MyShibbyZ28

I was filling up the minivan (beater) and thought i'd give E85 a try. I looked and it said estimated octane: 105. I was like whoa...and it's cheaper then premium which is 93 octane here. So i was wondering if it's possible to tune or do anything to make our cars run on E85? Personally since gas prices are over 3 dollars now for premium, i'd much rather put the 105 octaned E85 if it is even possible.

96formulaLT1

stainless steel fuel system is needed to run E85. it will deteriorate any plastic parts it comes into contact with over time. so, new fuel lines, fuel pump, injectors, stuff like that.

MyShibbyZ28

That's it? wouldn't need to tune it or anything? the engine can actually handle it being stock?

96formulaLT1

that is all we had to replace on a new silverado with the 5.3 to make it E85 compliant. make sure the fuel pump is a good high flow unit because you'll burn a bit more of the ethanol than gasoline.

Chris 96 WS6

Yes ideally you need to retune, beause Stoichiometric mixture isn't 14.7:1 for E85 like it is for gasoline....WOT would have to be retuned.

But for a daily driver minivan....not really necessary. As was said as long as your fuel system is up for it no real changes are needed.

Other than than Ethanol contains 10% less energy by volume, so expect 10% less hp.

Green95Z28

its because it has 15% ethanol in it, which is MUCH higher octane than gas and you would have to tune it quite a bit richer to run with the ethanol in there, yes it will make slightly MORE power if tuned properly (that is why people run alchohol in race cars because they burn so much more of it thus making more power even IF it has less BTUs per pound) it isn't as prone to detonation and burns slightly colder than regular gas well. Above all it burns cleaner and its cheaper to make and if it spills its less harmful to the environment.

lt11997

Just becareful, lately I've seen alot of driveability problems on vehicles that aren't made to run on E85.

96capricemgr

You know just enough about this to be dangerous and lead someone astray with BAD INFO.
E85 is 85% ethanol not 15%.
Ethanol is only cheap because your tax dollars payed to make it and it is ENERGY NEGATIVE it takes more fossil fuel and electricity and water to make this crap than you get back burning it. Becuase it burns cooler it makes less power race engine burn like twice as much alky as they would have to gas but can do that because alky brings in some oxygen with it and that is the hard thing to get into the cylinders since the alky has oxygen in it in needs less air but since the stuff burns so cool you have to burn huge amounts. Race engines are also HIGH compression for use with alcohol no production engine is going to make more power on this crap. The milage hit you will take because of the lesser BTUs means it actually costs MORE to run a vehicle on this stuff than it does on gas even though gas is much more expensive.

The idiots promoting this stuff and organizations supporting it do not take the fuel and energy used in farming and transporting the corn into account when they doctor the numbers to make this look like a good idea, they also leave out the resources it takes to make and clean the HUGE amount of water required in processing it.

Mindgame

I'd like to see these statistics. Do you have a URL?

This article counters many of the points you're making better than I can. Interestingly enough, there is a good deal of unbiased data on E85 as many college SAE programs are exploring the possibilities.

An engine, built with ethanol in mind, could be a stronger & cleaner running engine. Requires a god deal of know how though.

http://www.westbioenergy.org/reports...5019_final.htm

BTW, who ever said you had to buy E85?

Build a still... what you don't drink... pour in your tank.

-Mindgame

96formulaLT1

the main problem with ethanol is that the cost to produce it is so high right now that it wouldnt be economically feasable to use it as our main fuel source until oil reaches about 175 bucks a barrel (which could be soon). if production were to increase, the cost of producing ethanol would come down dramatically.

a current production engine would have some problems running ethanol, but if the car manufacturers built engines purely for ethanol, that wouldnt be a problem.

if car companies would invest more money into ethanol research and the oil companies werent so uptight about letting gas stations sell ethanol at the pump, this country could run on ethanol in the next 10 years.

