E85 on stock engine?

[ramsack]

Put 25% bigger injectors in it. Run it. Thats all. . It's not rocket science.

Where do you keep getting this 25% number from? It's wrong. 14.7/9.87 ~ 1.49, thus an extra 49%.

People get 650s as drop in replacements for 450s to run E85. 650/450 ~ 1.45...45%

You get the idea, and it's nowhere near 25%.

Ethanol's liquid density does not matter, and it's not even that much more dense than gas. Fuel burns as a vapor, not a liquid. Don't give me the shit about leaning out the mixture on cruise. You can do the same damn thing to gasoline.

The fact that ethanol holds less energy as a chemical than gasoline is exactly why you need more of it per pound of air. It's not going to burn any hotter than gasoline, either. Therefore you gain nothing in the cruise department. Where it does shine is under boost and load, being able to run it leaner than what you would gasoline, so you can get slightly better dollar mileage under boost. For an n/a car, it's going to be a break-even situation.

Do you really think the people in charge are going to price an alternative fuel that would work out to be cheaper than straight gas, when it's subsidized with tax money? They know what to price it to make it an even break.

It evidently is rocket science...

 

[bastarddsm]

Where do you keep getting this 25% number from? It's wrong. 14.7/9.87 ~ 1.49, thus an extra 49%.

People get 650s as drop in replacements for 450s to run E85. 650/450 ~ 1.45...45%

You get the idea, and it's nowhere near 25%.

Ethanol's liquid density does not matter, and it's not even that much more dense than gas. Fuel burns as a vapor, not a liquid. Don't give me the shit about leaning out the mixture on cruise. You can do the same damn thing to gasoline.

The fact that ethanol holds less energy as a chemical than gasoline is exactly why you need more of it per pound of air. It's not going to burn any hotter than gasoline, either. Therefore you gain nothing in the cruise department. Where it does shine is under boost and load, being able to run it leaner than what you would gasoline, so you can get slightly better dollar mileage under boost. For an n/a car, it's going to be a break-even situation.

Do you really think the people in charge are going to price an alternative fuel that would work out to be cheaper than straight gas, when it's subsidized with tax money? They know what to price it to make it an even break.

It evidently is rocket science...

Lol, on what grounds do you have to stand on any of this?

I don't know of ANYONE swapping in 650's for 450s..... Jeez you can max out 450's on a 14b, why would you cripple your self like that. Also if you were going to swap in injectors for E85 without tuning anything, it would be about 25% bigger like 550's. I went faster than half this board with 450's (and enough fuel pressure to make them flow like 550's) and a hacked 1g maf.

Also your numbers come from stoich. Well, we don't use much injector at stoich. Under load gas cars run at 11:1, and e85 8.5:1, which works out to be 29% ...

fact is you loose 25% of your mileage, sometimes less. Jesus, look around anywhere, thats what it is.

The density does greatly matter. We all look at masses of fuel, yet our injectors meter fuel by VOLUME. DENSITY MATTERS!

Gasoline has a density of .68 to .78, although I typically see ~.71 for most 93 oct fuels. Ethanol is .79, Thats 10%, no small amount.

So compare E10(almost all 93 is E10 around here) to E85, and lets look at the volume amounts.
17000/14000 = 1.214 So it takes 1.214lbs of E85 to have the same energy of 1 lb of E10.

So 1lb of E10 has 89% of the volume that 1lb of E10 has. .71/.79 = .89 So 17000btu's of E85 has 1.08% more volume than 17000btu's of E10, assuming .71/.79 densities.

 

[Ricardo18]

If you want to pay less for gas, go to CleanMPG, An authoritative source on fuel economy and hypermiling. Plenty of Europeans and Americans alike there.


That said, Ramsack is right. bastarddsm is wrong. Don't listen to him. You'll be running to buy parts for your car and broken down at the side of the road within moments. based on his comments, get some smaller injectors and run diesel fuel, except put some additives that are just as detrimental to factory seals.

