Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #286  
Old 07-14-2014, 08:31 AM
Blue_Oval1 Blue_Oval1 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 31
Blue_Oval1 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don S. View Post

Also I have a supercharged engine, granted it's a 4 popper, but my factory manual says do not use fuels inexcess of 10% Ethanol alcohol. Granted this car was built in 1991, and most likely the ECU cannot compensate for anything much higher than 10%, or seeing most people hardly ever push their cars over 6/10'th on a performance scale you won't see much of an issue.
Your 23-year-old vehicle was made and designed well before on-road fuels with a significant amount of ethanol were developed. The ECU doesn't know to look for ethanol and isn't smart enough to know what to do with it if it did find it (your car was new when a 66 MHz 80486DX2 with 4 MB of parity EDO RAM was hot stuff.) Your fuel system isn't compatible with it either. That's the same issues people here are complaining about here with their older vehicles, chainsaws, lawnmowers, and outboard engines. Very few people are stupid enough to put diesel fuel in a chainsaw and expect it to run. However you hear about people putting high-ethanol blends in them and then complaining about how they run poorly. Duh, you put the wrong fuel in. It doesn't mean the fuel is bad, only that it's not compatible...just like diesel fuel.

Quote:
Also did you know that car companies stood their ground just recently against a recent plan to increase pump gas too 15%. Most of the MFR's said if that was going to happen they would not warrenty any new car sold.
Automakers certainly will warranty vehicles that run on higher ethanol blends. The thing the automakers won't do is warranty their non-redesigned E10 or less vehicles to run on >E10. That's a HUGE difference than refusing to warranty "any new car sold." The automakers simply would have to put in a few different parts (mainly a lambda sensor, a different fuel pump, and slightly larger fuel injectors) and put in the appropriate ECU flash and voila, the vehicle is now able to properly run on anything from straight dino gas to E85 without any issues and with a full warranty. How do I know this? Ford has been selling these vehicles for years; they're called "flex-fuel vehicles." Every 3.7 L and 5.0 L 12th generation F-150 has this capability as a matter of fact. Introducing E15 would just mean that there would be more flex-fuel capable vehicles out there.

One thing you are forgetting is the rise of little bitty turbocharged engines like the four-cylinder EcoBoosts. A high-octane ethanol fuel would be ideal for that application as the added octane would allow for better performance from such small powerplants. (Or in the EPA's mind, even smaller engines with even more boost to make the "same" performance.) Remember, we're living in the era of "doing the same with less" or more accurately "doing somewhat less with a LOT less" with our engines due to the asinine EPA mandates. More octane will help to keep us from experiencing the 1970s and early 1980s all over again. We can't run leaded gas for a lot of reasons (fouled sensors being the one big non-EPA-related one) and the cost of 100 octane unleaded is insane unless it's got a bunch of ethanol in it, then it's cheaper than 87 octane pee-water.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 07-15-2014, 03:43 AM
rasmith3530's Avatar
rasmith3530 rasmith3530 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
rasmith3530 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I browsed through seven years of posts and wow, some real intense talk going on here, coupled with information, disinformation and heaven only knows what else. I do find it interesting that folks who are anti bio-fuel expend so much energy dissing it. It boggles the mind!

Years back, I used to run my much modified Windsor and Cleveland small blocks on Sunoco 260 and 115/145 Aviation gas in a 90/10 mixture. It worked pretty well at giving me decent performance through a slalom without pinging. Of course, Sunoco 260 was $0.48.9 per gallon back then, oil would never run out, and life was good.

Then, a couple things happened. The residents of one part of the world figured out that they could hold folks on the other side of the globe hostage through playing with production and price in the oil market. They've now got that down to a fine art, where the REAL price we pay today at the pump is based, not on what that actual oil cost, but rather on a roll of the dice, projected future price. Of course, we in the U.S. don't feel it as badly as our European neighbors do, because a lobbied, bought and paid for government provides billions annually in subsidies to the major players in the oil game to keep the price artificially down. This allows them to make obscene profits, all at the taxpayers' expense.

The other thing that occurred was the discovery that throwing tons of lead into the air every year was not really great for people and other living things. Then, there were other pollutants, and before long, gasoline was not what it used to be, and those engines I built back in the day would cough, sputter, and spit up their innards running this new, lower octane, unleaded fuel.

