Featured E15 May be Coming to a station near you

My interest was to find out if ethanol, using E85, made economic sense:

• E85 - the expected loss of mileage was not compensated with the lower price with the exception of E10. No blend of E85 or pure gas was cheaper than driving on E10. The retail price of E85 is jacked up much higher in N. Alabama than the wholesale price of ethanol content.
• injector timing error - the engine will tune itself for E85 operation BUT it throws a code that lights the check engine light. At freezing temperatures, the engine can fail on a first start but the second attempt will get the engine running.

If it made economic sense, I would have continued until we found what failed. Fortunately, other Prius owners are doing that experiment in Brazil: Toyota's Developing This Flex-Fuel Hybrid Prius In Brazil | Carscoops

BTW, there are after market, timing kits that increase the injector timing enough to run without an error code. They are affordable.

Bob Wilson

 

Don't have any say in whether it shows up around here, or not.

 

A flex-fuel car has more changes than just timing. The Ranger had larger injectors. These are really only needed if you want the engine output on E85 to match it on gasoline. Some parts of the fuel system were harden; stainless replaced other metals.

There is also an alcohol sensor and E85 fuel trim tables. A factory flex fuel car might run better in terms of performance and efficiency than an aftermarket kludge to keep the CEL from coming on.

The 1.4L turbo in my Sonic was lacking the sensor and 15 inches of E85 compatible fuel line, but otherwise was a flex fuel engine. Some over at those forums went through the effort to make the car so, or just got the software subroutine turned on for E85 fuel. The last liked having the extra power from using E85. Presumably to car would ran still on gasoline without the sensor afterwards, but likely would throw a code then.

But these are anecdotal evidence. You probably didn't take apart your car's fuel system to check it. From what I read, the issues may not show up until the car stops getting ethanol fuel.

The shop one a Sonic user went to install an alcohol sensor on the fuel refused to do so without replacing the the the non-compatible line with some that was. It wasn't a car shop, but a place that assembles things like lines for hydraulic equipment.

In terms of anecdotal evidence, I put more weight in the fact that petroleum pipeline operators don't allow ethanol blends.

Scientific research(below, and it applies to the above) is showing that low levels of ethanol might be worse.

My 2016 Camry is E15 safe, but the average age of the US car fleet is over 11 years old, and those driving older cars as dailies likely aren't in the position to afford a repair if E15 causes a problem.

Intermediate Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: Elastomers, Metals, and Sealants
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub27766.pdf
I think I posted this here years ago.
"These formulations are based on test fuels described in SAE J1681, “Gasoline, Alcohol, and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for Materials Testing.” The fuel types studied were Fuel C, CE10a, CE17a, and CE25a. Fuel C is a 50-50 mixture of toluene and isooctane and is
representative of highly aromatic gasoline (>40% aromatics by volume). The other test fuels contain an aggressive ethanol solution added to Fuel C... The ethanol bearing fuels contain an aggressive ethanol formulation containing NaCl, dilute acetic and sulfuric acids, and 0.9% water. All of these contaminants are found in ethanol-gasoline fuels and represent the bounds allowable for fuel-grade ethanol."
Rain water run off into station fuel tanks is a thing; that is how the salt and acids get in there.
"Among the coupons immersed in the different test solutions, 1020 mild steel, 1100 aluminum, 201 nickel, and 304 stainless steel were found to be essentially immune to corrosion for the exposure conditions evaluated. This result suggests that these materials are suitable for extended service in intermediate fuel blends of this type. Cartridge brass, phosphor bronze, zinc-plated (galvanized) steel, and lead-plated (terne) steel exhibited variable degrees of discoloration and minor corrosion product film formation."

"All of the elastomer specimens that were exposed to the test fuels (including Fuel C) exhibited some level of volume swell. Ethanol was found to further increase the volume swell and produce softening. The level of swell is an indication of solubility, and for most elastomers tested, the highest level of swell occurred with either the CE10a or CE17a (not CE25a). This result suggests that the highest level of mutual solubility for elastomers occurs at relatively low levels of added ethanol. After drying for 20hr at 60C, all of the samples, except the fluorocarbons, exhibited some level of shrinkage and mass loss. Interestingly, the fluorocarbons retained a slight increase in dry mass and volume, indicating that residual test fluids were trapped in the microstructure (even after dry-out)."

Metal alloys corroded some with ethanol in the fuel, but this experiment might not have completely represented the real world conditions. The test fuels were aggressive to allow shorter test periods, but might miss issues that arise from more time. They also don't contain all the potential elements and compounds gasoline from a pump can have.

The real concern for cars is with with the rubbers and plastics. Many slowly dissolve when exposed to ethanol blends, and could do so faster with lower ethanol amounts. A side effect of their solubility is that they swell. This swelling can stop leaks, and keep the damage hidden until final failure.

The above study was looking at the effect the blends can have on the infrastructure. The materials were basically just soaked in the soak. Cars add more heat to the equation. This study heated the fuels. (PDF) Compatibility Studies on Elastomers and Polymers with Ethanol Blended Gasoline

 

Frank Lee has 400000 miles on e85 in non flex fuel cars,

That Buick was rusting out with 200000 miles but still ran fine.

My take is that if e85 or other Ethanol blends don’t affect 1996 + cars enough to cause a significant failure rate in their normal lifespan, it’s irrelevant.

