Need help with E85 tune
Pro
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 567
Likes: 31
my cost ends up being about the same as 93 octane gas. its cheaper than regular but requires more fuel for the same distance.
supposedly all cars built in the last 10 years or more have fuel systems capable of running e85.
at a minimum, you need bigger fuel pump, bigger injectors and a tune.
also, i run 93. but i tune my car for that when i fill up with 93. i can tune with a laptop, and have a wideband that i use to do so. on some trips i cannot find e85.
as to it being good for the environment, thats a toss up, it reduces some types of pollutants, but adds others.
i just wish it was more available and the price was more cheaper. local stations keep the increase in e85 prices on the same curve as all other fuels, even though the price of the ethanol is not tied to the spot price for petroleum.
in my opinion the zr1 screams for e85. a higher compression vette motor could take full advantage of e85, but then you could not use hightest. with a zr1, you could adjust the boost and take advantage of the increased octane and cooling effects of the fuel.
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,435
Likes: 19
From: Sioux Falls South Dakota
If you look at LPG its a similar situation, higher octane, less BTU's per gallon which is what determines mpg. Ak Miller use to specialize in turbo LPG car and he use to minimize the mpg drop by taking advantage of the increased torque via a lower numerical gear ratio to recover mpg, still mpg would often be 5-10% less.
Ethanol has not been optimized the same way, perhaps higher compression or more boost with lower per mile rpms would help recover some mpg in a similar fashion. Again the bottom line is what is the cost per mile for transportation and what is relative performing fuel for high performance.
Carlos
Ethanol has not been optimized the same way, perhaps higher compression or more boost with lower per mile rpms would help recover some mpg in a similar fashion. Again the bottom line is what is the cost per mile for transportation and what is relative performing fuel for high performance.
Carlos
Gas milage will be terrible with E85... like 20-30% less. We have a flex fuel (E85) suburban and when I run normal gas (10% ethanol blend) I get 12-14 mpg in the city and 14-17 mpg on the highway and with E85 I get 8-10 mpg in the city and 12-14 on the highway.
While ethanol may be "cheaper" cost wise, I found that I was spending as much, if not more cost-wise in gas each month due to the poor gas milage E85 produces. I even took the suburban in to the Chevy Dealer to be looked at thinking there was something wrong causing the drastic difference in mpg between normal gas and E85 and the service manager told me from what he's seen my mpg with E85 was on par with all others, if not even slightly better.
OP's choice obviously but from what I've experienced first hand I'd stay away from E85.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 918
Likes: 2
From: Lewisburg TN
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12,'14
Gas milage will be terrible with E85... like 20-30% less. We have a flex fuel (E85) suburban and when I run normal gas (10% ethanol blend) I get 12-14 mpg in the city and 14-17 mpg on the highway and with E85 I get 8-10 mpg in the city and 12-14 on the highway.
While ethanol may be "cheaper" cost wise, I found that I was spending as much, if not more cost-wise in gas each month due to the poor gas milage E85 produces. I even took the suburban in to the Chevy Dealer to be looked at thinking there was something wrong causing the drastic difference in mpg between normal gas and E85 and the service manager told me from what he's seen my mpg with E85 was on par with all others, if not even slightly better.
OP's choice obviously but from what I've experienced first hand I'd stay away from E85.
While ethanol may be "cheaper" cost wise, I found that I was spending as much, if not more cost-wise in gas each month due to the poor gas milage E85 produces. I even took the suburban in to the Chevy Dealer to be looked at thinking there was something wrong causing the drastic difference in mpg between normal gas and E85 and the service manager told me from what he's seen my mpg with E85 was on par with all others, if not even slightly better.
OP's choice obviously but from what I've experienced first hand I'd stay away from E85.
Flex fuel vehicles from what I understand leave a lot on the table on their tunes, but I really cant speak from experience since i don't have one.
My plan is to ultimately see on full E85 what I get powerwise and mpg drop and adjust my mixes accordingly. I can make 92.9 octane for less cost then 87 pump gas which would be fine everyday then come track day use the best % mix I find that works NA! If I was to shoot some nitrous I would use full E85. I use to race with C12 and have friends that still do, not cheap back then or these days. I raced with methanol which was great for racing but not a good street solution.
As you say everyone needs to make up their own mind!
