Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:02 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Who else uses ethanol in their Non-Flex Fuel vehicle? Back to Topics
Steveo763

Veteran Author
Twin Cities

Posts:306
Points:106,665
Joined:Jul 2013
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 10:14:35 PM

I've run E85 with a mix of gas with mixes as high as E50 without any issues. There is a bit of a mileage drop, but considering gasoline is priced 40% more than E85 the mileage difference isn't a problem.

My vehicle is a 2005 Crown Victoria. Two years newer Flex fuel was as standard feature in the 07+ Ford Crown Vics so I'd assume that it's not terrible.

| am considering buying an E85 conversion kit since I am moving 1/10th of a mile from a cheap E85 station, that I get an additional $.05 off per gallon.

So who else is using ethanol without issue in their traditional engine?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2014 7:53:15 AM

magpie, I have 2 non FFVs and I live just 90 minutes north of you. I have been doing this for 7 YEARS. Never had an issue. When I started I was putting 2 gallons of E-85 in roughly at every fill up, both cars new off the lot. I increased the amount of E-85 over time and now I do 4 gallons in one and 5 in the other. ALL YEAR LONG. Every fill up. Got 170,000 + now between the two Hyundais and NEVER a engine or fuel system problem. Only normal scheduled maintenance. So much for what that mechanic knows....he is just shooting his mouth off with utter BS. Many of the ethanol bashers on the internet do the same. This topic has more people believing more untrue things than any topic. And it's because the petroleum industry has more money than any other, and the misinformation is coming from them. You know why? They don't OWN ethanol, so they dont want you using it. They want to OWN YOU and what you put in your car entirely.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/4/2014 7:57:47 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,147
Points:2,803,245
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2014 9:35:17 PM

I had a mechanic tell me that my engine could blow up or otherwise get damaged running more than E10 in my non-FFVs. That was when I had been running for a year over 40% ethanol in my 2003 Honda CRV and over 65% ethanol in my 2000 Ford Windstar. That was about 3 years ago and I have never had any ethanol related performance or maintenance problem.
Profile Pic
CactusBobs
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:4,289
Points:912,555
Joined:Jun 2010
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2014 8:24:40 PM

Magpie2013 : "RUIN your engine" Really ! if you could , please tell me how this will happen and what parts you expect to fail if you run E85 .

as for the person that told you this ......next time he tells you something , Don't believe it !

Profile Pic
magpie2013
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:3,928
Points:140,355
Joined:Apr 2013
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2014 7:43:20 PM

News flash I've been told not to do this unless I want to ruin my engine. Has anyone else heard differently?
Profile Pic
WhiskeyBurner
Veteran Author Illinois

Posts:450
Points:15,855
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2013 2:33:41 AM

Still done it off and on in my Jeep, so far the only component failure was one of the automatic transmission fluid lines running from the trans to the cooler built into the radiator. Apparently it rusted out just as it bends down coming out of the radiator, guess those have a tendency to rot out where the lines are bent around here no matter what fuel you're using.
Profile Pic
drgeeforce
Sophomore Author Los Angeles

Posts:248
Points:361,120
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2013 1:33:21 PM

krzysiek_ck: my buddy doesn't have access to a dyno. It's difficult for him to get his DD for the dualmap. It's ideal but not available.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,042
Points:3,330,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2013 3:57:45 AM

"Not us either but was wondering if they make a conversion kit for a 2011 Nisson truck, If anyone knows also is it worth the change?"

Actually you can get a conversion kit for any vehicle.
Profile Pic
pghbill
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:1,917
Points:1,039,735
Joined:Jul 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2013 12:14:39 AM

no
Profile Pic
magpie2013
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:3,928
Points:140,355
Joined:Apr 2013
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2013 7:53:27 PM

Not us either but was wondering if they make a conversion kit for a 2011 Nisson truck, If anyone knows also is it worth the change?
Profile Pic
minookaband
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,690
Points:509,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2013 2:24:35 PM

no
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,321
Points:1,338,855
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2013 10:14:30 AM

drgeeforce wrote: "My buddy uses E85 in his modified Evolution. He says his car drives smoother with the 105 octane rating but his MPG drops too much to be cost effective. He now only uses it on the track, because its cheaper than race fuel or 100% methanol."

