When to use Flex fuel/E85?

[Grumpy Bear]

12 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

Maybe because so many people were singing the performance benefits of E-85 back in 2014 I was hit with the placebo effect. It sure felt good, I’m human.

It isn't your fault Stan. Your a stand up guy. I have no doubt about that. The problem lies with the realities of living in a world where it's legal to manipulate the narrative to suit sales persons margin requirements instead of reflecting the chemistry or physics or math or the truth. Common sense and Divine Moral Preference don't make money. 

 

Did Lingenfelter lie? He said 'certified E-85'. What he meant was certified to be 85 % ethanol a.k.a. Race Gas. And with that fuel he pulled some numbers that chemistry does indeed support. Confusing isn't it? Because we believe the word 'certified' to mean, as a general rule, to be within the lawfully accepted definition of E-85 legal for sale by Federal Law. That, apparently, is in a constant state of flux. 

 

In Australia and Brazil 85 means 85. But in the US where lobbies have the Federal ear it means 51% - 83%. Cliff points out in Iowa, who exercises its States Rights that number is 70 - 83% Who can be convicted of the lie? Depends on the definition used, not by the public but by the person whose statement is being made. What a crock of crap. No one is responsible and not one is liable. 

 

Let's say you have two gallons of E-10 in your tank and you want to go drag racing for the afternoon so you add 5 gallons of E-85 because your weight conscience. In your mind your thinking cool, 85% alcohol:

 

(2 * 8) + (5 * 51)  / 7 = 38% the result of 8% E-10 and 51% E-85 OR

(2 * 8) + (% * 83) / 7 = 61.5% the result of E-10 and 83% E85

 

Neither can deliver what Lingenfelter did on 85% straight race fuel. 

 

The very definition of 'fuel grade' ethanol prevents the blend from ever reaching that obtained by outfits like SUNOCO, Union76 or VP fuels who are not bound by Federal Law as recreational fuels. "Fuel Grade" isn't straight ethanol!! 

 

Then there's this. Did you know that E-85's nominal 15% gasoline isn't required to be pump grade? Could be 82-84 octane straight run gasoline right off the caustic treating plant in some refinery or blending tank farm. Come to think of it 87 regular isn't 87 stock. It's about 85 but it is same as ethanol free in the pump next to it. SUNOCO on the other hand uses race grade blend stock with a high enough octane to actually deliver 99 point (R+M)/2 fuel instead of some phantom pump sticker number. 

 

SO what you really want to know is can I get the results Lingenfelter did or C/D or whoever your touchstones are. YES! And by the exact same method. You need a dedicated fuel cell and cans of race fuel...OR move to Australia or Brazil. Do not expect it to be cost effective getting to and from the track. 

 

Now as far as day in day out use. It's a poke in the dark without know exactly what the content of the fuel is in their tank BEFORE you pump it, because the truth is not in them, and what you have remaining in your tank. Maybe there is a method to check small quanity samples. Let me check into that.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Akamule]

If you really want to know what your getting buy from a local oil or fuel company in a drum and test it. The pumps here can have a wide range but can be bought in bulk as E98 and be blended down to E85 with 85pct ethanol and sold by the drum or 5ga pail. I understand the point of the fuel not making any more power based on the octane. But the truck measures the alcohol content from what I understand to change timing and increase power that you wouldn’t get from 93 gas.

[Cowpie]

On 12/12/2017 at 2:38 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

To what end? See that's the question. To what end?

 

Today for example there is locally an 11% difference between these two grades. There is not an 11% difference in economy. There is no 'useful' measureable power difference within the range of normal street operation. It' doesn't start easier. Doesn't warm up faster. There is no damage to be expected from allowing the computer to do what it is designed to do. Wont make my tea. Wont fee my dog So...to what end? 

 

E-85. There is about a dollar spread between 93 and E-85 locally. IF the E-85 were actually 85% there would be roughly a 30% decline in economy. Wash. But as it is more likely to be 50-60% the drop is lower but still there. The power can not be tapped or reliably tuned for when the content is all over the map. Alcohol is hydroscopic. People are not experiencing the normal 30% drop in economy because....it isn't really E-85 in anything but marketing jargon that is federally accepted as 'okay to lie'. 

 

E85 makes sense IF you race or pull and are using a know reliable source that delivers what it promises. Sunoco E85R i.e.

 

It also makes sense IF it's the only fuel they have and it 3 AM in Podunk USA with 300 miles to the next stop and your sucking wind. 

Lot of assumptions there which seem to be based more of presupposition than actual knowledge.  It is state dependent, not Federal.  Weights and Measures, Iowa for instance, is very picky about labeling.  If the pump says E85, then that has to have a minimum of 70%.  And there is no hard and fast predictable percentage of drop in fuel economy.  Weather, driving style, seasonal changes, etc all play into it.  On my 2015 2500 6.0L, the rate of drop for using E85 is a consistent 2 mpg compared to regular.  That equates to a roughly 15% drop in fuel economy.  That plays the same in both warm months and cold months.  Granted the 2500 is not a Prius and the average MPG for mine on regular is about 13-14, with E85, the average is around 11-12 mpg.  The ratio of MPG change has a lot to do with ECM programming as much as the fuel itself.  If the ECM programming is such to take advantage of the ethanol via timing advance and other measures, one can actually have a net gain in overall usefulness by using something like E85.  Ethanol on port injected engines cools the air and keeps it more dense as it enters the hot combustion chamber.  The ECM can advance the timing without risk of predetonation.  Denser air, better spark timing, better results.  

 

Sure, alcohol  is hydroscopic.  It takes care of any moisture that condenses in the tank.  A good thing in cold weather.  That being said, if the hydroscopic thing becomes a problem, then quit filling your tank in a severe rainstorm or leaving the fuel cap off.   The system is a closed system, not vented.  Hydroscopic issues only seem to truly show up when people improperly store ethanol laced fuels or use in vented fuel system like OPE.  Somebody's lawn mower or chain saw bit the dust because of some hydroscopic issue, and now that seems to make it a problem for every modern motor vehicle with an EPA closed fuel system. That is quite a stretch.

 

Many folks use E15, E20, E30, E85 all the time and never experience any of the internet folklore scare stuff that gets thrown around about ethanol.  But, just like with other fuels such as diesel, you do have to use a little common sense.   Don't pour water into your fuel tank.  Don't store ethanol laced fuels for extended periods  in vented or open containers or fuel tanks.  And probably not wise have a full load of E85 in a vehicle that will sit where one is not going to be using it for extended periods of time, like a deployment overseas.  

 

I have used ethanol laced fuels in various concentrations for about 40 years.   Even my 1974 Pontiac Catalina spend most of its 250,000 mile  life on E10 and never had a fuel related problem.  Iowa is ethanol central.  We have 46 ethanol plants in the state, and people here have been using ethanol since the 70's.  We have E10, E15, E20, E30, E85 all over the place.  If it were a  major problem, the roads would be choked with stalled, broken down vehicles. Sure, we have our purists in the crowd that see a conspiracy behind every tree, and they will only use non ethanol fuels.  And some of us, including me, will generally buy ethanol free gasoline for our small engine needs.

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, Cowpie said:

Lot of assumptions there which seem to be based more of presupposition than actual knowledge.  

Presupposition: Definition:  a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

 

Tacit: Definition: understood or implied without being stated.

 

"which seem to be"

 

So...Cliff...If I read this right; you want to deliver a public rebuke by assuming I'm assuming a thing without your actually knowing anything at all about what I do or do not know based on, wait for it...an assumption that I know nothing at all. In other words you're unsure of any facts at all but your going to take a shot at discrediting me anyway. And your support for this is stating your assumption AS A FACT in hopes readers will believe it as a fact just because you assume it is. That's.....interesting. 

 

Which statement did I "assume beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument"? And the answer for $64 is...I didn't offer one at all. 

 

Let me help you out. Read my last post. You will find it full of facts. Find your eighth grade science teacher and have him double check my work. Then educate yourself on Federal Laws concerning motor fuel before assuming I don't know something. 

 

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ETH

[Cowpie]

Well, one thing for certain, when one throws a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one who got hit.

 

You did state a 30% reduction in fuel economy using E85.  That is not hard fact.  The Ricardo 3.6 EBDI and Cummins 2.8, both using E85 get diesel equivalent fuel economy. The Ricardo 3.6 meets Dmax 6.6 performance levels while delivering better fuel economy in a 3500 series truck.

 

I less than 30% economy reduction in my 6.0 Vortec.  Same was true for my 2013 5.3. 

 

meaning, one cannot arguably make blanket statements as if they are fact. 

[calgator73]

Well, one thing for certain, when one throws a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one who got hit.
 
You did state a 30% reduction in fuel economy using E85.  That is not hard fact.  The Ricardo 3.6 EBDI and Cummins 2.8, both using E85 get diesel equivalent fuel economy. The Ricardo 3.6 meets Dmax 6.6 performance levels while delivering better fuel economy in a 3500 series truck.
 
I less than 30% economy reduction in my 6.0 Vortec.  Same was true for my 2013 5.3. 
 
meaning, one cannot arguably make blanket statements as if they are fact. 

My fuel economy when I had a 2014 with E85 from the factory was about 10 to 15% Less on the highway. about 20 to 25% less around town most likely because around town I'm jumping on it

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[sdeeter19555]

Well, I said I was out...figure I will just post and ignore comments on my unscientific observations.

I kind of understand why E85 runs cleaner, or will clean carbon. I know its a cleaner fuel to start with, but it also has a side effect. I'm catching a lot of water in my performance polymer catch can...not the typical milkshake, just water. I'm filling half the can a week, should be able to go an entire oil change between draining (this 6.0l doesn't produce a whole lot of stuff anyway). There is a lot less milkshake (emulsified oil) floating on top as well. Obviously, the water vapor will go a long way to removing carbon, they even made kits to introduce water vapor into intakes at one point.

I'm running nearly all flex fuel right now...topped out at 73% alcohol. That might be a result of the fuel being "winterized". Seems they increase the gasoline content in cold months to help with drivability.

Steve
2012 2500hd 6.0l

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:28 AM, Cowpie said:

Well, one thing for certain, when one throws a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one who got hit.

 

You did state a 30% reduction in fuel economy using E85.  That is not hard fact.  The Ricardo 3.6 EBDI and Cummins 2.8, both using E85 get diesel equivalent fuel economy. The Ricardo 3.6 meets Dmax 6.6 performance levels while delivering better fuel economy in a 3500 series truck.

 

I less than 30% economy reduction in my 6.0 Vortec.  Same was true for my 2013 5.3. 

 

meaning, one cannot arguably make blanket statements as if they are fact. 

Actually I gave a range, and it was based on the chemistry of the oxygen/carbon balance of some very specific data which you've ignored. Stoichiometric AFR and alcohol percentage.  All things I covered and yet continue to be ignored. 

It's pretty easy to feel your winning a debate if you leave out the facts that don't suit your argument. (or can't grasp). Pretty easy as well in mixed and unrelated chemistries. Your going to advance an alcohol argument based on a diesel comparison? Chemistry doesn't care about any of that. In fact it ignores YOU completely. Only humans believe they have some control over the physical universe based on their 'experience' and can bend nature to his will or if they lay on enough smoke and bull they can alter nature.  

Here's the problem. These laws of chemistry I didn't write, can't change and can't enforce. That's God's job. I'm just the messenger.

If you wish to argue this further...take it up with my Boss. Maybe he'd be interesting in why your tossing rocks as his dog. OR you might consider that when your experience doesn't seem to line up with the physical laws of the Universe...the problem just might be your understanding. 

As Ripley would say..."Believe it...or Not!

[sdeeter19555]

With 73%, and what is mostly flex fuel by now; a solid 12mpg mixed city/highway.

I'll mix in some 93 octane tomorrow as we are expecting some cold weather.

Steve
2012 2500hd