Carlos
Burning Brakes
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 147
From: St. Louis MO
I can't believe the Kool-Aid drinkers that have bought into this ethanol crap! All the effort to retune a car to use food crop for fuel - that gives less BTU's per gallon. There is no way, no possible way, you can justify more fuel volume injected to equal what you would've gotten with petrol and say you came out ahead! If you are justifying the change based on E85 pump prices - be advised you are supporting massive corporate welfare subsidies that are damaging to the economy and environment. That's real smart - NOT! 
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,435
Likes: 19
From: Sioux Falls South Dakota
I can't believe the Kool-Aid drinkers that have bought into this ethanol crap! All the effort to retune a car to use food crop for fuel - that gives less BTU's per gallon. There is no way, no possible way, you can justify more fuel volume injected to equal what you would've gotten with petrol and say you came out ahead! If you are justifying the change based on E85 pump prices - be advised you are supporting massive corporate welfare subsidies that are damaging to the economy and environment. That's real smart - NOT!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Just kidding, I agree (somewhat).
Team Owner
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 29,085
Likes: 14
From: Cary IL and Parrish FL
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17
Here is an article that has done the ls2 vette conversion and is running about 22 HP more using E85
http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/vemp_08...t_results.html
Isn't there a CF tuner that offers the conversion as well? I forgot his name...
Found him:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...me-inside.html
Read the above thread.. great stuff.. If I were to mod my Z06 (and keeping it stock for now), I would do the E85 conversion too...
Has nothing to do with the fact that the VC firm I am working with has two cellulosic ethanol investments (and btw cellulosic ethanol is energy positive ethanol and quite possibly the future of fuel in this country)...
http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/vemp_08...t_results.html
Isn't there a CF tuner that offers the conversion as well? I forgot his name...
Found him:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-z...me-inside.html
Read the above thread.. great stuff.. If I were to mod my Z06 (and keeping it stock for now), I would do the E85 conversion too...
Has nothing to do with the fact that the VC firm I am working with has two cellulosic ethanol investments (and btw cellulosic ethanol is energy positive ethanol and quite possibly the future of fuel in this country)...
Last edited by HyperX; May 25, 2011 at 01:12 PM.
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 7
From: Indy
I can't believe the Kool-Aid drinkers that have bought into this ethanol crap! All the effort to retune a car to use food crop for fuel - that gives less BTU's per gallon. There is no way, no possible way, you can justify more fuel volume injected to equal what you would've gotten with petrol and say you came out ahead! If you are justifying the change based on E85 pump prices - be advised you are supporting massive corporate welfare subsidies that are damaging to the economy and environment. That's real smart - NOT!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
I'm more worried about the price of diesel fuel going up as it has way more of a impact towards the price of food.I don't really care to much that E85 is cheaper and I also respect that it burns faster. That's the price to pay to gain 20+ more HP on a bone stock car. Hell, I know people that pay $6 a gallon for 100 octane gas... many of them have converted to start killing corn
Luckily for me I am able to go back to pump gas anytime I want because I install my own tunes. One for the weekend (E85) and one for log drives/weekdays (pump 93)
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 918
Likes: 2
From: Lewisburg TN
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12,'14
I can't believe the Kool-Aid drinkers that have bought into this ethanol crap! All the effort to retune a car to use food crop for fuel - that gives less BTU's per gallon. There is no way, no possible way, you can justify more fuel volume injected to equal what you would've gotten with petrol and say you came out ahead! If you are justifying the change based on E85 pump prices - be advised you are supporting massive corporate welfare subsidies that are damaging to the economy and environment. That's real smart - NOT!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Similar could be said for many things but this thread was about ethanol conversion as a high performance fuel not politics. I do go to the politics section from time to time but that a different subject. As for the studies you mention there are lots of studies that get quoted that either misconstrued, miss characterized or are just based on bad data.
FYI whether you like it or not ethanol was introduced by the government to replace MTBE as a needed oxygenating molecule for fuel to burn cleaner. MTBE was expensive and was polluting the ground and streams. They could use ETBE but since ETBE uses ethanol as a starting material it has not been cheaper or better for its intended purpose. Now as far ethanol being bad fuel the Indy car league switched to it a while back and I don’t think anyone with that kind of investment in equipment would use it if it was a crap fuel.
Last your indication that it’s a food fuel shows you do not understand the process very well because it is an extra processing step and the left over product called distillers grains is just as nutritious as before the processing. As for corporate welfare again in the wrong section of the forum and I don’t agree with that either anymore then government using tax dollars for welfare, building mosques, subsidizing NPR, etc, etc.
