I'm sure some of you have read that the Indy Racing League is set to use 100% ethanol in 2007. From what I've read there will be no "major" difference in the car's performance. I'm curious what the actual results will be. I'm excited because ethanol has higher octane, but how will it be on efficiency? All the E85 results I've seen are less efficient than the gas we use today.

I would assume that high performance street vehicles that can run on ethanol should be right around the corner. However, with the limited access to ethanol in the US (800 stations out of 168,000 gas stations) we won't see that too soon.

Let me know what you guys think.

 

The main reason E85 engines are not as efficient is because they are not optimized for ethanol.
Ethanol is much higher octane and the engine should be built for high compression to utilize it.

 

But it still takes more volume of ethanol to deliver the same amount of energy than it would gasoline. If you look at energy released per gallon then, ethanol will be lower (by about 35%).

Higer compression will allow more power, so horsepower can be optimized, but you will still require more fuel volume. Ethanol simply does not have the energy content that gasoline does (fewer C-C bonds and already partially oxidized, being an alcohol).

Still, if it's cheaper and cleaner then the net is a positive.

 

E85 is a cool running fuel, not good for gas mileage but great for making horsepower. I have heard of a lot of 1000 plus horsepower street cars running it. They say the octane is about 104-107 for 2.79 a gallon (MN) If gas goes up a little more, then it will make sense to start running e85,

Randy

 

Will the difference in the IRL 100% ethanol and the 85% stuff the consumer will be using make a difference in performance or will it equate to the difference in premium gas and racing gas?

 

IRL currently uses 100% methanol.... they are just switching frorm one alcohol to another ...100% ethanol

 

From what I've read E85 is also very corrosive.

Shahram

 

quite correct

but for some reason, the media only mentions are the "pros"... and seemingly never mention the "cons".

 

A couple of things I've read and picked up regarding ethanol.
---
It isn't corrosive. It attacks and breaks down certain plastic and rubber compounds over time. Well, I guess that could be considered corrosive, but for rubber and plastic. As I understand it, older cars will need hoses and fittings that come in contact with it to be replaced with ethanol compatible versions. I've read that C5's are good to go as far as ethanol is concerned. It is water soluble, so you can't store it in the same fashion as regular gas. I believe it needs to be blended when going into the delivery truck. Also this would mean it's 'shelf-life' is less than gas.
---
Stoich is lower. I think it's around 14.1 as compared to 14.7 so you'll need to run richer for ethanol. It produces less energy per unit burned than gas, so you will need to burn more fuel to go the same distance as gas.
---
I may be wrong but here is one scenario I can envision from converting gas vehicles to ethanol.
---
The demand for gas is very high now and with limited resources the price per gallon is high.
The demand for ethanol is low right now and therefore the supply is relatively unlimited.
---
Eventually the demand for ethanol will go through the roof, they won't be able to manufacture and deliver enough to meet the demand, and therefore ethanol will spike much higher in price than gas. The demand for gas will go down and you'd think they would lower the price on it, but they won't, because the demand will shift towards third world countries where they can't produce it.
---
It will revitalize the farming industry. Farmers will no longer only grow food, they will grow energy.
---
It will clean up the environment some.
---
You will need to have your car's computer reprogrammed. The dyno tuner's will have to do it all over again.
---
Finally a question, what are the differences between methanol and ethanol regarding performance, deliverabilty, and practicality?

 

"I've read that C5's are good to go as far as ethanol is concerned"

You could really roll up to an E85 station and be good to go?

 

It is corrosive to many metals.
Stoich is 9 for pure ethanol.
You have to consider the costs of fertilizer, pestisides, running heavy equipment, storage and transportation in noncorroding tanks and tankers, etc.
It does substantially lower CO & CO2 emissions.
You will also need larger injectors and a way to inject gasoline or some other highly volatile substance into the motor for cold weather starting.
They are basically the same.

