E85 fuel
1/19/06, 12:51 PM
#1
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 6, 2005
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking to out PD fleet machanic and we were talking about the new Dodge Charger Law Enforcement packages and the subject of gas mileage came up. One thing lead to another and he stated that the city would be getting its first E85 ethenol (85 ethenol/15 gasoline) station within the next 12-18 months. He said that he thinks that there was only a computer flash needed for the Charger to be able to use E85.
My question is, would the '06 GTs computer just need a computer flash or would they need some engine mods? What are the pros and cons of this?
My question is, would the '06 GTs computer just need a computer flash or would they need some engine mods? What are the pros and cons of this?
1/19/06, 12:55 PM
#2
Cam Tease
Join Date: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends, ethanol is slightly more corrosive than gasoline, and I don't know if the Stangs fuel system/hoses and such would be okay with that.
Benefits wise, E85 rocks. I wrote an article about it, its a little long but you might find it interesting.
The Answer Is in the Kernels
Have you ever wondered how Middle Eastern oil princes feel about hybrids? Of course they begrudgingly realize their wares cannot support them forever; one of two things will happen. Either the black gold runs out, thus forcing an alternative, or the inevitable alternative comes first--morphing the black gold back into the substance it was prior to the Midas touch of market demand: unsaleable black goo.
Doubtlessly, OPEC would prefer the former, but the U.S. would benefit greatly if new technology made it the latter.
As explained in my last column, hydrogen fuel cells will not be a practical means of vehicular propulsion for quite some time, and as long as something cheaper is available, perhaps never. So, rather than retiring the internal combustion engine and its accompanying gas station infrastructure, our nation should pursue technology to stretch our gallons of domestically-produced gasoline to go about ten times further than they do now.
Remember, to achieve independence from imported oil does not require independence from oil altogether. Given we already produce about 40% of the oil we consume and we own a massive oil reserves of 22 billion barrels, a 60% reduction of oil consumption would result in total energy independence for centuries to come--enough time to make hydrogen power, or something, plausibly affordable.
In the meantime, the chore of torquing the maximum potential out of the oil we have is a feat of strength left for another Hercules. And the most likely hero is one that has been a vital staple of our land before it was even our land: corn.
The centuries old energy supply that saved American pilgrims so long ago is, almost poetically, the solution to a problem that would otherwise exasperated those living centuries in the future. The miracle that is corn now goes by the name of E85, a fuel comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
The ethanol content of E85 is currently produced by fermenting the simple sugars found in corn, but enzymes have been designed that can derive ethanol from the decomposition of plant waste, paper products, and even grass. The obvious benefit lies in--other than an instantaneous 85% reduction of gasoline in "gas"--the domestic abundance of these biologically grown sources.
Rather than financing terrorism, going to the pump would put food on the tables of American farmers--not to mention, provide safe jobs for those displaced due to replacement of coal-fired plants with nuclear reactors. Moreover, ethanol-based fuel--already sold at many gas stations--is generally 30% cheaper than gasoline and its oxygen rich content allows cleaner burning characteristics, thus less pollution, than the 100% fossil fuel.
For these advantages, over 1 million E85 compatible cars are on the road today, with more on the way. But these Flexible Fuel Vehicles, as they're called, are exactly that. Powered by engines originally designed for gasoline use, albeit converted to also run on E85, FFV's are not specifically engineered to exploit the advantage of the beneficial properties of the after-thought E85 fuel.
Though the fuel imitates gasoline nearly perfectly, there are a few critical exceptions. It is these exceptions--coupled with current technologies--that will make the engine of the future a technological tour de force of gasoline efficiency. The largest two of these differences are hardly shortcomings, but rather beneficial characteristics that lend themselves to other engine innovations. These qualities are the fuel's 105 octane rating and cooler burning nature.
Octane measures the ability of fuel to resist detonation and cooler combustion puts less stress on all parts of the engine--two very good things. Ability to resist detonation does not make a fuel less flammable, as it may sound; rather a high octane means the air/fuel mixture can be compressed further without premature detonation from the pressure alone.
