Alternative Fuel E85 Ethanol Corn Gas E70 (Beginner) [MERGED]

[311GSX]

THIS WILL BE RESERVED FOR BEGINNER E85 QUESTIONS, FOR TUNERS THAT HAVE NEVER HEARD OF RUNNING IT OR HAVEN'T RESEARCHED IT YET. THE ADVANCED E85 THREAD IS HERE FOR THE MORE ADVANCED QUESTIONS ---> http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/newbie-forum/372386-alternative-fuel-e85-ethanol-corn-gas-e70-advanced-merged.html

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL MAKE THE BASIC E85 INFORMATION MORE CENTRALIZED AND EASIER TO FIND FOR THE DSM'rs WHO ARE JUST GETTING THEIR NOSE WET AND ARE UNSURE OF WHAT E85 IS.

THANKS,

GOFER

__________________________________________________​

Has anyone tryed running E85 in their dsm? Their is a station in my area that sells it and it's not much more than regular gas. It is 85% ethanol and 15% gas and is 110 octane . It could be a cheap alternative to race gas.

 

[out there]

its not false information! so back off! they is alot more intelligent then you are!

i hope they're a lot more intelligent than you are. at this point, the information you are providing is purely hearsay; IF you can offer verifiable data to support your claim (like most who offer legitimate info), then you will be given the respect you have earned.
the truth is, if e85 is this "wonder-fuel" that will never predetonate, then it would be used by all the top racers the world over and would cost a lot more than $1.5-2/gal.

 

[LazerSRT-4]

In a recent issue of Motor Trend they had an article about deisel produced by a kind of algae.
They said it produces somewhere like 800% more fuel per acre than corn with even less cost for harvesting and production.
Someone I know did some research and if you had a 7by10 "garden" of this stuff you would have enough fuel to power 3 trucks for a year with even more left over to sell!


What about hydrogen? All they emit is WATER!

Why not breed plants that process co2 as fast as we produce it!

If high school kids can make a vehicle that gets 1400MPG the smartest scientists in the world can figure out how not to use a resource that in non-renewable and pollutes the earth!

Trust me im no tree hugger (Not one of my vehicles has a cat)

But if everyone is complainig theres a problem and theres obvious soluthins why dont we use them?


BTW:I live in MN and havent seen a single E85 pump
Keep em' Spooled

 

[Dark_Horse]

The simple answer is because oil/gas companies run the world. Pretty much every negative study on alternative energy is funded by the oil/gas industry. If you had a monopoly on something, wouldn't you do your darndest to keep the $$ rolling in? Big oil/gas doesn't want you to use alternative energy, then they lose money. But I digress.

Back on topic though, since it seems that almost no one has tried to run a "stock" DSM fuel system on E85, I'm going to try it. Granted, my car isn't running, but that will soon be remedied. Once it is, we'll see just how long the following last on pure E85 as a daily driver.

Walbro 255HP (supposedly not ethanol tolerant)
PTE 680cc injectors (If these are too small, I've got some 1600cc FIC injectors too)
Stock fuel rail
Stock fuel filter
Stock fuel lines
Non ethanol tolerant FPR (I don't remember exactly what brand it is off the top of my head)

My speculation is that all the talk of corrosion is just that, talk. Worst case is I have to buy a new FPR, fuel rail, fuel line and pump...And I was going to buy most of those things down the road anyway. If my time table gets bumped up, so be it.

 

[out there]

In a recent issue of Motor Trend they had an article about deisel produced by a kind of algae.
They said it produces somewhere like 800% more fuel per acre than corn with even less cost for harvesting and production.
Someone I know did some research and if you had a 7by10 "garden" of this stuff you would have enough fuel to power 3 trucks for a year with even more left over to sell!

i believe it, but i am quite sure of several things:
1- these algae don't produce diesel, but, instead, a gas (methanol?) that can be used as a source of fuel
2- how much refining had to go into the production of this substance before it could be used to power an engine?
i'm just "shooting from the hip" on this, if i get around to it, i will try to find this issue of motor trend; could you possibly tell us the month or something else to make it easier to find?