 

That wasn't stated correctly, thanks. What I meant was as far as the gas delivery system, the C5's are good to go. I've read you don't need to re-plumb the fuel system on a C5. You would need to reprogram the PCM for the difference in fuel EQ for optimum performance. But I think you could run E85 with no problems. However if you were to run 100% ethanol the fuel system would be ok, but I think you would need a reprogram of the PCM. I believe you don't need O2 sensors, etc.

 

I guess it's due to the oxygenation? Is storage done in some plastic or plastic isolated tank?
So I guess the 14.1 is for E85?
So this will probably be added to the final cost that will be relfected at the pump?
That's a good thing.
Is that due to a difference in flashpoint, volatility, or some other factor?
Why would the IRL want to change then? Some government incentive?

Thanks for the clarifications. These things I've read aren't alsways true.

 

For E85, you'd need a fuel system that can deliver about 1.5 times the volume of the current system. Stock Vette system won't do this.

And fuel economy will be only about 70% of what it is on gasoline, so you need to multiply the price/gal by about 1.5 to compare with gasoline. So if you pay $2.99 per gallon for E85 (what it costs here) it would take $4.87 to take you as far as $3.25 worth of gasoline.

(These are very rough figures)

 

That's odd.... Usually the media focuses on the Schitty side of the story in most cases... i.e. Reuters creative photograhy or only the bad in Iraq never the good... I hate the media..

 

More than likely the change is due to some cost savings or incentive from someone.

E85 does produce less NOx and CO2; however, it still takes a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) to produce the E85 and a lot of it. In fact we would still be putting large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere and have a high demand for fuel.

What is not being promoted is that ANY so called environmentally safe energy source is not really environmentally safe. We do not have enough land to produce the amount of corn that would be required to meet current demands for fuel. The fertilizers and pesticides still runoff of the soil into lakes, streams and rivers or is transported through the soil into the ground water. Corn crops are very harsh to the land. The fertilizers and pesticides still have to be manufactured and that takes fuel (petroleum or coal based).

Look at using solar panels, nuclear energy and wind energy. There is always a waste of some sort after the life of the item and energy used to create the item. The plastics in the solar panel and wind turbines for example.

There is just not one "answer" for our energy "crisis" and high fuel costs. Most of us that have investment probably (I for hope that some of my investments are) in futures including oil and that is one of the reasons for the high cost of fuel.

 

I'd like to believe that but unfortunately they will get cut out by the middle man. The processors and distrubutors will make the money on this, the farmer will be left out (just like it is now). On a positive note at least one country has made ethanol work. It is used in Brazil for all cars, 100% ethanol made from sugar cane.

 

Let me guess, you're a member of greenpeace.

 

I too follow ethanol closely. We will be getting E85 in our area within about a year (Portland, OR).

Stoich for pure ethanol is 9. Not sure exactly what an 85% mixture will be. The bottom line is, I don't know how that will affect the fuel delivery needs of these engines, or if the stock injectors will be enough. Do searches on E85 optimized engines, and you'll find people are running CR as high as 18:1, and getting far more power than gasoline.

I have no doubts about our cars being E85 capable. There does however, remain one catch: It is EPA illegal to covert our cars. To date, there are no approved E85 conversions plans/kits certified by the EPA. Currently, Minnesota is trying to push the EPA to certify a kit made by FlexTek in Brazil: http://flextek.com/ . They are kinda spendy though ~ $750 for an 8 cyl kit.

Frankly, I don't believe we need their kits, as all they appear to do is change impedence right at the injectors - which I think is a kludge to avoid getting into programming the PCM.-

 

Not on your life. I am a civil and environmental engineer, but I will still hunt and cut down trees to make a nice work bench in my shop. Greenpeace people are usually hippie type freaks with no idea of chemistry, biology or engineering to back up what they say. They obviously don't even know how to drive a boat correctly, but they know how to get in the way and ram big ships.