Yes ethanol is corrosive but once the entire fuel system is modified that problem goes away. The current flex fuel vehicles are not designed to run on ethanol, so, they're not very good at it.

An idea I've been tossing around is to make the internal modifications necessary to run ethanol efficiently. These would be increasing the compression ratio and finding a suitable camshaft.

For example, take a '75 Corvette with the base engine. I believe they had something like an 8.5/1 or 9/1 compression ratio. Rebuild this engine back to stock specs with the exception of domed pistons and reworked heads. Speed Pro makes a hyper piston that gives 10.25/1 compression with a 76cc head. Now, to get back down to 9/1 compression we open up the combustion chambers as much as possible and use a thick gasket. This gives us a test engine. We tune it and then run it for fuel mileage. Lets say it did 15 MPG on regular gasoline (E10) and 11 MPG on E85. Now swap out the heads for a set from a 305 that have 58cc chambers. Better yet, we'll angle mill them down to 55cc and put the hole mess back together with the thinest gaskets we can find. Hopefully the changes we've made will bring the compression back up to 12/1. The camshaft may also need to be changed. Strictly from a mileage point of view, I wonder if it can do 15 MPG? If so, then this would remove one of the last two drawbacks of ethanol as a fuel.

One of these days I'm going to try this. I figure I can use a set of 882 heads and not be out much after hogging the chambers out to 82 or 83cc and there is a reman joint down in Florida that sells 305 heads on eBay for $115 with no core charge. After all the testing is done (and if it proved successful) I would get a good set of heads that would maintain the 12/1 or 12.5/1 compression. That sounds like fun, an alcohol fueled high compression small block that looks completely stock. Imagine who you could surprise with that.

BigBlockk

Later.....

 

You will need to dramatically up the compression as it will be very sluggish in a low compression motor. You can either swap the heads with some small volume chambers or you can get a small EFI supercharger like a whipple.

Also get some inline fuel filters before your carb and get a couple because the E85 will take all 30ish years of varnish build up inside your gas tank and fuel system and run them right through your motor and do all kinds of unpleasant stuff.

Get all the alky parts for your carb that you can, and replace all the bigs of rubber lines with tephlon coated fuel lines.

That should do it.

I had thought about messing around with an old supercharged 3.8L V6, and modding that for E85 and jacking the boost up.

 

It's kind of ironic that it's available east of here, but not in CA! We can buy the cars, but not the fuel...

E85 isn't the answer. Thermal efficiency is terrible, in requires lots of energy to produce (energy from good 'ol fossil fuels I'll bet), and there's not enough base stock to supply our energy demands. We're way better off increasing the efficiency of our engines than fussing around with the fuel. Gasoline is an awesome fuel, we just have use it better. Actually, high pressure diesel engines are a pretty good alternative, and now that we have decent diesel fuel available in the US, we should start to see those cars (and trucks) making their way into the showrooms. They've been available overseas for years.

I'm also betting that as demand for E85 goes up, it's inevitable the price will jump as well, thereby negating it's only advantage.

Hans

 

ethanol that is primarily derived from corn kernals themselves is probably not the answer to getting away from oil. as someone mentioned earlier it takes a major food source away from...well...us.

however

if cellulosic ethanol can be efficiently manufactured - we're talking a whole 'nother ballgame. the kernals can feed the people, and the cobs and stalks can then feed our cars. and so can grass clippings, wood shavings, and the leaves in the fall, etc....can you imagine the leaves some of us burn turning into a potential fuel source? then of course you create US jobs by hiring people to gather these items...refine them...etc...all in the US of A. In the meantime our pals in the desert just end up with a bunch of black goo........

while i'm in favor of the "green" aspect of ethanol....i think the major pro for it is energy indendence. sure there are some drawbacks right now (such as fuel economy) - but that probably will be ironed out over time as the technology evolves...remember our C-3's are nowhere near as efficient as a C-6 (my dad's C-4 gets ridiculously good highway mileage). i dont think anyone is necessarily keen on lining the pockets of the middle east for obvious security reasons either....

