able to maintain a safe air-fuel ratio (AFR), and that means changes to the engine computer, hence my statement that no street car I'm aware of today could do it.

The changes are feasible, and relatively simple, at least in terms of the programming; I'm only claiming that the cars already on the market today wouldn't be able to do it without modification.

The forced induction idea, though, is correct. I've been figuring for some time now that they'd be using variable-boost turbochargers on flex-fuel vehicles. The engine would "discover" the octane level of the fuel being used (probably using a knock sensor to find the limit).

Does ethanol eliminate the dangers of running lean? AFAIK, it does not, but I could be wrong. Assuming I am correct: You can't just "dump in more fuel". The car needs to be able to maintain a safe air-fuel ratio (AFR), and that means changes to the engine computer, hence my statement that no street car I'm aware of today could do it.

Modern PCMs are constantly re-calculating air/fuel ratio and spark timing. The LSx motors have individual coils because the alter spark timing and fuel on an individual basis independantly for each cylinder.

You can see what this does to the enginer architecture itself:

Individual coils.
Individual fuel injectors.
Replicated ports.
Identical length intake runners.



The changes are feasible, and relatively simple, at least in terms of the programming; I'm only claiming that the cars already on the market today wouldn't be able to do it without modification.

They already do it.

They already do it.
So are you telling me that if I put unleaded 108 in my Z28, it will advance the timing and take advantage of it?

You'd be wrong, and that's the claim I'm making. Engine computers would have to be modified to take advantage of it. As I said, the change should be relatively simple.

There are many flex fuel vehicles on the road. All other things being equal with just optimizing the timing (which they do via a lookup table), you make about 5% more power (like meth, there is a large charge cooling effect).

I run it in my mustang, and the ms2 even has a flex fuel option. I like how it runs so much I am going to buy the flex fuel sensor so I will not have to reload the tune every time I decide to run it. It is much faster ( I added 4 degrees of timing where it was knock limited before), my clutch slips now (and I haven't even touched the boost yet).

I'm not getting into how viable it is as a large scale fuel, but it rocks for performance (and smells nice when it burns).

So are you telling me that if I put unleaded 108 in my Z28, it will advance the timing and take advantage of it?

You'd be wrong, and that's the claim I'm making. Engine computers would have to be modified to take advantage of it. As I said, the change should be relatively simple.

FWIR the Z28 LS1 computers have only two spark tables. If it senses knock it assumes 87 (or whatever) and will run off of the less aggressive spark table. If it doesn't sense knock (93) it will continue to run off the aggressive table which equates to more power. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

I think PacerX is on to something. A variable boost PCM controlled wastegate could be the simplest solution to the E85/E10 problem. And the positive effect is that more engines will come factory equipped with Forced Induction so we can have more fun as well... ;). (As long as they don't encrypt the cpu's to the point we can't crack them...)

So are you telling me that if I put unleaded 108 in my Z28, it will advance the timing and take advantage of it?

You'd be wrong, and that's the claim I'm making. Engine computers would have to be modified to take advantage of it. As I said, the change should be relatively simple.

Not to the fullest extent of 108 octane. The stock varibility of the system is built into what the car was designed to see from about 86 octane to 94 octane. E85 wasn't around at the time so the architecture wasn't designed to accomodate it.

BUT, were you to put 87 octance in instead of premium it most assuredly will retard timing, and if you then go back to 93 octane it'll advance it. You can force an LS1 PCM to advance timing very, very easily - which is exactly what the IAT mod was intended to do - it tricks the computer into thinking the incoming air is colder than it is.

As part of the sensor suite the PCM is reading, you have (this isn't exhaustive... just a partial list...):
Mass airflow
Intake air temperature
Knock sensors
FOUR O2 sensors
Throttle position sensor
Vehicle Speed Sensor

In "closed loop control" - which occurs at part throttle - those sensors are constantly being monitored. Spark timing and amount of fuel are constantly being adjusted to burn as lean as possible with maximum spark advance BEFORE knock occurs.

At "wide open throttle" (WOT), the system goes "open loop" a defaults to a particular map - hence the control is not as fine - which is EXACTLY why LS1's tend to run a little rich at WOT. Ever seen the black puff of smoke from the exhaust during a 1/4 run from an LS1 car on an upshift? That's the system dumping too much fuel - it's doing that to be safe. Spark knock is far more likely to damage a motor at WOT than at part-throttle, so GM plays it a little safe and dumps in more fuel.

The first trick most programmers pull who are trying to get maximum power out of a stock LSx is to lean out the mixture at WOT.




