E85, 85% fossil fuel free...
 

I converted my Sonic over to run E85, in part for increased power (which certainly delivered) but also in part to reduce my petroleum use.

I average 33 mpg running gasoline with 10% ethanol and driving like I normally do, which is to say hard pulls up onramps, 15 miles over the speed limit, dropping down to fourth to pass people and generally misbehaving. Driving the same way on E85, I get about 22mpg.

Driving nicely, not hypermiling, but taking it slow, shifting early, keeping the rpm under 2K as much as possible, and staying within a couple mph of the speed limit, I get as high as 40 mpg on gasoline, and on my single test tank of this strategy for E85, 31mpg.

Doing some back of the envelope calculations, I seem to be getting
normal gasoline driving, 37 mpg of gasoline
sensible gasoline driving, 44 mpg of gasoline
normal E85 driving, 147 mpg of gasoline
sensible E85 driving, 207 mpg of gasoline

Now of course ethanol isn't completely harmless, and is often produced using petroleum, so this isn't a totally fair comparison, but on the face of it, it looks like running E85 is a very green mod, at least in terms of dramatically reducing petroleum consumption.

How you exactly converted it? Installed an flexfuel box?

Swapped. In 42# injectors, a couple feet of ethanol resistant fuel line, alcohol sensor and harness out of a Buick regal, and a tune designed.to detect ethanol percentage and react appropriately. Pretty simple really.

Considering ethanol energy content is around 30% lower than regular gasoline, E85 is actually 59.5% fossil fuel free. BTW here in the Republic of Bananas the Sonic is available with an E100-capable (real flexfuel) engine :D

I don't do anything to my old Fords to run straight E85. Except for poor WOT response, it works.

Poor WOT response is the opposite of what I get running E85; to take full advantage of the potential I had to install a stronger clutch, and then burned that out and had to install an even stronger clutch. E85 has less energy per volume but you can run it at a much faster timing, the equivalent of 106 octane. I've seen as high as 250 hp on my ultragauge in a car that stock delivered 138, and running gasoline with my other modifications never went higher than 195 on the same gauge. I know those aren't highly accurate numbers and don't reflect power to the ground, but they are indicative of how much relative increase E85 can deliver.

Here, though, I was more interested in discussing how much less gasoline the fuel lets me use.

I'm jealous of Brazil and its Cane ethanol, running around on Corn is nice but I know yours was developed more efficiently. And 100% would be, pun intended, sweet.

As long as its cast iron :) nothin like lean burn at WOT

My solution is to stay out of WOT. Most of the time I run blends so it isn't an issue then anyway.

Sweet. I've been hearing about the flexfuel sensors being used in aftermarket conversions. I figured it was a new/unknown thing back when I heard about it.

I think we have an unspoken agreement to keep the E85 stuff out of the Fossil Fuel free section. Even though minimal amounts of Petroleum are to make Ethanol, it's 15-30% Gasoline at the pump depending on the season. Usually we post topics under the Efficiency sub-forum or in Central.

But anyway, good to hear E85 hasn't been forgotten. I'm saving to buy a Subaru BRZ myself and the Flexfuel conversion with tune is going to be the first thing I buy for it.

Um - how exactly is ethanol free from fossil fuels? An awful lot of diesel and natural gas goes into growing corn and distilling it and refining it into ethanol.

Not even Brazilian ethanol is fossil-free, if we consider the lube oils used in the farming machinery.

EVs aren't Fossil Fuel Free either.

I don't run the site and I don't set the rules. So I'm just making an observation here. We don't have a section that specifically includes Ethanol or E85. But what about Methanol, Biodiesel, or even Natural Gas? Those are all legitimate alternatives. Natural Gas is cheap and the Alcohols are considered next generation liquid fuels.

Point taken. The other point I meant to make is that E85 is still 15% gasoline.

I covered that earlier. There was a recent rule change that changed the minimum Ethanol content from 70% to 51%. I'm watching to see how that turns out.

I would much rather that blender pumps become more common. Even one pump at every station would be better than the current situation of E10 everywhere, E0 being rare, and E85 being uncommon. Some cars or small engines don't run well on Gasohol while people like me want E85 to be available at competitive prices instead of one station dictating the price. Plus E30 is usually a better cost per mile so there's that.

And electricity *can* come from carbon free sources.

Biodiesel is still my favorite option regarding alternative fuels. I've already used E100 and CNG before, and altough I'm not a fan of gaseous fuels CNG can be a valid option regarding fossil-free due to the use of biomethane instead of fossil Natural Gas.

Neil, are you familiar with the GREET results?

