I started this post with the question about mod's, but it appears that there will be very little discussion about mod's and instead it will be about evil (or not) ethanol. If someone is reading this that is doing mod's, my apologies, but now the discussion has to continue to debate the merits of ethanol. If you would like, you are welcome to start a topic thread on mod's (but don't expect it to be met favorably, and do expect that instead of talking about the mod's that you will have to instead debate the merits of ethanol). Several on this site just don't know how to stay on point. With that, here is more on the merits of "evil" (or not) ethanol.
I still have heard very little back from anyone about gasoline from imported petroleum costing the U.S. taxpayer at least $10 per gallon at the pump (military in the Middle East, financing the ballooning national debt, etc.). The worries about energy per unit, fuel economy, etc. are laid to rest immediately by this one point. Really, I thought that would be an interesting topic that intellectuals would want to discuss. Anyone interested?
myfirstbonnie wrote:Right now I will not convert any of my cars until someone else does a lot more testing on it. I have a 19 year old car that has been running on gas and I know will run for 20 more with very little maintenance and cost. There has not been enough proof yet to prove to me that it will not damage my car. They were designed and built to run on gas and that is what I will run them on.
My cars to me is an investment. I have purchased the ones I did for their reliability and safety factors and I don't feel like compromising that.
Another thing is that with no payments and very little maintenance, I would rather spend a little more on fuel than to put a lot more money into modifying it and then not knowing if I am causing damage to them and putting them in the yard earlier than I should.
MFB--all very good, valid reasons not to be the first to try a mod to E85. I would suggest that there is likely less involved in newer vehicles (mid-to-late '90's and newer), since ethanol blended gasoline became more popular and more components were made ethanol resistant from that period on. Not that yours couldn't be converted, but others with newer vehicles and less at stake would seem more logical to be done first to learn from.
00Beast wrote:No, we have not, because the hogs aren't ours, they belong to CF, and eat what CF puts in the bin, that they have researched to be the best feed for their genetics, and their hogs. What the researchers in Iowa probably didn't take into account was the genetics. CF has their own genetics for their hogs, that has the best qualities for their combination. They have spent years on this, and millions of dollars, and they know what the hell they're doing.
They aren't just some schmuck feeding hogs on a lot for butcher. They are a $400 MILLION dollar company, and my dad is in charge of that $400 mil., and he has been a farmer his whole life to boot. Until you have 40+ years of experience farming and dealing with livestock on an almost daily basis, your opinion doesn't mean as much to me as my parents's, because theirs is based on what they know and have learned in the real world, they aren't trusting some data from research in a controlled environment on a small sample of hogs. I'm not saying your opinion is nothing, just that my parents's opinions mean a lot more.
00Beast, I share your pride in agriculture. I am the fifth generation on our farm (Midwest grain now, Grandpa had 300 head of cattle when I was growing up and our nearby neighbor had hogs). Great Grandpa had the first championship market ewe at the Chicago World Fair--I hope that story Grandma tells is accurate, anyway... Though, my involvement is more of a hobby farm now, sadly. Pretty tough to farm in Illinois from California, and the VERY low, subsidized grain prices that have fed hogs cheaply all these years have pretty well driven out the typical family farm, so that much of what is left is just large corporate farms and a few 80 year old farmers tinkering around for fun. Kind of how you and your parents have been affected. My sister and brother-in-law are livestock vets. I've helped during judging and awards at the 4-H livestock shows. Only once did I allow an ornery pig out of the show ring, to the humor of a screeching crowd as it bowled them over and feed was sent flying in the air--one of my favorite memories. It was one of those hot, sticky July nights when the "sweet smell" of the hogs imbedded into your clothes and skin and didn't go away for days; you know the scene.
My opinion obviously will NEVER mean more to you than your parents'. Yours will never mean more to me than my own parents'; that's just a given. However, I think it would be irresponsible if you do not research more into what the Universities are finding in their research. When there's $400 million at stake, I would certainly take what they (Universities, scientists and researchers) have to say into account. Heck, I can admit that I have learned things from the University of Illinois that my parents weren't implementing on their farm. Perhaps you will find the same, and make them (or the coporation) some extra $millions?!
I AM interested to know what you find out. Believe me, there are many people researching this issue because it does matter. It matters to our economy, but it also matters to the farmers. I want the best outcome for all. And I do believe there is a way to use DDGS more and more as we learn more about them.
