Re: Experience driving with E85

On Jun 12, 7:19 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 12, 2:27 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Looking at the history of sci.chem I see that the major debate here
about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. There was a lot of
misinformation then, some of which can now be refuted by
experimentation by an individual -- not a lab.

I have access to four E85 fuel stations (gas stations that sell E85
also) in Albany, NY. I took the risk of mixing E85 with E10 in my
1999 Subaru Outback, well beyond the age at which the warranty
matters. I found that if I mixed half and half, my check-engine light
came on after a few days. The code was "fuel trim", as one would
expect, since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase
the richness of the mixture required for stochiometric burning.

I diluted the mix in the tank to 30% ethanol and the light went off in
only 7 miles of driving. I found that my car had better performance.
I could feel the acceleration in this old heap, unlike before. (No,
my fuel pump did not crumble into bits. Misinformation point 1)

That was encouraging. So I bought a converter, inspired by a Brazilian
invention, that stretches the electrical pulse to the fuel injectors
and quickly installed it. And I filled up with straight E85. That
was a month ago.

So here is how it has worked out. (This is personal experience, which
happens to agree with others one can find on the internet, and which
trumps the calculations of the armchair observers.)

It was written in this newsgroup that ethanol is much less efficient
than gasoline. It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about
30% less than that of gasoline. My 16-gallon tank can't take me quite
as far with E85 than with gasoline. I can live with that.

But the MPG penalty between E85 and gasoline is only 15%, not 30%, in
my experience. Some physicist is going to write me that this violates
the conservation of energy. But as a physicist myself, I am familiar
with the concept that (Energy Out) = (Energy In) x (Efficiency), which
defines the kind of efficiency I am talking about now.

The chemical energy of ethanol is Energy In to an automobile. But
what counts in life is Energy Out. Ethanol burns more efficiently in
an internal combustion engine than gasoline.

Not so. IF you modify an engine with the higher compression ratio EtOH
can use, it might be true, but putting EtOH in any blend in a gasoline-
tuned engine will not burn any more efficiently.

From the MPG numbers, I
have to conclude that the efficiency (in the current sense) of E85 is
twice as high as that of gasoline.

Considering the tiny amount of unburned hydrocarbons from any modern
automobile, they all burn gasoline so efficiently your premise is
simply not possible.

Hence the much smaller MPG
penalty. (It is explained in terms of ignition timing and burning
rate.)

I suggest you read what real, instrumented tests show.

But what concerns me more than MPG is MPD, or miles per dollar. E85
today costs $3.05 per gallon; Gasoline (regular) is $4.20. I am
getting about 7 miles per dollar, versus only 6 with gasoline.

Generally, it's said buy E85 only if it's 25% below gas, as it gives
25% less energy.

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline. (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.)

But again, NO engine sold is designed to take advantage of that.
You'd need a higher compression ratio.

The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

But they both put out the same mass of CO2 per joule of energy
produced. And EtOH produces acetaldehyde.

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported. I am a happy
driver.

Uncle Ben

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lloyd was kind enough to send me the Consumer Reports article he
cited. Their overall conclusion was that ethanol is a scam, costing
the motorist more money than he would spend on gasoline per dollar as
well as per mile. I accept their measured facts, but I differ from
their conclusions when applied to my car.

Here are their bullet points with my comment:

---

* The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on
E85 compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10
mpg (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage
we’ve gotten from any vehicle in recent years.

UB (Uncle Ben): I can't argue with their measurements on the Tahoe,
but my Subaru Outback gave a much different results: 25 mpg down to 21
MPG . They chose the Tahoe because it is a big SUV, and most Flex-
Fuel cars are big cars. I say they were unwise to base such a broad
conclusion, "ethanol is a scam," on only one test car.

* With the retail pump price of E85 averaging $2.91 per gallon in
August, according to the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks
petroleum and other fuel prices, a 27 percent fuel-economy penalty
means drivers would have paid an average of $3.99 for the energy
equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.

UB: That was in 2006. Today the E85 in my town is $3.05, and gasoline
$4.20. My response is, "So what's your point?" Even with their
Tahoe, today it is a wash. With my Outback, it is about 18% cheaper to
use E85.

But will E85 stay low? It's being sold low now in the new areas it's
being introduced to, but will it stay there? Historically, it's been
about 25% below regular, the same as its fuel mileage is below
regular's, so it's a wash.


* When we calculated the Tahoe’s driving range, we found that it
decreased to about 300 miles on a full tank of E85 compared with about
440 on gasoline. So you have to fill up more often with E85.

UB: Granted.

* The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get
relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline. So they will cost you a
lot at the pump, no matter which fuel you use.

UB: Moral-- Don't buy a Tahoe. But today any car will cost you a lot
at the pump.

* Because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers
in the country have no access to the fuel, even if they want it. For
our Tahoe test, for example, we had to blend our own (see The great
E85 fuel hunt).

UB: That was in 2006. There are still a few states that have no E85
pumps, but in Minnesota, it seems there is one on every street
corner. New York is not a mid-western state, but we have quite a few,
not to mention that the state government has E85 pumps not available
to the public for use by state car fleets. They are believers like
me.


Just a small handful in Georgia, all in Atlanta.

And you're aware of the moisture contamination problems, right?
You've got to be real careful.

* The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy
credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it
never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling
large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many
times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces.

UB: Again, things have changed since 2006. SUV production is
disappearing now that gasoline is increasing in price hyperbolically.


True, but any vehicle sold as E85 gives the auto makers huge benefits,
as the calculation by the EPA is the vehicle runs on E85 half the
time, and for that half, its mileage is calculated only on the 15%
that's gasoline. Net effect is to raise a vehicle's "official"
mileage by 50%.

But the actual mileage is lowered -- look at the window sticker.

---

In short, CR was short-sighted. A lot has changed since 2006, and
today it doesn't require a fortune teller to see that the price of
gasoline is only going to increase year over year as oil gets scarcer
and the Chinese and Indians continue to drive more and more cars. And
the price of gasoline likely to increase faster than the price of
ethanol, in spite of the fact that the more ethanol is used, the lower
the upward pressure on gasoline prices.

And nothing in their measurements negates my measurements on my own
car. I think you can trust me as a Ph. D. in experimental physics to
measure MPG in my car without any major blunders and to calculate my
cost per mile for fuel.

Uncle Ben

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experience driving with E85
    ... about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. ... And I filled up with straight E85. ... It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about ... 30% less than that of gasoline. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Ethanol (The Corn Lobby Corn Holes America)
    ... 15 years ago I put in a 1000 gallon fuel storage tank to get me ... supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound ... ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. ... its energy salvation is at hand. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Experience driving with E85
    ... about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. ... since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase ...  And I filled up with straight E85. ... 30% less than that of gasoline. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Para levantar um pouco a moral das cobaias
    ... Flexible-fuel vehicles are seen as a way to cut our use of gasoline because ... they can run on a fuel that is mostly grain-based ethanol distilled in the ... E85 or any mix of gasoline and ethanol in between. ... But you risk ruining a conventional vehicle if you ...
    (soc.culture.brazil)
  • For those with gasoline powered boats
    ... IMPORTANT UPDATE FOR BOATS WITH GASOLINE ENGINES ... ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE AND YOUR BOAT ... Ethanol is primarily alcohol, and for years we have been ... advised not to use dry gas as an additive in marine fuel systems. ...
    (rec.boats)
Loading