This is an obstacle for turbocharged gasoline engines, which use artificial means of cramming more air into combustion chambers to create more power. Unfortunately, as more "boost" pressure is applied, the air and fuel mixture tends to detonate before it should. This problem, called engine pinging, prevents the engine from safely operating under large amounts of boost, which brings us to E85's greatest benefit.
With its 105 octane rating and cool burning nature, a turbocharged E85 fueled engine could safely operate with boost pressures that would be unheard of for typical gasoline engines. As a horsepower fanatic, this realization immediately conjured thoughts of thousand horsepower muscle machines, but practical implications are equally huge.
Imagine replacing the typical SUV's huge and gas-guzzling V8 with a small 2.0 liter four-cylinder E85-engineered turbo engine. The weight savings impact of this drive train switch alone would save hundreds of pounds--improving every aspect of the vehicles dynamics, especially fuel economy. Better yet, the engine would provide at least as much power, a healthy increase in fuel efficiency (which would only be 15% gasoline anyway), and the fuel it runs on would be considerably cheaper per gallon--and sourced domestically.
However, turbo charging is not the only innovation with which E85 would mesh harmoniously. Other technologies already common on gasoline engines would prove effective complements to E85 engines.
A recent innovation employed by VW auto group in many VW and Audi models, called FSI for Fuel Stratified Injection, forcefully sprays the fuel directly into the combustion chamber just before the sparkplug fires. This reasonably affordable technology adds little cost to the engine but enables for a higher compression ratio, therefore more power and better fuel efficiency. In the case of our theoretical E85 super-engine, this technology could allow even higher boost pressure, and the power and efficiency to go with it.
Additionally, variable valve timing--which alters the duration of intake and exhaust valve openings in conjunction with engine RPMs-- would provide maximum power with minimum fuel cost at any speed, especially when coupled with a continuously variable transmission. Displacement on Demand, a mechanism that ceases fuel-delivery to select cylinders when the power they provide isn't necessary, would further reduce fuel consumption. Many automakers employ all three of these (VVT, DOD, and CVT), as they are effective and inexpensive when mass produced.
Finally, a plug-in hybrid electric system would round out the deal. With nuclear-provided wall-socket power to charge high capacity batteries, hybrid technology could further slash fuel intake--and become cheaper and more effective over years of development. Though hybridization is the only aspect of this super-engine that would actually add considerable cost to the vehicle, mass production would reduce that.
Though these technologies are used in many mass produced vehicles, automakers apply only one or two on a given car. However, all working in synergy, supported by a corncob backbone of E85, could generate 6.0liter V8 power from less than 3% of the gasoline, and add only two or three thousand dollars to cost of the car. A 97% reduction in gasoline consumption--far more than the 60% necessary to end reliance on foreign oil-- would achieve complete energy independence and extend our gasoline supply to the point where the fossil fuel would outlive its usefulness, depressing oil princes everywhere.
I optimistically estimate this independence will be achieved by year 2030, coincidentally--or not-- the same year I forecast an end to the War in Iraq.
Benefits wise, E85 rocks. I wrote an article about it, its a little long but you might find it interesting.
The Answer Is in the Kernels
Have you ever wondered how Middle Eastern oil princes feel about hybrids? Of course they begrudgingly realize their wares cannot support them forever; one of two things will happen. Either the black gold runs out, thus forcing an alternative, or the inevitable alternative comes first--morphing the black gold back into the substance it was prior to the Midas touch of market demand: unsaleable black goo.
Doubtlessly, OPEC would prefer the former, but the U.S. would benefit greatly if new technology made it the latter.
As explained in my last column, hydrogen fuel cells will not be a practical means of vehicular propulsion for quite some time, and as long as something cheaper is available, perhaps never. So, rather than retiring the internal combustion engine and its accompanying gas station infrastructure, our nation should pursue technology to stretch our gallons of domestically-produced gasoline to go about ten times further than they do now.
Remember, to achieve independence from imported oil does not require independence from oil altogether. Given we already produce about 40% of the oil we consume and we own a massive oil reserves of 22 billion barrels, a 60% reduction of oil consumption would result in total energy independence for centuries to come--enough time to make hydrogen power, or something, plausibly affordable.
