The computer will think it's running lean. Other than that it may or
may not run normal depending on 1) the computer and 2) the injectors.
Students in my class that burn gas (I have mostly studied bio-diesel,
but have done some research on e85), don't notice anything other than a
check engine light.
I do NOT know the results of long term use, but short term use, from
what I have witnessed, seems fairly transparent.
BTW, there are inexpensive kits you can buy that "allow" your vehicle
to burn E85. The ones I have read about consist of a computer module
that forces the injectors to inject more fuel.
Here's a website that a fellow student referred me to:
Thanks Craig, I just read through that site and found something extremely
interesting. According to the author and that of others on the forum, by
converting to E85, many, hell most, report a DECREASE in fuel economy. I
find that interesting considering most of the new flex fuel vehicles get
much better economy. Must be something with the conversion. Oh well, not
I would imagine its because the conventional gasoline engine isn't set up to
correctly harness the energy in the alcohol. as has been my contention on
cng/propane conversions and other alternative fuels. the engine has to be
built from the crank up to run on the fuel if you want to see the power and
economy the fuel has the potential to deliver.
this of course is my opinion, I have no engineering degree or engineering
credentials to support my opinion.
A vehicle designed to run on gasoline will indeed lose power and fuel
economy when ran with E85. However, an engine designed to take
advantage of that high octane rating can indeed match the power and
fuel economy of the average gas-motor, if not exceed it.
Saab has an engine that's calibrated to take advantage of the higher
octane rating of E85 and in fact, makes more power with it than
If only GM didn't own them ...
Actually, my ex had a 2000 Saab 9-3. Ran great! Transmission was a
POS, but other than that I enjoyed driving it.
I especially enjoyed watching it drive away the last time I saw it ...
with her in it.
Since my truck went into semi-permanent "project" status, I had to get
another car. I went with a 2000 9-3 as well. I dig the car a lot.
Was hers an automatic??? I hope so. I specifically sought out a
5-speed to avoid having to rebuild an auto in the near future.
Craig C. wrote:
I'd like to see some information on that, got a link? Compression ratio
can be raised to extreme levels (around 14:1) on engines run exclusively on
Alcohol but then they're not flex fuel anymore. The fuel economy claim is
also interesting. I know on Alcohol converted carbureted engines use HUGE
jets compared to gasoline engines. It would be interesting to see what
technology has come up with recently.
You got that right... it kind of irks me when I hear the arguments for
or against E-85. I think treating it as an alternate fuel for existing
engines is fine, but if the distribution for it ever got ramped up,
dedicated engines made to use E-85 only would really be better. I
think over time the idea *could* catch on, just MHO... You can't run
gas in a diesel yet plenty of folks still drive 'em.
As you said, an engine built to use E-85 only could make use of a
higher compression ratio that would more than compensate for the lower
energy content (BTUs / gallon) of ethanol.
Here's one link about the Saab 'variable compression ratio' motor...
Also check this link out...it jumps to the B205 which takes advantage
of the higher octane of the E-85.
You're right about the need for bigger jetting in carbed applications,
but I think a MPFI setup with injectors that can handle the task would
eliminate any tuning issues, as evidenced by the latest GM flex-fuel
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.