Is E85 a better choice than EVs.

coalnewbie · Post by **coalnewbie** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 5:17 am

So, here goes that stupid CN guy again. As we snuggle around our coal stoves let's see if this is a viable alternative for me. I have local fuel sources and it's reversible. A reminder, I have a 2018 Mustang V8 manual, I would like to examine all the issues including warranty.... So three choices ... leave it alone (a probable winner), E85 retune or an EV. So let me throw my hat in the ring, E85 retune.

On paper, gasoline has about 1.52 times more heating value than ethanol: around 20,723 Btu/lb for gas compared with just 12872 Btu/lb for ethanol. But that doesn't take into account the fuel's specific energy (SE) value, which is derived by dividing the heat value by the air/fuel ratio (Btu/lb ÷ A/F). SE tells us how much heat energy is delivered per pound of air into the motor. Heat energy is power.

Gasoline: 20723 / 14.7 = SE of 1407
Ethanol: 12872 / 7.3 = SE of 1763

At stoichiometric air/fuel ratios, the ethanol’s SE value is around 20% greater than gasoline.

We’re all in agreement that in order to capitalize on ethanol’s additional heat energy and inherently higher octane rating the fuel and ignition maps need to be changed from their current pump gas mapping. Everything else being equal in the engine, ethanol will deliver more power.

Anybody want to play? this way I can pretend I only bought the car as it is good for the planet, you know like BB. Of course, that is a crock of chit but I will try to serve it up to the wife.

lsayre · Post by **lsayre** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 5:51 am

Edmunds Car Research did back to back long distance run tests of 667 miles each (mixing city and highway) and got the following in the same vehicle:

87 octane with 10% ethanol: 18.3 mpg
E85: 13.5 mpg (E85 in this test got 26.2% less MPG)

The U.S. Department of Energy says:

Due to ethanol's lower energy content, FFVs operating on E85 get roughly 15% to 27% fewer miles per gallon than when operating on regular gasoline, depending on the ethanol content.

Note that this is a bit deceiving, leaving you to wonder how much alcohol is in the regular gasoline for the case where E85 only falls behind by 15%, as well as how much alcohol is in the fuel when E85 is worse by 27%. But their article does state elsewhere that 10% ethanol gasoline gets about 3% to 4% less MPG than gasoline with no ethanol content. So you can assume a roughly 3.5% deficit in MPG for every 10% of ethanol.

85/10 = 8.5
8.5 x 3.5% = 29.75%

And based on this the typical E85 MPG deficit would be expected to be 29.5% vs pure gasoline with no ethanol. Or 26% vs. gasoline with 10% ethanol. Which matches Edmunds findings almost perfectly.

Post by **Rob R.** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 6:06 am

The best choice is whatever you prefer.

I am surprised the stock fuel pump and injectors can support the flow rates required for E85.

coalnewbie · Post by **coalnewbie** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 6:15 am

LS, but was the car remapped for E85. I doubt it.

Oh come on Rob, the drag strip driver who used to be known in QC as the crazy from Chazy can be a bit more forthcoming.

I offer more info ...

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 6:51 am

I've kept accurate fuel mileage of my cars up until my latest ride the past eight years. And I keep records of many of my customer's cars because it's used to help check my rebuilding and tuning the motors, fuel system and rebuilding and recalibrating the gas gauge systems. That often involves a lot of engine road testing using accurate measuring equipment. And some of the customers keep very accurate log books of not just maintenance, but fuel mileage, too.

When 10% oxygenated fuels came out, it didn't matter what was used to oxygenate the fuel, we all saw about a 10% drop in fuel mileage. Since ICE motors are just heat pumps and it's heat energy that moves the car, that's about 10% loss of heat energy per gallon. Now that NYS has a lot of e-free stations many of my customers have switched over to using just that to avoid the fuel system corrosion problems associated with using ethanol in early fuel systems. An added benefit is that they are reporting back that they are getting an increase in gas mileage, too.