BTW I also object to this administration cutting many needed energy jobs in the gulf while subsidizing oil exploration in Brazil, or the building of a refinery in Colombia with taxpayer dollars that are either printed from thin air or borrowed from the chinese!
All those arguments belong in the political section and I apologize to the OP for the rant.
Carlos
Last edited by hobbesnmina2001; May 25, 2011 at 01:57 PM.
Premium Supporting Vendor
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,975
Likes: 980
From: Clinton Township MI
C7 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
Ethanol has 34% less energy by volume than gasoline, so it's very interesting that E85 produces more HP in the LS3 than gasoline. Ethanol is much more efficient in producing power in high compression engines. Who knew the 10.7:1 compression, the high flow fuel injectors along with the stock tune optimized for high octane fuel was an Ethanol powerhouse? I wonder what happens to fuel economy with E85. I'm sure it'a reduced but I like to see by how much.
Ethanol is also much more thermally efficient than gasoline, so I wouldn't think you would want to install a lower temp thermostat.
Before everyone goes out and starts using E85 in their vetts, be warned that ethanol does not vaporize well in tempertures below 60 and could present starting issues in cold weather. The 15% gasoline alleviates that to a large extent but really cold temps it could be a problem on an engine like the LS3 that is not tuned specifically for E85.
Ethanol is also much more thermally efficient than gasoline, so I wouldn't think you would want to install a lower temp thermostat.
Before everyone goes out and starts using E85 in their vetts, be warned that ethanol does not vaporize well in tempertures below 60 and could present starting issues in cold weather. The 15% gasoline alleviates that to a large extent but really cold temps it could be a problem on an engine like the LS3 that is not tuned specifically for E85.
i love e85. one of my cars is a 2003 wrx turbo. i upgraded that car with a fuel pump, and injectors (about doubled the injector size). added a freer flowing exhaust front to back and a bigger turbo. with a more or less conservative tune (20psi on a 8:1 compression motor) i get around 300 hp at the wheels, which i think is around 370 or so at the crank, from a 2 liter motor.
my cost ends up being about the same as 93 octane gas. its cheaper than regular but requires more fuel for the same distance.
supposedly all cars built in the last 10 years or more have fuel systems capable of running e85.
at a minimum, you need bigger fuel pump, bigger injectors and a tune.
also, i run 93. but i tune my car for that when i fill up with 93. i can tune with a laptop, and have a wideband that i use to do so. on some trips i cannot find e85.
as to it being good for the environment, thats a toss up, it reduces some types of pollutants, but adds others.
i just wish it was more available and the price was more cheaper. local stations keep the increase in e85 prices on the same curve as all other fuels, even though the price of the ethanol is not tied to the spot price for petroleum.
in my opinion the zr1 screams for e85. a higher compression vette motor could take full advantage of e85, but then you could not use hightest. with a zr1, you could adjust the boost and take advantage of the increased octane and cooling effects of the fuel.
my cost ends up being about the same as 93 octane gas. its cheaper than regular but requires more fuel for the same distance.
supposedly all cars built in the last 10 years or more have fuel systems capable of running e85.
at a minimum, you need bigger fuel pump, bigger injectors and a tune.
also, i run 93. but i tune my car for that when i fill up with 93. i can tune with a laptop, and have a wideband that i use to do so. on some trips i cannot find e85.
as to it being good for the environment, thats a toss up, it reduces some types of pollutants, but adds others.
i just wish it was more available and the price was more cheaper. local stations keep the increase in e85 prices on the same curve as all other fuels, even though the price of the ethanol is not tied to the spot price for petroleum.
in my opinion the zr1 screams for e85. a higher compression vette motor could take full advantage of e85, but then you could not use hightest. with a zr1, you could adjust the boost and take advantage of the increased octane and cooling effects of the fuel.
