I have what I guess is a two part question: What physical/electrical differences are there in typical 2007 cars between those that can use E85 and not? Secondly, with what I've been reading, Butanol is a less expensive alternative to gasoline on a gallon for gallon basis. Assuming a person had access to this stuff, would it hurt the running of a modern American car?
Butanol Vs. Ethanol search produced this from Wikipedia-
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
In Brazil they have used ethanol in various proportions with all cars on the road for thirty years. On YouTube you can see an engine disassembled for inspection after 102,000 miles running on E85 without any conversion attempt. No damage.
Your information is out of date.
Ben
In Brazil they have used ethanol in various proportions with all cars on the road for thirty years. On YouTube you can see an engine disassembled for inspection after 102,000 miles running on E85 without any conversion attempt. No damage.
Your information is out of date.
Ben
Not according to my local dealer. 10% is okay, 85% is not on my 2000 GMC Safari. I mistakenly put E85 in it while traveling through Nebraska and it hasn't idled right since.
In Brazil they have used ethanol in various proportions with all cars on the road for thirty years. On YouTube you can see an engine disassembled for inspection after 102,000 miles running on E85 without any conversion attempt. No damage.
Your information is out of date.
Ben
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Anyolmouse, have you checked your fuel filter? E85 is great at cleaning out gunk from your gas tank and depositing it all in your fuel filter. A standard part of switching to E85 is to change your fuel filter after the engine has run a while.
Ben
Shep, the advice in the site you cited is good for very old vehicles, those made before the government required all cars to be ethanol tolerant. Ethanol is absorbed by natural rubber and makes it swell up and tear easily. Cork is also affected; it used to be used as a gasket material. Ethanol is slightly more conductive (electrically) than gasoline, and the old cars often had different metals in the gas tank and could suffer galvanic corrosion.
All that should have been taken care of back in the 1980's. I think the author of the web page wasn't sure of this and was covering his ass. Or maybe his lawyers made him do it. My car's user manual also says not to use ethanol more than as E10, but I am ignoring this advice because of the experience of others -- the pioneers of ethanol.
I will pursue information about this site further and let you know what I find out.
If my car sputters to a stop because of E85, I will post that information immediately. If I am wrong, it is a matter of honor for me to admit it. But I am confident about this one.
Ben
Another question, then. Did your check-engine light go on as you continued your trip? If so, has it gone off again now that you've gone back to straight gasoline?
The reason I ask is that when one does a conversion from gasoline to E85, one is supposed to run a tankful of E50 (mixed at the pump) as part of the process in which your fuel management system gets used to the new mixtures required. Then one can go all the way to E85.
Now you didn't do that, obviously, and I wonder if your fuel management system has recovered from the experience. It must have given up at the upper limit of its ability to enrich the fuel and lit your light, and ideally when you went back to gasoline, it should have recognized that it was back into familiar territory and have started working normally and turned your light off. If it didn't do that, and your light stayed on, the system needs a manual reset.
Ben
Here is what I received from another supporter of E85:
-------------- Hey Ben-
One look at that page and I can tell you that it is very parochial looking. I have not read it and doubt that they present any type of data to back up their claim. Why are they unable to back up their claims? Because it is bogus. Any one can post anything that they want to on the web even if untrue.
Here is my supporting data. If E85 was harmful, the EPA, CPSC and UL would mandate that the nozzle of an E85 pump be a different size than gas....like they did with diesel.
------------
Ben
Another question, then. Did your check-engine light go on as you continued your trip? If so, has it gone off again now that you've gone back to straight gasoline?
The reason I ask is that when one does a conversion from gasoline to E85, one is supposed to run a tankful of E50 (mixed at the pump) as part of the process in which your fuel management system gets used to the new mixtures required. Then one can go all the way to E85.
Now you didn't do that, obviously, and I wonder if your fuel management system has recovered from the experience. It must have given up at the upper limit of its ability to enrich the fuel and lit your light, and ideally when you went back to gasoline, it should have recognized that it was back into familiar territory and have started working normally and turned your light off. If it didn't do that, and your light stayed on, the system needs a manual reset.
