Car enthusiasts - Mobilize!!! [UPDATED]

[PoorManQ45]

The flex fuel vehicles have tried to take advantage of this by increasing the timing advance, but you're still going to be at a loss because there is less energy content in the fuel. There are a few really high power tuned cars out there that use e85 specifically because of the higher octane.

The flex fuel vehicles are designed to run on gas with 10%e. They are just changed via computer map to run E85.

I'm talking about designing the engine to run on E85 to begin with.

[the converted]

You will NEVER be able to get as much energy out because it isn't there. Don't confuse octane with energy content, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Straight gasoline has 114,000 BTU/gal, e10 has 112,000 BTU/gallon, e85 has 81,800 BTU/gal and straight ethanol has 76,100 BTU/gal. This is of course before we take other additives into account, but there is no where to go but down.

So if you are designing an engine specifically to run on e85 or pure ethanol, you could utilize it to have a higher compression ratio, and therefore, higher power output with correct tuning, but it will be at the expense of mileage and limiting you in fuel availability. At the same time you would be subjecting the engine to higher cylinder pressures, and increasing the loads throughout the system. Manufactures would most likely then also increase the size of the bearing surfaces, and the thickness of the cylinder wall/pistons/heads so that they could sell and warranty these engines which would in turn increase weight, price, and reduce efficiency. All this because the corn sheiks of the mid-west were able to lobby their way past common sense.

[PoorManQ45]

You will NEVER be able to get as much energy out because it isn't there. Don't confuse octane with energy content, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Straight gasoline has 114,000 BTU/gal, e10 has 112,000 BTU/gallon, e85 has 81,800 BTU/gal and straight ethanol has 76,100 BTU/gal. This is of course before we take other additives into account, but there is no where to go but down.

Not meant as an argument:

How much of that energy goes out of the tailpipe?

IIRC, doesn't increasing the compression ratio and optimizing the rest of the system to run at that increased ratio improve the efficiency?

I understand that gas has more energy then e10 and e85, but would it be possible to actually extract more of that energy then a regular gas energy?

[the converted]

Didn't take it as an argument, sorry if it came off that way. I'm not entirely sure of the effects of compression ratios on the BSFC of an engine in this application because I'm used to using big cams to bleed off high static compression ratios. All of the documentation I'm currently finding are papers from SAE, and my membership has lapsed. So, I'm going to have to make a guess here and do some creative math to justify it.

If your typical 4 stroke engine is in the area of 18-20% efficient (I'll call it 20% for this), and we are using e10 (112,000 btu/gal) as it's the most common fuel available at the moment, then we are only using 22,400 btu/gal to actually move a car. IF we were able to extract that amount from a gallon of e85 (81,800 but/gal) then we would have an efficiency of 27%, or an increase in efficiency of a little over 36%. The effective octane rating of e85 is 102, and comparing it to good old 87, an increase in octane rating of 17%. Now I don't think that it would be reasonable to expect a 36% increase in efficiency from a 17% increase in octane, even if the the system was run on the absolute ragged edge.

And all of that is before you even factor in the discrepancy in energy used to bring the product to market.

[Jesda]

I agree with MoD. The core issue here isnt whether E10, E15, or E85 are environmentally friendly, damaging to cars, or more or less efficient. The issue is that the government, once again, is cramming yet another F*#$@# corn subsidy down our throats by taking away our right to choose.

And if we stopped putting idiotic tariffs on imported sugar, maybe our ethanol source would be cheaper instead of requiring federal and state subsidies.


WELL PLAYED, ADM. YOU GOT US AGAIN!

[AZhitman]

I wonder if the cries for ethanol would be nearly as high if we cut off the subsidies for Corn and Soy farmers (a great short-term idea by Nixon, as they worked as intended: the price of food stabilized) and let those industries shrivle and die naturally.

Some days I want to hug you.

[dre1507]

*Chants*
We want gasorine!!
We want gasorine!!
We want gasorine!!

What do we want?!!!!!
gasorine!!!!

How much of it?!!!
100%!!!!

[AZhitman]

Remember - For all the "savings", and "cleanliness" and "efficiency" they're touting, they conveniently neglect to mention:

The petroleum used to plant, cultivate, harvest, process, distill, transport and sell the ethanol...

The revisions to the infrastructure to deal with higher ethanol content.

The fertilizers and chemicals that go on the crops.

The chemicals used to combat water absorption.

The increased maintenance costs (and long-term failures of fuel systems) of cars that don't like water in their fuel... Rust destroys fuel pumps, carb jets AND older injectors QUICKLY.

The shorter "shelf life" (actually, storage duration) of higher ethanol-content fuels (waste, anyone?).

I could keep going.

On a side note, I don't oppose E85 conversions. I have several friends making HUGE power with engines tuned for E85, and they're accepting of the costs and maintenance involved.

[AZhitman]

I agree with MoD. The core issue here isnt whether E10, E15, or E85 are environmentally friendly, damaging to cars, or more or less efficient. The issue is that the government, once again, is cramming yet another F*#$@# corn subsidy down our throats by taking away our right to choose.