LS1 Edit allows access to the software controlling those parameters.

Since LS1 Edit actually allows the spark/fuel maps to be altered, it's not like using a "timing tricker" or anything like the Power Commanders used for motorcycles. Those just alter the existing curves in the PCM by changing the input data.

LS1 Edit changes the actual software.

The E85 compatible PCM's have flexible enough software in them already to handle this function. In short, the spark/fuel maps for E85's increased octane rating are already there.

One of the critical pieces your car doesn't have?

Electronic Throttle Control.

An E85 vehicle REQUIRES ETC - you have to be able to vary the throttle position, irrespective of what the driver wants to get maximum efficiency at part-throttle.

The PCM is taking what you're telling it to do through the throttle and using it as a "suggestion". It's going to vary the throttle blade position on it's own somewhat... cause it's smarter than you or I are anyway, and knows better than we do where it needs to be to allow for maximum efficiency.

As long as they don't encrypt the cpu's to the point we can't crack them...

Which would be a HUGE mistake.

One of the LSx family's greatest advantages over the Hemi in the performance market?

The fact that there's a MUCH bigger aftermarket, and the PCM is easily cracked and reprogrammed to take advantage of all those tasty parts.

Not to the fullest extent of 108 octane.
So what would happen if I put unleaded 108 into an E85-compatible flex-fuel vehicle available today? Z28x said E85 is 105 octane -- does that mean that the car would operate using its maximum timing advance?

FOUR O2 sensors
You are aware that only two of the O2 sensors are only there for emissions monitoring purposes (as required by ODB2), and do not have any bearing on the engine's closed-loop operation, are you not?

The PCM is taking what you're telling it to do through the throttle and using it as a "suggestion". It's going to vary the throttle blade position on it's own somewhat... cause it's smarter than you or I are anyway, and knows better than we do where it needs to be to allow for maximum efficiency.
So does the throttle input from the driver become abstracted to simply a request for more/less/equal speed, and doesn't map directly to any one thing anymore? That's interesting.

Actually, it would be very easy to use LS1Edit, HPTuners, Tunercat, etc...to mod the timing tables to emulate Premium gas and E85....in a car that runs PRIMARILY E85.

Just make the low octane tables the same as the "normal" tables and adjust the "normal" tables up by say 4-6+ deg. of timing.

Then when a tank of "lower" octane E10/premium 92 octane fuel is detected (through knock sensors), it'll use the lower timing tables.

Just don't EVER run 87 octane fuel.....as if any 'tard that owns an LS* engine would ever do that anyway...............right girls??!!

I'd like to see some dyno runs and mpg figures doing this and using E85.

I'd like to see some dyno runs and mpg figures doing this and using E85.
I'd like to see that too.

Since this thread has gotten really interesting (personally applications at least), can anyone define exactly what the 'cold starting problems' are with regards to running full ethanol?

I'm all for it! IMO it's something we must get going.

Factory flex fuel cars run off different timing maps for ethanol. They interpolate betweeen the two tables. If manufacturers designed for it (more compression), alot more power can be made. On forced induction vehicles, it is VERY beneficial. Go to turbomustangs.com, there is a 12 page "sticky" on it in the tech section. On n/a engines, the cooling effect is worth (at most) 5% if you are not knock limited. If any of you forced induction guys try it, you will not put another tank of 93 octane in, ever. Its cooler, safer, and you can safely run mbt timing without worrying about toasting your motor (if AFR is proper).

Since this thread has gotten really interesting (personally applications at least), can anyone define exactly what the 'cold starting problems' are with regards to running full ethanol?

On pure ethanol, it is a very fine line between flood and not enough fuel in cold weather. With e-85 (which is 15% gas) it isn't a problem. The coldest I have started my mustang with e85 is only 60 degrees F, but I haven't even attempted to tune startup other than just to scale for the different stoic A/f ratio. I can not tell a difference in starting between it and gas yet. In the winter it might change, but with the little bit of gas that is in there it will likely be fine.

I would like to see engine options for engines that would run specifically E85/100 if the stuff ever becomes as available as gas. I would think that a E85/100 specific engine could possible get very similar gas milage as a gas engine since you could increase compression therefore increasing efficiency.

BTW, I know some would like use to move to a fuel cell system, which would be great, but if I'm not mistaken, hydrogen has even less energy in it then ethanol and gas. Though I'm not sure what its octane rating would be if it has one.

The reason I believe everyone should support E85 is because it is not only an easy fix, it is also a realitivly quick one to intergrate, comparte to other alternative fuels. Rarely is anything ease and quick that provide great results.

