E85...Poor man's racing fuel?

[Superball]

I went to an old timer race carb guy. He was awesome. Had stories and insight that can only come from 50+ years of doing it.

Anyway, he said that I should start running e85. He runs it in his drag cars (yeah, 70 year old man still turnin time at the strip ) and says it's equal to 105-110 octane.

Anyone heard of this or done this?

He said all my lines on the engine are fine and it looked like my tank lines were good too. No rejetting or anyting. Just go.

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

E85 is just like the swill they sell you at the regular pump only it has even more ethanol. That means it is higher in octane but lower in power content.

Potential benefits of E85 are contested by some experts who point out that deriving gasoline from petroleum is a relatively inexpensive (i.e., more efficient) process, even including the transportation of oil and gasoline long distances. Large-scale production of ethanol may be cost-prohibitive; and may result in a net energy loss when taking into account all the energy required to make alcohol from starchy plants. Another drawback for E85 is that, in a liter-to-liter comparison, E85 has less energy content than conventional gasoline; 30% percent less energy for transportation by volume. On top of it extreme care should be taken before using E85 fuel in portable power generators, chain saws, lawn mower and other gas powered equipment. These tools are not generally designed to be used with a high content of ethanol and can go out of service quickly

E85 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:E85_fuel.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/E85_fuel.svg/220px-E85_fuel.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/92/E85_fuel.svg/220px-E85_fuel.svg.png

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

This part really sux!:thumbsdown:thumbsdown

Because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, fuel economy is reduced for most 2002 and earlier American FFVs (flexible-fuel vehicles) by about 30% (most after 2003 lose only 15-17%, or less) when operated on E85 (summer blend). Some of the newest American vehicles can achieve only a 5-15% loss, but as recently as 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency stated on its website that several of the most current American FFVs were still losing 25% fuel efficiency when running on E85. Some Swedish-engineered cars with engine-management systems provide much better fuel economy on E85 than on gasoline; for example, the Saab Aero-X turbocharged concept car produces higher fuel economy and higher power on 100% ethanol (E100) than gasoline through using a higher-compression-ratio engine with advanced SAAB engine-control computers. Another car that has higher power on ethanol is the Koenigsegg CCXR, which on ethanol is the third-most powerful production car, with 1020 hp. According to the manufacturer, this is due to the cooling properties of ethanol. Still, for almost all American-made FFVs, more E85 is typically needed to do the same work as can be achieved with a lesser volume of gasoline. This difference is sometimes offset by the lower cost of the E85 fuel, depending on E85's current price discount relative to the current price of gasoline. As described earlier, the best thing for drivers to do is to record fuel usage with both fuels and calculate cost/distance for them. Only by doing that can the end-user economy of the two fuels be compared.

For example, an existing pre-2003-model-year American-made FFV vehicle that normally achieves, say, 30 MPG on pure gasoline will typically achieve about 22 MPG, or slightly better, on E85 (summer blend.) When operated on E85 winter blend, which is actually E70 (70% ethanol, 30% gasoline), fuel economy will be higher than when operating on the summer blend. To achieve any short-term operational fuel-cost savings, the price of E85 should therefore be 20% or more below the price of gasoline to equalize short term fuel costs for most older pre-2003 FFVs for both winter and summer blends of E85, which fortunately it typically is. Life-cycle costs over the life of the FFV engine are theoretically lower for E85, as ethanol is a cooler- and-cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. Provided that one takes a longterm life-cycle-operating-cost view, a continuous price discount of 20% to 25% below the cost of gasoline is probably about the break-even point in terms of vehicle life-cycle operating costs for operating most FFVs on E85 exclusively (for summer, spring/fall, and winter blends).

Fuel economy in fuel-injected non-FFVs operating on a mix of E85 and gasoline varies greatly depending on the engine and fuel mix. For a 60:40 blend of gasoline to E85 (summer blend), a typical fuel-economy reduction of around 23.7% resulted in one person's[who?] carefully executed experiment with a 1998 Chevrolet S10 pickup with a 2.2L 4-cylinder engine, relative to the fuel economy achieved on pure gasoline. Similarly, for a 50:50 blend of gasoline to E85 (summer blend), a typical fuel-economy reduction of around 25% resulted for the same vehicle. (Fuel-economy performance numbers were measured on a fixed commute of approximately 110 miles roundtrip per day, on a predominantly freeway commute, running at a fixed speed (62 mph), with cruise control activated, air conditioning ON, at sea level, with flat terrain, traveling to/from Kennedy Space Center, FL.). It is important to note, however, that if the engine had been specifically tuned for consumption of ethanol (higher compression, different fuel-air mixture, etc.) the mileage would have been much better than the results above. The aforementioned fact leads some to believe that the "FFV" engine is more of an infant technology rather than fully mature.

The amount of reduction in mileage, therefore, is highly dependent upon the particulars of the vehicle design, exact composition of the ethanol-gasoline blend, and state of engine tune (primarily fuel-air mixture and compression ratio).

 

[pronstar]

There's another recent thread about this.
I put up a link to a study by the renewable fuels trade association...these guys represent ethanol producers.

It said there's no standard on E85 octane ratings, and the true octane is closer to 95 - 96 when using the gasoline-standard R+M/2 way to calculate octane.

They weren't bashing the fuel, just that there needs to be more accurate reporting of octane rating.

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

I can tell you that my cars get far worse mileage than they should. Ethanol sucks. It's common sense, less power content means you need more to make the same power and to go the same distance.:thumbsdown

 

[The Doctor]

Are there drawbacks? Sure! Is it worth trying? We sure think so! These, among many others, run E-85 exclusively - all in-house projects of my sons.

 

[Superball]

My engine builder said he had done some research on it as well. Apparently there are several benifits but alot more negatives. He said it will burn more fuel, requiring rejetting with a conversion kit, you need higher fuil pressure, you need to change your oil more often due to moisture...:blah:

Pluses are that the engine runs cooler and predetonation is reduced allowing for higher boost, higher rpm and further advance...which all sounds good I guess...

Then he went on to mention he would never do it. Also, where the hell do you find e85 on the lake?

I did search for an existing thread before posting but couldn't find anything...

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

I do like the idea of alcohol/ethanol/methanol/water injection on high output engines. Run on gasoline until the boost comes in.:thumbsup

 

[Superball]

Nice Doc! What were the thoughts behind going that route? My engine guy said that there is a reason you only see alchohol (sp?) at the track...but it does sound like a bit of a tempting option.

I'm curious about what it takes to convert on a carburated engine...

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

It's mainly jetting and timing. A lot more fuel.(on strait ethanol/alcohol)

 

[The Doctor]

Nice Doc! What were the thoughts behind going that route? My engine guy said that there is a reason you only see alchohol (sp?) at the track...but it does sound like a bit of a tempting option.

I'm curious about what it takes to convert on a carburated engine...

We older guys remember when we could purchase Chevron "White Pump" for a quarter more per gallon than regular gas. We had higner compression engines back then but that fuel was discontinued. Compression became a problem without purchasing expensive race fuels or fancy additives to curtail detonation. With E-85, our compression can, once again, be much higher which makes horsepower and the price of race fuel is far beyond double what we are paying at the pump for E-85 right on our neighborhood corner and we sure aren't using double the fuel. It's all a personal choice the there's a dozen arguments for as well as against it if you are looking for debate. I'll just say these two boats, along with other engines the boys have built to run on E-85 have performed right up to expectations. If you are not motivated to build your entire engine combination to use E-85, it's probably not for you.

Oh yeah, we also run pure methanol in other vehicles.