E85 -- experience

Three days ago I filled my 1999 OB 2.5L, unmodified, with a splash- mixed E41. After 70 miles, the MIL (CEL) light went on because of the lean mixture. So today I added E10 enough to bring the tank composition to E29.

Mileage on E0: 25 mpg normal suburban driving Mileage on E41: 24 mpg, same driving, 154 mi.

We'll see if the MIL goes off with E29.

Ben

On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:39:42 -0700 (PDT), against all advice, something compelled Uncle Ben , to say:

You have a Mother In Law light?

That's gotta suck.

That's Mothers I'd Like to meet.

Actually it's the formal name of the Check Engine Light, and the translation is Malfunction Indicator Light.

Hi, If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let the ECU learn again?

Tony, the ECU did learn again, without my disconnecting the battery. I don't know enojugh about this question to answer or explain it, but everything worked OK. I suppose the mixture is monitored continuously and the injector pulse is then continuously being adjusted.

BTW, changing from E42 to E29 and driving a bit managed to turn off the MIL again. It took 70 miles at E42 to bring on the MIL but only 7 miles at E29 to turn it off again. I would guess that that means I went just over the line at E42.

My converter kit should arrive in 3 days, and then I should be ready for E85.

It will, learn eventually. But , if you expect HIGHER octane, it is probably better to force the ECU back to the factory map. Then it starts from max advance and retards on knock detection. If you don't do that, and the system has already retarded the timing, it may take a very long time to advance it, if ever.

I hope I have that right. Anyway, you should really consider resetting the ECU with a scanner or by battery disconnect/w'ever. AND use multiple tankfuls for any mileage calculations.

Carl

Hi, If you reset the ECU it'll learn faster. That's what I used to do.

Do you have a laptop you can connect to the OBDII port? Would be interesting to log the O2 sensor and STFT/LTFT data, along with MAF, RPM and speed so you can watch the ECU trying to compensate.

You'd need to buy an interface box - I got my ELM327 box off eBay for 1 euro, 20$ shipping from Hong Kong - (said it only worked with CAN-BUS but works fine with my 95 Legacy's OBD-II)

Yes, I do, but I tried to save a few bucks by getting the model that only gives the codes, not all the rest of the diagnostic data. Your choice was better.

There is a YouTube video that shows a disassmbly of an engine that ran, unmodified, for 102,000 miles on E85. No problem. Ethanol is just not that dangerous to your car. That was what encouraged me to try E42 on my still unmodified 1999 OB.

Thanks for the constructive suggestion anyway.

Ben

Ben, you believe everything you see on YouTube? ;-)

Regardless, I'm interested in your experiment, although you might have trouble getting your car to pass an emissions test, based on the fact that there aren't any 'conversion kits' certified by the EPA. To really judge the impact, you should do a smog test immediately before and immediately after the conversion.

Dan D '99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's) Central NJ USA

On May 13, 10:04=A0am, Dano58 wrote: =2E.. although you might have

Actually, the kit I have ordered has been given EPA approval, according to

. I think there is at least one other,

I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of driving on E29.

Regarding ethanol energy balance see

which cites the Pimental paper along with several others refuting it. There is also a quotation about the energy balance of gasoline and MBTE.

Thanks, Tony and Carl, for the info on MAPs and ECUs and changing fuels. I had never known about these things before.

But what I am doing (when my kit comes) is to convert my car to an FFV. So the design goal is to enable me to change fuels drastically and often. On the road I might be running E85, fuel getting low, and no E85 station within 100 miles. I would then switch to E0, or pure gasoline. That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to disconnect the battery every time.

I remember reading that the FFVs detect the concentration of ethanol and adjust quickly to it. I don't know what sensor detects the change, but it must be there somewhere.

In my recent experiments before installing the kit, if there were drastic errors in timing and mixtures, I should have experienced poor acceleration, stumbling, or even stalling, not to mention poor mileage. In fact, that did not happen. I can't explain it, but things went very smoothly, and the cars pep and smooth running was great.

Cars are getting too complicated for us amateurs!

Ben

Certainly not as reliable a source as YouTube, but......

Frank

Note that the title of the article is a question, not a claim. The article doesn't quote any actual experience with E85, just theoretical predictions. Let's look at some real data:

Fuel efficiency: Not a 40% reduction; a 5% reduction, more or less according to how one drives. And that is in miles/gallon, not miles/ dollar, which increases. In my case using E30, the drop was from 25 to

24 mpg, which is subject to refinement as I get more experience. Today I install my kit and can burn E85. Will report.

Price:--Not more than gasoline; 25% less than gasoline at my station in NY. In CO, some stations discount much more And that is with the current scarce production of ethanol. (In Brazil they make ethanol for 83 cents per gallon.)

Smog:-- Not a rise in organic emissions; an actual reduction in organic emmissions by 40% or more. In FFVs or conversions with good kits, one approaches stochiometric combustion. And there are hardly any particulates in the exhaust, unlike gasoline. (Particulates form nucleation points for smog creation.)

And then there are the advantages. No billions of dollars sent to OPEC!

Thanks, Frank, for providing a chance to discuss these questions.

Ben

Hi,

I don't know about other States' emissions procedures, but here's a "thought" from California:

As some of you already know, we've got the strictest emissions laws in the US, and simple EPA certification is not always sufficient to pass. Many of you US drivers/owners know about the "California" and "49 State" cars...

Anyway, aftermarket mods that relate to emissions are generally certified out here by CARB (Calif Air Resources Board--or Bureau?) and should ship w/ an approval sticker in the box. When a car's smogged out here, it goes thru both a visual and an actual emissions test regimen. The visual includes inspection for missing, disconnected or damaged elements of the system, plus inspection of any aftermarket changes.

So my next door neighbor installed a CARB certified intake device, and put the sticker under the hood. Then he took the car to be inspected. The fellow doing the work looked at the new system, then asked where the sticker was. Neighbor pointed it out, and all was good. Inspector told him that even though this particular system had been approved, if the sticker is NOT installed on the vehicle, he has to fail the car on visual!

I know, it's one of those stupid bureaucratic things, but still one of those where you need to know the rules before starting to play the game so you don't lose by default! A call to your local emissions testing station might be worthwhile...

Rick

Thanks, Rick. I do know that New York is not that strict. I don't think we even have any emissions testing stations.

The converter I have has NOT been CARB approved, in spite of having been EPA approved for cars with OBDII. I think maybe California is protecting themselves right out of some helpful things.

Ben

Ben

You know, you're right. Each time I or anyone post an alternative view it allows you another opportunity to present some more unsubtantiated propaganda. Won't happen again.

With reagard to the referenced article by U. S. News and World Report, I'll let those who wish to read it to make up their minds about the meaning of the title.

Frank

>

=2E..=A0Each time I or anyone post an alternative

Frank, I posted three claims: price of E85, fuel efficiency, and smog potential.

The first two are direct personal observations.

(The price information is readily available country-wide on the web. Just Google "E85 price." The fuel efficiency is also testified to widely on the web.)

That leaves the smog potential: The article you cited mentioned smog potential because alcohol evaporates faster than gasoline. (My reply was about exhaust; forgive me.)

You must be driving an antique car; otherwise you would know that your potential for any fuel evaporation is nil because your fuel system is sealed and your gas cap should be on tight. That is general knowledge.

I have no financial interest in ethanol production. I'm just a retired physics professor interested in the energy problem we all face in coming decades.

Ben