So are you telling me that if I put unleaded 108 in my Z28, it will advance the timing and take advantage of it?

You'd be wrong, and that's the claim I'm making. Engine computers would have to be modified to take advantage of it. As I said, the change should be relatively simple.


Last I checked your Z28 isnt on the market right now. Most GM cars will be FFVs by the end of the decaded. Many already are.

Last I checked your Z28 isnt on the market right now. Most GM cars will be FFVs by the end of the decaded. Many already are.
True, but GM was selling LS1-equipped cars up until recently (maybe they still are in the trucks?), and the AFAIK the LS2 doesn't take any steps towards being ethanol-ready.

I'd be delighted to learn otherwise. :)

LS2 will be off the market in a few years though. Right?

True, but GM was selling LS1-equipped cars up until recently (maybe they still are in the trucks?), and the AFAIK the LS2 doesn't take any steps towards being ethanol-ready.

I'd be delighted to learn otherwise. :)


Nope.

Check here for current GM FFVs.

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/energy_flexfuel.html#

I wouldnt be surprised if the new camaro is an FFV.

1000HP Mustang running E85

http://www.turbomustangs.com/smf/index.php?topic=47094.0

Which would be a HUGE mistake.

One of the LSx family's greatest advantages over the Hemi in the performance market?

The fact that there's a MUCH bigger aftermarket, and the PCM is easily cracked and reprogrammed to take advantage of all those tasty parts.


Everything can be cracked...all you need is time. ;)

This is incorrect. Under full throttle conditions, the lower ability to carry energy in ethanol is easily offset -shoot in more fuel and allow the more efficient combustion to do the rest (spark timing).

Ideally, E85 engines would be able to increase static compression at the same time, but I don't know how you could do that and still handle E10 or pure gasoline.

Alcohol, as used in alcohol funny cars, carries less energy than gasoline on a per unit basis, and they're radically faster than anything powered by gas.

How? They dump the stuff in by the gallon.



***EDIT: I think valve timing could be adjusted to get higher dynamic compression with relative ease. ***Hmm... E85-optimized engines using variable-valve timing (think extreme versions like BMW's Valvetronic) to allow "low octane" substitutes such as 93? Looks like I was ahead of my time.;) http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=455262&highlight=E85+optimized

And, I'd really like to see fuel-economy graphs for any production n/a engine that shows improved power and fuel economy on E85 over gas. I think it's BS. Not that I'm against Ethanol at all, but c'mon, this doesn't make any sense. There's a university study where they had to add 2.5 full points of static compression to get back to the fuel economy of the initial gas setup. I can't seem to find it now.

And people talk about advancing timing never endingly as if it's the holy grail for more power. For today's engines that are pump-gas centric, it would seem to me that mega-timing would push the piston back down the cylinder? Higher octane=slower burn rate -> don't you need to increase the pressure of the higher octane air-fuel mix at light-off to increase burn rate and peak pressure? PCM tuning won't do that.

On n/a engines designed to run on pump fuel, it is correct the adding timing helps very little. However, pump gas boosted engines are always knock limited. That is where the benefit is.

On n/a engines designed to run on pump fuel, it is correct the adding timing helps very little. However, pump gas boosted engines are always knock limited. That is where the benefit is.

Eh? There are numerous forced induction offerings that run on regular ol' 93 octane. Like the GT500 for instance. My ol' LT1 SC'd Camaro put down 556 RWHP on 93 octane pump gas.... and that's no real accomplishment with what people are doing today.

Eh? There are numerous forced induction offerings that run on regular ol' 93 octane.I think what he's saying is that the majority of today's boosted motors find themselves pulling timing a lot, or are crippled out of the box. I can't say, as I haven't played with any, but it makes sense.

About "Big Corn"

The corn industry gets its power from food products outside of food. Several books talk about how they are involved in every step of the foods we eat.

In you dinner you've got a cow that was fed corn meal all its life, some actual corn, a glass of juice that is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup and some boxed mashed potatoes that like everything on the plate have a bunch of preservatives in them, many of which are in a corn oil base IIRC.

I also think it was stated above that farms are subsized not to grow corn because they price would be too low for them to make money.

So while there are a lot of issues at play, I would think that if they are capable of being that integral without being at full capacity, there is certainly the potential for enough small ethanol refineries to eat up distribution and other cost.

I think what he's saying is that the majority of today's boosted motors find themselves pulling timing a lot, or are crippled out of the box. I can't say, as I haven't played with any, but it makes sense.

