PontiacBonnevilleClub.com

It's building the fuel systems a little bit better, and tuning.

Our specific problems come from driving older cars that were designed and programmed when E10 wasn't as widely available. IIRC, my owner's manual states that use of blends of alcohol up to 10% will not be harmful to the car, or something like that.

The 09 Honda Fit we have couldn't give 2 rips about ethanol content. IIRC, the few times we tried it on E0 it ran far worse. That car was all-new for the 2009 model year, from the wheels on up. It gets about 33-34 mpg on E10 commuting 50 miles a day on E10 being driven at 75 mph. Drive it at 65 and it'll get 45 mpg on E10. It'll be fine running E15.

The Buick definitely gets worse fuel economy on E10 than E0. I've proven that over and over to my own satisfaction. Now with a tuner to set the stoichiometric ratio a little lower, it shouldn't matter about E10.

And yet another reference to Al Gore's backtracking on Ethanol:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 ... latestnews

Many new car warranties dictate using no more than 10% Ethanol.

There's a place for some in there, subsidized or what not is a political discussion, but the cars on the road now are not designed for it, with things like clean diesel, hydrogen, pure electric, etc, ethanol is hard to take serious as a fossil fuel replacement. In theory there are ups to using higher % of ethanol in fuel, and there are theoretical ways that we can be more effecient in terms of space than just cornohol, but these are just theories.

Pipelines could be built for it, but there's no infrastructure for it, and there's no way you could build a sustainable infrastructure for corn based ethanol due to the way it's spread about the country.

1oldman wrote:If we were serious about ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane and other organic sources other than grain.

Researchers are working hard and fast to develop cellulosic ethanol plants that can use about any organic material as feedstock. The problem with cellulosic feedstock is low energy density. It would take more truckloads of switchgrass bales, corn cobs, stover, etc., to produce a gallon of ethanol than with corn. Shipping these products by rail is another economic nightmare.

Using corn stover and corn cobs have other environmental impacts: farmers would have to use more fertilizers, and soil erosion would increase by not having the residue protection. This adds to more nutrient runoff which is the cause of gulf hypoxia.

I guess I'm gonna keep beating a dead horse.

From the FSM 92 SSE, SSEi Bonneville ENGINE FUEL 6C-3 (beginning location b on page 6C-3)
=============================
ALCHOL-IN-FUEL
Alchol-in-fuel can be detrimental to fuel system components and may cause driveability problems such as hesitation, lack of power, stall, no start, etc.

The problem may be due to fuel system corrosion and subsequent fuel filter plugging, deterioration of rubber components and/or air-fuel mixture leaning.
Various types and concentrations of alcohol are used in commercial fuel. Some alcohols are more detrimental to fuel system components than others.
=============================

it goes on to describe how to test for alcohol in the fuel.

I still say that if gas goes to e15 and no e10 is available, someone (company) will need to provide an alternate fuel for the older vehicles. The current e10 is, excuse the technical term,"crap". - BC

Motorcycle - http://bikeweek.com/post.cfm/post/4723/ ... otorcycles
- http://beachfyi.com/e15-gasoline/
- http://www.vulcanforums.com/forums/show ... hp?t=11448
Cars and Boats - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03475.html
Boats - http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/washi ... iller.html
Retailer costs - http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Dai ... 15104.aspx
Cars - http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/connec ... d-for-cars
- http://green.autoblog.com/2010/12/20/e1 ... utomakers/
E15 approval for Cars made 2000 to current - http://www.leftlanenews.com/epa-set-to- ... icles.html
Power Equipment - http://www.bzuh.com/e15-fears-more-etha ... cs-say.htm

1oldman, this would be for 2007 models and newer ONLY. So there's no need to beat the horse.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -10-now-/1

willwren wrote:1oldman, this would be for 2007 models and newer ONLY. So there's no need to beat the horse.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -10-now-/1

Making it for 2000 and newer is on the table. The number of pre 2000 is decreasing. At somepoint, e10 will not be available, just like "leaded" gas - BC

At some point, the world will end. Some say 2012, so this might be moot.