And if we stopped putting idiotic tariffs on imported sugar, maybe our ethanol source would be cheaper instead of requiring federal and state subsidies.


WELL PLAYED, ADM. YOU GOT US AGAIN!

...and you'd expect any less from this bunch of clowns in Washington?

"Rights to choose?" HAHAHAHA... You silly man. Hell, in 4 more years, even the McRib will be outlawed.

[dusred]

I wonder if the cries for ethanol would be nearly as high if we cut off the subsidies for Corn and Soy farmers (a great short-term idea by Nixon, as they worked as intended: the price of food stabilized) and let those industries shrivle and die naturally.

Some days I want to hug you.

I think I could be happy everyday if I could wake up in the morning and kick IB in the balls.

IB, did you send the letter?

[AZhitman]

Me too, but I support terminating ALL subsidies for farmers - ESPECIALLY the subsidies to let their fields lie fallow.

[IBCoupe]

Some days I want to hug you.

That's every day for me, good buddy.

I proposed an end to the subsidies to my dad once, in high school. He reminded me that the costs of such a measure would be that farmers go out of business and that the price of food would rise again.

My response was: "Well, if they're going to fail absent government intervention, maybe they're exactly the people the government shouldn't be helping." We didn't agree, but we understood each other and the merits of each argument.

I think I could be happy everyday if I could wake up in the morning and kick IB in the balls.

IB, did you send the letter?

I love you, too.

And, no, I haven't. As good as the letter is, I'd like to write my own, and I won't really have time to do it until tonight at the earliest. Busy, busy, busy...

From their previous actions, it looks as if the EPA is not in support of allowing E15 to be used. Also, if Obama was in support of E15 he would have made sure his position was known, not have Gibbs decline commentary. Hopefully this is the case.

President Obama, as an Illinois Senator, pushed for ethanol. It may be that he was only looking after his constituency, and now that his constituency includes a much wider array of Americans, he may have changed his views.

Of course, that's only if things work the way they ought to.

With that said, as Infiniti and I have posted, the EPA's not a huge fan of ethanol as a mobile emitter. I wouldn't be surprised to see the industries fall flat on their faces.

[PoorManQ45]

I proposed an end to the subsidies to my dad once, in high school. He reminded me that the costs of such a measure would be that farmers go out of business and that the price of food would rise again.

My response was: "Well, if they're going to fail absent government intervention, maybe they're exactly the people the government shouldn't be helping." We didn't agree, but we understood each other and the merits of each argument.

Agreed on both parts.

Unfortunately the cost of produce has been kept artificially low for so many years that I don't believe it's even possible to remove subsidies.

Wages would need to increase for people to be able to afford produce after that.

If that didn't happen the farmers would go out of business.

I am all for removing subsidies, but I don't believe it's possible with the death-grip that corporations have on the country.

[Encryptshun]

I proposed an end to the subsidies to my dad once, in high school. He reminded me that the costs of such a measure would be that farmers go out of business and that the price of food would rise again.

My response was: "Well, if they're going to fail absent government intervention, maybe they're exactly the people the government shouldn't be helping." We didn't agree, but we understood each other and the merits of each argument.

Agreed on both parts.

Unfortunately the cost of produce has been kept artificially low for so many years that I don't believe it's even possible to remove subsidies.

Wages would need to increase for people to be able to afford produce after that.

If that didn't happen the farmers would go out of business.

I am all for removing subsidies, but I don't believe it's possible with the death-grip that corporations have on the country.

Small farmers suffer because of the giant corporate farms controlling the market. Exactly the same way that a small five-and-dime suffers because of a Wal-Mart.

I come from a family of small, independent farmers -- trust me, the subsidies don't mean squat to them. Get rid of them and let the market self-regulate. There will be a brief blip where prices skyrocket due to big-ticket speculators capitalizing on futures markets, but then it will even out.

[PoorManQ45]

Excellent point. Every time I'm in Wisconsin we'll stop at local markets that have locally grown products.

The price is a little bit higher, but overall the quality seems to be higher. Bigger ears of corn, juicier tomatoes, much better melons, etc...

I didn't even think about it from that point.

Unfortunately, I still don't think the removal of subsidies will occur. You actually stated the reason. "Giant corporate farms". Corporations have run wild in america!

[dusred]

I love you, too.

And, no, I haven't. As good as the letter is, I'd like to write my own, and I won't really have time to do it until tonight at the earliest. Busy, busy, busy...

My question was will you write a letter or do you agree with what's happening?

[IBCoupe]

You've just asked me two different questions.

First, do I plan to write a letter? Yes, I plan to. I haven't begun writing one yet, but I plan to.

Second, do I agree with what's going on? I think part of what I've been saying here is that "what's going on" isn't that clear. Do I agree with the fact that the EPA is considering the thing? Yes, I agree with their considering it; it's part of their Congressional mandate. Do I agree with the fact that industry's lobbying? Yes, I agree with the lobbying; it's part of our freedom to petition the government - writing a letter in to the President is another form of lobbying. Long story short: I agree with what's going on, because that's how our government is designed to work.