Forgive me if I tend to be more of a realist but carbon free doesn't do anything for me. Especially considering that in reality the vast majority of electricity is still from fossil fuel sources. Now mix hybrid engines with flexfuel and I might be more receptive. The initial cost of batteries is a huge drawback to me.

My college uses biodiesel in their buses but that's as close as I've been. I'm not as big on biodiesel just because of how rooted Spark ignition engines are in American society. Diesel pumps are fairly common but biodiesel is especially rare.

If I can suggest something to the OP (and others contemplating a conversion). My understanding is that the OEM flex fuel vehicles include a flame arrestor - fine stainless mesh across the pipe diameter - in the fuel filler neck. It might be worth fitting that as it's there for a reason. I have yet to see someone convert to E85 and state that they did include the arrestor so two things come to mind:

One is seldom fitted.

The risk associated with its absence is small.

I would still want it to be there though.

I hang around on a couple E85 forums and most don't even touch the fuel lines. Some people do as a preventative or for super high power but typically it's just a tune and go. I've never even heard of a flame arrestor being used, ever.

I did swap the fuel line for an alcohol resistant one, but haven't heard of a flame arrestor, will look into it.

I do wonder what about ethanol would require this while gasoline, another liquid with highly flammable vapor, does not. Still, I can't see why the many companies which make flexfuel cars would be spending the money for a piece of gear that doesn't do anything, so if you're right and this is industry standard, I'll certainly look into the reasoning.

(edit to add) here's a quote from EHow:
So they say the reason for the spark arrestor is that ethanol is both more conductive (more likely to generate a spark, I guess?) and more flammable.

The 1.4T engine in the Sonic was designed for E85, so I didn't have to replace most of the components they list here, the injectors I replaced because I needed a higher max volume. I did address the spark advance as part of redoing the tune to run E85.

That ^ is my (limited) understanding of why it's there; wider flammability limits (too rich in a gas tank to support a flame with gas, less so with ethanol) and that it is possible to generate a static charge when filling with the ethanol.

It's easy and cheap enough to do, with the consequences of it being needed and not there bad enough that I think it's worth doing, even if the overall risk is low.

I never seen flame arrestors not even in Brazilian dedicated-ethanol cars either factory-fitted or converted.

Please start tracking your MPG run 3 E10 tanks, then 3 E58 tanks, if your MPG drop of 1/3 from E10 to E85 is true that's worst than any of the FFV I'v owned ever did. Her Impala goes from 28is to 22ish with her commute (not 15 mph over) but only 4 miles HWY each way. Even when she was driving a K Suburban it only went from 15 mph down to 12.5. I would like to make my Cobalt FFV, but really don't think I need to change a thing, I've ran 40% blend in the Malibu and Stratus without issue. Just haven't played with it yet as E85 is cost prohibited at the moment.

If you're worried about price there's not much difference in MPG between E10 and E30. BTW, the EPA is trying to push for E30 as an alternative to Premium which IMHO is a much better solution than the E15 crap being pushed by the RFA: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/au...nol.html?_r=1& It's never going to pass the current Congress though. There's just no way. :(

Besides more power, Premium allows for more fuel efficient engines. So this could encourage more efficient engines. Competing against premium would give Ethanol an advantage price wise and finally provide a niche for higher Ethanol blends. But this is at least 5-10 years before this plan could happen. At this point none of the flexfuel cars take advantage of higher blends of Ethanol, they make only marginally more power due to tuning.

They're going to wish they passed the Flexfuel mandate back when support was high. We wouldn't have near the FUD if all new cars were flexfuel. I've no doubt that the E15 fiasco hurt the EPA's credibility and they ran the most testing they've ever done. Plus they alienated many car makers.

Sooo, who's running the moonshine now?
Attachment 13219
It might be a good time to try some splash blending. :D

The price between e85 and regular gas is that little in the states, 22% ? I'd say not worth using it on those prices.
We have about 60% difference between them, so it is worth using it in Finland :D

Ethanol can only be a solution if it's not competing with food supply.
It's bad enough that most biofuels will almost always compete for available farmland.

As long as it's the corn industry pushing for higher ethanol levels, something's wrong.
There's far more efficient ways and plants to make biofuels, that don't directly compete with food supply.

^Wrong. All the evidence points to people not giving a rat's *** about food supplies: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...oney-9414.html

https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=17&gs_...w=1280&bih=699

Perhaps food is wasted even in Belgium:
http://selinajuul.blogspot.com/2012/...l-tragedy.html

Wouldn't it be the smart thing to do, to address the demand side of the equation?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/w...8#.UbonJvlOT44

A good rule of thumb for saving money is that whenever E85 is at least 20% cheaper than regular, get it- if you're gonna run straight E85. Blends- it doesn't matter.