I can't believe the Kool-Aid drinkers that have bought into this ethanol crap! All the effort to retune a car to use food crop for fuel - that gives less BTU's per gallon. There is no way, no possible way, you can justify more fuel volume injected to equal what you would've gotten with petrol and say you came out ahead! If you are justifying the change based on E85 pump prices - be advised you are supporting massive corporate welfare subsidies that are damaging to the economy and environment. That's real smart - NOT!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Some studies show that ethanol takes 30% more energy to produce than the ethanol contains. For instance, a study at Berkeley (Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76), on the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants, concluded that corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In 1997, the U.S. GAO found that the ethanol production process produces more nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases than does gasoline production. A decade later, Colorado scientists Jan Kreider and Peter Curtiss concluded that carbon dioxide emissions in the production cycle are about 50 percent higher for ethanol than for traditional fossil fuels.” [Source, Ethanol: Unintended Consequences]
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol according to a Wall Street Journal report of a Cornell study. A study from Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that “the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.” Corn ethanol, produced in any quantity to make a difference in oil imports, will take massive amounts of land, destroy habitat and forests, and threaten our food supply
Finally, consider the rank stupidity of turning needed food production into fuel. Acres and acres of corn devoted to ethanol - driving up food prices - especially hard on the poor of this country. Unconscionable!
Premium Supporting Vendor
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,975
Likes: 980
From: Clinton Township MI
C7 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
Sounds like it's creating AMERICAN jobs and keeps our money within OUR country . I'm more worried about the price of diesel fuel going up as it has way more of a impact towards the price of food.
I don't really care to much that E85 is cheaper and I also respect that it burns faster. That's the price to pay to gain 20+ more HP on a bone stock car. Hell, I know people that pay $6 a gallon for 100 octane gas... many of them have converted to start killing corn
Luckily for me I am able to go back to pump gas anytime I want because I install my own tunes. One for the weekend (E85) and one for log drives/weekdays (pump 93)
I'm more worried about the price of diesel fuel going up as it has way more of a impact towards the price of food.I don't really care to much that E85 is cheaper and I also respect that it burns faster. That's the price to pay to gain 20+ more HP on a bone stock car. Hell, I know people that pay $6 a gallon for 100 octane gas... many of them have converted to start killing corn
Luckily for me I am able to go back to pump gas anytime I want because I install my own tunes. One for the weekend (E85) and one for log drives/weekdays (pump 93)
Safety Car
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,548
Likes: 609
From: Southeast, WI
E85 is not safer for the environment. Better start studying. Don't drink the political cool-aid.
You use more gas get less gas mileage, and because you burn more you put more in the air. Plus you're using a food source that the world needs badly. It's just plain nonsense.
You use more gas get less gas mileage, and because you burn more you put more in the air. Plus you're using a food source that the world needs badly. It's just plain nonsense.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 918
Likes: 2
From: Lewisburg TN
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12,'14
Jason,
excellent points and I am happy to hear you reaffirm that with a hotwire and BAP fueling should be sufficient for quite a bit of HP!
My logs from last year on pump gas showed 7 degrees retard kicked due to high IAT 130-140 at the line, and sometimes I round robin in the TNT so when a 3rd run or run showed a little KR I would stop and cool it. The vast majority of the runs showed no KR even though warm temps and DA at 3400. ON one outing the DA was down to 2400 and the car picked up 3-4 tenths so yes cooling and higher octane would show big gains but thats good alcohol characteristics anyway.
Carlos
excellent points and I am happy to hear you reaffirm that with a hotwire and BAP fueling should be sufficient for quite a bit of HP!
My logs from last year on pump gas showed 7 degrees retard kicked due to high IAT 130-140 at the line, and sometimes I round robin in the TNT so when a 3rd run or run showed a little KR I would stop and cool it. The vast majority of the runs showed no KR even though warm temps and DA at 3400. ON one outing the DA was down to 2400 and the car picked up 3-4 tenths so yes cooling and higher octane would show big gains but thats good alcohol characteristics anyway.
Carlos
Drifting
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 3
E85 is not safer for the environment. Better start studying. Don't drink the political cool-aid.
You use more gas get less gas mileage, and because you burn more you put more in the air. Plus you're using a food source that the world needs badly. It's just plain nonsense.
You use more gas get less gas mileage, and because you burn more you put more in the air. Plus you're using a food source that the world needs badly. It's just plain nonsense.
Rick
Premium Supporting Vendor
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,975
Likes: 980
From: Clinton Township MI
C7 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
E85 is not safer for the environment. Better start studying. Don't drink the political cool-aid.
You use more gas get less gas mileage, and because you burn more you put more in the air. Plus you're using a food source that the world needs badly. It's just plain nonsense.
You use more gas get less gas mileage, and because you burn more you put more in the air. Plus you're using a food source that the world needs badly. It's just plain nonsense.
I'm all for switching to non-food related ethanol sources.
Is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico safe for the environment?
