Looking at the history of sci.chem I see that the major debate here
about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. There was a lot of
misinformation then, some of which can now be refuted by
experimentation by an individual -- not a lab.

I have access to four E85 fuel stations (gas stations that sell E85
also) in Albany, NY. I took the risk of mixing E85 with E10 in my
1999 Subaru Outback, well beyond the age at which the warranty
matters. I found that if I mixed half and half, my check-engine light
came on after a few days. The code was "fuel trim", as one would
expect, since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase
the richness of the mixture required for stochiometric burning.

I diluted the mix in the tank to 30% ethanol and the light went off in
only 7 miles of driving. I found that my car had better performance.
I could feel the acceleration in this old heap, unlike before. (No,
my fuel pump did not crumble into bits. Misinformation point 1)

That was encouraging. So I bought a converter, inspired by a Brazilian
invention, that stretches the electrical pulse to the fuel injectors
and quickly installed it. And I filled up with straight E85. That
was a month ago.

So here is how it has worked out. (This is personal experience, which
happens to agree with others one can find on the internet, and which
trumps the calculations of the armchair observers.)

It was written in this newsgroup that ethanol is much less efficient
than gasoline. It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about
30% less than that of gasoline. My 16-gallon tank can't take me quite
as far with E85 than with gasoline. I can live with that.

But the MPG penalty between E85 and gasoline is only 15%, not 30%, in
my experience. Some physicist is going to write me that this violates
the conservation of energy. But as a physicist myself, I am familiar
with the concept that (Energy Out) = (Energy In) x (Efficiency), which
defines the kind of efficiency I am talking about now.

The chemical energy of ethanol is Energy In to an automobile. But
what counts in life is Energy Out. Ethanol burns more efficiently in
an internal combustion engine than gasoline.

From the MPG numbers, I
have to conclude that the efficiency (in the current sense) of E85 is
twice as high as that of gasoline.

Hence the much smaller MPG
penalty. (It is explained in terms of ignition timing and burning
rate.)

But what concerns me more than MPG is MPD, or miles per dollar. E85
today costs $3.05 per gallon; Gasoline (regular) is $4.20. I am
getting about 7 miles per dollar, versus only 6 with gasoline.

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline. (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.)

The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported. I am a happy
driver.

Uncle Ben

On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, Uncle Ben <b... at (no spam) greenba.com> wrote:



Looking at the history of sci.chem I see that the major debate here
about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. There was a lot of
misinformation then, some of which can now be refuted by
experimentation by an individual -- not a lab.

I have access to four E85 fuel stations (gas stations that sell E85
also) in Albany, NY. I took the risk of mixing E85 with E10 in my
1999 Subaru Outback, well beyond the age at which the warranty
matters. I found that if I mixed half and half, my check-engine light
came on after a few days. The code was "fuel trim", as one would
expect, since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase
the richness of the mixture required for stochiometric burning.

I diluted the mix in the tank to 30% ethanol and the light went off in
only 7 miles of driving. I found that my car had better performance.
I could feel the acceleration in this old heap, unlike before. (No,
my fuel pump did not crumble into bits. Misinformation point 1)

That was encouraging. So I bought a converter, inspired by a Brazilian
invention, that stretches the electrical pulse to the fuel injectors
and quickly installed it. And I filled up with straight E85. That
was a month ago.

So here is how it has worked out. (This is personal experience, which
happens to agree with others one can find on the internet, and which
trumps the calculations of the armchair observers.)

It was written in this newsgroup that ethanol is much less efficient
than gasoline. It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about
30% less than that of gasoline. My 16-gallon tank can't take me quite
as far with E85 than with gasoline. I can live with that.

But the MPG penalty between E85 and gasoline is only 15%, not 30%, in
my experience. Some physicist is going to write me that this violates
the conservation of energy. But as a physicist myself, I am familiar
with the concept that (Energy Out) = (Energy In) x (Efficiency), which
defines the kind of efficiency I am talking about now.

The chemical energy of ethanol is Energy In to an automobile. But
what counts in life is Energy Out. Ethanol burns more efficiently in
an internal combustion engine than gasoline.

Not so. IF you modify an engine with the higher compression ratio EtOH
can use, it might be true, but putting EtOH in any blend in a gasoline-
tuned engine will not burn any more efficiently.

From the MPG numbers, I
have to conclude that the efficiency (in the current sense) of E85 is
twice as high as that of gasoline.

Considering the tiny amount of unburned hydrocarbons from any modern
automobile, they all burn gasoline so efficiently your premise is
simply not possible.

Hence the much smaller MPG
penalty. (It is explained in terms of ignition timing and burning
rate.)

I suggest you read what real, instrumented tests show.



But what concerns me more than MPG is MPD, or miles per dollar. E85
today costs $3.05 per gallon; Gasoline (regular) is $4.20. I am
getting about 7 miles per dollar, versus only 6 with gasoline.

Generally, it's said buy E85 only if it's 25% below gas, as it gives
25% less energy.

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline. (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.)

But again, NO engine sold is designed to take advantage of that.
You'd need a higher compression ratio.