Fast forward to today. Face it, we are not going to be going back in time. The world has reached peak oil, and getting the stuff will only get harder as time goes on. Of course, we could all bury our heads in the sand, pretend that either no problem exists, or that it will automagically fix itself and we will be able to continue on as we've always done. The other choice is that we all start looking at alternatives. This, is the course I've decided to take, personally. YMMV.

With high gas prices, and a continued desire to go fast, I began to look at the little turbocharged four cylinder engines that Chrysler was building. These could be made to put out gobs of power for relatively small investment, and could still get respectable gas mileage while doing so. Eventually, I would come to own my second numbered Shelby while playing with these.

I began wondering if the same kind of inexpensive power gains could be had using a turbocharged diesel engine. That was when I was really introduced to alternative fuels. It turned out that a neighbor in my small town was running his Volkswagen on used fryer oil that he'd gotten for free. This was his second WVO powered VW TDI, the first having been totaled at 350,000 miles. That car had run on WVO since new, and his current VW, at the time, had over 225K on the clock, all on french fry oil. I ended up finding an old Benz 300D-T, and performed a DIY conversion. It was great. I was getting good mileage, and after the initial investment, I was driving for free, on a completely renewable resource. Then, my job location changed. I began making a 50 mile one-way commute, through the Chicago metropolitan area. I also was having to put in more overtime hours. This seriously cut into the time that I could devote to collecting and filtering WVO. I sold the project and moved on.

At present, my health has given me more free time. Not a good thing in many ways, but I've always tried to look at the positives in a given situation. So, I have my little FFV Ranger as my daily driver, and I just bought an old school F-250 diesel as a new project. I want to start making my own fuels, for both vehicles, using high yield oils that are much more efficient than corn or soy.

This is definitely not a route for everyone, just as experimenting with small computers was not back in the 1980s. Many folks told me I was wasting my time back then as well. Of course, the intervening years did prove them wrong, just as the blacksmith was proven wrong by the automotive engineer.

Anyway, thanks for the lively discussion folks. Good reading all.
__________________
2000 Ranger XLT 4dr Ext Cab 4x4 3.0FFV Auto
1992 F250 XLT Reg Cab 2WD 7.3L IDI Drop Gate Flare Side Shortbed
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 07-15-2014, 12:31 PM
Beechkid Beechkid is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,223
Beechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmith3530 View Post
I want to start making my own fuels, for both vehicles, using high yield oils that are much more efficient than corn or soy.
Much of what you have said I concur with personally, but...as an fyi in reference to making your own

To start with...get a good attorney.

When you collect, store any product that is combustible, flammable or poses a potential environmental effect in quantities of 30 gallons or more, you are required to have a secondary containment system, spill control and a permit, issued by local, state and/or federal EPA or public health agency (local). This is required under both the CERCLA, the international fire code (adopted by local and state agencies) Article 79 and 80, and permit is required by Article 4 and the National Fire Code (which is a standard for which state and federal courts/DA's/SAG, etc. function from when other laws do not apply.

You must also purchase caustics (sodium hydroxide aka Lye) and alcohol (or a derivative such as methanol) to distill the product....a permit is also required for any purchase of sodium hydroxide or methanol, mixing, dispensing and distillation process (since you have to heat the mixed product to well over 100 degrees- well past the ignition point of the product- same codes all apply. These same codes also require you to have Class I, division 1 or 2 electrical wiring for any inside mixing, storage and dispensing....to keep a flash fire/explosion from happening. Why, as an example, if lye comes in contact with aluminum, hydrogen gas is produced, if hydrogen gas (a flammable, used in the Hindenburg) comes into contact with any ignition source (including heat, static charge from rubbing your hair) at minimum you are looking at a flash fire, at worst case, an explosion.

Even inhaling minor, the smallest particulates of lye damages the lungs, eventually creating a chemical induced pneumonia- to which there is no cure or treatment. If you think a respirator will take care of that exposure, oops again, your pupils of your eyes and ear drums are direct depositories into the blood stream- absorbing those particulates into the blood stream and transporting them to your liver, kidneys, bladder attempting to be filtered (but not) and re-distributed through the metabolic systems including the bone & bone marrow- where a host of results will (not if) occur…of which cancer would be your least concern…..but it does take 10-30 years for those effects to show…even with the best laboratory equipment.