Did you read the manual? Nothing over 10% ethanol

Did you not hear the automakers' outrcy over an increased amount of ethanol being added to gas? 15% and parts start failing sooner.

Lastly. Ethanol in the US is losing it's subsidy if it hasn't already. We'll see how far it gets. I can't wait for ethanol free gas.

 

[bastarddsm]

Where do you keep getting this 25% number from? It's wrong. 14.7/9.87 ~ 1.49, thus an extra 49%.

Wot throttle on a turbo fuel map is 9.8:1. n/t is about 10.5:1 thats .66 lambda and .71 lambda.

Put in 25% bigger injectors and E85, suddenly your at 7.84:1, and 8.4:1, .79lambda, and .85 lambda. Perfect for E85. Part throttle will be lean, but theres a O2 sensor, and trims for.

 

[ramsack]

What does Jesus have to do with this?

Gasoline has a density of .68 to .78, although I typically see ~.71 for most 93 oct fuels. Ethanol is .79, Thats 10%, no small amount.

0.68 - 0.78. You chose the far end that suits your argument. Lame.

(almost all 93 is E10 around here)

Another thing that's just pure opinion and obviously must apply to every gas pump in the world!

17000/14000 = 1.214 So it takes 1.214lbs of E85 to have the same energy of 1 lb of E10.

I don't know where you're getting the 17,000 and 14,000 numbers from. Use the stoichiometric ratio, not some arbitrary numbers rounded to thousands.

% lost in MPG does not translate into the same % more fuel needed to be injected. Learn reciprocals and how to do percentages. 2/3 is a 33% loss, and 3/2 is a 50% gain.

I don't know how else to convince you that a fuel with less energy density is going to make less power. It's less efficient, therefore gives off less heat, and the engine already being a terribly inefficient machine, suffers even more.

Any leaning out on cruise you do to E85 you can do to gasoline, bringing us back down to zero offset. You're just comparing what could be done with E85 to how a gasoline car is tuned in stock form. Another subjective thing to try to argue your point.

 

[bastarddsm]

That said, Ramsack is right. bastarddsm is wrong. Don't listen to him. You'll be running to buy parts for your car and broken down at the side of the road within moments. based on his comments, get some smaller injectors and run diesel fuel, except put some additives that are just as detrimental to factory seals.

.

Because you have been running E85 for years?

I don't know how else to convince you that a fuel with less energy density is going to make less power. It's less efficient, therefore gives off less heat, and the engine already being a terribly inefficient machine, suffers even more.

If I'm soo wrong, why are people making more power on E98 than any gasoline based fuel, when there are gasoline based fuels with more detonation resistance than Ethanol.

How would a Fuel car make 8000hp when nitro only has only 5000btu/lb, less than a third of gasoline?


He's gonna make 7% more power, and lose 25% or less mileage simple as that. Maybe less if he gets it leaned out. Been there done that.

 

[Th3DooM]

A bit more input from my side:

I'm on 29mpg flat with E10 (standard in Germany), 50% city driving and 50% highway. I guess there isn't much more to save here. One gallon of E10 costs up to 6,44$, premium fuel up to 7$. A gallon of E85 costs about 3,80$. That is about 60% of E10 and nearly 54% of premium gas. I hope that are numbers we can work with.

 

[bastarddsm]

A bit more input from my side:

I'm on 29mpg flat with E10 (standard in Germany), 50% city driving and 50% highway. I guess there isn't much more to save here. One gallon of E10 costs up to 6,44$, premium fuel up to 7$. A gallon of E85 costs about 3,80$. That is about 60% of E10 and nearly 54% of premium gas. I hope that are numbers we can work with.

I'd expect to get 24-25 on E85 getting 29 on E10. $0.22/mi for E10, $0.15/mi for E85. I'd be all over that.