Well if the 500HP GT500 is crippled or limited I guess you can make the rest of my terribly crippled. :D

I find it funny that some people will whine all day about how we need to reduce our need for imported oil. Then when something like E85 comes along they will give you all the excusses in th world why we should do something else, ei hybrids, electrics, etc.

Will E85 or E100 save us from imported oil? We won't know until we try and get there. Even if it doesn't completely eliminate out dependency on forgein oil, it will GREATLY readuce our need while at the same time decrease car emissions. Some say that E85 engines get less milage then gas engines. True, but I wonder what a engine setup to run ONLY E85 will get in milage. Since you will be able to increase compression, therefore increasing efficiency, milage will also increase. Also, since milage on a current FFV is less on E85, some complain about the need for E85 to be priced less then gas. While this is true, once E85 becomes completely intergrated at every gas station, the rules of supply and demand should take hold and help drive down prices of both gas and E85 at the pump.

To say that since it has been studied and suggested that since we can not completely rely on E85 for our energy needs, there is no need for it to be pursued if complete foolishness. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is a lot better and easier then anything else anyone has suggested and put us in a better energy position in the future.

:bow: Amen!

"Get a Chevrolet man!

At the very least wait until the 900's debut and check one out... if you still decide on the Ram, welp - that's cool... but you'll kick yourself later if you don't at least look at the new Silverado." - Pacer X

Okay you did it, you peaked my curiousity and i'll check it out when they debut. But don't take all of the credit DCX did some of the work. I wanted to know if there would be a Flex Fuel Hemi, they couldn't give me an answer. Well I know Chevrolet has a Flex Fuel Vortec 5300 with DOD that will be out next year. So that and 87 Octane gas hitting $2.99 a gallon here in Dodge City convinced me to take a look. I'm not sold on them yet and I have a complaint about it already. From the spy photo i've seen, it looks like GM copied Ford in one area. This is one area I have blasted the F-150 on time and time again, the bed is just too damn high. No i'm not a short or small man by any means, but if I have something heavy I don't want to rent a forklift just to put something in my truck bed. Since this photo was of a 4x4, I hope the 2wd will have a shorter height, which gives me no reason to complain. So pat yourself on the back you convinced me to give it a second look. FWIW the looks grew on me, and the wife said and I quote. "That Truck Is Hot"

Well if the 500HP GT500 is crippled or limited I guess you can make the rest of my terribly crippled. :D

That 500hp gt500 could safely be a 750 hp gt500 with better fuel (more octane). Not like it really needs that much power, but they could have safely got it with less displacement, more compression, etc... With better fuel econ with better fuel. Most factory turbo cars can pick up 5-10% more power without touching boost from better fuel, just from the ability to run timing closer to the mbt value at high boost. With my turbo 2.3 mustang, just the the timing alone (without even raising the boost, which I can safely do), was worth enough additional to make my spec stage 3 slip. Boosted cars love this stuff. My fuel econ has only dropped 10% since I switched (instead of the 25 it "should" have dropped). Think of it as racing fuel for pump gas price.

...Think of it as racing fuel for pump gas price.

I've been thinking that for a while :) I'm wondering what kind of Dynamic Compression Ratio a naturally aspirated motor could run on this stuff?

BTW- I'm very surprised that nobody has mentioned the 1998 Ford Super Stallion Mustang Concept that had a 590hp blown 5.4L that ran on E85. There was a sensor in the tank that read what kind of fuel it had in it and changed the programming to compensate.

Just don't EVER run 87 octane fuel.....as if any 'tard that owns an LS* engine would ever do that anyway...............right girls??!!




I mix 87 in on occasion, but also top off quite frequently. The only time the tank ever goes below a 1/2 is on a road trip , and that is not often. Most of my driving is to & from work, 40 miles a day.

I have not had any problems so far, and know that the PCM is capable of adjusting to the reduced octane level. ;)

And, since all of us here do not have the luxury of 6 figure incomes, every little bit helps.

Back to the topic - some of the '99 GM vehicles were flex fuel capable - unfortunately, the Camaro was not one of them.

So, it's straight gas for a me.

Oh, just thought of something - whatever happened to gasahol ? :confused:

Britt

Oh, just thought of something - whatever happened to gasahol ?This was the name for gasoline mixed with Ethanol "back in the day." So, to answer the question, um, it's still around?;)

I don't remember the old mix%, and I'll spare you the obligatory "I know everything because I use Google" type response.

This was the name for gasoline mixed with Ethanol "back in the day." So, to answer the question, um, it's still around?;)

I don't remember the old mix%, and I'll spare you the obligatory "I know everything because I use Google" type response.

I believe it's always been E10, meaning 10% ethanol.