As you pour one liquid into another container, you are creating “static charge” by the mere action of the liquid. Without proper, verified bonding & grounding, the re-routing/reverse of a single static charge will result in a fire or explosion (if it reaches a container)- this evens happens in car when due to a design flaw (such as in the 1990’s) when GM experienced 2 fuel tank fires in their 2 newest “high mpg” cars because a single static charge was generated during re-fueling, the charge exited the vehicle tank but the newly designed low resistance tires prohibited the charge from “finding the ground” and returned to the vehicles fuel tank. Back in the 70’s (IIRR), the USAF also experience this with a 747 in Texas, causing a fire in one fuel tank and explosion in the center fuel tank which was almost empty.

While it is not illegal in most states to sell the equipment to make the product, it is illegal for anyone to sell the caustics & methanol to you in the quantity required for this process without a business license and other permits- including for transportation (under the Federal code of regulation, part 40 & 49). if you are reported by anyone, they will receive a 10% reward from the national "We-Tip" program- the average (total collected fine and investigation) fine for a "small business" is $1 million dollars, the average clean-up including disposal, assessment and temp permits is $2 million...and this can be instituted by any environmental, public health, fire department, law enforcement agency, district attorney and any local, state or federal agency.

While many will chime in that there's nothing wrong in doing this, or I may be "mistaken", check out Tuscan AZ, 2002 the feds came in and arrested a homeowner not for making bio-diesel, but because of the process used to make it. They went to jail for child endangerment (seems they had a little fire- I don't recall if it was related to the bio-diesel or not), but the local gov did the reports, the state & feds choose to clean the mess up and prosecute and fine and take everything the guys homeowners insurance would handle...then guess what, although the judge ordered restitution and reduced the charge from a (multiple count felony) felony to a single misdemeanor, they are tagged within the north American insurance industry meaning they can’t never get homeowners insurance...from any company- meaning yes you could not only loose financially everything from an human, technical, environmental event but unless you had the cash to pay for a home, forget ever having that ability- no homeowners insurance, no home loan.

It's really not worth it.
__________________
Member: Never trust a person over 40 who drives a Chevy club
Flatheads ain't so bad!
Certified backyard mechanic I & II
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:56 PM
Don S.'s Avatar
Don S. Don S. is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S'Dale Wa.
Posts: 545
Don S. is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Oval1 View Post
Your 23-year-old vehicle was made and designed well before on-road fuels with a significant amount of ethanol were developed. The ECU doesn't know to look for ethanol and isn't smart enough to know what to do with it if it did find it (your car was new when a 66 MHz 80486DX2 with 4 MB of parity EDO RAM was hot stuff.) Your fuel system isn't compatible with it either. That's the same issues people here are complaining about here with their older vehicles, chainsaws, lawnmowers, and outboard engines. Very few people are stupid enough to put diesel fuel in a chainsaw and expect it to run. However you hear about people putting high-ethanol blends in them and then complaining about how they run poorly. Duh, you put the wrong fuel in. It doesn't mean the fuel is bad, only that it's not compatible...just like diesel fuel..
In the actual manual it states not to use fuels containing over 10% ethanol alcohol. There was alcohol used in 1991, it just wasn't mandated to have it in there, nor required to post it on a pump. Your also right most cars won't sense Pure Gasoline, or Gas with E-10. Maybe Flex fuel vehicles have a sensor for it but most cars won't tell if there is or isn't. Most cars will sense A/F ratios. Older cars like mine with a Digifaint II engine management can only allow so much ECU interaction for A/F ratios that are off. But I am sure most regular cars today with ODBII and Enginmanagment system have more versatility with Timing advance and spark control.
__________________
Committee: a group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary.

"Brutus" 1978 F-150 SC 4x4 BB460

" There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
" -Dave Barry, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 07-18-2014, 03:07 PM
Blue_Oval1 Blue_Oval1 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 31
Blue_Oval1 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don S. View Post
In the actual manual it states not to use fuels containing over 10% ethanol alcohol. There was alcohol used in 1991, it just wasn't mandated to have it in there, nor required to post it on a pump. Your also right most cars won't sense Pure Gasoline, or Gas with E-10. Maybe Flex fuel vehicles have a sensor for it but most cars won't tell if there is or isn't. Most cars will sense A/F ratios. Older cars like mine with a Digifaint II engine management can only allow so much ECU interaction for A/F ratios that are off. But I am sure most regular cars today with ODBII and Enginmanagment system have more versatility with Timing advance and spark control.
Flex fuel vehicles do have a sensor that can determine the ethanol percentage. It's called a lambda sensor and it is how the engine determines the correct A/F mappings and why the engine can run on any concentration of ethanol from 0-85%.