 

[skatershawn]

Im going to side with bastsarddsm on this.
If, e85 didn't have performance advantages, then why would people be drooling to use it?

 

[silicosys4]

Im going to side with bastsarddsm on this.
If, e85 didn't have performance advantages, then why would people be drooling to use it?

Lol, the same reason people with safc's and 650's drool over 42r's. They don't understand whats actually involved with using it, and the downfalls that come with the benefits.

 

[Calan]

If, e85 didn't have performance advantages, then why would people be drooling to use it?

Because if your car is set up to use it and you know how to tune for it, you get 108 octane fuel for 1/4 the cost of race gas...which equals more boost and timing advance...i.e. more power for less money RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

The confusion that seems to be running rampant in this thread is that people are wanting to compare E85 to gasoline for the wrong reasons. E85 is desirable for a lot of us because it is cheap race fuel...period. It has nothing to do with it being more cost effective as a daily driver fuel...which it's not (mostly because when you run E85 and can therefore tune for more power, you tend to keep your foot on the go pedal more which further reduces MPG; not to mention that it just takes more of it due to the lower amount of potential energy locked up in it's molecular bonds as ramsack mentioned).

If you want to compare apples to apples, start talking about the pros and cons of E85 compared to race gas. If you have no need for race gas, then you most likely have no good reason to run E85...at least none that I can think of at the moment.

BTW - There is a big difference in gasoline that is cut with ethanol, and an ethanol fuel that has some percentage of gasoline in it. If you are bored and want to know where I'm coming from, check out this thread.

 

[DSM1G90]

E85 .. plan on changing the fuel filter since the alcohol will eat all the corrosion in the lines and tank and send it to the filter to plug it up.

Guys with turbos like the stuff due to the higher octane. NA's = just a waste of money. Stay with 85/87 regular.

E85 is like a witch oil..you pay more for less results...just that it'll make the exhaust cleaner and make the gov't happy that you're not a pollutant hog.

 

[Th3DooM]

I bet 99% of german e85 users don't use it for racing. They own normal flex-fueled family sedans. Google (especially those e85 communities) and some guys on german DSM Community keep telling me there's a plus on fuel consumption of about 15-20%...

When I turbocharge my car I can tune it with e85 anyway But I don't know how long that will take.

 

[ramsack]

How would a Fuel car make 8000hp when nitro only has only 5000btu/lb, less than a third of gasoline?

The fuel itself doesn't make more power. Those engines use almost 1,000 HP from the crank just to run a supercharger... It enables the engines to boost and advance timing. Why can't you grasp this concept?

Gasoline has the most energy density. There's a reason why E85 is not a sanctioned race fuel... It's a budget race fuel. It does not provide more power, it allows a car to be tuned to run more boost and more timing advance than with pump gas. If you compare two tunes side by side, both being stoich, and both having the same timing, gasoline will make more power. This can be seen with flex fuel vehicles in 1/4 mile tests.

This guy's stock n/a 420a is not going to make more power by going to E85, and he is not going to save money on fuel. Stop giving moronic advice.

 

[skatershawn]

Because if your car is set up to use it and you know how to tune for it, you get 108 octane fuel for 1/4 the cost of race gas...which equals more boost and timing advance...i.e. more power for less money RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

The confusion that seems to be running rampant in this thread is that people are wanting to compare E85 to gasoline for the wrong reasons. E85 is desirable for a lot of us because it is cheap race fuel...period. It has nothing to do with it being more cost effective as a daily driver fuel...which it's not (mostly because when you run E85 and can therefore tune for more power, you tend to keep your foot on the go pedal more which further reduces MPG; not to mention that it just takes more of it due to the lower amount of potential energy locked up in it's molecular bonds as ramsack mentioned).

If you want to compare apples to apples, start talking about the pros and cons of E85 compared to race gas. If you have no need for race gas, then you most likely have no good reason to run E85...at least none that I can think of at the moment.