What about hydrogen? All they emit is WATER!
Why not breed plants that process co2 as fast as we produce it!

it is possible, look at the abundance of o2 produced by a large amount of small plants (algae and the like)

If high school kids can make a vehicle that gets 1400MPG the smartest scientists in the world can figure out how not to use a resource that in non-renewable and pollutes the earth!

if i remember correctly, they weren't able to get 1400mpg (i probably read about the same competition that you did); not only that, but that was "scale mpg" (if i remember the term correctly). in other words, they traveled a given distance with a combination of running the engine and coasting with the engine off and then measured the amount of fuel used; not only that, but some of the materials used to reduce wind resistance and weight were unpractically light-weight (some of the plastic sheeting was lighter than office paper).

But if everyone is complainig theres a problem and theres obvious soluthins why dont we use them?

we live in a country with a government "of the people, by the rich and for the corporations" (or something like that)

BTW:I live in MN and havent seen a single E85 pump

where do you live? cenex was the first place to start selling e85 around here; i would assume that no rural station would sell e85 unless they saw a market for it. like i said in one of my earlier posts... farmers are creatures of habit, buying an e85 vehicle is not something they will jump at

 

[GTM]

...
Someone I know did some research and if you had a 7by10 "garden" of this stuff you would have enough fuel to power 3 trucks for a year with even more left over to sell!

If high school kids can make a vehicle that gets 1400MPG the smartest scientists in the world can figure out how not to use a resource that in non-renewable and pollutes the earth!

Trust me im no tree hugger (Not one of my vehicles has a cat)
...
BTW:I live in MN and havent seen a single E85 pump
Keep em' Spooled

May I suggest you do not repeat claims that at best are in all probability URBAN LEGENDS.

If you have credible sources for this information then please post them so we can read for outselves rather than have someone believe this nonsense. There are laws of physics which make the 1400 mpg impossible unless you are splitting atoms. Nor can I accept a 7x10 foot or meter pond is able to grow enough alge to make 1 truck run much less 3.

Cheers,
GTM

 

[DSMJim]

try ethanol.org it varies from winter to summer here winter is roughly 105 110 octane in the summer its 112 or so.

112 octane will no predetonate on a normal car, however a 1000whp supra will never and I mean NEVER run on 112 octane without detonation problems. They run VP import which is 121.

Your teach has some knowledge but really saying it will never pre-detonate is totaly wrong. All fuels have two ways of ignition. There is flash point and ignition point. Ignition is what it takes to light it on fire with a spark or flame, flash is how hot it has to get before it lights its self on fire. If the octane is not high enough then the flash point becomes the problem where heat ignites the fuel before the spark plug does. Eventually all fuels will reach their flash point and will pre-detonate in an engine with enough HP.

While your teacher is partially right, he is acctually wrong in the assumption that it will not predetonate. It will on a car with enough HP.

 

[GTM]

...
While your teacher is partially right, he is acctually wrong in the assumption that it will not predetonate. It will on a car with enough HP.

Might I suggest that this needs a bit more qualification rather than saying HP is the sole governing factor. A diesel is in a constant state of predetonation and stuffing a 12liter anything in there will produce lots of HP and may never predetonate. Not all the posters are on the same page.

Cheers,
GTM

 

[eclipsh]

Here's some more interesting facts on Ethanol care of Iogen, a cellulose ethanol producer. Almost at the bottom it dispells the myths about ethanol being a net energy loss (like hydrogen production currently is.)

http://www.iogen.ca/company/faq/index.html

 

[GTM]

its not false information! so back off! they is alot more intelligent then you are!

Sending out a reported misinformation alert to all DSM staff based on what?

Your credibility level has dropped to zero in my book, that's an opinion also. I take difficulty in believing that you had a "laser teacher" and I can only guess at how your class notes might read. It would be best to give facts only when you know you can back them up with professional credible sources. Certainly your "teacher" wouldn't mind you asking him to explain why alcohol fuel won't predetonate. I too had a teaching credential that doesn't make me a god but it does allow me to say if you ran the ignition timing up 20 degrees more that you would have so much predetonation it would destroy pistons and rod bearings in short order. If you are right prove that you are right, that's the way we do it around here. I've run into a lot of smart people on this board who didn't know squat about cars yet were willing to stick their foot in their mouth. I've also run into a lot of not so smart people with the same problem.

Here's my advice for what it's worth: Stick with things you _know_, don't get insulting with staff, AND do not be pressing the fire alarm based on your opinion of who is a "well informed individual" that is not here to back up your opinions. I was 20 once and probably did and said some dumb things also, fortunately they didn't get sent around the world at the speed of light.

