I'm running 57% ethanol in an unmodified car. It is NOT a FFV.

[Thegonagle]

I've been trying to reduce my dependence on foreign oil ever since the Katrina gas crunch hit and the price of gasoline shot past $3 per gallon. While that was happening, a gallon of E-85 (85% ethanol + 15% gasoline by volume), now available at nearly 200 locations state-wide in Minnesota, could be had for as little as $2.199. Now that the post-katrina prices have stabilized, it's still a bit cheaper, so I can still financially justify my support for the cause.

My car is a plain old ordinary 2001 Mazda Protege, not a flexible fuel vehicle. Now that the warranty has expired, I'm free to go crazy!

The manual says not to use greater than 10% ethanol. I say something different! This is a science experiment for me. If it can stand a little ethanol (10%), it can stand a bit more, right? (57% so for and climbing!)

I'm getting this super blend of ethanol by buying an appropriate amount of E-85 and regular gasoline, which in my state, already contains a mandatory 10% ethanol, and mixing them right in the 14.5 gallon tank. (Math class pays off for me in real life--for the third or fourth time ever! Stay in school, kids! )

I think it's pretty cool that my car runs so well on the stuff. It actually runs better than on regular 87 octane. 87 Octane is all my car "requires," but it likes a little extra, or else it pings at very low RPMs when I'm too lazy to downshift. Here's the cool thing about E-85: it's octane rating is about 105! With me being a cheap MF, I'm not going to spend extra on "the good stuff" 91+ octane gasoline just because of a little pinging, but I will spend less for some booze-o-line to mix with the cheap 87 octane gasoline to bring the octane up. As little as 1 gal of E-85 mixed with the cheap gasoline in the 14.5 gallon tank eliminates the pinging in my car completely, and seems to give me more power as well. (doesn't it make sense? I mean, race cars run on alcohol, right?)

The thing E-85 users say to look out for is reduced mileage, since a gallon of ethanol contains less chemical energy potential than a gallon of gasoline, but someone must have forgot to tell my Mazda, because I haven't even noticed any decrease in mileage. I understand this minimal-no loss of mileage is common with the type of driving I do--like 95% city driving. Same goes for people towing with their FFV Chevy trucks. This has something to do with the fact that ethanol tends to burn more completely inside the combustion chamber under heavy throttle, so the net energy captured from the two fuels is equivalent in these driving situations... Or something like that...

The bottom line is that I'm pushing the limits of my machine. I've grown weary of overclocking my CPUs; it's time to push something else. I'm pushing 57% ethanol now and plan to keep increasing progressively closer to 100% E-85 (85% ethanol) until I have any problems. If I get all the way there, well, hell, I win the booby prize! (What the hell is a ?booby? prize anyway?)

 

[Shawn]

good luck

 

[Aquaman]

Since your into experimenting..........Try Acetone

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Colt45]

richen the mixture some and you should be able to run pure ethyl.

i wouldnt run 57% ethyl without richening it up some, because fuel:air ratio is different for teh C2H5OH


You'd probably have to do it in software these days, with EFI..

 

[themroc27]

what if it blows up or something ..?

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: themroc27
what if it blows up or something ..?

Then the experiment, and possibly the OP, will be over

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Colt45
richen the mixture some and you should be able to run pure ethyl.

i wouldnt run 57% ethyl without richening it up some, because fuel:air ratio is different for teh C2H5OH


You'd probably have to do it in software these days, with EFI..

I think the software is already compensating based on other readings, such as the O2 sensor and the knock sensor. Otherwise, I'd be getting a check engine light. But I'm not yet, so I'll keep pushing.

Lots of people are trying this. The Germans were among the first--during WWII fossil fuels were scarce for them, so they modified their military vehicles to run on booze (in those days, they had to change the jet sizes on their carburetors). There's a guy out there on some forum (I forgot to bookmark it, and now I can't find it--but FWIW, he's out there) running a turbo Subaru WRX on E-85 and posting some of the best 1/4 mi. ETs ever seen on stock boost PSI--the biggest mod was changing the fuel in the tank. How sweet is that?

 

[Mark R]

Isn't the issue with ethanol, not so much the fuel-air ratio, but the fact that it is corrosive to seals and moving parts in the fuel system?

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Mark R
Isn't the issue with ethanol, not so much the fuel-air ratio, but the fact that it is corrosive to seals and moving parts in the fuel system?

It's designed to handle 10%. Why not more?

I'm going to assume all gasket/sealing materials these days are compatible with ethanol, so I'm not worried there.

And I thought it was methanol, not ethanol, that was particularly corrosive to metal. I think that the primary concern with ethanol is that it is hygroscopic, so any water that it picks up tends to cause corrosion in lower grade steel and also aluminum.

 

[BWMerlin]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
I think that the primary concern with ethanol is that it is hygroscopic, so any water that it picks up tends to cause corrosion in lower grade steel and also aluminum.

I believe this is also true and I have been told to watch out for your exhaust piping rusting out. I have run E10 in my car and did notice a slight increase in consumption, I?m not sure if I will run it again. But seeing as the premium ethanol mix cost the same as 95 octane premium and the mix is rated at 98 octane I might give it a try again.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: BWMerlin

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
I think that the primary concern with ethanol is that it is hygroscopic, so any water that it picks up tends to cause corrosion in lower grade steel and also aluminum.

I believe this is also true and I have been told to watch out for your exhaust piping rusting out. I have run E10 in my car and did notice a slight increase in consumption, I?m not sure if I will run it again. But seeing as the premium ethanol mix cost the same as 95 octane premium and the mix is rated at 98 octane I might give it a try again.

I don't have a choice--it's E-10 or nothing in Minnesota, and many other states. But for some reason, our cheap "gasoline," despite being 10% ethanol, is still only 87 octane. I hate to think what crap it would be if there was no ethanol in it at all. (No wonder our gasoline prices are almost always well below the national average.)

 

[whistleclient]

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.



In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"



. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would

devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to

grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for

10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's

the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the

same period of time.



And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with

ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with

corn, he adds.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.



In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"



. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would

devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to

grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for

10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's

the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the

same period of time.



And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with

ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with

corn, he adds.

quite assumes the use of corn. corns no good. the brazzilians use sugar cane and kick ass with it. unfortanetly american don't relate to sugar cane the same way they see corn. corn=some happy farmer suporting his family. sugar cane=uneduacted dirty hatian.

 

[Engineer]

Just so you know, the difference between FFV car and others is usually minor including simple changes such as the fuel lines. My company makes those and there is a difference in the fuel lines to impede corrosion, etc. in FFV. You might spring a leak if you're not careful!

IIRC, the fuel lines are nickel plated to keep FF from eating away at the inside...but I could be wrong.

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: themroc27
what if it blows up or something ..?

Then the experiment, and possibly the OP, will be over

hahahahahahaha!

 

[Mrvile]

Not Captain Morgan?

 

[IamElectro]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Just so you know, the difference between FFV car and others is usually minor including simple changes such as the fuel lines. My company makes those and there is a difference in the fuel lines to impede corrosion, etc. in FFV. You might spring a leak if you're not careful!

You beat me to it.

I would also like to add that you run the risk of destroying/drying out o-ring seals through out the fuel system.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: IamElectro

Originally posted by: Engineer
Just so you know, the difference between FFV car and others is usually minor including simple changes such as the fuel lines. My company makes those and there is a difference in the fuel lines to impede corrosion, etc. in FFV. You might spring a leak if you're not careful!

You beat me to it.

I would also like to add that you run the risk of destroying/drying out o-ring seals through out the fuel system.

Absolutely. I'm not sure of other changes in a FFV buy my company also makes the fuel pumps, lines, tanks and fuel rails for injectors. Lots of possibilities to screw something up.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: IamElectro

Originally posted by: Engineer
Just so you know, the difference between FFV car and others is usually minor including simple changes such as the fuel lines. My company makes those and there is a difference in the fuel lines to impede corrosion, etc. in FFV. You might spring a leak if you're not careful!

You beat me to it.

I would also like to add that you run the risk of destroying/drying out o-ring seals through out the fuel system.

yeah, IIRC in south america the GMs sold there have significantly uprated fuel lines/seals/the lot to cope with the higher ethanol levels...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dug777

yeah, IIRC in south america the GMs sold there have significantly uprated fuel lines/seals/the lot to cope with the higher ethanol levels...

Also made there by my company!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dug777

yeah, IIRC in south america the GMs sold there have significantly uprated fuel lines/seals/the lot to cope with the higher ethanol levels...

Also made there by my company!

:thumbsup:

 

[MrBond]

Yeah, you're heading for trouble if you don't have a FFV and you're running ethanol. You're going to spend as much as you saved replacing fuel lines, pumps, etc unless you stop.

The FFV package isn't just a marketing ploy to make more money for GM/DC/Whoever, the fuel system is actually different like a lot of people said. It's higher grade materials that won't corrode because of the ethanol.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.



In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"



. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would

devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to

grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for

10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's

the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the

same period of time.



And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with

ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with

corn, he adds.

Yeah, ethanol is only cheaper because of SUBSIDIES.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.



In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"



. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would

devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to

grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for

10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's

the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the

same period of time.



And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with

ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with

corn, he adds.

Yeah, ethanol is only cheaper because of SUBSIDIES.

Ah, the inevitable comparison to gasoline, which is a fallacy when you think about. Direct, apples-to-apples comparison is impossible, because one can't put a price on replacement of the raw materials for production of gasoline like one can for ethanol; once the oil is used, it can't be replaced like bio fuels. (One might say that Mother Earth subsidizes gasoline with "free" oil, so that's why petroleum products are cheaper.)

And sugar cane or sweet corn, it doesn't matter to me. AFAIK, it's easier to grow corn than sugar cane in my region, so that's what is used.

Extremist, alarmist arguements about powering "all of our automobiles" with ethanol are also total BS, because that's not going to happen. It is going to be part of a whole range of alternatives, not the only alternative.

Right now, I'm demonstrating to myself and others that my car isn't going to blow up using a bio fuel. (Maybe I should cut back though if it makes such a difference that the materials in my fuel system are only engineered for 10% ethanol.) It's also cool to think that the plants used absorb a similar amount of carbon dioxide while they grow as is released in processing and burning it.

 

[Brutuskend]

I hope you don't have a electrical fuel pump with a diaphragm in it.

It WILL get eaten up.

I learned THIS lesson the HARD way!