BTW - There is a big difference in gasoline that is cut with ethanol, and an ethanol fuel that has some percentage of gasoline in it. If you are bored and want to know where I'm coming from, check out this thread.

Ok i'm starting to realize what the full argument is about!

Tuning e85 for more boost and timing(because it can safer) will produce more power than pump gas, but on a stock tune (even with compensating for more fuel) will yield less power on e85 than pump gas.

I Have read articles(on the web someplace) about how 25%-30% mixture are more efficient that 10% mixtures.
The thread that you posted I began to read when i was first posted but lost it as time went on. I'm currently reading through it.
Thanks.

 

[jrohner]

......Why can't you grasp this concept?

Gasoline has the most energy density. There's a reason why E85 is not a sanctioned race fuel... It's a budget race fuel. It does not provide more power, it allows a car to be tuned to run more boost and more timing advance than with pump gas. If you compare two tunes side by side, both being stoich, and both having the same timing, gasoline will make more power. This can be seen with flex fuel vehicles in 1/4 mile tests.

This guy's stock n/a 420a is not going to make more power by going to E85, and he is not going to save money on fuel. Stop giving moronic advice.

So why do N/A cars, more often than not, gain 5-7% HP going to E85 if gasoline is better? People around here aren't worried about cost of race fuel for their dirttrack cars, they're using ethanol because it makes more power. My dad's best friend is an engine builder, and he's been working with it for probably 11 years, which is when I started running it (I was racing circle tracks). None of these engines have forced induction, and many don't even have high compression and they do usually gain power. The last engine I had build actually liked less timing on ethanol than on pump gas and the power was the same for both fuels.

Why can't you grasp this concept?

 

[Calan]

So why do N/A cars, more often than not, gain 5-7% HP going to E85 if gasoline is better?

My bet would be that it's due to a more efficient burn (and less detonation) with the E85 in some engines, especially higher-compression ones.

There are a lot of gray areas here. Comparing the potential energy of the two fuels is based on theoretical mixtures in a lab, and the crap that comes out of most gas pumps these days can contain countless detergents and other additives that throws the whole thing out the window.

More importantly, just because a fuel has more potential energy doesn't mean that any given engine is capable of unlocking that energy and turning it into useful torque. A fuel with more potential energy that can't be released due to an inefficient burn, knock, etc...is no better off than a lower-energy fuel that is being utilized 100%.

 

[ramsack]

So why do N/A cars, more often than not, gain 5-7% HP going to E85 if gasoline is better? People around here aren't worried about cost of race fuel for their dirttrack cars, they're using ethanol because it makes more power. My dad's best friend is an engine builder, and he's been working with it for probably 11 years, which is when I started running it (I was racing circle tracks). None of these engines have forced induction, and many don't even have high compression and they do usually gain power. The last engine I had build actually liked less timing on ethanol than on pump gas and the power was the same for both fuels.

Why can't you grasp this concept?

People use ethanol for octane, period. It chemically contains less energy in the chemical bonds...electrons. It's not even a concept, it's fact. Everything everyone is stating that ethanol automatically makes more power on a n/a engine is purely anecdotal.

 

[bastarddsm]

The confusion that seems to be running rampant in this thread is that people are wanting to compare E85 to gasoline for the wrong reasons. E85 is desirable for a lot of us because it is cheap race fuel...period. It has nothing to do with it being more cost effective as a daily driver fuel...which it's not

No No, at the OP's prices, he would be at quite a cost advantage, especially at how easy it would be for him to swap. Quite possibly a 255hp and afpr would get it done for him.

E85 .. plan on changing the fuel filter since the alcohol will eat all the corrosion in the lines and tank and send it to the filter to plug it up.

Guys with turbos like the stuff due to the higher octane. NA's = just a waste of money. Stay with 85/87 regular.

E85 is like a witch oil..you pay more for less results...just that it'll make the exhaust cleaner and make the gov't happy that you're not a pollutant hog.