the only reason you see ethanol at the gas pumps now is because the gov't pays the stations to put up an ethanol pump. a lot of oil companies wont let the stations that sell their gas to install ethanol tanks/pumps. the ethanol movement is on the rise though, specially here in kansas and up in nebraska. i know of at least half a dozen new ethanol refineries going up in the next 18-24months in kansas.

my schools automotive and SAE programs really push ethanol at us Auto. Tech. students. (Pittsburg State University)

Green95Z28

You do NOT burn MORE methanol due to the fact that it BURNS COLDER You can burn 3 times as much and it will only burn EVEN COLDER! Its resistance to detonation and the speed at which it burns is what makes it a GREAT fuel for race engines, you have to burn more of it because you are trying to get the ideal air fuel ratio for alchohol which is somewhere near 7:1. Otherwise if it is too lean it will detonate and if its too rich it will simply burn in the pipes and cost you power. It DOES add its own oxygen thus allowing to stuff more of it into the cylinders and not need THAT much more air also allowing you to add power. Due to the fact that you are burning so much more volume you make more power because the btus you get with burning that much alchohol is MORE than the btus of gasoline at it's ideal air fuel ratio. You also can find more power from alchohol because you can SQUEEZE it, our dragster we run 35lbs of boost and are running 14:1 static compression and still manage 28 degrees of timing. (The NHRA guys are running 70lbs of boost on 13.5:1 compression, thats how they get 3000+ HP out of a 470ci alky motor)

I did a test on my nova, same day same track conditions and same weather, all I did was swap carbs and fuel went from a 950 Gas carb to a 950 alky carb, 88 jets in the gas to 144/196 in the alky and went from 10.78@ 122 to 10.37 @ 126 . SO In conclusion, alchohol makes a LOT more power just in and of itself. MOtor was a 13:1 355 with 36 degrees of timing.

And I am sorry if I was wrong about 15% ethanol, because I definately was wrong about that.

96capricemgr

Ethanol is not methanol though. I will see what I can find on the data as far as energy negative and such. I have read a lot on it but not bookmarked.
As far as "big oil" not allowing ethanol they love the 10% blends increases profit margin due to the heavy subsidies bring price to them down and it does not reduce the amount of actual gas you burn because you get reduced econimy with the blend. Many of the brands around here are switching to the blend and just a few are staying straight gas because of the educated people who know the problems with ethanol some even put it right up on their signs that they have non-ethanol to make them easier to find.
Besides all the downs I already posted it is hydroscopic not a problem in your daily drive but in lawn equipment recreational vehicles, hotrods anything that does not regularly get run and refilled, water will collect in the fuel.

Z28barnett

Methanol is made from natural Gas.

It can be made other ways but if you look up the process, it uses natural Gas as a feed stock.

That makes it a fossil fuel, so not much of an advantage over gasoline.

Ethanol is "Moon Shine", as we say around here. I have also heard that it is energy negative from many sources. The most unique source was the TV show the "West Wing". If you include the petrochemical fertilizers that are used to grow the corn, I think it is very likely to be a lose-lose deal.

I did a quick search ethanol supporters say it has a postive energy balance, but none of the reports mention fertilizer. I think that is crtical point, without that info, I am in the naysayers group.

Z28

96capricemgr

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...2436.htm<br />
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Eth...lsRebuttal.pdf
http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/07/al...anol-fuel.html

None of this is articles I had read before and there are at least as many sites claiming good as bad. Worst part is it seems like of the millions of sites it is all rehashing a couple studies that disagree with eachother. I had once seen an actual pie chart of where the energy was used and will continue to try to find it.
As with anything the results of a study are open to interpretation one group will go looking for x-result and make it happen while another wants and concludes y-result. Best case though the pro-ethanol groups are claiming a 34% positive energy output and let's be honest each side is going to slant things their way, one of the anti-ethanol studies claimed it took 6 times as much energy to make it as was recovered, the truth undoutedly lies in the middle somewhere.