The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

But they both put out the same mass of CO2 per joule of energy
produced. And EtOH produces acetaldehyde.

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported. I am a happy
driver.

Uncle Ben

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10...

On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, Uncle Ben <b... at (no spam) greenba.com> wrote:





Looking at the history of sci.chem I see that the major debate here
about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old.  There was a lot of
misinformation then, some of which can now be refuted by
experimentation by an individual -- not a lab.

I have access to four E85 fuel stations (gas stations that sell E85
also) in Albany, NY.  I took the risk of mixing E85 with E10 in my
1999 Subaru Outback, well beyond the age at which the warranty
matters.  I found that if I mixed half and half, my check-engine light
came on after a few days.  The code was "fuel trim", as one would
expect, since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase
the richness of the mixture required for stochiometric burning.

I diluted the mix in the tank to 30% ethanol and the light went off in
only 7 miles of driving.  I found that my car had better performance.
I could feel the acceleration in this old heap, unlike before.  (No,
my fuel pump did not crumble into bits. Misinformation point 1)

That was encouraging. So I bought a converter, inspired by a Brazilian
invention, that stretches the electrical pulse to the fuel injectors
and quickly installed it.  And I filled up with straight E85.  That
was a month ago.

So here is how it has worked out.  (This is personal experience, which
happens to agree with others one can find on the internet, and which
trumps the calculations of the armchair observers.)

It was written in this newsgroup that ethanol is much less efficient
than gasoline. It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about
30% less than that of gasoline.  My 16-gallon tank can't take me quite
as far with E85 than with gasoline.  I can live with that.

But the MPG penalty between E85 and gasoline is only 15%, not 30%, in
my experience. Some physicist is going to write me that this violates
the conservation of energy. But as a physicist myself, I am familiar
with the concept that (Energy Out) = (Energy In) x (Efficiency), which
defines the kind of efficiency I am talking about now.

The chemical energy of ethanol is Energy In to an automobile.  But
what counts in life is Energy Out.  Ethanol burns more efficiently in
an internal combustion engine than gasoline.

Not so. IF you modify an engine with the higher compression ratio EtOH
can use, it might be true, but putting EtOH in any blend in a gasoline-
tuned engine will not burn any more efficiently.

From the MPG numbers, I
have to conclude that the efficiency (in the current sense) of E85 is
twice as high as that of gasoline.

Considering the tiny amount of unburned hydrocarbons from any modern
automobile, they all burn gasoline so efficiently your premise is
simply not possible.

Hence the much smaller MPG
penalty. (It is explained in terms of ignition timing and burning
rate.)

I suggest you read what real, instrumented tests show.



But what concerns me more than MPG is MPD, or miles per dollar. E85
today costs $3.05 per gallon; Gasoline (regular) is $4.20.  I am
getting about 7 miles per dollar, versus only 6 with gasoline.

Generally, it's said buy E85 only if it's 25% below gas, as it gives
25% less energy.

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline.  (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.)

But again, NO engine sold is designed to take advantage of that.
You'd need a higher compression ratio.

The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

But they both put out the same mass of CO2 per joule of energy
produced.  And EtOH produces acetaldehyde.

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported.  I am a happy
driver.

Uncle Ben

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline. (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.) The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported. I am a happy
driver.

Looking at the history of sci.chem I see that the major debate here
about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. There was a lot of
misinformation then, some of which can now be refuted by
experimentation by an individual -- not a lab.

I have access to four E85 fuel stations (gas stations that sell E85
also) in Albany, NY. I took the risk of mixing E85 with E10 in my
1999 Subaru Outback, well beyond the age at which the warranty
matters. I found that if I mixed half and half, my check-engine light
came on after a few days. The code was "fuel trim", as one would
expect, since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase
the richness of the mixture required for stochiometric burning.

I diluted the mix in the tank to 30% ethanol and the light went off in
only 7 miles of driving. I found that my car had better performance.
I could feel the acceleration in this old heap, unlike before. (No,
my fuel pump did not crumble into bits. Misinformation point 1)

That was encouraging. So I bought a converter, inspired by a Brazilian
invention, that stretches the electrical pulse to the fuel injectors
and quickly installed it. And I filled up with straight E85. That
was a month ago.

So here is how it has worked out. (This is personal experience, which
happens to agree with others one can find on the internet, and which
trumps the calculations of the armchair observers.)

It was written in this newsgroup that ethanol is much less efficient
than gasoline. It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about
30% less than that of gasoline. My 16-gallon tank can't take me quite
as far with E85 than with gasoline. I can live with that.

But the MPG penalty between E85 and gasoline is only 15%, not 30%, in
my experience. Some physicist is going to write me that this violates
the conservation of energy. But as a physicist myself, I am familiar
with the concept that (Energy Out) = (Energy In) x (Efficiency), which
defines the kind of efficiency I am talking about now.

The chemical energy of ethanol is Energy In to an automobile. But
what counts in life is Energy Out. Ethanol burns more efficiently in
an internal combustion engine than gasoline. From the MPG numbers, I
have to conclude that the efficiency (in the current sense) of E85 is
twice as high as that of gasoline. Hence the much smaller MPG
penalty. (It is explained in terms of ignition timing and burning
rate.)