Older vehicles won't be able to run optimally on >10% ethanol without retrofitting because they're not compatible with it. But that isn't what was being discussed in the thread- it was somebody saying that NEW vehicles can't be made to run on E15. My answer is that yes, they can easily be made to do so. So the answer in my mind at least is that it would make sense to let station owners sell E15. They can already sell <=10% and 20-85% ethanol blends but for some reason the >10% but <20% range is forbidden. Station owners would however be dumb not to also sell <=10% ethanol blends older vehicles could use and people with older cars would be dumb to use anything with more than 10% ethanol in it. I suppose what people are worried about is E15 and up being mandated and <=10% blends being banned? That would be a very poor idea.
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 07-20-2014, 04:50 PM
EPNCSU2006's Avatar
EPNCSU2006 EPNCSU2006 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 9,231
EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.
A lambda sensor is not the same thing as a fuel composition sensor. A lambda sensor is another name for an O2 sensor.

Lambda is the ratio of the sensed air/fuel ratio to the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, meaning a lambda of 1 is stoich with rich mixtures being less than 1 and lean mixtures more than 1. Lambda is also completely independent of the fuel being used, so an engine running a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio of E85 or an engine running a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio of straight gasoline will both have a lambda value of 1.
__________________
Eric

'87 F150 302 ZF 5 speed 4x2
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:58 PM
Don S.'s Avatar
Don S. Don S. is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S'Dale Wa.
Posts: 545
Don S. is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Oval1 View Post
Automakers certainly will warranty vehicles that run on higher ethanol blends. The thing the automakers won't do is warranty their non-redesigned E10 or less vehicles to run on >E10. That's a HUGE difference than refusing to warranty "any new car sold." The automakers simply would have to put in a few different parts (mainly a lambda sensor, a different fuel pump, and slightly larger fuel injectors) and put in the appropriate ECU flash and voila, the vehicle is now able to properly run on anything from straight dino gas to E85 without any issues and with a full warranty. How do I know this? Ford has been selling these vehicles for years; they're called "flex-fuel vehicles." Every 3.7 L and 5.0 L 12th generation F-150 has this capability as a matter of fact. Introducing E15 would just mean that there would be more flex-fuel capable vehicles out there.
You missed the point, Legisaltures and I do believe EPA were trying to push E-15 mandate at the pumps. The Auto manufactures Said No thanks, Dump E-15 into a car, at the time 2013, that isn't Flex fuel, or specifically suited for e-15 your warranty is void.

Also, E15 Fuel Sale Banned in the US | RideApart

One thing you are forgetting is the rise of little bitty turbocharged engines like the four-cylinder EcoBoosts. A high-octane ethanol fuel would be ideal for that application as the added octane would allow for better performance from such small powerplants. (Or in the EPA's mind, even smaller engines with even more boost to make the "same" performance.) Remember, we're living in the era of "doing the same with less" or more accurately "doing somewhat less with a LOT less" with our engines due to the asinine EPA mandates. More octane will help to keep us from experiencing the 1970s and early 1980s all over again. We can't run leaded gas for a lot of reasons (fouled sensors being the one big non-EPA-related one) and the cost of 100 octane unleaded is insane unless it's got a bunch of ethanol in it, then it's cheaper than 87 octane pee-water.[/quote]
__________________
Committee: a group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary.

"Brutus" 1978 F-150 SC 4x4 BB460

" There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
" -Dave Barry, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-24-2014, 01:13 PM
E Bjornstad E Bjornstad is offline
SPONSOR
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 15
E Bjornstad is starting off with a positive reputation.
Erik Bjornstad
One thing to remember is that the EPA responds to the dictates of Congress, not the other way around. With ethanol, the EPA is responding to congressional mandate from the Renewable Fuels Standard that dictated x amount of renewable fuels in our fuel supply in a given year.