The Government won't make a mandatory change that would be bad for a car or would violate manufacturer's design constraints. Until a change is dictated for 2k models (and I'd bet it will never make it), this is a dead horse, and has no bearing on our Bonnevilles through 2005.

Stating that at some point E10 won't be available is pure conjecture. There's no legislation whatsoever that is even hinting in that direction. The Ethanol debate will swing back and forth with the poeple that have the patience to sit and wait sandwiched in between the tree huggers and the Gore-haters. Instead of stating rumors and opinions, let's simply discuss the facts of the 15% ethanol proposal for 2007 and newer vehicles in this topic.

That'll help keep it factual and cool.

well,

1. My intent is not to be "hot under the collar"
2. There really doesn't have to be legislation to change from e10 to e15. The EPA has that authority.
3. If there isn't a viable alternative offered to the pre 2000 vehicles and there isn't any pressure brought to bear about a viable alternative, the pre 2000 vehicle owners will be up the proverbial creek with out the proverbial paddle.
4. Alcohol does cause problems for fuel systems not designed to handle it.

Sometimes there isn't enough "thought" put into legislation. A good example of that is making ethanol out of corn. Lobby money was the cause of the legislation. It takes about 1 barrel of oil to make one barrel of ethanol from corn. That is not being environmentally friendly. Ethanol can be made efficiently out of other stock such as, wood chips, sugar beets, sugar cane, and other organic material. If our government wants us to convert to ethanol, that's great if done in a non-disruptive manner. I think Brazil has done a fantastic job, but then, I'm not familiar with all the details either.

- BC

Nobody said you were hot under the collar, but this topic can get that way (proven history on Ethanol topics on this Forum) if people don't stick to the facts. There is nothing on the table for 2k and newer vehicles with regards to E15, and there's nothing on the table to do away with E10.

What I'm getting at here is that we need to stick with the facts. The facts are that E15 is proposed for 2007 and newer vehicles. That change does not affect any vehicle or platform this Forum supports. Furthermore, the EPA only granted a WAIVER to ALLOW the sale of E15. There is no requirement that gas stations do so. My personal belief is that there won't be many that do, because there is no demand for the product.

It's a given that too high of an Ethanol content in gasoline can damage components in some engines.

For what its worth; some real-world data here:

I drove a 2007 Flex-Fuel Impala LT (stock) for three years. I live an hour away from my office, so I drive a lot. E85 is readily available around here. For a couple months I alternated between E10 and E85 fill-ups, and kept careful track of mileage for each. I tried to use up as much of the fuel as possible before switching over (and subsequently ran out of gas twice, but that's another story).

My average mileage on E85 was 30% lower than on E10. Here in the metro-Detroit area, E85 typically costs around 15-20% less than E10. Thusly, it was cheaper overall to fuel up with E10.

This doesn't help with the question of how ethanol affects engine life, but I thought somebody might find this interesting.

Ken_W

Ken_W wrote:For what its worth; some real-world data here:

I drove a 2007 Flex-Fuel Impala LT (stock) for three years. I live an hour away from my office, so I drive a lot. E85 is readily available around here. For a couple months I alternated between E10 and E85 fill-ups, and kept careful track of mileage for each. I tried to use up as much of the fuel as possible before switching over (and subsequently ran out of gas twice, but that's another story).

My average mileage on E85 was 30% lower than on E10. Here in the metro-Detroit area, E85 typically costs around 15-20% less than E10. Thusly, it was cheaper overall to fuel up with E10.

This doesn't help with the question of how ethanol affects engine life, but I thought somebody might find this interesting.