Obviously you have never ran E85. Sure over years and years of use it might deteriorate your lines, but gas will to.

The fuel itself doesn't make more power. Those engines use almost 1,000 HP from the crank just to run a supercharger... It enables the engines to boost and advance timing. Why can't you grasp this concept?

Gasoline has the most energy density. There's a reason why E85 is not a sanctioned race fuel... It's a budget race fuel. It does not provide more power, it allows a car to be tuned to run more boost and more timing advance than with pump gas. If you compare two tunes side by side, both being stoich, and both having the same timing, gasoline will make more power. This can be seen with flex fuel vehicles in 1/4 mile tests.

This guy's stock n/a 420a is not going to make more power by going to E85, and he is not going to save money on fuel. Stop giving moronic advice.

You have no idea what your talking about. THE FUEL RELEASES MORE ENERGY BECAUSE YOU BURN MORE OF IT! And yes, at the prices the OP quoted, HE WILL SAVE MONEY ON FUEL.

My bet would be that it's due to a more efficient burn (and less detonation) with the E85 in some engines, especially higher-compression ones.

No there is a power increase strictly because of the extra energy you release by burning more of it. Now if you built an engine optimized for E85, it would make even more power.

People use ethanol for octane, period. It chemically contains less energy in the chemical bonds...electrons. It's not even a concept, it's fact. Everything everyone is stating that ethanol automatically makes more power on a n/a engine is purely anecdotal.

No, it really does. Ride your pedal bike to my house and I'll show you on an 11:1 compression dirtbike.

 

[ramsack]

What do you not understand about efficiency? Your argument only makes sense if the fuels burn at the same temperatures. They don't. Not as much heat is produced from the burning of ethanol, because you need more fuel per unit of air, versus gasoline. If you leaned it out (like you constantly talk about and are basing this entire argument off of) then you will make more power, because it will burn hot and resist knock. Otherwise, burning both at stoich, an engine will utilize more power from gasoline.

I don't care about your 11:1 dirt bike and your subjective human dyno.

Ride your pedal bike to my house

Mature.

 

[Calan]

No No, at the OP's prices, he would be at quite a cost advantage, especially at how easy it would be for him to swap. Quite possibly a 255hp and afpr would get it done for him.

There is absolutely no way to know that for certain without him running through several tanks and comparing the results with gasoline.

No there is a power increase strictly because of the extra energy you release by burning more of it. Now if you built an engine optimized for E85, it would make even more power.

Given the same AFR, timing, and cylinder pressure (and assuming ideal combustion), how is burning a fuel with less potential energy going to net more power than a fuel with more potential energy?

Your not comparing apples to apples. Yes...you burn more fuel with E85. But that extra fuel is required to net the same power output as gasoline under the same conditions. The only way you gain more power from E85 is if you can take advantage of it's inherent properties...which means running more boost, more timing, or a leaner target AFR. In other words, you have to alter the tune.

Cars that naturally make more power on E85 without any tuning are transparently taking advantage of those properties in one way or another; most likely due to reduced cylinder temperatures, more complete burn, less knock, etc. But it's not written in stone...every engine will react differently.

 

[bastarddsm]

In a N/A engine your power is limited by the amount of air the engine can move. So say theoretically your engine makes 150hp on 89oct (its not octane limited), and your using 15lbs/min of air to do it, that means your using about 1.25lbs/min of fuel, at a 12:1 afr. Switch over to E85, now your still moving 15lbs/min of air, but now your running an 8:1 AFR, so your burning 1.875 lbs/min of fuel. or 1.875/1.25 = 150% more fuel!

So now here is why you make more power.... Gasoline is about 19,000btu/lb, where E85 is 13,475btu/lb. Now take into account how much of it we are burning 1.25*19,000 =23,750btu/min for gas, and 1.875*13475 = 25,265btu/min for E85 so we see that we are releasing 6.3% more energy by running E85. Keep in mind this is just theoretical, in the field we see much closer to a 7% increase, and sometimes as much as 10%. I feel that has to do with the cooling effect of E85, and causing the charge density to go waay up.