In the meantime, the chore of torquing the maximum potential out of the oil we have is a feat of strength left for another Hercules. And the most likely hero is one that has been a vital staple of our land before it was even our land: corn.
The centuries old energy supply that saved American pilgrims so long ago is, almost poetically, the solution to a problem that would otherwise exasperated those living centuries in the future. The miracle that is corn now goes by the name of E85, a fuel comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
The ethanol content of E85 is currently produced by fermenting the simple sugars found in corn, but enzymes have been designed that can derive ethanol from the decomposition of plant waste, paper products, and even grass. The obvious benefit lies in--other than an instantaneous 85% reduction of gasoline in "gas"--the domestic abundance of these biologically grown sources.
Rather than financing terrorism, going to the pump would put food on the tables of American farmers--not to mention, provide safe jobs for those displaced due to replacement of coal-fired plants with nuclear reactors. Moreover, ethanol-based fuel--already sold at many gas stations--is generally 30% cheaper than gasoline and its oxygen rich content allows cleaner burning characteristics, thus less pollution, than the 100% fossil fuel.
For these advantages, over 1 million E85 compatible cars are on the road today, with more on the way. But these Flexible Fuel Vehicles, as they're called, are exactly that. Powered by engines originally designed for gasoline use, albeit converted to also run on E85, FFV's are not specifically engineered to exploit the advantage of the beneficial properties of the after-thought E85 fuel.
Though the fuel imitates gasoline nearly perfectly, there are a few critical exceptions. It is these exceptions--coupled with current technologies--that will make the engine of the future a technological tour de force of gasoline efficiency. The largest two of these differences are hardly shortcomings, but rather beneficial characteristics that lend themselves to other engine innovations. These qualities are the fuel's 105 octane rating and cooler burning nature.
Octane measures the ability of fuel to resist detonation and cooler combustion puts less stress on all parts of the engine--two very good things. Ability to resist detonation does not make a fuel less flammable, as it may sound; rather a high octane means the air/fuel mixture can be compressed further without premature detonation from the pressure alone.
This is an obstacle for turbocharged gasoline engines, which use artificial means of cramming more air into combustion chambers to create more power. Unfortunately, as more "boost" pressure is applied, the air and fuel mixture tends to detonate before it should. This problem, called engine pinging, prevents the engine from safely operating under large amounts of boost, which brings us to E85's greatest benefit.
With its 105 octane rating and cool burning nature, a turbocharged E85 fueled engine could safely operate with boost pressures that would be unheard of for typical gasoline engines. As a horsepower fanatic, this realization immediately conjured thoughts of thousand horsepower muscle machines, but practical implications are equally huge.
Imagine replacing the typical SUV's huge and gas-guzzling V8 with a small 2.0 liter four-cylinder E85-engineered turbo engine. The weight savings impact of this drive train switch alone would save hundreds of pounds--improving every aspect of the vehicles dynamics, especially fuel economy. Better yet, the engine would provide at least as much power, a healthy increase in fuel efficiency (which would only be 15% gasoline anyway), and the fuel it runs on would be considerably cheaper per gallon--and sourced domestically.
However, turbo charging is not the only innovation with which E85 would mesh harmoniously. Other technologies already common on gasoline engines would prove effective complements to E85 engines.
A recent innovation employed by VW auto group in many VW and Audi models, called FSI for Fuel Stratified Injection, forcefully sprays the fuel directly into the combustion chamber just before the sparkplug fires. This reasonably affordable technology adds little cost to the engine but enables for a higher compression ratio, therefore more power and better fuel efficiency. In the case of our theoretical E85 super-engine, this technology could allow even higher boost pressure, and the power and efficiency to go with it.
Additionally, variable valve timing--which alters the duration of intake and exhaust valve openings in conjunction with engine RPMs-- would provide maximum power with minimum fuel cost at any speed, especially when coupled with a continuously variable transmission. Displacement on Demand, a mechanism that ceases fuel-delivery to select cylinders when the power they provide isn't necessary, would further reduce fuel consumption. Many automakers employ all three of these (VVT, DOD, and CVT), as they are effective and inexpensive when mass produced.