But what concerns me more than MPG is MPD, or miles per dollar. E85
today costs $3.05 per gallon; Gasoline (regular) is $4.20. I am
getting about 7 miles per dollar, versus only 6 with gasoline.

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline. (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.) The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported. I am a happy
driver.

Uncle Ben

In article <f7580b36-f644-4e81-acac-dbbb34d98... at (no spam) m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Uncle Ben <b... at (no spam) greenba.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 1:55 pm, Lloyd <lpar... at (no spam) emory.edu> wrote:

[...]



And you're aware of the moisture contamination problems, right?
You've got to be real careful.

Of course. But my fuel system is sealed.
.....

So how do you get the fuel into the tank? Osmosis?

And how well are the tanks from which you draw fuel sealed? Ethanol loves
water.



True, but any vehicle sold as E85 gives the auto makers huge benefits,
as the calculation by the EPA is the vehicle runs on E85 half the
time, and for that half, its mileage is calculated only on the 15%
that's gasoline. Net effect is to raise a vehicle's "official"
mileage by 50%.

But the actual mileage is lowered -- look at the window sticker.

I measured my own mileage. I guess you don't believe me, or anybody
else on the internet. That's your privilege and your loss.

Where did you get the idea that the mileage is calculated only on the
15% that's gasoline? That is ridiculous. (If you saw this on a car
in a dealership, the dealer was being ridiculous.) I suppose the
mileage on the 100% ethanol Indy cars was infinite then. I certainly
calculated mine on the total fuel volume. What you say is not even
consistent with the CR article.

If you believe Wiki, checkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Calculation.

Perhaps not exactly what Lloyd said, but mileage numbers are inflated by fudge
factors, and virtually everyone but you says mileage decreases with ethanol.
I guess "they're all out of step but Ben."

If there weren't a subsidy, ethanol would be higher than gas. I don't really
think it's a good idea to put food into my gas tank, either.

But go ahead and believe what you want. Facts are irrelevant.

On Jun 12, 11:16 am, Uncle Ben <b... at (no spam) greenba.com> wrote:



Looking at the history of sci.chem I see that the major debate here
about ethanol as a fuel is around two years old. There was a lot of
misinformation then, some of which can now be refuted by
experimentation by an individual -- not a lab.

I have access to four E85 fuel stations (gas stations that sell E85
also) in Albany, NY. I took the risk of mixing E85 with E10 in my
1999 Subaru Outback, well beyond the age at which the warranty
matters. I found that if I mixed half and half, my check-engine light
came on after a few days. The code was "fuel trim", as one would
expect, since the ECU in my car had hit the limit trying to increase
the richness of the mixture required for stochiometric burning.

I diluted the mix in the tank to 30% ethanol and the light went off in
only 7 miles of driving. I found that my car had better performance.
I could feel the acceleration in this old heap, unlike before. (No,
my fuel pump did not crumble into bits. Misinformation point 1)

That was encouraging. So I bought a converter, inspired by a Brazilian
invention, that stretches the electrical pulse to the fuel injectors
and quickly installed it. And I filled up with straight E85. That
was a month ago.

So here is how it has worked out. (This is personal experience, which
happens to agree with others one can find on the internet, and which
trumps the calculations of the armchair observers.)

It was written in this newsgroup that ethanol is much less efficient
than gasoline. It is true that the energy density of ethanol is about
30% less than that of gasoline. My 16-gallon tank can't take me quite
as far with E85 than with gasoline. I can live with that.

But the MPG penalty between E85 and gasoline is only 15%, not 30%, in
my experience. Some physicist is going to write me that this violates
the conservation of energy. But as a physicist myself, I am familiar
with the concept that (Energy Out) = (Energy In) x (Efficiency), which
defines the kind of efficiency I am talking about now.

The chemical energy of ethanol is Energy In to an automobile. But
what counts in life is Energy Out. Ethanol burns more efficiently in
an internal combustion engine than gasoline. From the MPG numbers, I
have to conclude that the efficiency (in the current sense) of E85 is
twice as high as that of gasoline. Hence the much smaller MPG
penalty. (It is explained in terms of ignition timing and burning
rate.)

But what concerns me more than MPG is MPD, or miles per dollar. E85
today costs $3.05 per gallon; Gasoline (regular) is $4.20. I am
getting about 7 miles per dollar, versus only 6 with gasoline.

My conclusion, subject to change as we careen toward the disater ahead
of us in Peak Oil, is that E85 is a much better fuel than regular
gasoline. (It's even better compared to premium. The octane rating of
E85 is 105, compared to 95 for super-premium IIRC.) The emissions of
E85 are much cleaner too. (Google it yourself.)

So E85 is cheaper, cleaner, hotter, and not imported. I am a happy
driver.

Uncle Ben

Nice! Where did you get the electronic converter?

You might want to consider changing your oxygen sensor too, upstream
of the catalytic converter. They do go out of calibration as they age

Michael