The Threat of E15

[Yellow32]

Energy Tribune- The Threat of E15

Scary stuff:


Three years ago, automakers' support was crucial for the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act which mandated massive increases in ethanol for the Nation's gasoline . But back then automakers hadn't gone into the abyss financially and were looking for ways to sell more flex-fuel vehicles while securing government bailouts. Detroit needed the support of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and the political support of Big Ethanol .


But how times have changed! A few days ago the auto industry urged the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to delay raising the allowable ethanol blend in gasoline from the current 10% to 15% - citing tests which indicate that more ethanol will damage many car engines. EPA signaled last year that it would probably bend to pressure from the ethanol industry and permit the higher blend rates.


Ethanol producers like ADM have been campaigning to reinforce the ethanol mandate by forcing oil companies (and the motoring public) to consume more ethanol. This pressure has been intensified by the introduction of a new association (Growth Energy headed by former general Wesley Clark) combined with existing groups like the National Corn Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Coalition for Ethanol, Governors' Coalition for Ethanol, the Ethanol Information and Promotion Council, Corn Refiners Association, National Biodiesel Council and many others -- the coalition has practically co-opted "public dialogue" on the subject. Growth Energy alone is reportedly spending more than $2.5 million on an ad campaign hyping ethanol.

As the battle royal shapes up, many drivers of older cars sit helpless on the sidelines. Others are teaming with renegade gas station owners who refuse to convert their storage tanks for ethanol. Signs are emerging along the roadside "No Ethanol in Our Gas!" But it is getting late. If the ethanolics win this round, many cars will be damaged and owners "will be walking, eventually" according to one General Motors executive, C. Coleman Jones, who happens to head GM's biofuel implementation program. For boat enthusiasts, motorcycle riders and other recreational vehicle owners, the higher ethanol blends could prove disastrous.


Chances of mid-level auto executives blocking the ethanol juggernaut are slim. Never mind that the older cars run fine on so-called "old fashioned (non-ethanol) gas" and those cars may well be the only transport option for many workers who are barely holding on. If EPA folds to ethanol demands this time, the sounds of screeching and clunking will be heard around the world.

Nicholas E. Hollis is with the Ethanol Transparency Project.

 

[jimchris]

Energy Tribune- The Threat of E15

Scary stuff:


Three years ago, automakers' support was crucial for the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act which mandated massive increases in ethanol for the Nation's gasoline . But back then automakers hadn't gone into the abyss financially and were looking for ways to sell more flex-fuel vehicles while securing government bailouts. Detroit needed the support of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and the political support of Big Ethanol .


But how times have changed! A few days ago the auto industry urged the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to delay raising the allowable ethanol blend in gasoline from the current 10% to 15% - citing tests which indicate that more ethanol will damage many car engines. EPA signaled last year that it would probably bend to pressure from the ethanol industry and permit the higher blend rates.


Ethanol producers like ADM have been campaigning to reinforce the ethanol mandate by forcing oil companies (and the motoring public) to consume more ethanol. This pressure has been intensified by the introduction of a new association (Growth Energy headed by former general Wesley Clark) combined with existing groups like the National Corn Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Coalition for Ethanol, Governors' Coalition for Ethanol, the Ethanol Information and Promotion Council, Corn Refiners Association, National Biodiesel Council and many others -- the coalition has practically co-opted "public dialogue" on the subject. Growth Energy alone is reportedly spending more than $2.5 million on an ad campaign hyping ethanol.

As the battle royal shapes up, many drivers of older cars sit helpless on the sidelines. Others are teaming with renegade gas station owners who refuse to convert their storage tanks for ethanol. Signs are emerging along the roadside "No Ethanol in Our Gas!" But it is getting late. If the ethanolics win this round, many cars will be damaged and owners "will be walking, eventually" according to one General Motors executive, C. Coleman Jones, who happens to head GM's biofuel implementation program. For boat enthusiasts, motorcycle riders and other recreational vehicle owners, the higher ethanol blends could prove disastrous.


Chances of mid-level auto executives blocking the ethanol juggernaut are slim. Never mind that the older cars run fine on so-called "old fashioned (non-ethanol) gas" and those cars may well be the only transport option for many workers who are barely holding on. If EPA folds to ethanol demands this time, the sounds of screeching and clunking will be heard around the world.

Nicholas E. Hollis is with the Ethanol Transparency Project.

Where do you get this crap? I've run 10% in my 72 Vette, 454 with no problem and you mention harming boat motors, well it ran fine in my twin 500Hp Cigarette.

 

[Tom Sessions]

It is a hugh issue in the outboard motors. These owners are having to run fuel treatments to offset the ill affects of the Ethanol on the fuel systems.