 

There was a recent article in the San Diego Union (owned by the Chicago Tribune, but the article itself was probably an AP piece) about the sudden supply glut of ethanol, caused by the public's refusal to buy into the political hype associated with it. There is an unreasonable perception among politicians these days that ethanol is some sort of panacea and is the magic answer to America's energy woes. It isn't. Alcohol fuels have basically only one inherent advantage over petroleum based fuels-high octane. Touting it as an Indycar fuel simply because it (ethanol, specifically) is presently used in Indianapolis cars is to ignore a bit of history as well as the current state of Indianapolis car racing. When Lotus and Ford teamed up to run a rear-engine, stock-block powered car in the 1963 Indy 500 the Ford engineers reasoned that they could use gasoline in their cars (which at that time was legal) instead of the alcohol (read:METHANOL) fuel that all of the other 31 Offenhauser-powered front-engined 'roadsters' were using because they'd have to use a lot less of it (about 135 gallons vs. 320 for the Offies) and therefore could run much lighter and finish the race on only two fuel stops instead of four. It nearly worked- Jim Clark's Lotus-Ford finished a fairly close second to Parnelli Jones' Offy roadster, almost unheard of for a rookie in a new, unproven car. After the disastrous second-lap accident between two gasoline-fueled Fords in 1964 which killed two drivers and burned a number of spectators in a giant fireball, the sanctioning body (USAC) banned gasoline as an Indy car fuel. The reason ethanol is used in Indycars now is because the series has greatly lost popularity since the CART/IRL split in 1995 and is therefore desperate for sponsors. Last year 'Ethanol' (don't know exactly who but probably Archer Daniels Midland or some other such gigantic agricultural conglomerate) stepped in and signed a sponsorship deal with the Indy Racing League. Indy Car entrants therefore don't use ethanol voluntarily; it is a condition of entry, just like the Firestone tires they all use. If you put it (E85) in your old Corvette, it WILL-
(1) Not run well (if at all) until you rejet your carb suitably or get one whose idle passages will work with it
(2) Not appreciably affect performance if you do manage to finally get it running right
(3) Have an EXTREME detrimental effect on mileage
(4) Rot every piece of rubber in your fuel system QUICKLY. I have personally seen ethanol-laced (10%) pump gas destroy the fuel hoses and one fuel cell bladder in my race car in as little as two years.
Since use of 'reformulated' (ethanol-spiked) gasoline began in California back in the early 90's, documented instances of car fires TRIPLED because many old cars had rubber fuel lines that quickly rotted through (this documented by California Air Resources Board). New cars don't have these problems because their high-pressure computerized fuel injection systems use fuel lines are made of a plastic that's impervious to alcohol. That's another reason why the [increasingly liberal] political elites love ethanol-old cars will require more modifications than they think us hotrodders are willing to make to our cars to make them run right on this new swill, forcing us to increasingly drive new cars that are so heavily computerized that we can't possibly tinker with them.
As mentioned by others in this thread, possibly the WORST aspect of all this ethanol hype is that is takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does to produce a gallon of gasoline, and that gallon of gasoline will take your car almost THREE TIMES farther. 'Nuff said.

 

Working for a major automaker and working specifically on flex-fuel programs in the past, I can tell you with 100% certainty that this is a false statement.

Reading through this thread I immediately see the "political" issue with E85...the average Joe is completely misinformed (or uninformed) about Ethanol, its impact, advantages, and disadvantages.

My opinion is its certainly not the answer and will not rid our country of our dependence on foreign oil. The average customer who uses E85 for an extended period of time is going to be mighty upset when he has to fill his vehicle sooner and sees a 3 or 4 mpg decrease in fuel economy. And thats IF his vehicle is equipped to handle ethanol properly.

I don't mean to start a war of words or anything like that...I just saw someone state a fact that was completely incorrect.

 

Ethanol is not the answer for a variety of reasons. Don't buy the hype. The only people benefitting from this product are the corn farmers. Take away all the government mandates and subsidies ethanol requires and we wouldn't even be discussing this scam on the public.

 

Ok, you say I'm wrong. My opinion is that flex fuel vehicles are not designed to run on ethanol. That doesn't mean they can't run on it, because obviously they can. But, they were designed to use gasoline (E10). I would think they would get better fuel mileage with E85 if they were designed to run on it instead of E10. Modern flex fuel vehicles don't take advantage of ethanol's one big advantage, octane.

Now, you say that you have worked on the design of these vehicles, so I'll ask you. Is it possible to raise the compression ratio enough for E85 to give the same fuel mileage as E10? This would be an engine that would use only E85.

As for the corrosion problem, the car companies have modified their fuel systems to run E85, why can't we do the same? Now I don't know if the new flex fuel cars have rubber in their fuel systems but if they do then the technology is out there. Why couldn't we use it on a C3?

I am aware that ethanol isn't the final answer to our energy problems, but it is a step along the way.

BigBlockk

Later.....

