EPA implements E85 testing for 2016 model year

[roosterk0031]

"Anyway, the observed fuel mass increasing with ethanol content is appreciably lower than that predictable on the base of tested fuel characteristics."


Effect of Ethanol Content on Thermal Efficiency of a Spark-Ignition Light-Duty Engine


http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/219703/fig5/

[roosterk0031]

"The results showed that the E-10 and E-85 fuels improved energy conversion efficiency but the specific fuel consumption increased when the engine was run on E-85"

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CI...E-_87915_7.pdf

There was one more by MIT I liked but for some reason pdf doesn't want to let me open it again. Using a 2.0 gm turbo DI engine pretty sure cobalt SS, same or similar engine is being used in Malibu's now instead of the V6. It got real technical and over my head quick. Talks about the advantages of using E85 with turbo and it may even eliminate the need for intercoolers as E85 can tolerate higher intake temperatures.

"Effect of Different fuels on a Turbo Charged Direct injected engine"

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Daox

Doesn't this just make sense? Obviously the net worth of someone working for 40+ years should be a lot higher than someone who has been working half of that. It doesn't mean their income is the same though. People budget based off their income, not net worth.

Except if you read the article the 47 times better in 2012 is up from 10 times better in 1984. You would expect they would be higher but 47 times higher and growing?

I know it's not about cars, but it is about subsidies and I was just correcting something Frank threw out there.

[roosterk0031]

Kind of funny how the numbers worked out, E85 up to almost 10% more efficient combustion energy transfer than E0, my suburban lost 18% mpg using E85, from the research I did a few years ago, I found E85 has 28% less energy per volume E0. Pretty sure my fuel source was the N/S Dakota study on mid ethanol blend on MPG. Can't find that one again.

But here's another one that's even better since I used E10 not E0.

http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/HD2-Neb.pdf

"When compared to the E10 ethanol blend, E20, E30 and E85 fuel blends have 3.5%, 7.1% and 26.5% less BTU’s per
gallon."

Don't have time to read it now and too many pages to print. I'll have to tonight at home.


26.5% less energy - 18% less mpg = 8.5% more efficient and in the range from the graph above.

[gone-ot]

Take your pick:

E85 is great for POWER

E0 is great for ECONOMY

[roosterk0031]

Depends how you measure economy. MPG or $/mile. Just finished browsing the last link I posted, looked closest at Impala data since I have one, engine rpm at 65, E10 1903, E20 2192. E30 1709. E85 1711. Almost like TQ isn't staying locked up. Seems odd that is should be 100% locked at 65. Let alone at 70 mph I've have had no problem getting 29+ epa hwy on typical interstate even in NE last year. Guess it doesn't matter if they had or didn't they dyno calibarated correctly, just the difference between the fuels. TQ not locking really messes up the data though. They must of had way too load dial into the dyno. Don't think 44 psi makes that much difference.

1/5 cheaper E85 wins or atleast close enought I'll buy it. What's the saying a dollar spent here is spend 5x over, dollar sent away is gone forever.

[roosterk0031]

Cliff notes

"The E85 fuel blend consumed less BTU’s per mile than all other
ethanol fuel blends evaluated. This improvedconversion of energy (BTU’s) for the E85
fuel blend was 13%, 9%, and 14% respectively for the light-, medium-, and heavy-loads
when compared to E10"

"The consumption of fuel or energy per horsepower hour also is a direct indication
of the efficiency of a vehicle. In the evaluations, more fuel was consumed per
horsepower hour on a volume basis with the higher ethanol fuel blends than with the
E10 fuel blend. However, the amount ofenergy (BTU’s) consumed per horsepower
hour actually decreased with the E85 fuel compared to the E10 fuel"

"emissions decreased as the ethanol content of the fuel increased"

In penny/mile it really comes down to the price of each fuel.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Take your pick:

E85 is great for POWER

E0 is great for ECONOMY

Depends on where you live and what the prices are though. The $/BTU in California for E85 is horrible but if you blend E85 with 87 octane gasoline you can get effectively 91 octane gasoline for less $/BTU than buying 91 straight up. Some cars run better on 93 than 91, and you can't get 93 in California, so E85 is a great way to blend your gas up.

However I hear in the Midwest, there are places that sell E85 cheap enough that you would save money running E85 instead of gasoline.

I agree though, the best way to think of E85 right now is a very cheap race fuel rather than a gasoline substitute.

[roosterk0031]

Brief recap.

E85 can and does make more HP and torque in a modern FFV E85 engine, see GM 2014 5.3

E85 doesn't have 2/3 the btu per gallon of E0, 28% is closer which is closer to 1/4 fractionally than 33% often quoted. Compared to E10 it is 26.5% less btu/gall. (link back a few pages)

Ethanol and gasoline blends don't follow a BTU/mile curve. E85 even though only has 28% of the btu content only looses closer to 18% miles per gallon. (link a few pages back plus my personall data that that link supports).

Methanol seems to be illegal to be used to denature ethanol, ethanol is only a poison if taken in excessive ammount, it is safe to drink in reasonable ammount, they poison it with natural gasoline or regular unleaded before it leave the factory so people can't drink it.

I think that busted most of the myths about ethanol.

The myths about fuel vs food is busted everywhere don't care to get into that aspect here. Petrolum has more influence on food than ethanol.

Emission, yep better to see same old link.

$/mile - market dependent, if E85 is 20% cheaper it wins.

[Hersbird]

Except it wouldn't be 20% less except for somebody else paying for you to buy it for 20% less.