 

[Yellow32]

Where do you get this crap? I've run 10% in my 72 Vette, 454 with no problem and you mention harming boat motors, well it ran fine in my twin 500Hp Cigarette.

WE are not talking of 10%, we are talking of 15%, that's half again as much and there are industry persons saying this is bad.

Yes, agreed, 10% appears to be fine in all applications...

 

[Goehner]

Stories from FL have reported that the higher blend ethanol can rot away the plastic/fiberglass tanks and fuel lines on boats. I think the engine tests are ongoing.

 

[jimchris]

WE are not talking of 10%, we are talking of 15%, that's half again as much and there are industry persons saying this is bad.

Yes, agreed, 10% appears to be fine in all applications...

What about E-85, around here the racers love it. It's 105 octane, a little carb tune and they have cheap race car fuel. It's running about .60 a gal cheaper than reg. gas. I run E-85 in my Suburban I think it's great. I like the idea of fuel from the U.S. not from the Mid East.

 

[jimchris]

Yellow32, I read your original post again and you sure don't know as much about this topic as you think you do. Gas stations do not need to convert tanks to sell the E-10 or E-15. Ethanol is a choice not a mandate like you say.

 

[Tom F&L GoR]

I'd like to hear more about the outboard problems - specifically whether they are carbureted?

If 10% ethanol doesn't affect plastics, seals, etc, then 15% shouldn't either. The only cars that may perform differently are those older carburetted engines for which the use of 15% ethanol (and therefore about 5% lean mixture) induces a driveability problem while warming up. Under full load a carburetor is rich and this should come out to be OK, under part load the lean mixture may promote engine knock, but the higher octane of ethanol may counteract this.

Two stroke engines that mix oil into the fuel may have to look for oils that claim lubricity features for ethanol containing fuels.

To use E85 the engine must be designed for it (i.e. be a flex-fuel engine); an older carbureted engine won't run. And the 85% ethanol probably requires more robust, anti-corrosion hardware.

 

[jimchris]

Tom, good educated post on ethanol. On the E-85 you are correct, only run in a flex-fuel auto. Many around here are running E-85 in truck pulling and stock car racing but the carbs are built and motors tuned to run this 105 octane fuel. Makes cheap race car fuel.

 

[Yellow32]

What about E-85, around here the racers love it. It's 105 octane, a little carb tune and they have cheap race car fuel. It's running about .60 a gal cheaper than reg. gas. I run E-85 in my Suburban I think it's great. I like the idea of fuel from the U.S. not from the Mid East.

I'm sorry, but, do you even know what you are talking about?

E85 means 85% ethanol! (and 15% gasoline)

If you put that in a "street car" that is not compliant you will ultimately DESTROY the motor+fuel system and need a complete rebuild.

-J

 

[Yellow32]

Yellow32, I read your original post again and you sure don't know as much about this topic as you think you do. Gas stations do not need to convert tanks to sell the E-10 or E-15. Ethanol is a choice not a mandate like you say.

Wait a second, I just posted the text of a story on the Energy Tribune website, I did *not* write that article.

Gas stations must have compliant fuel storage tanks otherwise Ethanol will eat through them, so, yes, gas stations do have to upgrade if they have not already.

Some states (in the USA/Canada) do mandate ethanol, but, not all.

Check here:

Ethanol Free Premium Coalition

scroll to the bottom of the page.

 

[plumcrazy]

doesnt E85 burn twice as much fuel for the same power though ? so half the mpg ?

 

[Yellow32]

doesnt E85 burn twice as much fuel for the same power though ? so half the mpg ?

See this article:

E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

It claims about 26.5% worse mileage for E85 (so not quite as bad as 50% worse).

 

[jimchris]

See this article:

E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

It claims about 26.5% worse mileage for E85 (so not quite as bad as 50% worse).

I have a Suburban that runs E-85, it gets 3 mpg worse mileage(14 on E-85 and 17 on E-10). If you do the math E-85 needs to be about .40-.45 cheaper to break even, it's now running .65 cheaper.

 

[jimchris]

Wait a second, I just posted the text of a story on the Energy Tribune website, I did *not* write that article.

Gas stations must have compliant fuel storage tanks otherwise Ethanol will eat through them, so, yes, gas stations do have to upgrade if they have not already.

Some states (in the USA/Canada) do mandate ethanol, but, not all.

Check here:

Ethanol Free Premium Coalition

scroll to the bottom of the page.

Ethanol will not eat through a fuel storage tank. Only tanks used for E-85 need upgrade not E-10 or 15. The reason for upgrading the E-85 tank is it will clean the crud out of an old tank. They still use the same old rail cars and semi tankers for transporting Ethanol.

 

[Viperless]

I'm sorry, but, do you even know what you are talking about?

E85 means 85% ethanol! (and 15% gasoline)

If you put that in a "street car" that is not compliant you will ultimately DESTROY the motor+fuel system and need a complete rebuild.

-J

This is simply not true. Do some research. I converted my '99 GTS with a Roe supercharger to run on E85. As long as you have a way to increase fuel flow by 30-40% by either running larger injectors and/or by tuning, the engine will never know the difference.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[plumcrazy]

there is a gen1 TT running around on this fuel exclusively. i know it was setup to run it.

 

[Yellow32]

Ethanol will not eat through a fuel storage tank. Only tanks used for E-85 need upgrade not E-10 or 15. The reason for upgrading the E-85 tank is it will clean the crud out of an old tank. They still use the same old rail cars and semi tankers for transporting Ethanol.

Last time I checked there were no fiberglass rail cars or tanker trucks (not sure what your point of that is?). They are made of iron/steel/really hard stuff though their interior linings do differ, not all are suitable for ethanol transport. See:

Tank car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And some fuel storage tanks do require updates, for instance, see here:

http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/er/...ER-BST-PL-EthanolMotorFuelStorageOverview.pdf

and

Ethanol Fact Sheet: Storage Tank Owners, Bureau of Air Quality, Department of Environmental Protection

 

[Yellow32]

This is simply not true. Do some research. I converted my '99 GTS with a Roe supercharger to run on E85. As long as you have a way to increase fuel flow by 30-40% by either running larger injectors and/or by tuning, the engine will never know the difference.

So, what would have happened if you did not perform the conversion and continued using E85? All the research I pull up says you will eventually harm your motor (not one one tank or two, but continuous use of only E85).

?

 

[Viperless]

So, what would have happened if you did not perform the conversion and continued using E85? All the research I pull up says you will eventually harm your motor (not one one tank or two, but continuous use of only E85).

?

Not sure what you mean by "conversion". What exactly is going to harm the engine? The fuel itself?

I made no changes to any component in the engine. It's really no different than increasing the power output of an engine. If you bolt on a supercharger, you need to supply the engine with additional fuel. If you want to burn E85, you need to make sure you supply it with the correct amount of fuel also because it takes ~30% richer air fuel ratio. Running E85 will not harm your engine. Improper tuning could just like any other power modification.

If you take a non flex fuel car and fill the tank with E85, it might run but it will not run well. The 02 sensors will detect the leaner burn and the engine's ECU will attempt to richen up the mixture to compensate but it can only go so far. If you continued to run the car that way I suppose it's possible that the result would be some kind of long term damage from the lean burn. The octane rating is so high I doubt it would detonate. But the engine would most likely run so bad you'd stop after the first tank full. I've heard of people running a 50/50 mixture of E85 and gasoline in a non flex fuel car with no problems. If oil companies bump the ethanol content to 15%, your car will have NO problem compensating.

 

[Dom426h]

This is simply not true. Do some research. I converted my '99 GTS with a Roe supercharger to run on E85. As long as you have a way to increase fuel flow by 30-40% by either running larger injectors and/or by tuning, the engine will never know the difference.

It is obvious that what Yellow meant to say was that you cant just pull up to a E85 pump with a "normal" car and fill her up.

Many people like you have done a "conversion" to run E85.
Im interested in seeing a before/after dyno comparisons to see if the less MPG is traded off with more power but havnt come across any. Did you dyno Viperless?

Does anyone know of an N/A viper running E85 ? Before/After Dyno?

 

[Viperless]

It is obvious that what Yellow meant to say was that you cant just pull up to a E85 pump with a "normal" car and fill her up.

Many people like you have done a "conversion" to run E85.
Im interested in seeing a before/after dyno comparisons to see if the less MPG is traded off with more power but havnt come across any. Did you dyno Viperless?

Does anyone know of an N/A viper running E85 ? Before/After Dyno?

There is a lot of misinformation about the use of E85. Yellow's statement "If you put that in a "street car" that is not compliant you will ultimately DESTROY the motor+fuel system and need a complete rebuild." is very misleading. What is "not compliant". How is it going to destroy the motor and fuel system? Cars have been running on 10% ethanol fuel for years.

Up here in the ethanol capitol of the world, the loss in MPG is more than offset by the difference in price vs. premium. .80 to 1.00 per gallon in most cases. Compare the cost to 100 octane race gas and it's a no brainer. E85 wins hands down.

E85 shines in boosted applications. Not only is it high octane, but it has an intercooling affect in the combustion chamber as well. Perfect for a Roe car which has no intercooler. I went from 660 rwhp to 710 rwhp just from switching to E85. Much better than the 5% hp bump they claim you'll get but that was with forced induction. Naturally aspirated might not see any hp gain unless you have a way to tweak the timing and fuel curves.