Sounds like his tuner adjusted full map based on WOT instead of tuning for cruise as well.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 12/20/2013 10:14:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Bigtex09
Champion Author Dallas

Posts:6,585
Points:1,756,680
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2013 3:13:37 PM

I prefer diesel now
Profile Pic
drgeeforce
Sophomore Author Los Angeles

Posts:248
Points:361,120
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2013 2:20:10 PM

My buddy uses E85 in his modified Evolution. He says his car drives smoother with the 105 octane rating but his MPG drops too much to be cost effective. He now only uses it on the track, because its cheaper than race fuel or 100% methanol.
Profile Pic
minookaband
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,690
Points:509,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2013 11:57:47 PM

no
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,042
Points:3,330,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2013 2:11:06 AM

I use it in everything and have for about 15 years.
Profile Pic
CactusBobs
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:4,289
Points:912,555
Joined:Jun 2010
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2013 10:26:30 PM

Correction !!!!!!
the % below are for E10 over E0

the MPG drop for the Dodge pickup on E85 was 12% (overE10)
I cannot find the paperwork for the Volvo for this time so it's unknown (this was 3 years ago )

it really did not matter at the time because i was using the E85 for more of a "cleaning out" of the fuel systems that anything else
Profile Pic
CactusBobs
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:4,289
Points:912,555
Joined:Jun 2010
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2013 3:52:20 PM

I did ! as in used to
1993 Dodge D150
1979 Volvo 240

used only E85 for around 6 months , had no problems , no parts failure , nothing except a little more cranking to start the volvo
mileage dropped by 10% on the Volvo and 6-8% on the Dodge

the price spread was to small to make the lower mileage worth it

it was one of those thing i DID , now i have done it and it's over.... it does work

but given the choice i would now only buy E0 if i could get it
but i am stuck with E10

[Edited by: CactusBobs at 11/27/2013 3:52:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
46chief
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:4,160
Points:2,401,370
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2013 10:44:49 AM

Not me. I don't like repair bills and my mileage drops when I use it.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 10:34:33 AM

Me: "Nobody here is talking about converting vehicles for E85, sorry."

SoylentGrain: "Banjoe is."

Wow, you are slow, aren't you? Banjoe asked the question and I answered that it had not been brought up. It's implicit in the statement that no one **else** had discussed it, Bonehead.

"Speaking of napalm. Napalm is essentially gasoline in gel form. That allows the compound to stick and also slows burning to increase burn time. Just like everything else, hotrod, you have it bass akwards."

You are correct; I was thinking of something else. Of course, that makes your original statement nonsense - "Would carrying a tank of napalm behind the drivers seat any safer [than vaporized ethanol]?", since napalm is less volatile than gasoline, which is still much less volatile than pressurized ethanol vapors. So, the answer to your question of if it's safer is yes, a tank of napalm is safer than gasoline and both are considerably safer than a mini-distillery for ethanol.

That's assuming the on-board ethanol dehydration scheme was even feasible, which it's not. It was a idiotic idea from the start, anyway. I think we've wasted enough effort arguing the pros and cons of something completely impractical, we should get back to the equally useless topic of the OP.

All the objective evidence says that adding ethanol to gasoline in any concentration results in about the same cost per mile. Whether or not it's harmful to the engine, using anything over E10 is less convenient. Why would I go to more effort and risk potential damage for nothing?



[Edited by: HotRod10 at 10/9/2013 10:44:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 7:49:54 AM

"Nobody here is talking about converting vehicles for E85, sorry."

Banjoe is.

"Btw, gasoline is not "napalm", since it doesn't have the dispersant that makes the fuel diffuse in the air so it can burn rapidly. Liquid gasoline doesn't burn, the vapors do. "

Speaking of napalm. Napalm is essentially gasoline in gel form. That allows the compound to stick and also slows burning to increase burn time. Just like everything else, hotrod, you have it bass akwards.

Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,042
Points:3,330,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2013 2:00:07 AM

"The aftermarket conversion to burn E85 would likely require reprogramming, or possibly replacing, the ECM. Whether replacing the valve seals, fuel lines, etc. is necessary due to the drying effects of ethanol, since it's hydroscopic, is a matter of great debate. From what I've read, it's about $200 to outfit a vehicle at the factory, but at least five times that for an aftermarket conversion."

Just goes to show that there are folks in here that doesn't have a clue.
Profile Pic
Chazzer
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:18,871
Points:3,910,200
Joined:May 2002
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2013 12:57:33 PM

Not I!
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 7, 2013 9:41:49 AM

"Just found this topic and am interested in the flex fuel conversion option. What's that all about?"

Nobody here is talking about converting vehicles for E85, sorry. They're just trying to convince us that you can blend your own E30 or E40 at the pump with no adverse effects for any vehicle. They haven't convinced me, especially for my older vehicles, but if you're interested, that discussion goes back a couple of pages.

The aftermarket conversion to burn E85 would likely require reprogramming, or possibly replacing, the ECM. Whether replacing the valve seals, fuel lines, etc. is necessary due to the drying effects of ethanol, since it's hydroscopic, is a matter of great debate. From what I've read, it's about $200 to outfit a vehicle at the factory, but at least five times that for an aftermarket conversion.
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:8,461
Points:1,224,255
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 5, 2013 8:48:19 AM

Just found this topic and am interested in the flex fuel conversion option. What's that all about?