Finally, a plug-in hybrid electric system would round out the deal. With nuclear-provided wall-socket power to charge high capacity batteries, hybrid technology could further slash fuel intake--and become cheaper and more effective over years of development. Though hybridization is the only aspect of this super-engine that would actually add considerable cost to the vehicle, mass production would reduce that.
Though these technologies are used in many mass produced vehicles, automakers apply only one or two on a given car. However, all working in synergy, supported by a corncob backbone of E85, could generate 6.0liter V8 power from less than 3% of the gasoline, and add only two or three thousand dollars to cost of the car. A 97% reduction in gasoline consumption--far more than the 60% necessary to end reliance on foreign oil-- would achieve complete energy independence and extend our gasoline supply to the point where the fossil fuel would outlive its usefulness, depressing oil princes everywhere.
I optimistically estimate this independence will be achieved by year 2030, coincidentally--or not-- the same year I forecast an end to the War in Iraq.
1/19/06, 12:59 PM
#3
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 6, 2005
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually just found out the answer, the E85 site, lists vehicles that are compatable with E85. Unfortuately, the Mustang isnt on the list. the 4.6L 2valve engine, but not the 3valve. The site is linked below...
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
1/19/06, 01:09 PM
#4
GT Member
Join Date: October 18, 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did you mean by saying that ethonal is more corrosive, just how much more? It would eat away at the fuel lines? By the way that is a well written article- when did you write it? And lastly i hope that some of the things mentioned do really happen and this question is more of a hybrid question - what kind of power does it take to recharge a battery (not sure how often you'd be doing it, every night?) because that could add a nice chunk to your electrical bill if you're always charging it. Very interesting subject.
1/19/06, 01:23 PM
#5
Cam Tease
Join Date: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marginally more corrosive, just enough to be a problem for some vehicles. For instance, Subaru's WRX wasn't designed with E85 in mind, but its fuel lines can handle the fuel just fine. Owners merely reflash their ECU to account for the hightened octane and theyre good to go. But on other vehicles youre right, E85 would slowly corrode the fuel lines.
And thanks for the compliment about the article, I wrote it last week for my school paper. Its actually the sequel to a column explaining why hydrogen powered cars will not be plausible for decades, and instead we can eliminate pollution by retiring coal-fired power plants in favor of nuclear reactors--which is why I mentioned "with nuclear-provided wall-socket power to charge high capacity batteries." Arguably with infinite rescources providing utility power, energy would become "cheaper." And I'm not sure how much energy charging one's car would consume, as plug-in hybrid tech isn't nearly far along enough in the development process to make an accurate estimate.
Hope that helped.
And thanks for the compliment about the article, I wrote it last week for my school paper. Its actually the sequel to a column explaining why hydrogen powered cars will not be plausible for decades, and instead we can eliminate pollution by retiring coal-fired power plants in favor of nuclear reactors--which is why I mentioned "with nuclear-provided wall-socket power to charge high capacity batteries." Arguably with infinite rescources providing utility power, energy would become "cheaper." And I'm not sure how much energy charging one's car would consume, as plug-in hybrid tech isn't nearly far along enough in the development process to make an accurate estimate.
Hope that helped.
1/19/06, 06:18 PM
#6
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great thread! i read an article about 7-8 years ago about E85 and had hoped that by now it would be easier to obtain. i would switch mine over instantly but the closest place for me to get E85 is over an hour away. i just hope bigger stations(exxon,mobil,shell,citgo)start selling it. they could do away with mid grade gas and use the pumps for E85. think of how much boost the s/c and turbo guys could run safely...it would be insane!
1/19/06, 06:50 PM
#7
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 12, 2005
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I live in small town iowa nad we have E85 available fairly easily. We ran a couple tanks though our 04 exploder and didn't notice any change. The odd thing was that the last tank we got (when gas was above 3.00), the E85 was MORE. Ethanol is a traded like most futures and the supply was low and demand was high and (insert price gouging argument here>.
The only adverse effect was 16 miles per gallon, down from 18.5.
The only adverse effect was 16 miles per gallon, down from 18.5.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
9/16/15 06:44 PM