The way a fuel makes power has little to do with how fast it burns or any of that nonsense. It is almost entirely dependant on how much energy can be released inside the cambers.

Run the same numbers for Methanol, and you'll get 13%, just like I said, ad for nitromethane, its 230%. Also keep in mind that these are number based solely on airflow, if your were to maximize the setup for E85/meth/nitro, they would be MUCH higher.

If it wasn't like this, why would anyone deal with the complications of methanol. There is race fuel with similar detonation characteristics.

There is absolutely no way to know that for certain without him running through several tanks and comparing the results with gasoline.




Given the same AFR, timing, and cylinder pressure (and assuming ideal combustion), how is burning a fuel with less potential energy going to net more power than a fuel with more potential energy?

Your not comparing apples to apples. Yes...you burn more fuel with E85. But that extra fuel is required to net the same power output as gasoline under the same conditions. The only way you gain more power from E85 is if you can take advantage of it's inherent properties...which means running more boost, more timing, or a leaner target AFR. In other words, you have to alter the tune.

Cars that naturally make more power on E85 without any tuning are transparently taking advantage of those properties in one way or another; most likely due to reduced cylinder temperatures, more complete burn, less knock, etc. But it's not written in stone...every engine will react differently.

Look at my quoted post. You burn so much more of it that it offsets the loss of energy per unit, and then some.

I'm not trying to sell you on some bullshit. This is the truth. On a motor that IS NOT OCTANE LIMITED, (somthing with like 10:1 compression) you will gain 7% more power buy just swapping in E85 and tuning it for it. Swap back in some C16 or other non oxygenated race fuel, and you'll loose it right back. You do not gain power because of a more complete burn, less knock, and whatever else you said.

There's a reason guys are going so fast on little turbo's these days, and it's not cause of octane level. Try and tell Lucas English, your nonsense.

Also, he is going to loose 25% mileage. That is the accepted number that everyone knows. I have field verified that running e85 for the last 5 years.

 

[Calan]

...you will gain 7% more power buy just swapping in E85 and tuning it for it.

Yeah...no shit. That's what I've been saying all along. Once you start tuning, the straight-up comparison between gasoline and E85 becomes irrelevant.

You do not gain power because of a more complete burn, less knock, and whatever else you said.

Yeah. Ok.

There's a reason guys are going so fast on little turbo's these days, and it's not cause of octane level. Try and tell Lucas English, your nonsense.

And what would that reason be?

I would be much more interested in hearing what Lucas has to say about the nonsense I just quoted from you.

 

[ramsack]

On a motor that IS NOT OCTANE LIMITED, (somthing with like 10:1 compression) you will gain 7% more power b(u)y just swapping in E85 and tuning it for it. Swap back in some C16 or other non oxygenated race fuel, and you'll lo(o)se it right back. You do not gain power because of a more complete burn, less knock, and whatever else you said.

Your argument only holds ground when you mention that you are tuning FOR e85 to reap its benefits. What do you not understand about it hold less energy? I don't CARE if you have to inject more of it. That does not mean a net gain in energy output. There are more factors that just that, and you're completely overlooking them. Even flex fuel vehicles show that performance drops when you use e85. Maybe it's just some grand conspiracy to discredit e85

 

[MY1GDSM]

I'm not even sure I want to post in this or where to start... .

But, what is everyone even arguing about? I'm not gonna get into who is right or wrong as everyone has some valid points... .

Seems like everyone is stuck on their own point and not seeing anyone elses or are not basing what they are saying on Real world experience...

I think a good part of this should be moved to The E85 thread and the topic should just stay on what the OP is really asking for in regards to the end cost and MPG's

But Hey what do I know about this stuff... .