TIMPORIUM

Does anyone know if using a mixture of E85 and E10 fuel would help to pass Emissions test?

Gramps

iTrader: (1)

cant tell you about emissions tests, but i can tell you that if you put E85 in an engine not designed for it, youll corrode your parts. E85 eats metal, thats why stainless parts are needed for this type of fuel. if you dont have stainless parts, youll blow up a motor and fuel lines AND the fuel tank.

E85 isnt as efficent as normal gasoline anyways, so it may not burn properly and therfore not show the results the emissions guys wanna see.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

It doesn't pay to overstate the issues. Alcohol sucks up moisture, and a high water content will corrode metals over time. Keep it dry and fresh, no problems. I've been running E85 in my '57, no problems with the original steel fuel tank or replacement aluminum fuel line. And, the engine hasn't grenaded.

Now, to the original question: If you've been running E10, you've already gotten all of the benefits of the ethanol; that is, the cleaning of the fuel and combustion systems.

Gumby

Them E85 rumors are BS and folks repeated them like they know first hand.



What guys with old hot rod do is similar. They run low on gas and dump in a bunnch of rubbin alcohol / dry gas. They also create a hidden vacuum leak and tard the timing. All is done only to pass smog. Once passed they find the nearest gas station to top off n water down the mix and undo the vacuum n timin.

TIMPORIUM

I was considering adding a couple of gallons of E85 to about a 1/4 tank of gas. Would this have a simalar effect as the rubbing alcohol idea? How does creating a vacuum leak improve emissions?

Gumby

well not sure on a computer car. On an old hotrod a vacuum leak will help you run leaner by sucking air. Yea id just go ahead and try it, same difference. Lots of folks run 50/50 or more to saves a few buck. Some just run it straight. None near me yet to try. whats the octane ratings on E85, same or higher?

TIMPORIUM

E85 is supposed to be 105 octane.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

105 is what I've heard.

A CC carb isn't going to be very happy with E85. Stoic is about 12:1. That would make it "lean", but wouldn't run worth a hoot. Combustion temps would go up, raising NOx output. Of course, 33% E85 wouldn't be as bad as 100% E85.

(Okay, boys and girls, for today's math problem: If you put 4 gallons of E10 with 2 gallons of E85, how much gasoline and how much alcohol would you have?)

Gramps

iTrader: (1)

thers another forum that says that E85 is crap...it burns at 81,000BTu / gallon...where as 94 octane burns at 112,000btu/gallon. so it may imitate high octane fuel, but its less efficent at burning.

my appoligies...E85 will not corrode your engine...i confused it with methanol (give me a break they are both alcohols )
EDIT: the only reason E85 was invented was to prevent the oil companies from cornering the market and keeping the price of gas at such a high price when it doesnt need to, oil is its lowest prices in years, and gas is still going up...hmm...can you say monolopy?

Toehead

It does contain less energy, but you can make up for it by building a high compression motor to compensate.

Vader

Gramps is correct. Methanol is the far more corrosive alcohol. It readily attacks lead, including any lead which is alloyed into brass/bronze fittings, lead which is sued to seal (solder( brass carb floats), and any other bronze parts in teh fuel system, like the electric fuel pump impeller/vanes and check valve. Methanol also becomes more acidic as it accumulates water.

I've run E85 in my non-flex fuel truck since 2005, I get an occasional lean O˛ error code in warmer weather, and a bit harder starts in cooler weather, but mostly get only reduced power. Even though ethanol has a lower stoichiometric point, and will run leaner without ECM/PCM recalibration, combustion temperatures really don't elevate much since the ethanol burns quite a bit cooler than gasoline. I doubt that NOx will be a serious problem unless you are already on the ragged edge.

For the purposes of passing an emissions test, it may or may not help. If you know the current emissions readings, it would be easier to determine. If CO is high, ethanol should help reduce it. If HCs are high, it will almost certainly reduce it.

Gumby

They say it does or can but I think its only a factor if you already have nasty lines.

How many 20 yr old cars have original steel lines anymore?
All are rubber by now for price and ease.

Aren't all 3rd gen aluminum lines???

on buick board folks soaked all kind of parts in acetone when that went around with no ill effect. I did same with motorcyle part in seafoam.

It may exgerate the condition but if you got a good clean system I doubt you would spring leaks from runnin it. Maybe say an all original steel parts would last 15 years on e85 instead of 20 with gas.

Its all sotra BS but still PC but still BS as it could / might and its best you just buy a NEW car or have your local dealer "CHANGE" you over for $$$$$.

Kinda like going to LPG, you don't need much anymore today to run mix or straight. But back in the day they said you "had" to re-do it all, new special heads and so much money the savings didn't look worth it...Lots of hype and price to keep folks from even thinking of it.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

3rd gen lines are steel. Mine are still the originals, although I did use braid-jacketed rubber to go from the driver's side (V6) to passenger side where the V8 pump is.