I'm not even going to ask about (or read) the napalm discussion trail.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 3:58:45 PM

Btw, gasoline is not "napalm", since it doesn't have the dispersant that makes the fuel diffuse in the air so it can burn rapidly. Liquid gasoline doesn't burn, the vapors do.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 2:05:35 PM

"Would carrying a tank of napalm behind the drivers seat any safer?"

Yep; it's not pressurized. I drove one of those around for years - my '69 Chevy has the tank behind the seat. So does my father-in-law's '70 that he's been driving since he bought it new in 1970. Gasoline may spill in an accident, and even burn, but it rarely explodes (despite what you may have seen in the movies). Pressurized fuel vapors do explode, rather violently, when the tank is breached.

An on-board distillery for dehydrating ethanol is a ridiculous idea anyway. It would cost far more than it would ever save and be bigger than the car. I'm thinking I might have made a false assumption about the intelligence level of those whom I'm debating.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 1:10:15 PM

"That would be great! Driving around with a pressurized tank of vaporized alcohol would make me feel really safe."

Would carrying a tank of napalm behind the drivers seat any safer?
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 12:32:38 PM

The EPA approval thing makes sense.

Being afraid of new technology does not. We already have all kinds of semi-dangerous things under the hood and nobody thinks twice about it. Also, there are many examples of technological optimization via micro-processing versus macro-processing. Is the hot water in your shower pumped from the city water plant pre-heated? I don't see why it's automatically a bad idea for that reason, unless you're a heeldragger and playing with new ideas is scary.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 11:58:09 AM

"I wonder if cars of the future will have mini distillation systems in-line..."

That would be great! Driving around with a pressurized tank of vaporized alcohol would make me feel really safe. I'm sure it would be so much cheaper than a large scale stationary dehydration plant, too. How about a mini-refinery next to the crude oil tank, too?
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,147
Points:2,803,245
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 11:47:20 AM

darwinfinch, no they would need EPA approval to do that. It would take decades to get approved.
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 11:27:32 AM

I wonder if cars of the future will have mini distillation systems in-line with the fuel filter to remove water (and maybe drip it into the window washer fluid reservoir). Would this be possible?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 10:36:24 AM

"This doesn't happen and will likely never happen."

It doesn't happen because the ethanol we use in the US is anhydrous; the ethanol is dehydrated so that it stays below the level where separation occurs. If you'd been following the discussion, you would know we were debating the feasibility of using ethanol that has not been dehydrated (hydrous ethanol), which is considerably cheaper, but as the documentation I provided indicates, it's not suitable for blending with gasoline nor as fuel by itself in cold climates.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,042
Points:3,330,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 9:48:12 AM

"...and once it absorbs a little more moisture in transport, the water precipitates out in your gas tank and you're trying to run the car on water for a few seconds or a minute. Well, unless it freezes, in which case you're going nowhere. Even a few cases of HEET will not help you at that point."

This is nothing more than a flat out lie from the oil patch. This doesn't happen and will likely never happen.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2013 9:23:08 AM

"Hydrous ethanol would be right at the point of saturation."

...and once it absorbs a little more moisture in transport, the water precipitates out in your gas tank and you're trying to run the car on water for a few seconds or a minute. Well, unless it freezes, in which case you're going nowhere. Even a few cases of HEET will not help you at that point.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 2, 2013 4:26:52 PM

I was in error, hotrod. I misplaced a decimal. Hydrous ethanol would be right at the point of saturation.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 2, 2013 3:00:24 PM

"I'll say it again. The amount of water in hydrous ethanol, if blended as E10, would be 1/100th of the maximum limit in the spec you provided. Hydrous ethanol could, indeed, be used to make fine running E10."

I don't know where you think you found that in the specification, but Table 1 is very clear - the upper limit for the water content is 1%, by volume, of the ethanol, before blending with gasoline. Ethanol has about 4% or more water content before the dehydration process.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 2, 2013 1:37:50 PM

"Well, the specification writers at ASTM apparently differ with you on that. Since it's their business to research, find out what's needed, and set the standards, I think I'd trust their expertise over your speculation."

I'll say it again. The amount of water in hydrous ethanol, if blended as E10, would be 1/100th of the maximum limit in the spec you provided. Hydrous ethanol could, indeed, be used to make fine running E10.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 2, 2013 9:19:23 AM

"There is no reason hydrous ethanol could not be used to make E10."