GTM

 

[femmeDSM]

^^^^ Amen.

 

[dr1665]

^^^^ Amen.

Whiird.

 

[AgntorangeDSM]

well i do have a laser techer but, i found a couple more website's to check out/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85#Availability www.e85forum.com just for some added information to the forum.

 

[out there]

perhaps it would be in your best interest to find respected sources of info instead of places that are mostly hear-say? wikipedia is a public encyclopaedia, which means the info isn't necessarily true, and e85forum is just as unlikely to contain valid information

 

[Dark_Horse]

perhaps it would be in your best interest to find respected sources of info instead of places that are mostly hear-say? wikipedia is a public encyclopaedia, which means the info isn't necessarily true, and e85forum is just as unlikely to contain valid information

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think wikipedia is a great site, and the person that wrote a lot of that article definitely has credibility. The person that wrote a good portion of it is Hot Rod, AKA the guy with the WRX that has used E85 for the last 2 years.
Maybe I believe him just because he's from Colorado.

Besides, Wikipedia has so many readers with knowledge on the subjects that I think hearsay is nearly eliminated. Also, Wikipedia flags the articles where the readers think some of the information may not be totally accurate.

 

[AgntorangeDSM]

Thank YOU!! ^^^

 

[eclipsh]

FWIW, I use Wikipedia for college papers without any negative feedback. If it's good enough for my professors (some even recommend it) then it is good enough for here.

 

[AgntorangeDSM]

Here is that WRX Post: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341

 

[Splitpi]

Isnt E85 that new low octane fuel? I would say no just because the factory says run 87 octane and thats pretty low. It would probably mess with the plugs, but thats just a guess.

The E85 gasoline at my local gas coop in Iowa is 105 octane. The issue is the corrosive nature of ethanol on engine and fuel components as well the lower BTU of E85 versus regular 91 octane fuel. I.e. you use 15 - 25% more fuel by using E85 than if you you used regular.

 

[LazerSRT-4]

i believe it, but i am quite sure of several things:
1- these algae don't produce diesel, but, instead, a gas (methanol?) that can be used as a source of fuel
2- how much refining had to go into the production of this substance before it could be used to power an engine?
i'm just "shooting from the hip" on this, if i get around to it, i will try to find this issue of motor trend; could you possibly tell us the month or something else to make it easier to find?

Actually the algae produces a substace very similar to the oil resturants make except much cleaner and can be refined for very little cost into biodiesel.
The article was in the January 2006 issue written by one of the editors.

it is possible, look at the abundance of o2 produced by a large amount of small plants (algae and the like)

Actually the species of algae (one of five) were the ones primarily responsible for purifying the earths athmosphere from CO1 and co2, and other poisonous gasses that are polluting the earth, to oxygen.

if i remember correctly, they weren't able to get 1400mpg (i probably read about the same competition that you did); not only that, but that was "scale mpg" (if i remember the term correctly). in other words, they traveled a given distance with a combination of running the engine and coasting with the engine off and then measured the amount of fuel used; not only that, but some of the materials used to reduce wind resistance and weight were unpractically light-weight (some of the plastic sheeting was lighter than office paper).

Yeah your right.
If I remember right it was somthing like 1322MPG Scale
I was exaggerating.

we live in a country with a government "of the people, by the rich and for the corporations" (or something like that)

A-men to that Brotha

where do you live? cenex was the first place to start selling e85 around here; i would assume that no rural station would sell e85 unless they saw a market for it. like i said in one of my earlier posts... farmers are creatures of habit, buying an e85 vehicle is not something they will jump at

I live 60 miles north of the cities and agriculture has plummeted here in the past 3 years being replaced by developments.

May I suggest you do not repeat claims that at best are in all probability URBAN LEGENDS.

If you have credible sources for this information then please post them so we can read for outselves rather than have someone believe this nonsense. There are laws of physics which make the 1400 mpg impossible unless you are splitting atoms. Nor can I accept a 7x10 foot or meter pond is able to grow enough alge to make 1 truck run much less 3.

Cheers,
GTM

I dissagree I believe the technology to do many things is out there but research is being prevented by Big Money.

I could rant about how Big Oil's Profits are outrageous, about how the government dosent care but cant even hear us because thier ears are too full of money, and how Middle easterners are so damn annoying because all they can do to vent thier anger is to go out and kill people and therefore Big Oil and Big Gov have excuses for jacking prices up. (I call serious BS!!)