Gumby

my 86 has aluminum gas lines?

Vader

I had to dig out my trusty old aluminum magnet to verify that my lines are magnetic. They have an aluminized coating, perhaps, but there is some iron in there somewhere.

Geez! I just realized! I hope I didn't over-magnetize the fuel in that section of the lines, scrambling its molecular pattern. I might have to get one or two of those "fuel-saver" magnets to compensate, just in case.

Yeeeaah... That's IT! THAT'S the ticket. GM used steel lines so the fuel-saver magnet would have something to stick onto. And then, uhh, and then the magnets have a better affect over a longer length of line, since the iron in the line conducts the magnetic lines of flux better. Yeah - That's it.

That gives me an even BETTER idea. I'm going to put magnets on my fuel return line, so that all the fuel going BACK to the tank gets magnetized. Then all the screws and nails and shards on the road will be sucked away from my tires by the giant, magnetic gas tank. Better yet, the added weight of all that stuff collected on the magic magnetic gas tank will be great for traction. Yeah, that's it. And when I want to clean it off, I'll just drain all the magnetic gas and let everything fall right there.

I'm off to ebaY to start selling some right now....

Vader

Anyway....

Thumbs-Up on the monopolistic production and marketing of refined petroleum products. The only way it could be worse is if the government had any greater involvement.

Any elastomeric (rubber or plastic) fuel lines sold since 1984 have alcohol resistance. The problems arise in the connections, tanks, and lines which have had years to collect crud and rust, then exposure to alcohols liberates that rust and wreaks havoc with debris, potential leaks, and dissolving incompatible parts.

Ethanol blended gasolines have been available in my area since 1976, and mandated for almost the last decade. Once you're beyond the crucial initial exposure to the cleaning of the alcohol, there are no problems. At over 20% ethanol, the corrosive effects can increase, but only to a certain point. Below 20%, most vehicles made in the last 20 years should suffer no serious problems directly caused by ethanol; use (see above).

"Pure" gasoline (for practical purposes, there really is no such thing) has a stoichiometric constant of about 14.7:1 air to fuel, by mass (not volume), and factory programming typically sets the target AFR at 14.73:1, making it slightly lean already.

Gasoline with MTBE oxidizing additive has a stoich AFR closer to 14.1:1, so if you're not burning ethanol blended fuel, you're STILL running lean unless you've reprogrammed the vehicle controls. There aren’t many areas of the country where you can get fuel without either MTBE of ethanol. There are some, but on a population weighted basis, I’d wager that at least 90% of us get one or the other.

Gasoline blended with 10% ethanol has a stoich of about 13.85:1, which is really not a big change from what the other oxygenated fuels have to offer.

Properties

Ethanol
Density - 0.789 g/cmł, liquid
Melting point - -114.3 ̊C
Boiling point - 78.4 ̊C
Viscosity - 1.200 mPas (cP) at 20.0 ̊C
Stoichiometric Ratio - 9.1:1

Gasoline
Density - 0.748 g/cmł, liquid
Melting point -114.3 ̊C
Boiling point - 125.6 ̊C
Viscosity - 0.600 mPas (cP) at 20.0 ̊C
Stoichiometric Ratio - 14.7:1


Further, I'd clarify some of the previously reported "data" by reminding everyone that regular gasoline offers 126,200 BTU/US Gallon, while 10% ethanol blend offers 122,300 BTU/US Gallon. That's only a basic 3.1% difference in thermal energy, and doesn't take into account the combined molar energy of the conversion gasses, which slightly favors alcohols over “pure” gasoline. And if you manage to alter your fuel system to provide the more correct, stoichiometric ratio, you’ll be happy to know that the available thermal energy for ethanol is almost identical to “pure” gasoline. One cubic foot of stoichiometric mixture of gasoline and air has a thermal potential of 94.8 BTU. One cubic foot of ethyl alcohol and air has a thermal potential of 94.7 BTU, or a 0.00105596% difference. Get it mixed correctly, and the volume of air which will flow through your intake and heads with gasoline mixed in will make effectively the same amount of power with ethanol mixed in, but with a lower risk of overheating.

Fuel System Practical Application
Despite how they are sometimes identified and advertised, fuel delivery systems actually measure and meter the fuel by liquid volume, not by mass. Even though an injector may be rated or advertised as a certain number of “pounds per hour” or “grams per second” flow, those numbers are applicable ONLY to gasoline, and only because of the specific gravity of gasoline. The devices actually don’t control the mass of liquid flowing through them (and they don’t care what it is) but control the volume of liquid flowing through them.

Even though the actual mass of air may be measured in some systems, the mass of fuel isn’t (except in some later flex-fuel systems, and then only in the fuel sensor, but that isn’t applicable here).