Because E85 is so detonation resistant, you also get an expanded safety margin if something was to go wrong with your fuel system causing the engine to run lean. I've personally witnessed turbocharged cars at the drags pull the line off the wastegate, which let's the turbo make as much boost as it can, 35 psi in one case, and it didn't detonate (the ecu didn't pull 1 degree of timing).

I got 16 mpg on the highway with E85 and 20 with gas.

It's a wonderful fuel and people are catching on.

 

[white out]

I'm sorry, but, do you even know what you are talking about?

E85 means 85% ethanol! (and 15% gasoline)

If you put that in a "street car" that is not compliant you will ultimately DESTROY the motor+fuel system and need a complete rebuild.

-J

Depending on the car, you don't have to do anything besides tune for E85. Most new car fuel systems are fine with E85, but require bigger injectors to compensate for more fuel.

Ex: a WRX needs 740cc injectors, walbro255lph, and a tune to run E85 (stock injectors are 440cc and the oem pump can't keep up with 740cc injectors); then the car is running the equivalent of race fuel, so it makes a considerable amount of power over 93.

If it wasn't such a pita to convert the Viper, I would be running E85.

I highly doubt that E15 will have adverse affects on most automotive applications. With 40+ year old vehicles requiring some new fuel lines.

Nick

 

[jimchris]

Jay Leno also has a Z06 set up and tuned to run E85.

 

[Lawrenzo]

I have a Suburban that runs E-85, it gets 3 mpg worse mileage(14 on E-85 and 17 on E-10). If you do the math E-85 needs to be about .40-.45 cheaper to break even, it's now running .65 cheaper.

You do save in a Micro scale. However, if you factor in the $3 Billion in tax subsidies offered to the ethanol industry and the increase cost to our food supply it's really costing us all ALOT more

 

[jimchris]

You do save in a Micro scale. However, if you factor in the $3 Billion in tax subsidies offered to the ethanol industry and the increase cost to our food supply it's really costing us all ALOT more

The oil industry gets more than 3 billion in subsidies. What food are you eating that has gone up in price due to ethanol?

 

[Lawrenzo]

Yes they get a larger subsidy, however they produce a 1000 times more product. As far as my diet goes, my ears of corn now cost a buck and everything made with high fructose corn syrup has been effected. Plus there's this-

"According to scientists in New York and California, it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get back in fuel savings. More precisely, says David Pimentel of Cornell University, it takes the equivalent of 1.29 gallons of gasoline to produce enough ethanol to replace one gallon of gasoline at the pump. Instead of making the nation more energy self-sufficient, ethanol production actually increases our need for oil and gas imports, Pimentel says"

 

[jimchris]

Yes they get a larger subsidy, however they produce a 1000 times more product. As far as my diet goes, my ears of corn now cost a buck and everything made with high fructose corn syrup has been effected. Plus there's this-

"According to scientists in New York and California, it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get back in fuel savings. More precisely, says David Pimentel of Cornell University, it takes the equivalent of 1.29 gallons of gasoline to produce enough ethanol to replace one gallon of gasoline at the pump. Instead of making the nation more energy self-sufficient, ethanol production actually increases our need for oil and gas imports, Pimentel says"

These numbers are unfair because they calculate the cost from the time you till the field to the time it goes the the ethanol plant. We have hundreds of millions bushels of surplus corn in the U.S. and 1 bushel makes about 2.8 gals of ethanol. I say buy U.S. fuel not Mid East oil. Ethanol is a choice if you don't like it don't buy it. You probably don't like drilling for oil either. Have you looked into converting your Viper to electric.

 

[Lawrenzo]

These numbers are unfair because they calculate the cost from the time you till the field to the time it goes the the ethanol plant. We have hundreds of millions bushels of surplus corn in the U.S. and 1 bushel makes about 2.8 gals of ethanol. I say buy U.S. fuel not Mid East oil. Ethanol is a choice if you don't like it don't buy it. You probably don't like drilling for oil either. Have you looked into converting your Viper to electric.

No, I'm all in for "Drill Baby Drill". I just don't think ethanol is the long term solution to our energy needs. Frankly, I think we should build more nuclear power plants and have a large percentage of our transportation network run on electricity.
Why on earth do you think I'd ever want an electric Viper though

 

[jimchris]

No, I'm all in for "Drill Baby Drill". I just don't think ethanol is the long term solution to our energy needs. Frankly, I think we should build more nuclear power plants and have a large percentage of our transportation network run on electricity.
Why on earth do you think I'd ever want an electric Viper though

We agree on one thing Drill Baby Drill. Ethanol may not be the long term solution but we have it as an option today. I thought at first you was sounding all green peace. No oil,no nuc plants, no coal etc. I also agree on more Nuc plants.