Pro
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 567
Likes: 31
i find it interesting that some folks react to e85 use like al gore does to global warming.
if you are that concerned about the environment, wasted energy and in general 'excess', you should be driving a small honda or taking public transportation.
no one needs a corvette. its a good example of excess, especially a z06. people buy them because they get enjoyment out of the excessive performance at the cost of higher fuel consumption.
use of e85 is no worse. and eventually its production may become economically sustainable and use non food stocks. and if it puts a small dent in our energy dependence, they thats a big win too.
if you are that concerned about the environment, wasted energy and in general 'excess', you should be driving a small honda or taking public transportation.
no one needs a corvette. its a good example of excess, especially a z06. people buy them because they get enjoyment out of the excessive performance at the cost of higher fuel consumption.
use of e85 is no worse. and eventually its production may become economically sustainable and use non food stocks. and if it puts a small dent in our energy dependence, they thats a big win too.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,724
Likes: 652
i find it interesting that some folks react to e85 use like al gore does to global warming.
if you are that concerned about the environment, wasted energy and in general 'excess', you should be driving a small honda or taking public transportation.
no one needs a corvette. its a good example of excess, especially a z06. people buy them because they get enjoyment out of the excessive performance at the cost of higher fuel consumption.
use of e85 is no worse. and eventually its production may become economically sustainable and use non food stocks. and if it puts a small dent in our energy dependence, they thats a big win too.
if you are that concerned about the environment, wasted energy and in general 'excess', you should be driving a small honda or taking public transportation.
no one needs a corvette. its a good example of excess, especially a z06. people buy them because they get enjoyment out of the excessive performance at the cost of higher fuel consumption.
use of e85 is no worse. and eventually its production may become economically sustainable and use non food stocks. and if it puts a small dent in our energy dependence, they thats a big win too.
It gets old when you go read a thread on an issue or a performance upgrade and you get stuck reading political comentary instead.
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 7
From: Indy
You could not be any more correct... Why Charly Murphy... Why? (dave chapelle quote)
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore in regards to how it helps our economy.. please read my old posts if you wish.
The FACTS are proven... E85 adds strong WHP throughout the powerband and does not hurt your car in anyway. If we keep this on topic I believe we can really discuss fun ways to make our cars faster.
If you hate E85 with a passion and feel it's ruining the world please start your own thread.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,724
Likes: 652
You could not be any more correct... Why Charly Murphy... Why? (dave chapelle quote)
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore in regards to how it helps our economy.. please read my old posts if you wish.
The FACTS are proven... E85 adds strong WHP throughout the powerband and does not hurt your car in anyway. If we keep this on topic I believe we can really discuss fun ways to make our cars faster.
If you hate E85 with a passion and feel it's ruining the world please start your own thread.
I'm not going to repeat myself anymore in regards to how it helps our economy.. please read my old posts if you wish.
The FACTS are proven... E85 adds strong WHP throughout the powerband and does not hurt your car in anyway. If we keep this on topic I believe we can really discuss fun ways to make our cars faster.
If you hate E85 with a passion and feel it's ruining the world please start your own thread.
My point was this....I want to read threads with information on mods and repair issues. It's disappointing when these threads deteriate into political commentary and debate.
If I read or took your comment incorrectly, please accept my apology
Last edited by FNBADAZ06; May 25, 2011 at 04:32 PM.
Burning Brakes
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 4
From: Columbia Maryland
Lots of misinformation about ethanol out there!!!!
The corn used to make ethanol is feed corn (the kind used to feed animals), not the corn people eat that is grown only for human consumption. Pigs, cows and chickens are the only ones that will starve if we make more ethanol, not people in developing nations.
Second it does not take 29% more "fossil" energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it contains!! This is an often misquoted "fact" and the misinterpretation doesn't even make any sense yet people believe it. If it takes 1.3 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol wouldn't the gallon of ethanol need to cost more than a gallon of fuel? The correct statistic is that it takes 29% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does to produce a gallon of gasoline. Two very differnt things.
The corn used to make ethanol is feed corn (the kind used to feed animals), not the corn people eat that is grown only for human consumption. Pigs, cows and chickens are the only ones that will starve if we make more ethanol, not people in developing nations.
Second it does not take 29% more "fossil" energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it contains!! This is an often misquoted "fact" and the misinterpretation doesn't even make any sense yet people believe it. If it takes 1.3 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol wouldn't the gallon of ethanol need to cost more than a gallon of fuel? The correct statistic is that it takes 29% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does to produce a gallon of gasoline. Two very differnt things.