Have a nice day!
Jake

 

[Splitpi]

Ahh, but remember, Oil is a finite resource, cellulose is not. New celulose ethanol technologies are actually more efficient than corn/grain ethanol is.

That is not necessarily true, we can make oil. From start to end product, ethonal uses more energy to produce than it, itself produces. Therefore, the added energy is derived from nuclear, coal or gasoline powered powerplants. And hydrogen is a pipe dream. I personally would be extremely leary of driving around with a 5,000 psi tank of extremely explosive and flammable material.

But there are other options... like actually making oil. We can produce diesel grade fuel from coal, the Germans used this extensively during WW2 and I am sure we can purify the process further. After all, the US is one of the, if not the richest in coal throughout the world. A supply which we cannot even grasp yet. Though this process, like ethanol looses energy in production.

Another option for making is oil, is actually physically producing it. In the Discover Magazine, April 2006, they ran the article "Anything into oil". The article was a story of the "Changing World Technologies" an outfit operating an oil producing plant out of Carthage Missouri. They litterally make oil from turkey carcases. They are currently making 500 barrels of oil a day out of 270 tons of turkey guts and 20 tons of pig fat from Butterball Turkeys. They are claiming a 65%+ return on energy usage.

The process used is Thermal depolymerization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

The company web site:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/

Synopsis of the article:
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/anything-oil/?page=2

 

[GTM]

Here is that WRX Post: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341

I was hoping this thread would have died out but no such luck.

You have made statements which are bogus and show a general lack of knowledge. Spreading urban legends based on what your peers may have said is not acceptable, I'm not going to waste my time reviewing your other posts but do note the red block that must have ticked off some others.

If you insist on providing information which is not accurate and then trying to bully your way through a discussion I'm sure senior staff will set your head on straight.

You have been _asked_ to provide credible sources for your posts so I took the time to search the URL given and could not find the word correctly spelled "detonation" or ping. I then proceded to read and noticed several issues with grammar and spelling. However, I did find this:

"This lower peak cylinder pressure also helps with detonaton control. "

What part of that sentence do you _NOT_ understand... ( that's rhetorical)
.................

You may be a nice person, I have no way of knowing this. What bothers me is your willingness to contradict known information with what you think you can get away with and nobody will notice. If it's your goal in life to become a BS artist that's your choice. Most people who come here want accurate information and not some unqualified misinformed member passing as an authority.
.................

I'm sure the original poster's paper has long since been written. Start a new thread, write a technical paper and post it to the site but do not keep showing us that you can't read, do your homework before opening your mouth. Ask your "teacher" to review this thread if you dare, maybe you can get him to promise to not lower your grade. No more of this nonsense for I will join those who are not happy with you and your conduct!!!

Cheers,
GTM

 

[eclipsh]

Qualifier: My apologies to the moderators if this is drifting too far off topic. It's just an important issue and I feel any misinformation should be corrected for the general good. What can I say, I'm a Political Scientist, it's what I do. I know this is a car forum so I'll keep it short.

From start to end product, ethonal uses more energy to produce than it, itself produces. Therefore, the added energy is derived from nuclear, coal or gasoline powered powerplants. And hydrogen is a pipe dream. I personally would be extremely leary of driving around with a 5,000 psi tank of extremely explosive and flammable material.

Though the paper is probably written (and I'd like to hear back on how it turned out) the information you are referring to about ethanol being a net loss is highly contested. ONE research project came to this conclusion, that is hardly grounds for a factual asertion.

In fact, if you look at my earlier link to Iogen, it directly contradicts the report you are referring to (I can't recall the professor or university it came from, I'm thinking Brown U.). So neither one of us can be sure.

So what we do know is:

1. Ethanol does burn well in turbo cars, produces more power and pollutes less out the tail pipe than gasoline does.

2. Ethanol is not a solution to oil dependence in its own right. According to Iogen, present ethanol technology at potential peak-production could replace less than half the oil consumed by vehicles on the road in Canada. More efficient hybrid ethanol cars (which Saab is unveiling at a car show in the near future) and ultra-light construction are part of the equation. Any ethanol energy deficits that coal and natural gas power plants are covering now could be replaced with solar and wind power if we chose to invest in it.