Since the specific gravity of ethanol is higher than gasoline, a greater mass of ethanol flows through a given injector.

Specific Gravity
Ethyl alcohol - 0.789 g/cc
Gasoline - 0.748 g/cc

As we can see, ethanol is 6% heavier per unit volume. Therefore, a fuel injector (or carburetor, for that matter) which is designed to flow a given volume of liquid fuel over a given time will tend to flow 6% more MASS of ethanol as compared to gasoline. Since the stoichiometric ratio for fuel is the ratio of the MASS of air to the MASS of fuel, a fuel delivery system designed to mix air and gasoline at a ratio of 14.7:1 will, by volume, mix air and straight ethanol at a ratio of 13.8:1 by MASS. The typical fuel system therefore unknowingly but automatically increases the mixture rate closer to the stoichiometric ratio for ethanol. Any mixture of gasoline and ethanol will have a resultant specific gravity proportional to the mixture rate, and therefore should be similarly mixed with air by liquid volume at a rate closer to its stoich ratio.

By this example, a gasoline with 10% ethanol blended would be mixed at a rate of 14.6:1, whereas the “ideal” (stoichiometric) ratio would be 13.85:1, or only 5% leaner than ideal. If the fuel system is computer controlled, it should be able to compensate easily without so much as a complaint. Theoretically, if the fuel system is a “dumb” carburetor operating simply by barometric forces, it will still only be about 5% lean. Combine that with the 0.31% lower energy of E-10 (3.1% for pure ethanol on as per-volume basis) and we can extrapolate that the engine would tend to produce 5.015% less power even if the fuel system could not compensate. If the system CAN compensate (such as in an EFI system) there should be no practical power change. A 190 HP LB9 would, at least theoretically, make horespower more like a 170HP LG4.

Practical Fuel Injection and Carburetion
Remember that the primary sensor used for fuel trim does not care what the stoichiometric mixture ratio might be, but only looks for free oxygen content in the exhaust gases. While the typical zirconia oxygen sensor is designed to operate best and most accurately at ratios of 14.7:1 (about 7% hydrocarbons) it will still report either excessive or insufficient oxygen present in the exhaust stream It is an OXYGEN sensor, not a hydrocarbon sensor. The only critical bit of data that all the common control systems need to know is exhaust oxygen content. With that information, they can correct mixture. In an EFI system, compensation is easy enough through slightly longer injector pulses.

When in an open-loop mode, however, the oxygen sensor is not usually considered, and the system reverts to pre-programmed values for injector timings to manage fuel mixture. With ethanol blends, these would tend to be leaner than intended, and without changing the programming appropriately, open-loop mixture would likely result in more noticeable lost power. The one saving grace is that alcohols burn at a lower temperature, so running a little lean with ethanol at WOT is less likely to melt a piston than running lean with pure gasoline. Still, if using an ethanol blend, ideally, at least, the system should be programmed to compensate for just-like-original performance. An astute programmer will recognize that some of the side benefits of using ethanol allow additional timing advance before detonation, and the application of less EGR, both of which can recover any potential performance lost due to the fuel, and possibly even more.

The problem is different (and worse) with a carburetor, even if it is computer controlled. The “automatic enrichment” effect caused by the higher specific gravity of ethanol is offset by the fact that ethanol is more viscous - Almost twice as viscous as gasoline. While this makes little difference to and has nearly no effect on fuel injectors operating at 3 BAR, it does make some difference in a device using only barometric pressure to push liquid fuel through controlled (and usually small) orifices. The mixture rate can likely still be managed adequately by the control system when using feedback from the oxygen sensor (closed-loop), but it will make the open-loop mixture about 10% lean unless modifications are made to compensate.

Just like every hole in a “dumb” carburetor, the secondary side of a typical CCC Quadra-Jet is not managed at all by the ECM. It is “programmed” only by the cam, hanger, metering rods, and relationship of those parts to the secondary air valve. For an engine equipped with an uncontrolled carburetor, or the secondary side of a controlled carburetor which is not ECM controlled should be altered to enrich fuel volume by about 1% for every percent of ethanol blended into gasoline simply to maintain the originally intended mixture ratio. The same can be done to both side of a Quadra-Jet if desired or done as part of a complete carburetor rebuild, but changing the rods and hanger on the Rochester is a lot easier than opening any other carburetor to change jetting, and wiull be sufficient to get everything back to “normal” mixture rates.

In a nutshell, running some percentage of ethanol shouldn't hurt anything, and may help you blow a clean sniffer test if you're not too far off the numbers already.

Gumby

I run magnets on my oil and large can fuel filters.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

But for an entirely different reason than Vader was panning.

Gumby

Ahhh that is why they look so nice and last so long. I have dealt with lots n lots of rusty gas line, tanks and brake lines. All rusted from the outside in, never the other way.