There's GOLD in them DDGS!!
clm2112 wrote:In real term, Bill and everyone else is correct. Converting a gasoline engine to E85 is a pointless waste of time. It is also illegal to do so on a street car unless you go through the entire process of getting an CARB EO or approval from the EPA for the exact year, make, and model. The fine is $5000 per day, how deep are your pockets? This has been the drawback of all such conversions to alternative fuels, including CNG. You pay for the parts, cobble it together, locate a fuel source, and then you are in violation of the law until you get the entire thing to pass emmissions and do the paperwork.
Until recently, this was correct. Now it is correct in some cases, not correct in others. Recently there have been several "Flex Fuel" conversion kits that the EPA HAS given its approval for. More will come in upcoming months.
http://www.aamco.com/ecogreen/FlexFuel% ... elease.pdf
http://flexfuelus.com/
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/12/prweb575942.htm
--**If you live in Illinois, the State will reimburse you for much of the expense of the conversion (80% up to $4,000!!)!**--
http://www.illinoisgreenfleets.org/fuels/index.html
http://www.illinoisgreenfleets.org/cont ... onversions
**This guy used the Full Flex Intl. kit on his Bonneville. So, in Illinois you can use this kit legally on your Bonneville and get reimbursed 80%!
http://fuelflexinternational.com/pages/comments1.htm
Final question on that: Can you find anyone anywhere that was fined by the EPA for converting to Flex Fuel?... Legal or not, it is not enforced. Also, how many of you all have something on or in your car that is not-necessarily-legal-by-the-letter-of-the-law (no official answer required, just rhetorical)?
nicklikesmilk wrote:but bill is right that the amount of money and work going into converting one of our cars isn't worth it. he's also right that E85 is going to be an in-between, until we come across more efficient alternatives to gasoline (i.e., electric or fuel cells). I'm pretty sure ethanol is not going to become our (our meaning all motorists) alternative to gasoline.
If you live in Illinois it appears to be worth it. If not, check with your own state, or press them to do the same. How long will it be before other alternatives will be economically, environmentally, and technologically close to viable? I'm not saying that ethanol is perfect on all fronts, but it is the only one that for now the government and major institutions and companies are putting out mainstream (other than hybrid). I'm in favor of all, like I said I'm more both/and instead of either/or. The either/or pessimistic folks are not much fun at a party.
GonneVille wrote:The particular member of 3800Pro that you mention is, to the best of my knowledge, the only person to have made the total changeover, did so to a 2003 Grand Prix GTP, that has has an updated plastic fuel tank and fuel system that 90% of us here do not have, and is using a tuner and wideband O2 setup that cost him in excess of $600, and 60# fuel injectors that cost $330. Add to that a number of seals, lines, and the fuel tank that we would have to use on our Bonnevilles and other H-, C-, and G-bodies, and the price tag rises to well over $1500.
This is not a testimonial that has any bearing on OUR cars.
Yes, he went fairly far into the conversion. More, or less, can be done. How many thousands are spent modifying and upgrading so many of your cars? How much, or any of it, is about attaining higher, or even maintaining current, fuel economy? $1,500 may be a lot less than most have spent. In California I see plenty of older beat up vehicles that would normally only be worth the fuel in the tank. Yet the mod's are worth $15,000 or more--serious about that!
Again, Illinois by law pays for 80% of a conversion. Also, they pay up to $450 per year for using E85 (I should know--I've tapped that one a couple of times!).
willwren wrote:WTF is that all about? Don't you know that disciplinary action on this site is always done above-board with the entire STAFF? Including someone you know very well?
You can stop the personal insults any time you like now. E85 topics are ALWAYS heated like this. You're very lucky to have one run this long.
Are you suggesting that you would shut this topic down just because it is about E85 fuel? I would hope you would not, but that would be quite a disservice if you did. Your credibility would be on the line.
I didn't say (nor do I know) that the individual was disciplined. Rather, it sounded like it was an on-going flaming. E85 topics ARE NOT always heated like this, but if someone with your pre-conceived bias is around they can become such. Re: Look at the first question posed again please.
My apologies for any personal insults; none intended. Please copy and paste them into a PM and I will more thoroughly apologize.
A more engineering-minded quote from a fellow "E85 preacher" (as ascribed by Willren) posted at
http://www.e85vehicles.com/e85:
There is too much concentration on the BTU content of E85 vs Gasoline.