 

And if you don't think it'll cost more, go to GM's web site and look at the mileage reduction for cars/trucks designed to use this fuel.

 

BMW V12 H2 engine. Fast, safe, 100% clean, production model. To me: that's the only future I'll sign my vette up for.

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/...l?vidID=156664



p.s. Edelbrock has the E85 carb available: saw it in my 2007 performance catalogue.

 

I think the anwser to all of this is to build an L88 and see how it runs on Ethanol and see how it runs on 103. Then compare to see which makes more power.

To say ethanol is safer than alcohol, I think that is wrong. Ethanol is a clean burning fuel which means that if catches on fire you probably wont see it in the day light...

 

E85 is not 105 octane is what I was told,no octane
I thought about using it when I found out I had 13:5.1 compression in my AMX $6.75 gal for race gas or convert to e85 $2.39gal,then it might be worth it but if your car is good on regular unleaded it's not worth it.
Alternative for race gas maybe.

 

For once we agree on something. This topic always brings out strong opinions against ethanol fuel. I don't understand why. Don't use it if you think it's crap.

I would like the opportunity to run some blend greater than 10% in my cars. Right now it chokes me to death and my eyes water standing behind my car. I bet that would change with E85. Putting the environment aside, maybe i don't want to poison myself from my own exhaust.

I don't need max performance just driving around town ect. You always have the option to change back to gas for the track.

If i have the choice of giving my money or tax dollars or whatever to terrorists or farmers in the midwest, it's a no brainer. Why can't some of you guys understand that? Its a damn good thing.

A lot of people out there care. It blows me away how many Prius's i see on the road now. I'd rather do the E85 thing than run around in a golf cart.

 

hate to burst your bubble bigblockk, but you are wrong on almost all accounts, especially getting free of foreign oil, environmentalist are dreaming and clueless on facts. al gore is another know-nothing idiot, NOT saying you are an idiot, only not right on facts.sorry not meant to flame only state you are wrong.

 

I wish corn based ethanol was the answer or even a subtantive part of it but unfortunately its not.
http://www.factsaboutethanol.org/

 

Rationalization one: biofuel subsidies reduce farm support payments. But, in fact, US evidence strongly suggests that these subsidies are being piled on top of existing farm subsidies, not replacing them.

answer: so what? what do i care how much subsidy a farmer gets?

Rationalization two: mandating biofuels will lower petrol prices. But it is obviously mad to try to lower the price of a commodity by subsidizing the production of more expensive alternatives.

answer: you have to subsidize an industry for a while before the economics of scale kick in to produce lower prices.

Rationalization three: subsidizing biofuel is an efficient way to reduce reliance on risky fossil fuels. But biofuels are, under current technologies, complements to, rather than substitutes for, fossil fuels and are also vulnerable to their own risks of weather and disease.

answer: how much does a war in the middle east cost. No contest

Rationalization four: subsidizing biofuel is an efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the report, the cost of eliminating a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent through biofuels varies from a low of about $150 to as much as $10,000. Even the lower of these figures exceeds almost all estimates of the marginal benefit of reducing a tonne of emissions. It certainly much exceeds the cost of many alternative ways of doing so.

answer: what? that doesn't make any sense. These are probably the same bastards crushing collector cars to get credits for dirty coal plants.

Rationalization five: subsidies are only needed to establish the infrastructure. But if biofuels are to be competitive, it will be unnecessary to subsidize the infrastructure. Investors can do that for themselves.

answer: we are talking about a sea change in thinking here. sometimes people need a push. if the government hadn't done something we would still be driving fuel inefficient polluting vehicles. Well we are but it would be a lot worse without someone to set standards. That is a role of government. We all need to be able to breathe.


this is not exactly an objective website. Subsidies to farmers are evil. But sending billions to arab terrorists isn't.???

 

Maybe not but of course all the pro ethanol websites are objective.


Here's a John Stossel report on ethanol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
Maybe this will change your mind turtle.

 

You guys are still not getting it. I don't give a damn if it costs $5 a gallon. If i can keep the money out of the pockets of the terrorists that rammed planes into our buildings i will.


HELLLO?????? anybody home? anybody in there. Knock knock?

 

Here's another one for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeVT7jMYZlo

He states something to the effect that even if we planted 100% of the United State's 80 million acres into corn for ethanol production we would still only be able to meet 12% of the demand. At the same time we would have to start importing all of our food. Import oil or import oil and food. Take your pick.
Now develop the technologies for cellulose based ethanol and we may have something.

 

ever heard of a place called Mexico, South America, Africa, yada yada yada.