Well, the specification writers at ASTM apparently differ with you on that. Since it's their business to research, find out what's needed, and set the standards, I think I'd trust their expertise over your speculation.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 5:15:31 PM

Hotrod, using the spec you listed below, if you used hydrous ethanol to produce E10, the water content would be 100 fold lower than when phase separation occurs. There is no reason hydrous ethanol could not be used to make E10.

Regardless, the BATF requires ethanol producers to denature their product.

The way ethanol is used in the US, I'm sure it's practical to start with all anhydrous. Just more expensive.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 4:49:37 PM

At the risk of resurrecting an earlier spat, there's also this little tidbit in ASTM D4806:

"Very dilute aqueous solutions of low molecular weight organic acids such as acetic (CH3COOH) are highly corrosive to many metals. It is therefore necessary to keep such acids at a very low level."
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 4:34:47 PM

"The BATF requires it. No reason needed."

Sorry, wrong answer. The right answer is found in ASTM spec D4806:

"Blends of fuel ethanol and gasoline have a limited solvency for water. This solvency will vary with the ethanol content, the temperature of the blend, and the aromatic content of the base gasoline. A fuel made by blending 10 volume % fuel ethanol with a gasoline containing 14 volume % aromatics and 0.6 mass % dissolved water (about 0.5 volume %), will separate into a lower alcohol-rich aqueous phase and an upper hydrocarbon phase if cooled to about 7°C (45°F). As normal spark-ignition engines will not run on the aqueous phase material, such a separation is likely to cause serious operating problems. Because some degree of water contamination is practically unavoidable in transport and handling, and because gasoline-ethanol blends are hygroscopic, the water content of the denatured fuel ethanol must be limited when it is blended with gasoline to reduce the risk of phase separation."

In other words, when you mix ethanol that has too much water with gasoline, the water separates, gets sucked into the fuel system by itself, and the engine dies. So, hydrous ethanol can only be used by itself and is unsuitable for blending with gasoline, and since E100 is unsuitable for cold climates without significant vehicle modifications (sorry, I'm not buying the "$20 fix" line), most areas of the US cannot use hydrous ethanol.

"HotRod10, why do you believe that fuel ethanol in the US does not contain water?"

It contains some yes, but per D4806 referenced above, the ethanol has to be dehydrated to less than 1% water content from the 4% or more it has when it's produced.



[Edited by: HotRod10 at 10/1/2013 4:42:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 2:15:20 PM

"So, you guys would have me believe there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that fuel ethanol in the US is anhydrous? "

That reason was covered some time back in this thread. The BATF requires it. No reason needed.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,147
Points:2,803,245
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 2:05:18 PM

HotRod10, why do you believe that fuel ethanol in the US does not contain water?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 10:20:58 AM

So, you guys would have me believe there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that fuel ethanol in the US is anhydrous?
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 10:09:35 AM

Hotrod, that is not correct.

You could use hydrous in Wyoming just fine.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,147
Points:2,803,245
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 10:09:21 AM

HotRod10 says "...and see your mileage drop another 3% or 5% because you're trying to burn water."
Water doesn't burn, but it does expand rapidly when going from water to gas. This increases the efficiency of the engine. Ever hear of water injection?

and "With 4% water, I really wouldn't be able to use it here in the "frozen north"."
Water stays in solution with ethanol, down to any temperature that you ever see in the "frozen north". Ever hear of Heat? Are you aware that it's made of alcohol?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 10:06:13 AM

"...and see your mileage drop another 3% or 5% because you're trying to burn water."

Actually, water vapor increases efficiency. A small amount of water would increase horsepower and fuel economy.

"With 4% water, I really wouldn't be able to use it here in the "frozen north". They can use it in most areas of Brazil because it rarely gets below 60, and pretty much never gets below freezing, in the major population centers."

Doesn't work that way. The water is in solution. A 5% concentration in ethanol or ethanol and gasoline is not going to freeze anywhere in the northern hemisphere, arctic included.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 9:40:15 AM

"Take away that dehydration step and you will see ethanol drop another 20-30 cents."

...and see your mileage drop another 3% or 5% because you're trying to burn water. Cost per mile would still be a wash, excuse the pun. With 4% water, I really wouldn't be able to use it here in the "frozen north". They can use it in most areas of Brazil because it rarely gets below 60, and pretty much never gets below freezing, in the major population centers.

[Edited by: HotRod10 at 10/1/2013 9:49:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,042
Points:3,330,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2013 12:54:32 AM

"Chemically, it's a big deal. Dehydrating ethanol is a relatively expensive step." Yes, you are right. Take away that dehydration step and you will see ethanol drop another 20-30 cents.
Profile Pic
smugutu1234
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:2,345
Points:558,295
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: Sep 30, 2013 4:20:39 PM

Not me.
Post a reply Back to Topics