We are talking about an ICE or Internal Combustion Engine. In a ICE the WORK is performed by the cylnder pressure generated by the explosion first and formost and through the heat expansion to a lesser degree. Depending on who's numbers you belive, and the engine in question 70 - 85% of the BTU content is disapated through the radiator and lost out the exhaust W/O performing any work, in other words with no contribution to HP or motive force. IF we were working with a steam engine, ECE or External Combustion Engine then yes BTU content would be the end all be all.
E85 due to its nature burns slower than gasoline so while the explosive force is less, it is spread out over a longer period. Very similar the way the PowerStroke diesel works by lengthing the burn time of the same amount of fuel they were able to increase the net force imparted to the piston.
Combine all the facts in the real world and E85 requires less BTU per mile than gasoline.
Real world testing done on my recently aquired Taurus FFV indicates a loss of 13% in MPG over E10 the only fuel available on the west coast. In 4500 mi of testing so far have returned the following results. For the calculations E10 was from tanks that contained either 100% E10 before any E85 had been used in the vehicle OR those in which the calculated ethanol was less than 20%. The E85 numbers represent tanks that were at least E74 (the transitional blend) but not quite full E85. At the time I didn't have the ability to read the FCS output but I have figured that out so future testing will have a more accurate E%.
E10 City 20.5 Hwy 23.2
E85 City 17.9 Hwy 20.1
E50 City NA Hwy 23.3 (one tank)
Which works out to a 13% loss, my research indicates that 15% is what people who have converted their vehicles have reported vs E10.
Now compared to PURE UNADULTERATED gasoline the loss seems to be near 20% for those that live in areas where it is still available.
The EPA estimates for FFV operation are highly flawed they are calculated by some bozo who has no idea how an ICE works, and are based purely on the BTU differences and testing on Gas and are interpolated from there. THE EPA DOES NO E85 MPG TESTING ONLY CALCULATING. This is one of the problems with the PM report basing it on inaccurate MPG rating, as well as comparing the cost of operating a Civic to a Taurus, not a Taurus vs Taurus comparison. That skews the annual cost significantly, add in the fact that they show E85 as more expensive by showing the national averages in 06, instead of comparing it on a local, same station or city basis. Now in 08 there are places where E85 is consistently 30 - 40+% cheaper than gas.
At first I thought the E50 MPG I obtained was a fluke but as Jeff Bade noted in his thread months ago, there is research that indicates that there can be a "perfect mix" for a vehicle where there is NO LOSS and in some cases an INCREASE in MPG. So once I got home I did a little research and came up with this, a in depth study on the affect of different E% on MPG in both FFV and NON FFVs.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmg...inal_12507.pdf
I don't know if you'll be able to access it Bill but in a nut shell NON FFV Camry and Fusion got 1% better MPG with E30 vs Gas, while the FFV Impala got 15% better with E20 and only lost less than 1% with E50.
Quote:
7.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The EERC and MnCAR conducted vehicle fuel economy and emission testing on four
2007 model vehicles. The vehicles tested included a flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala and three nonflex-
fuel vehicles: a Ford Fusion, a Toyota Camry, and a Chevrolet Impala. This investigation
utilized a range of ethanol blend levels from 0% to 85% in 10% increments. The primary
objective of the investigation was to investigate the possible existence of a fuel economy-based
optimal ethanol blend level, as determined by the HWFET, at which measured miles per gallon
is greater than predicted based strictly on per-gallon fuel Btu content. A secondary objective was
to acquire HWFET hot-start tailpipe emission data for all surveyed fuels. Following optimal
blend level determination, cold-start emissions, as determined by FTP-75, were determined on
the optimal blend level and Tier 2 gasoline.
HWFET testing on ethanol blend levels of E20 in the flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala, E30 in
the non-flex-fuel Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry, and E40 in the non-flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala
resulted in miles-per-gallon fuel economy greater than predicted based on per-gallon fuel Btu content. It is notable that the non-flex-fuel vehicles obtained
greater fuel economy at higher
blends of ethanol than they were designed for. In the case of the flex-fuel Chevrolet Impala, the
highway fuel economy was greater than calculated for all tested blends, with an especially high
peak at E20. While only three non-flex-fuel vehicles were tested in this study, there is a strong
indication that non-flex-fuel vehicles operated on optimal ethanol blend levels, which are higher
than the standard E10 blend, can obtain better fuel mileage than predicted by fuel energy content.