But here's the questions we need to ask, and perhaps this is what you meant: is the EPA actually going to change the standards, and in the event that they do, would we be okay with that outcome? While we're all clear that we don't want it to happen, I'm not so convinced that it's likely to.

[AZhitman]

UPDATE:

The SEMA Action Network wants to thank the hundreds of members who asked President Obama to stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from raising the ethanol content in gasoline. The SAN worked with a number of other organizations to generate more than 22,000 total e-mailed letters. The collective effort spanned a broad cross-section of industries, including boating interests, grocers, convenience stores and, of course, car enthusiasts.

The EPA is expected to rule by late October on whether to raise the ethanol content in gasoline from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15) for late-model cars. It could permit the use in other cars at a later date.

The SAN is opposing the initiative due to concerns that the additional content will harm automobiles of all ages, including special interest collector and historic vehicles. Ethanol increases water formation in the fuel system, especially when the vehicle sits over a period of time. Under these conditions, formic acid is created which corrodes metals, plastics and rubber. Ethanol also causes engines to burn hotter which could lead to premature engine and equipment failure. The EPA has no procedure in place to adequately protect against misfueling or to ensure that gasoline with no ethanol will continue to be available for owners of older vehicles.

We will let you know when the EPA issues its decision. Meanwhile, we are taking this opportunity to thank our SAN members for their effective response.

Questions/comments may be directed to Steve McDonald at [email protected].

Original Action Alert: http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62807

[Razi]

Awesome.

[PEZi]

is there any way to reverse the use of E10 in states that have it? my carb hates teh E10

[PapaSmurf2k3]

^There is probably a chemical out there that you can add to E10 to bring the stoich burn/lambda levels back to normal gasoline levels. I think I saw it on TV once... cept the guy was using a TON of it to get massive fuel economy gains.

[costa_rican13]

i sented the letter to that one guys, and the persidant!

[Dano]

Sent to both.

[PEZi]

^There is probably a chemical out there that you can add to E10 to bring the stoich burn/lambda levels back to normal gasoline levels. I think I saw it on TV once... cept the guy was using a TON of it to get massive fuel economy gains.

any idea what it is? where you saw it?

[breadbox]

yeah this ^^

[PapaSmurf2k3]

It was on some program about how to get the most fuel economy out of your vehicle. The dude started with a 93 accord getting like 23 mpg. Turns out he was driving a rolling POS and didn't know it. Just inflating the tires and doing a tune up got him to like 33 IIRC, then he added this crap which got him up to ~38 or 40. It actually might have been posted on here. I'll do some digging.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

lots of cheesy videos are suggesting that adding 2oz of Acetone to 10 gallons of gas can increase your fuel economy by ~10%, but I seem to remember a different chemical being used.

[Solar_Runner]

It's bad form to burn food for fuel.

JMHO

[IBCoupe]

[audtatious]

Fill 'er up with E15: EPA OKs more ethanol
Thursday, October 14, 2010 02:54 AM

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has approved a 50percent increase in the amount of ethanol used in fuel blends, but only for newer vehicles, a decision that critics say could confuse consumers.

The Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday it will allow blends to include as much as 15percent ethanol, up from the current 10percent limit. The ruling is part of an effort to reduce the nation's reliance on fossil fuels and decrease oil imports.

Yet, a 15 percent blend is not deemed suitable for older vehicles. The EPA said gas stations will be required to clearly label their pumps to prevent customers from buying the wrong fuel.

The agency said the so-called E15 blend should be used only in vehicles built in 2007 or later. The blend should not be used for cars and trucks made before 2001 because they were not designed for higher ethanol blends.

The agency is still reviewing data on vehicles made from 2001 to 2006, with results expected in November.

To mitigate the impact of its decision, the agency said it will not mandate that gas stations offer the E15 blend.

"Ultimately it will be up to fuel suppliers and retailers to make it available," said Gina McCarthy, a senior EPA administrator. "It's by no means assured the market will develop quickly."

The risk of consumer confusion and potential legal liabilities have spurred a number of groups, such as automakers, boat builders and refiners, to oppose the EPA ruling.

"The large majority of today's vehicle warranties only cover gasoline with up to 10percent ethanol," said spokesman Bob Greco of the American Petroleum Institute. "More ethanol in gasoline could result in the voiding of customer warranties."

Also fighting E15 is an unusual collection of other foes such as livestock ranchers and environmentalists.

Refiners lament the cost and complexity of supplying different blends to gas stations. Ranchers worry that it will drive up costs as farmers shift away from growing corn for feed. Environmentalists say higher blends will lead to the clearing of more land for corn.

Supporters of higher ethanol blends contend that it will reduce the nation's dependency on foreign suppliers of oil and keep more U.S. dollars at home, helping the American economy.

Under federal law, the U.S. is supposed to double the amount of alternative fuels by 2022. Ethanol, a byproduct of corn, is the most readily available type.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/bu ... ml?sid=101