Ken_W

Hi Ken - Thanks for the info. I have always said that e10 and e85 gave lower fuel mileage than straight gasoline. We don't have a lot of e85 here & we don't own a flex-fuel vehicle. I need that so I didn't think I am "off my rocker". (lol!) - BC

1oldman wrote:

Ken_W wrote:For what its worth; some real-world data here:

I drove a 2007 Flex-Fuel Impala LT (stock) for three years. I live an hour away from my office, so I drive a lot. E85 is readily available around here. For a couple months I alternated between E10 and E85 fill-ups, and kept careful track of mileage for each. I tried to use up as much of the fuel as possible before switching over (and subsequently ran out of gas twice, but that's another story).

My average mileage on E85 was 30% lower than on E10. Here in the metro-Detroit area, E85 typically costs around 15-20% less than E10. Thusly, it was cheaper overall to fuel up with E10.

This doesn't help with the question of how ethanol affects engine life, but I thought somebody might find this interesting.

Ken_W

Hi Ken - Thanks for the info. I have always said that e10 and e85 gave lower fuel mileage than straight gasoline. We don't have a lot of e85 here & we don't own a flex-fuel vehicle. I need that so I didn't think I am "off my rocker". (lol!) - BC

Mileage is lower because ethanol has different stoich levels, and lower potential energy than an equal amount of standard gasoline, it is not because it's a bad fuel, you just need to burn more to get the same power levels. Flex fuel vehicles have the ability to switch on the fly for this.

There is a growing trend in boosted cars to tune for ethanol to gain performance. It's high octane ratings are GREAT on turbo & supercharged engines.

Again, there's no pipeline for ethanol now because it's grown on farms around, it's not a centralized production facility (like an oil well) soooo you can't just run a pipe from every farm in an area to a local plant...

1oldman wrote:Beast, then MN must have "different" E85 than here 'cause that engine would be "toast" if you did it that long with our "E85". Even the new vehicles have trouble with it. The wife's '09 CTS (4 months old at the time) only got 15mpg on a tank once. It wasn't the car 'cause we filled up (Texaco) the SSE at the same time and it only got 15 too. The "E85" we get here is "crap", - BC

You put E85 in a 2009 CTS and a 1992 Bonneville? After a quick search online, I cannot find anywhere that states a 2009 CTS is flex fuel capable, and you shouldn't be putting it in an SSE either. E85 is ONLY good for cars labelled as flex fuel, and cars modified and tuned to run it. MN is one of the biggest E85 states out there, but there's no difference really.

We have known since E10 came out that mileage would be lower for the reasons eloquently presented above. It was also calculated and predicted in advance. My region was one of the last to switch, and I immediately saw a drop in fuel mileage on both of my vehicles.

It should be stated that the octane of E10 remains what it says on the pump, and the desire to use it to boost octane in supercharged or turbo-equipped vehicles is a little different than just pumping it in at the station. It involves adding ethanol to boost the octane. I use Toluene for this purpose, as it's a far better 'fuel' to add to a gasoline mix in our cars for the purpose of boosting octane above the premium levels.

BonneMe wrote:

1oldman wrote:

Ken_W wrote:For what its worth; some real-world data here:

I drove a 2007 Flex-Fuel Impala LT (stock) for three years. I live an hour away from my office, so I drive a lot. E85 is readily available around here. For a couple months I alternated between E10 and E85 fill-ups, and kept careful track of mileage for each. I tried to use up as much of the fuel as possible before switching over (and subsequently ran out of gas twice, but that's another story).

My average mileage on E85 was 30% lower than on E10. Here in the metro-Detroit area, E85 typically costs around 15-20% less than E10. Thusly, it was cheaper overall to fuel up with E10.

This doesn't help with the question of how ethanol affects engine life, but I thought somebody might find this interesting.

Ken_W

The post intent was not that e85 had ever been put in either vehicle. We did put e10 in both vehicles at the same gas station (Texaco) at the same time. The fuel mileage was


Hi Ken - Thanks for the info. I have always said that e10 and e85 gave lower fuel mileage than straight gasoline. We don't have a lot of e85 here & we don't own a flex-fuel vehicle. I need that so I didn't think I am "off my rocker". (lol!) - BC

Mileage is lower because ethanol has different stoich levels, and lower potential energy than an equal amount of standard gasoline, it is not because it's a bad fuel, you just need to burn more to get the same power levels. Flex fuel vehicles have the ability to switch on the fly for this.