Fuel lines and fuel pumps fail occasionally regardless of ethanol content,
Owners of cars have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their car and can purchase e free fuels if they choose.

When I drove a pre 1980 car i likely would have a different opinion but that is a small segment of the car driving public and the fuel is clearly marked.

 

Yes, fuel systems fail regardless of ethanol content. It also means it is hard to pin down when the failure is because of the ethanol.

Some areas don't give you a choice on whether you can get ethanol free fuel. None in NJ, and the closest station to me is at least an hour out of my way. I couldn't even get E85 when I had the Ranger. There is a valid concern over being forced to use E15 if it is allowed.

The US is sue happy. The majority of the cars on the road aren't E15 compatible, and the manufacturers aren't going to back certify them. The oil companies don't want to be held responsible for any issues that might arise from being forced to blending it.

Then problems for cars aren't the only issue. It can't be piped in existing infrastructure. Raising the price and any emissions from it through the requirement to ship it by truck or train.

I feel mandating ethanol is short sighted while it is mostly made from food crops, and there are other potential alternatives available today.

 

Solve the economic effect of the excessive ethanol markup and we can move on to the technical issues.

Bob Wilson

 

Part off that is because of technical issues. Having to truck it everywhere is a small scale cost increase compared to hydrogen, but it does contribute.

 

You are the one making the claim. Burden of proof is on you, kiddo.

 

That's how rhetoric works. They begin the FUD, then expect you to debunk their deception. They click "reset" afterward too, keeping it from ever ending by drawing in a new audience who never witnessed that past.

 

Sorry kid, the word you are looking for isn't rhetoric -- it's logic. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and YOU YOURSELF claim to have evidence:

Let's see it. We are a great nation united, why won't you share your evidence with your friend down in Nevada?

 

When it becomes an actual decision for you, a choice at the pump, I will. In the meantime, I will collect real-world data... since we will get it here in Minnesota long before you do.

 

I'll compare the $/100 mi for:

• Straight gas
• E10
• E15
• E85

If there is any ambiguity in the results, I'll benchmark:

1. Empty tank and carry spare can with next test gas - this could be a problem with our 600 mi Prime. Drive until engine stops and coast to a safe place to park.
2. Put test gas in tank and restart car - drive to test gas station, add 1-2 gallons of test gas, and put next test gas in can.
3. Benchmark the fuel consumption at a fixed speed, distance measured loop.
4. GOTO #1

Bob Wilson

 

sorry - but @john1701a calls that 'propaganda'

no - I actually don't care so much one way or the other. What does bother me is that it uses a kernel that could best be used as food. But instead, the industry uses petrochemical fertilizer & petro chemical pesticides to grow the crop & then refines the grain into alcohol. Where is the energy it takes to manufacture those products, & the energy to till the land and reap the Harvest & energy to ferment, & transport?
That efficiency is not even factored into the lower fuel economy alcohol enhanced gasoline equation. Oh well.

So sure - there is lower fuel economy possible - & questionable as to older vehicle wear ... and no warnings of said issues. It"s the higher corn price that the global starving can"t afford (or charities that take it there) that is troubling.
& very sorry john - but it"s troubling to so quickly get branded as a fud smearing campaigner. Never meant to irk anyone, so i'll shut my pie hole on this thread.
.

 

The irony for me is that I was labelled a terrorist by a poster at Fuelly.com for defending ethanol as a fuel once.

 

IMHO, the burden of proof is not symmetrical. If we treated ethanol in fuels like we do medicine, the burden of proof would be to show that it does have demonstrable benefits that far outweigh the potential downsides. Claiming "ethanol damages engines" is the null hypothesis, and shouldn't be called FUD without evidence to the contrary.

I believe such evidence exists for E10 and E15 in cars made after a certain date, but I'm certainly not aware of any studies of E85 in cars not designated as flex fuel. One Buick running successfully on E85 is not a scientific study. It could be an exception to the rule, like that one guy who's 100 years old and swears that the secret to his longevity is having a bottle of whiskey and smoking a pack of cigarettes every day, claiming the alcohol and nicotine kills bacteria and viruses.

 

Well. Ethanol (corn) is a fuel. Most of us eat corn right?

 

well, regularly cigar smoking / martini drinking George Burns DID live to 100. He even admitted cheating on his wife Gracie .... TWICE! ....
If I lived like George, I'd never make it to age 64, not because of the cigars or booze, because she-who-must-be-obeyed would have 'cured' me via blood letting .... & it wouldn't be done with leeches.

.

 

It's better by the glass ...

 

I really dig the picture of a carburetor as a "don't let this happen to your car!" photo.....

It pretty much captures the whole FUD thing.

It's also ironic that much of the corn that is commercially grown in the US is used as silage (to fatten pigs and cows) HFCS (to fatten kids) or in grain spirits. Much of the rest of 'Big Corn' is being sullied by the jihad against GMO.
Some of the more socialistic of our US states are also trying legislate how sugary drinks are sold and used in schools.

Meanwhile......
The closest gas station to my office (and my Prius) makes most of their money selling (what they claim to be) E0 or "REAL GAS!!!" to people who don't know very much about modern (post carburetor) cars.
Some of these people even add Seafoam to their Harleys and Tuna boats after they pay $0.60 more per gallon for the privelege of waiting in line for their 'real gas.'

GOD loves irony.....