Well, E85 is consumed average 30% more than regular fuel. I'd say 30% is the rule of thumb for me.
Then someone would say newer cars can use the booze more efficiently. But then in other hand, those cars can use regular gas more efficiently too... So still, i could say 30% price difference is where is the line.

Then YMMV- know- not guess- how much mpg drop your car gets and buy accordingly.

The actual BTU difference is about 25% less in the summer and 20% less in the winter. Given that E10 has less energy than "pure" Gasoline which has 3% more energy than Gasohol.

That number is compared to "100%" Gasoline(which is to say it doesn't contain ethanol). It's both rare and more expensive than E10/Gasohol here. Which fuel is actually cheaper depends heavily on the local fuel market. Some straight Gasoline is cheaper, some places it's E10 or even E85.

Ethanol demand is too low to justify other feedstocks. Corn Ethanol might not be the cleanest or the cheapest but it's available and it's plentiful. Not that I disagree with you on more/better feedstocks, I'm just being realistic here. Most if not all of the issues with Ethanol now are what it's made out of. Ethanol itself is cleaner, cheaper, and higher octane than Gasoline.
If you haven't noticed that Premium Gasoline prices have gotten closer to Regular in the last few years.
Attachment 13225
Attachment 13226
It's just a fact that Ethanol is far cheaper than the high octane alternatives.

That may be, but there isn't a direct correlation between BTU content and mpgs.

You are correct, of course.

That's why I'm favorable to cellulosic ethanol since it can be made out of almost any agricultural residue, and the usage of meat-processing leftovers to produce biodiesel and biomethane too. Well, there are many other ways to overcome the competition with food supplies.

The problem with cellulosic ethanol is no one has really figured it out yet and when they do its still not going to be cheap.
I say they should have gone with cellulosic methanol. The feed stock can be wood chips, the byproduct is charcoal that can be used as fertlizer or burned at certian power plants. Its been technically possible, commercially and economically viable most of the time since world war II.
Only time it isn't economical is when natural gas is really cheap like it is now.
Any diesel engine could be fitted with a methanol intake fumigator, so the diesels wouldn't have the corssion problems the current gassers would have.

Last time I had good number on it (2 or 3 years ago), bulk methanol could be had for about $1/gal.

[QUOTE=oil pan 4;37635I say they should have gone with cellulosic methanol. The feed stock can be wood chips, the byproduct is charcoal that can be used as fertlizer or burned at certian power plants. Its been technically possible, commercially and economically viable most of the time since world war II.[/QUOTE]

Wood chips were used to produce even gasoline during WW2 in Poland and Germany.

Only problem with making gasoline out of wood chips is its pretty expensive.
Methanol is just real easy to make.
You can use natural gas, wood chips, coal, just what every is cheap.

By driving carefully I can get 31 mpg on E85. By driving carefully I can get 40 mpg out of 93 E10. Driving normally, I get 22mpg on E85, and 31mpg on 87 E10. In PA last winter I was paying around 3.30 a gallon for E85, 3.50 a gallon 87 E10, and 3.90 a gallon 93 E10. But in Texas this spring I was paying 2.78 a gallon E85 while 87 was running 3.50. E85's viability from an economic standpoint is very based on how large the discrepancy between it and pump gas is. Even driving 25 miles out of my way to get to the E85 pump I still felt like I was getting a decent deal in Texas, here, it's just something that makes my car more fun, it actually ends up costing me money to use E85 instead.

I wonder specifically about the tax issue; it seems to me the way to make E85 more economically viable is simple enough; don't tax it. The tax on gasoline is a significant portion of the price we pay, if we paid tax only on gas, and not on ethanol, then the tax would be 10% lower on E10 and 85% lower on E85. They could even raise the tax, by exactly enough (coincidentally) to leave the tax the same on E10.

A non-trivial portion of the fleet today is flexfuel ready, but most people are still putting gasoline in their tanks because that's a cheaper way to travel. I would think widening the gap between the two liquids would be all it would take to significantly increase the number of people actually using the fuel, and that might also affect the car buying public, increasing demand for flexfuel cars... and that in turn encourage the car manufacturers to make the things.

Get adoption rates and use rates higher, more stations put in flexfuel pumps, and alternate forms of ethanol production get easier to finance. Everybody wins, except the petroleum producing countries.

Sure, but since the range with gasoline is still higher than with methanol, that might worth to overcome the cost :thumbup: