Jump to content

E85 in the 4.3 Ecotec3, Yes or No?

tim5779

By tim5779
in Engines & Drivetrain

Recommended Posts

bgbdwlf2500 Enthusiast

bgbdwlf2500

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

 

So how has it been doing since?  

Its calculating correctly. Cant run e85 now, work commute is too far.

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
tim5779 Enthusiast

tim5779

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There's alot of good info in this thread.  We've established that these engines definitely perform better while using E85.  But I really still haven't gotten an answer on my original question.  It's been said for years, that even on flex fuel vehicles, stay away from Ethanol.  Do to the lack of lubrication, and the presence of moisture, over time it plays hell on your fuel system lines and components, and within 5-10 years you'll be replacing all of it.  My original question was, does that still ring true with these new Ecotec 3's, or have the engineers found a a fix for that?

swathdiver Senior Enthusiast

swathdiver

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, tim5779 said:

Do to the lack of lubrication, and the presence of moisture, over time it plays hell on your fuel system lines and components, and within 5-10 years you'll be replacing all of it.  My original question was, does that still ring true with these new Ecotec 3's, or have the engineers found a a fix for that?

False premise.  E85 does not play hell on the fuel system.  So there's no fix for something that does not really exist.

WHITESSTOWPIG Enthusiast

WHITESSTOWPIG

Posted
Posted

Have the 4.3 running E85 with the AFM disabler in a Regular Cab and the mileage drop has been barely .5mpg in the city running both items.There seems to be a little more pep on the Ethanol but nothing to write home about.As far as the V6 / V8 comments they always crack me up.I have also driven the Regular cab 5.3s and the difference feels marginal from the V6 IMO the 4.3 is a fine workhorse and a little more reliable

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted
On 4/19/2018 at 10:23 AM, tim5779 said:

There's alot of good info in this thread.  We've established that these engines definitely perform better while using E85.  But I really still haven't gotten an answer on my original question.  It's been said for years, that even on flex fuel vehicles, stay away from Ethanol.  Do to the lack of lubrication, and the presence of moisture, over time it plays hell on your fuel system lines and components, and within 5-10 years you'll be replacing all of it.  My original question was, does that still ring true with these new Ecotec 3's, or have the engineers found a a fix for that?

Now that begs the question... who is adding water to their fuel tank?  Last time I checked, automotive fuel systems of the last several decades have been non-vented.  So for any substantial moisture to get in there, someone must be adding it.  The lubricity argument is for diesel, not gasoline.

 

Those speculations are a little valid in terms of vented fuel systems like lawnmowers and such. And ethanol is indeed hydroscopic, meaning it will attract moisture.  But so is brake fluid, and you don't hear a hue an cry going out across the nation about hydraulic brake systems do you?   The problem with the anti-ethanol arguments that get thrown around, they are Half Vast Arguments Based On Half Vast Data.  Now.... say that quickly 3 times!

 

My 2013 1500 5.3 lived most of it's time with me on E85.  Nary an issue.  My present 2015 2500 6.0 also is living in E85.  The price spreads are so good, especially this year, that it would be foolish not to take advantage of it.  Even with the diminished mpg, the cost per mile is still a few cents a mile less than using regular. 

sdeeter19555 Senior Enthusiast

sdeeter19555

Posted
Posted
Now that begs the question... who is adding water to their fuel tank?  Last time I checked, automotive fuel systems of the last several decades have been non-vented.  So for any substantial moisture to get in there, someone must be adding it.  The lubricity argument is for diesel, not gasoline.
 
Those speculations are a little valid in terms of vented fuel systems like lawnmowers and such. And ethanol is indeed hydroscopic, meaning it will attract moisture.  But so is brake fluid, and you don't hear a hue an cry going out across the nation about hydraulic brake systems do you?   The problem with the anti-ethanol arguments that get thrown around, they are Half Vast Arguments Based On Half Vast Data.  Now.... say that quickly 3 times!
 
My 2013 1500 5.3 lived most of it's time with me on E85.  Nary an issue.  My present 2015 2500 6.0 also is living in E85.  The price spreads are so good, especially this year, that it would be foolish not to take advantage of it.  Even with the diminished mpg, the cost per mile is still a few cents a mile less than using regular. 
I thought ethanol/methanol was used in dry gas??? Rarely see that on the shelf these days....

So why would free water be present anyway (it would be bound/mixed with the alcohol)? You have a tank full of dry gas and very little chance of getting moisture entrained anyway...and as long as you actually drive the vehicle, that water is going to be expelled rather quickly.

I don't understand the entire water in ethanol argument...

ULSD is hygroscopic too...I found that out the hard way.

2012 2500hd 6.0l CCSB 4wd
Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, sdeeter19555 said:

I thought ethanol/methanol was used in dry gas??? Rarely see that on the shelf these days....

So why would free water be present anyway (it would be bound/mixed with the alcohol)? You have a tank full of dry gas and very little chance of getting moisture entrained anyway...and as long as you actually drive the vehicle, that water is going to be expelled rather quickly.

I don't understand the entire water in ethanol argument...

ULSD is hygroscopic too...I found that out the hard way.

2012 2500hd 6.0l CCSB 4wd


 

Yeah, ULSD is it's own can  of worms.  I always carry a couple of fuel filters for my diesels with me for changing as necessary. .

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

From a refining standpoint there is always a bit of entrained water in gasoline. That crude contains water withstanding gasoline is caustic and water washed to remover acids. The content is indeed small. There is also the stations tanks and some of those are awful. Water and gasoline are not miscible but alcohols/gasoline and water are. Remember Heat? 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Chuck FB
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I am guessing that engines of that design back then had a better ability to be abused and survive longer than a new design engine with the long timing chain and the overhead cams and phasers etc. But I would never guess that an engine could go that far and not fail spectacularly or at least die a slow death. 
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      In the 80's 90's I'd run Honda's 7,500 miles between changes using Red Line HP 5W20 and do it for hundreds of thousands of miles with issues. Back in the day it was an SAE 20 with the HTHS of a SAE 30 and SN add load. It was also very polar. Oxidation VOA was over 120. Besides those motors were SPFI and lean burn tech. I could have likely run it longer but never did.    We had a Toyota bought new I ran on Pennzoil's latest and greatest synthetic of the day with "Penthane". A made up word for a very low dose of PAO. Tried 7,500 mile OCI's in that Group III/VI chemistry and the rings tapped out at 90K. Rocker box wasn't as bad as the one Punch put up but it wasn't good either. Also a SPFI motor.    I'm around 3,750 across the board on these GDI monsters and the oil it tapped out by then usually on TBN/TAN crossover and color. Red Line HP Euro.    The AMSOIL SS brochures tell you to follow the OEM values for the service class but that it can be run up to 25K if monitored. I can't imagine what motor could go that distance and not tap out. I've never owned one.    Yes, I know. Lot's of people do. I'm just not going to be one of them. 
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      I knew a guy in the early 80's that bought a new Monte Carlo and ran it a 100,000 miles without ever changing the filter or the oil. Just kept adding. It looked like that inside.     
    • whenindoubtuseahammer
      My First Project and GMC has me stumped

      By whenindoubtuseahammer · Posted

      Good evening. I was lucky enough to get passed down to me a 2007 GMC LBZ that was my great uncle's. While the underside and rockers are more or less gone I feel like with time I can restore it to working order since it only has 110,000 miles and he put nearly every option he could get without getting the new body style since he did not trust DEF. So far I have done everything I can think of but when I put the key into the ignition nothing happens. I put 2 brand new batteries in it. Cleaned the terminals. Check all the fuses and relays and they all pass with my multimeter. I know I'm missing something that I just cant think of. The only odd thing is the OBD2 port works which makes me think its not the mega fuse. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. 
    • PunchT37
      Casey from the Texas Hill Country

      By PunchT37 · Posted

      Looks nice. I still have my 2000, 1500. Bought a 2025, 1500 for retirement. Feels solid. These trucks have a bad rap on the internet. My brother has a `24 1500, 5.3 with 52,000 miles. No problems at all. Mine hasn`t either but mine`s only at 12,700 miles. Have seen some of these things with 100,000 miles with no problems.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...