There's no way to compensate for that heat loss in antique engines by computer "retuning" as you change fuels, so it clearly points out the lower heat available per gallon of ethanol verses ethanol free gasoline.

The more modern engines can compensate somewhat for that so you don't really get to see as much of the difference it makes,.... all things being equal.

Paul

lsayre · Post by **lsayre** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 7:05 am

You're engine will deliver more HP but less MPG.

I just checked, and there isn't a single gas station within a roughly 15-20 mile radius of my house that carries E85. It seems to be slowly going away, as roughly a decade ago it was far more common to see it around here.

Post by **Richard S.** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 7:51 am

Not quite the same because cars don't sit for weeks or even many months with half a tank of gas in them but you would not believe the amount of water my buddy finds in the gas at the small engine shop he has.

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 8:10 am

lsayre wrote: ↑
Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 7:05 am
You're engine will deliver more HP but less MPG. ..............

Gallon for gallon that's false. Running engines that don't have sensors and computers to compensate by increasing fuel flow rates, plus dyno tests, prove it. You can't increase HP by switching to a lower energy fuel without making other changes.

And the loss of gas mileage also proves that,... all ICE engines produce power by heat expansion of the burning fuel. With E10, E15, and E85, etc.. having less energy per gallon, you need to burn more of it just to equal the power output of gasoline without any alcohol. It takes fuel energy to make power and ethanol has less "stored" energy than the same volume of gasoline. To compensate, you either have to use more fuel, or raise the compression ratio and change engine timing to gain back some of the heat energy loss of ethanol.

Paul

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 8:17 am

Richard S. wrote: ↑
Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 7:51 am
Not quite the same because cars don't sit for weeks or even many months with half a tank of gas in them but you would not believe the amount of water my buddy finds in the gas at the small engine shop he has.

Water in the gasoline has been a major problem with antique cars right from the beginning of the use of e-gas. Now that e-free gasoline has becoming more readily available, even though it costs more, many owners have switched to e-free gas and their fuel related problems are gone.

Some have pulled their cars out of long-term storage and found the gas tanks contain many gallons of water in the bottom of the tank because of the phase separation ability of e-gas.

Paul

lsayre · Post by **lsayre** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 8:40 am

I have no "actual" idea as to how a factory designed FFV's handle switching between the two fuels, but I had always "presumed" that there would be a simple switch that you throw to instantly change the engine mapping. Does anyone know if this is the case? Or do they have far more sophistication, and more properly alter the mapping proportionally and automatically based upon sensors and AI? I need an education here.

As to my comment with regard to more HP, it was for the case where engine mapping had been altered to optimize performance with E85, as per the video. Since MPG will be lower, it goes without saying that noticeably more fuel will need to be burned for a given level of top end performance. But the general contention is that top end performance with E85 will exceed top end performance with conventional gasoline, albeit with the given serious penalty in MPG. Various sources place the equivalent octane rating of E85 at 100 to 116. Therefore engine knock is greatly reduced when running on E85. Top end HP increase is reported to be on the order of at least 5%.

But the downside (in the USA at least) is that E85 is not 85% ethanol. It can span anywhere from 51% to 83%. So proper engine mapping for optimal HP and torque related performance gains is likely impossible. Apparently the winter mix will favor the 51% end of the spectrum, and the summer mix will favor the 83% end of the spectrum, as (per what I've read within the past half hour or so today at least) in cold climates it is difficult to get engines to run properly on fully 85% alcohol. The upside here is that 51% ethanol will give better MPG than will 83% ethanol. Perhaps this is where the 15% to 27% MPG penalty figures are derived. With 51% ethanol yielding a roughly 15% MPG hit, and true 85% yielding a 27% MPG hit, and 83% giving a 26% MPG hit.

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 9:56 am

lsayre wrote: ↑
Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 8:40 am
I have no "actual" idea as to how a factory designed FFV's handle switching between the two fuels, but I had always "presumed" that there would be a simple switch that you throw to instantly change the engine mapping. Does anyone know if this is the case? Or do they have far more sophistication, and more properly alter the mapping proportionally and automatically based upon sensors and AI? I need an education here.

As to my comment with regard to more HP, it was for the case where engine mapping had been altered to optimize performance with E85, as per the video. Since MPG will be lower, it goes without saying that noticeably more fuel will need to be burned for a given level of top end performance. But the general contention is that top end performance with E85 will exceed top end performance with conventional gasoline, albeit with the given serious penalty in MPG. Various sources place the equivalent octane rating of E85 at 100 to 116. Therefore engine knock is greatly reduced when running on E85. Top end HP increase is reported to be on the order of at least 5%.

But the downside (in the USA at least) is that E85 is not 85% ethanol. It can span anywhere from 51% to 83%. So proper engine mapping for optimal HP and torque related performance gains is likely impossible. Apparently the winter mix will favor the 51% end of the spectrum, and the summer mix will favor the 83% end of the spectrum, as (per what I've read within the past half hour or so today at least) in cold climates it is difficult to get engines to run properly on fully 85% alcohol. The upside here is that 51% ethanol will give better MPG than will 83% ethanol. Perhaps this is where the 15% to 27% MPG penalty figures are derived. With 51% ethanol yielding a roughly 15% MPG hit, and true 85% yielding a 27% MPG hit, and 83% giving a 26% MPG hit.

The HP gains are not because of energy in the fuel, but because the higher natural octane of ethanol allows an increase in compression - either by mechanical means of changing the compression ratio of bore to combustion chamber volumes, and/or, by boosting the supercharging of the intake system. The same can be done by using a higher octane e-free gasoline (such as Avgas) without the penalty of higher fuel flow needed and thus lower MPG.

If MPG be damned, than use the E85 and lots of boost, but beware if you have to go back to E10, E15.

Which brings up the old auto mechanic's joke.

Knock-knock. Who's there ? Your pistons trying to get out.

Paul

Paul

bambooboy · Post by **bambooboy** » Sat. Sep. 29, 2018 6:21 pm

Richard S. wrote: ↑
Mon. Sep. 24, 2018 7:51 am
Not quite the same because cars don't sit for weeks or even many months with half a tank of gas in them but you would not believe the amount of water my buddy finds in the gas at the small engine shop he has.

Maybe the problem is small engines gas tank has to be vented,my model a trk has a vented gas cap that can cause problems if vent is clogged up.modern cars have a closed system for the entire fuel system & may be the reason for no water buildup in tank

Post by **Richard S.** » Sun. Sep. 30, 2018 5:03 am

bambooboy wrote: ↑
Sat. Sep. 29, 2018 6:21 pm
Maybe the problem is small engines gas tank has to be vented,my model a trk has a vented gas cap that can cause problems if vent is clogged up.modern cars have a closed system for the entire fuel system & may be the reason for no water buildup in tank

It's the air in the tank and I don't know if a vent cap would help. You need to keep the fuel tank full or empty especially for long term storage like over the winter. Probably one in four coming into the shop have an issue . I've see him dump fuel tanks out and half of it was water. He's Stihl dealer and even Stihl offers extended warranty if you buy two quarts of their fuel. For chainsaws and other 2 cycle engines it's worth it to buy that gas, it's expensive but how much gas does a homeowner use? Just to add there is big difference in performance, it's like 94 or 95 octane which is what you want for chainsaws.

coalnewbie · Post by **coalnewbie** » Mon. Oct. 08, 2018 4:48 pm

OK, this automates the E85 conversion

https://www.advancedfueldynamics.com/products/for ... stang-5-0/

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Oct. 08, 2018 6:06 pm

Sounds impressive, but, …. 3-4% increase in HP over 4500RPM ? You'll feel that difference in your wallet, but not in the seat of your pants.

Plus, there's one big problem,....

Barney will love this,....

It's easier to find an EV charging station than E85 gas.

Most of the gas stations here in CNY have gone the opposite direction and have e-free 91 octane gas at all the pumps.

Paul