The final solution will have to be a combination of conservation AND alternative energy sources.

Just for fun I'm throwing in some charts that I produced for a research methods class. The data came from http://eia.doe.gov/

Oh, and incidentally, Nuclear energy is not renewable and was not included in the renewable statistic in the bottom graph. All energy #'s are in Quadrillion BTU's.

 

[GTM]

Though the paper is probably written (and I'd like to hear back on how it turned out) the information you are referring to about ethanol being a net loss is highly contested. ONE research project came to this conclusion, that is hardly grounds for a factual asertion.

In fact, if you look at my earlier link to Iogen, it directly contradicts the report
...

The final solution will have to be a combination of conservation AND alternative energy sources. I hope that isn't drifting too far off topic.

Just for fun I'm throwing in some charts that I produced for a research methods class. The data came from http://eia.doe.gov/

Oh, and incidentally, Nuclear energy is not renewable and was not included in the renewable statistic in the bottom graph. All energy #'s are in Quadrillion BTU's.

I too would like to see some/all of the paper unless the Instructor wasn't pleased.

Good informative post, just a couple days ago I saw our Gov. make mention of the all the work Brazil has done in this area. They most certainly are not operating at a net loss using Sugar Cane.

Absolutely it will have to be a combination of these fuels, only problem is even with Bill Gates investing in the program it will be 5 years before any effect will be felt.

The problem with nuclear energy is the waste product from the spent rods is the cheapest source for refining to be used in building BOMBS which this world doesn't need any more. This is part of the big stink in the Middle East (Iran) who has more oil to generate electricity and don't need this other source.

Cheers,
GTM

 

[Splitpi]

This is really starting to digress from E85 gasoline ... but it is interesting none the less.

I read of a study of Wind power potential. The study analyzed global wind speeds and tried to calculate the amount of electricity that could be harnassed from the wind. The study concluded that if only 20% of all the worlds viable potential locations for wind producing (mean wind speed of >= 6.9 m/s) were utilized they would meet 100% of the entire world's electricity demand. But then again we have several members of the senate blocking wind power development, at least in Massachussets, because they don't like the look of the towers from a distance by their Massachussets Mansions coastline... but thats another story.

I am not sure if this is the same study or not... but reaches the same conclussion and I based my numbers off of it... though I remember similar findings from the other study:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html

Ethanol though, is just a panacea. Even if we devoted all crop space to growning corn for ethanol production we could not meet the demand. But then we run into other risks of soil degredation, pesticide usage, destruction of habitats, salizination... etc... I'm not sure where exactly I got the numbers or where I read it. I'll see if I can find a reference for it. And a similar argument can be said for bio-diesel. Its just not applicable on a grand scale and less so than ethanol.

I think this thermal de-polymerization that I mentioned previously is the way to go. It can litterally turn garbage to oil. Not only does it clean up our waste and there for the enviroment, but it gives us a high grade oil suitable for immediate diesel usage (or further refining into gasoline). In addition, one by-product is high grade fertilizer. A win win for the enviroment, farmer and consumer.

 

[eclipsh]

This is really starting to digress from E85 gasoline ... but it is interesting none the less... Ethanol though, is just a panacea. Even if we devoted all crop space to growning corn for ethanol production we could not meet the demand. But then we run into other risks of soil degredation, pesticide usage, destruction of habitats, salizination... etc... I'm not sure where exactly I got the numbers or where I read it. I'll see if I can find a reference for it. And a similar argument can be said for bio-diesel. Its just not applicable on a grand scale and less so than ethanol.

I think this thermal de-polymerization that I mentioned previously is the way to go. It can litterally turn garbage to oil. Not only does it clean up our waste and there for the enviroment, but it gives us a high grade oil suitable for immediate diesel usage (or further refining into gasoline). In addition, one by-product is high grade fertilizer. A win win for the enviroment, farmer and consumer.

I'd like to read up on the de-polymerization. What were you reading? Good like to the wind study.

Back to ethanol, ou don't have to use corn to produce it, if you read that link on the last page. Cellulose ethanol uses the plant stems to produce ethanol instead of the fruits/grains etc. So you can harvest the food crop and then turn the stems into ethanol. I'm not sure what the soil depletion rate is.

http://www.iogen.ca/key_messages/overview/m4_fuels_vehicles.html

Check that out too. Again, only one source, and biased as they are a leading producer, but still valuable.