Ben
I topped the tank off and put about 1/4 of a tank of E85 in it. The check engine light did not come on at any time. As I keep track of every gallon of gas and the MPG in my log I did notice the MPG was lower by about 3MPG. On the return trip is when I found out that it was E85 and was not marked at the pumps. I guess if you travel in Nebraska you are supposed to know these things automatically.
| > 1. The main difference is that the E85 car can burn with a richer | > mixture than a gasoline car. I converted my 1999 miniwagon to flex- | > fuel by inserting a small control box into the electrical feed to the | > fuel injectors; it stretches the pulse length so as to admit more fuel | > per stroke. I can run any combination of gasoline and ethanol and | > burn it efficiently, since the ECU senses the exhaust and adjusts the | > pulse length. | >
| > 2. I don't know of any source of butanol, but my E85 is currently very | > near $3/gal, while regular gas is very near $4/gal. I sacrifice 15% | > in mpg, but that still leaves me better off by 13% in miles/dollar. | > And the car runs better to boot. | >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet | > News==---- | >
T. Boone Pickens (Texas Oilman) tried to promote LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) some years back by traveling coast to coast with a caravan of vehicles. Some municipalities are/were using LNG in their fleets. With all of the natural gas that we have it wouldn't take too much to have fueling stations along the interstates and other well traveled routes. We had two filling stations here in Amarillo for awhile.
It makes more sense to me to develop LNG as an alternative fuel than Ethanol or Butanol. Not much different than running LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) as some do now. Both use pressurized tanks and LPG has been used safely for some time.
It is time to say no the radical environmentalists and either use the resources we have available or drill for oil offshore and in Alaska in my opinion.
The question should be why does the federal government not allow the oil companies acquire the alcohol for the vast amounts of excess NG that they now must burn off at the well head or in the refining process, rather than subsiding corn alcohol to the tune of around a $1 a gallon? In addition why do we not build more NG lines so the excess could be sold domestically?
So what you were running was approximately 3 parts gasoline to 1 part E85. That makes E21. Unmodified cars young and old in Brazil are burning E24 all the time nowadays. I ran E29 in my car for two weeks before conversion. It is inconceiveable to me that E21 could cause the rough idle you are observing.
I hope you find the cause. Call me dogmatic, but E85 ain't it.
Ben
You may be right but all I have to go on is what the dealer said and the fact that it idled smooth before putting in E85 and rough after. In town mileage is down some but highway mileage is pretty much where it was all along. Texas has also mandated E10 which probably explains the difference I see. Also since we are almost 4,000 Feet AMSL we only get
86 octane here. I consistantly get better mileage on the 87 octane sold off of the caprock when traveling.| | > 1. The main difference is that the E85 car can burn with a richer | | > mixture than a gasoline car. I converted my 1999 miniwagon to flex- | | > fuel by inserting a small control box into the electrical feed to | the | | > fuel injectors; it stretches the pulse length so as to admit more | fuel | | > per stroke. I can run any combination of gasoline and ethanol and | | > burn it efficiently, since the ECU senses the exhaust and adjusts | the | | > pulse length. | | >
| | > 2. I don't know of any source of butanol, but my E85 is currently | very | | > near $3/gal, while regular gas is very near $4/gal. I sacrifice
15% | | > in mpg, but that still leaves me better off by 13% in miles/dollar. | | > And the car runs better to boot. | | >| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
I should have said CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) instead of LNG which must be contained in a double walled insulated pressurized container. Go here for info-
| > -- | > Anyolmouse | | I dont see any indication that butanol would gel and it damn sure does | not freeze at room temperature.. The melting (freezing) point is some | minus 90 degrees Celsius.
From the article-
Octane rating The octane rating of n-butanol is similar to that of gasoline but lower than that of ethanol and methanol. n-Butanol has a RON (Research Octane number) of 96 and a MON (Motor octane number) of 78 while t-butanol has octane ratings of 105 RON and 89 MON.[9] t-Butanol is used as an additive in gasoline but cannot be used as a fuel in its pure form because its relatively high melting point of 25.5 °C causes it to gel and freeze near room temperature.
| It mixes better with gasoline than either methanol or ethanol. | | It has an energy content some 50% higher than ethanol, and just a little | short of gasoline. | | It is currently made from PETROLEUM, more than anything else. Yes, | it could be made from other sources, but traditionally has only been | commercially | made from butene petroleum fragments. |
So why not go with something we have plenty of at present? Natural gas. CNG looks better to me than Ethanol, Methanol or Butanol.
It wouldnt make a lot of difference, financially. NGL, CNG, etc are still going to be expensive, because petroleum hydrocarbons are presently expensive.
We can fumblefart around with this sort of exercise, but the problem is that we are producing far less petroleum than we need at out present consumption rates, to wit some 70% is imported from countries that do not give a damn about our discomfort.
We have to have a plan, and we have NONE...T. Boone Pickens said the other day that a fool with a plan can defeat a genius without one every time...
We need a non partisan, scientifically defensible, sound and workable energy program. And we have a congress full of fools who are only involved in personalities and pork.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.