Here are the FFV Impalas results.
Tier 2 23.48
E10 24.02
E20 27.07
E30 21.85
E40 22.81
E50 23.32
E60 22.00
E70 19.67
E85 17.74
A NON FFV Fusion
Tier 2 26.97
E10 23.55
E20 25.81
E30 27.14
E40 21.99
E45 21.16
It is important to note that 3 of the 4 vehicles were NOT FFV's and that they "learned" the fuel soley through the use of the long term fuel trim or BLM to you TBI guys, and therefore the engine was not able to adjust the timing curve based on E%.
Also note the MPG loss for the Fusion gas vs E10 a 13% loss! This is the dirty little secret behind the EPA's "New fuel economy ratings" that went into effect w/ 08 MY and why they now list 2 "fuel economy stickers" on 07 and eariler vehicles at
http://www.fueleconomy.gov . One "here is what we put on it when it was new" based on testing w/gas, and "here is what it is now" that you can't buy the gas we used for testing, only E10. Here is the one for my Taurus
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=16409 Pretty far from my experience w/E85. Of course I never obtained E85 and the FFV Impala showed a big drop between E70 and E85.
So if E85 contains less energy than Gasoline how can it make more power? The simple answer is A/F ratio or more importantly Fuel to Air ratio. Max power with gas is 12.5 to 13.2 to 1 with E85 it is 7.0 to 8.5 to 1 so for gas we'll use 12.85 and 7.75 for E85
12.85/7.75 = 1.66 So you can stuff 66% more E85 at WOT than gas! (which is why you need larger injectors and a high flow pump) So even if you believe the 1/3 loss there is still more potential power available
1.66 x .66 = 1.09 or 9% more power IF you go by BTU content alone
1.66 x .80 = 1.32 or 32 % more power if you go by MPG loss.
In my case when I brought the Taurus home from OR with a high concentration of E85 in the tank and returned it to my wife (w/o warning her) she came home after driving it and asked did you do something to the car? I said no, why, what is wrong w/it? She said you didn't tune it up or change something, because it seems to have way more power. I replied its just the power of Corn Squeezin's! It's like pouring in a supercharger!
Of course the question of miles per dollar and if you save money by using E85 or a blend depends on the price difference% in YOUR area and exactly how YOUR vehicle responds to it. If you live some place where the price spread is 30% or more savings will be just about be guaranteed.
In my travels the price spread was 18 - 23% which netted a savings of 5 to 10%.
Further:
there are more than 4 stations in OR, I have used them.
Leather's Truck stop, Aurora
Space age fuels , Portland
He does have a point about OR, the people that live there can't be trusted with fueling their own rigs full serve, Ok "mini serve", is what you get and I had a guy at Leather's look my rig over to decide if I could use E85.
Some more:
if I went over there and started talking about Acura, they'd probably call me a 'ricer' and go off on my 'imported' car and tell me to buy american. But when it comes to fuel, they'd be all too happy to send bucket-fulls of money over to the mid east.
Scanning through some of the posts, it seems to be pretty much the standard 'negative' attitude about getting lower mph and ethanol having less energy than gasoline. Based on that, about all you can do is point out that even though the miles per gallon is lower, the miles per dollar (which is what we all should care about) is equal or higher with E85. As for the energy, yeah, gas is 110,000 btu/gal, E85 is 76,000 and nitromethane is 47,300 btu/gal. [sarcasm on] So I guess that is why all high powered race cars burn gas instead of alcohol or nitromethane! [sarcasm off] But at least it does prove a point that the btu/gal is almost worthless to describe how much power can be made from a fuel.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question642.htm
Gets back to the question begging to be discussed--is it worth slightly lower fuel economy for higher performance and fuel independence, when compared to $10+ gasoline from imported petroleum?...
NOW--Can we get back to discussing E85 Mods?
A couple more sites (thanks again to the previously mentioned anonymous contributor) on 3800 E85 mods:
http://www.clubgp.com/newforum/tm.asp?m ... s=#4561136
http://www.regalgs.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 85&start=0300,000+ miles, still in the family, mostly stock with few exceptions (tires, tranny, battery, alternator).
. That GIF image sums it up nicely. Good idea, poorly executed. The best bio fuel article I ever read was the October 2007 National Geographic if you want, you can read it 