There is a growing trend in boosted cars to tune for ethanol to gain performance. It's high octane ratings are GREAT on turbo & supercharged engines.

Again, there's no pipeline for ethanol now because it's grown on farms around, it's not a centralized production facility (like an oil well) soooo you can't just run a pipe from every farm in an area to a local plant...

1oldman wrote:Beast, then MN must have "different" E85 than here 'cause that engine would be "toast" if you did it that long with our "E85". Even the new vehicles have trouble with it. The wife's '09 CTS (4 months old at the time) only got 15mpg on a tank once. It wasn't the car 'cause we filled up (Texaco) the SSE at the same time and it only got 15 too. The "E85" we get here is "crap", - BC

You put E85 in a 2009 CTS and a 1992 Bonneville? After a quick search online, I cannot find anywhere that states a 2009 CTS is flex fuel capable, and you shouldn't be putting it in an SSE either. E85 is ONLY good for cars labelled as flex fuel, and cars modified and tuned to run it. MN is one of the biggest E85 states out there, but there's no difference really.

====
The intent of the post was not that e85 was put in either vehicle. We did put in e10 at the same gas station (Texaco) at the same time. We did get really terrible fuel mileage from both vehicles on these fill-ups, about 15 or 16 mpg. That was when I realized it was the "lousy" gas causing the bad fuel economy, not the vehicles.

E85 was not available locally at the time - BC

1oldman wrote: The intent of the post was not that e85 was put in either vehicle. We did put in e10 at the same gas station (Texaco) at the same time. We did get really terrible fuel mileage from both vehicles on these fill-ups, about 15 or 16 mpg. That was when I realized it was the "lousy" gas causing the bad fuel economy, not the vehicles.

E85 was not available locally at the time - BC

10% ethanol wont cut a vehicles mileage by 1/3 or 1/2 however. It probably was a bad batch that paticular station has, or a bad blend at the refinery.

I would agree with that assessment. But fuel mileage is almost always lower on both vehicles than what i would expect. I have felt for sometime the refiners have been producing inferior gasoline and that all the problems with e10 are not completely because it is e10. - BC

1oldman wrote: I have felt for sometime the refiners have been producing inferior gasoline and that all the problems with e10 are not completely because it is e10. - BC

Amen! And, agreed. The ScanGauge MPG readings have been trending down over years. Plus a new fuel filter on the Buick was plugged after 20k miles of fuel made in 2010.

The Buick runs so badly on 87 octane E10 winter blend it's more cost-efficient to run 93 octane E10. Maybe it's the increased detergent levels, maybe it's because there's less ethanol, or maybe it's due to a bad tune. It's entirely possible to make 85 octane raw gasoline, then use ethanol to raise the octane to 87 octane. I'm not saying that's the root of the issues, just that it's an entirely doable enterprise.

The thing that concerns me is if the fuel quality has gotten really poor with e10, what is it gonna be with e15? Unchanged, better, worse? And e15 will be less friendly to older fuel systems than e10. - BC

Well, for what it's worth. I'm driving a 16 year old car. I have driven it for eight years of those 16. Of those eight, I have pumped many MANY gallons of 89 octane E10 gasoline. The single owner of this vehicle, before me, pumped many many gallons of 89 octane E10. The engine, which has never been torn down, is sitting at over 200K miles. I just started and drove the car to work today.

E10, like any fuel, works well when the system is designed for it. E10 works better when the system is tuned for it. It stands to make more power as well, when used to it's ability. However, this is my experience, and I gave up vigorously defending my position years ago. It's simple science. Cost efficiency hasn't been addressed properly due to lack of demand(mainly, people who want to burn it like gasoline, but it isn't gasoline). Outside of catastrophic leanness, I can't understand why anyone would be opposed to having free oxygen added to their cylinders.