Of course, since we're using less gas than before, they're having to change some numbers b/c they can't require the same total volume of ethanol to be used in a smaller pool of fuel without increasing the percentage. And we all know how the automakers and consumers have reacted to that possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 10-01-2014, 10:27 PM
eagle275's Avatar
eagle275 eagle275 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Unicorn Utopia
Posts: 298
eagle275 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christcorp View Post
Not really sure that the individual oil companies are to blame for "Shills and Politics". A large portion of our oil comes from the middle east. Also, we don't have enough refineries to process our requirements. I've read recently that we are actually "IMPORTING" refined gasoline to me our requirements. It's not the oil company's fault that the government won't allow or makes it difficult to build any more refineries.

Also, you've got oil companies like Exxon/Mobile who have making efforts to promote longer lasting oils like synthetics. Synthetics cost less if you extend your oil changes. YET, it's the grease monkey's and Jiffy Lube's of the world that will try and convince you that you need to change your oil every 3000 miles. Even though my 1994 F250 owner's manual says every 5000 miles and my 1994 explorer I believe says every 7500 miles. That's using CONVENTIONAL OIL, not even synthetic.

So, it seems to me, that the automobile industry is saying you don't have to use so much oil. They are also saying that you don't have to use anything higher than regular gasoline. (For most cars). The oil companies are making oils that are good for 7500-15000 miles. If these two industries were intentionally trying to gouge the customer, they would be pushing higher octane gasoline and more frequent oil and lube changes. I believe that if the government would get off their ***, stop bowing down to the damn bunny huggers, and allow some refineries to be built, we wouldn't need to import as much oil and refined gasoline. Then the prices wouldn't be so bad.

Personally, if they weren't such pussies and got back into the Nuclear Energy business we wouldn't need so much petrolium products to run our country. The environment would be healthier and our economy would be stronger. Even the newest Navy Subs can go 20 years now on a nuclear reactor. Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Nuclear is much safer. Better for the environment. Easier to store and dispose of. etc... No, if you want to blame someone, blame the greenies that don't understand technology, and blame the politicians for believing these people because it's the easy way out and they can gain political mileage out of it. Later... Mike....


Frikkin' Hooah!
__________________
1996 F-350 7.5L C6 w/Gear Vendor O/D Std Cab LB

1978 Camo F-250 4X4 Gone But Not Forgotten.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 10-21-2014, 03:17 PM
monckywrench monckywrench is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,062
monckywrench is a splendid one to beholdmonckywrench is a splendid one to beholdmonckywrench is a splendid one to beholdmonckywrench is a splendid one to beholdmonckywrench is a splendid one to beholdmonckywrench is a splendid one to beholdmonckywrench is a splendid one to behold
Oil logistics means we import and export petroleum products to get the most convenient solution for the people who own and sell the oil. There are some interesting maps for the Googling if one cares.

US companies aren't going to build or retrofit refinery options which don't look to pay well. Their fiduciary duty to stock holders is to be profitable. Consumer convenience, not so much.

Prices are driven by global demand and exporter volumes. That's one reason the US showers military aid on KSA and the Gulf Emirates. They can cushion price shocks by exporting more oil.

U.S. Oil Exports Surpass Imports as Production Rises Rapidly - Businessweek

Why increased US domestic oil is negative for crude oil shippers - Market Realist

Quote:
The US market is now above where it was back in 2008, as corporate profits grew to records. But oil consumption hasn’t recovered, and it stood at 19.08 million barrels a day in August, down from 19.09 million barrels a day in July. The share of domestic oil producers grew from just 25% pre-2007 to now near 40%. We can attribute three main factors to the general weakness in oil consumption over the past five years: slow recovery, fuel economy, and alternative energy.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 03:17 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethanol Free gas and the EcoBoost 2011FX2Crazy 2009 - 2014 F150 111 11-11-2014 06:26 PM
OT: update on gasahol AXracer 1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 7 03-27-2013 12:23 AM
ETHANOL FUEL - FACTS, not supposition Greywolf Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage 55 07-31-2008 06:04 AM
E85 Results TOMHONE General Automotive Discussion 49 10-31-2006 11:27 PM
E85 and ethanol mythology Dino@his Dad's Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage 35 08-25-2006 03:23 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage

Tags
1966, 2000, 289, decode, e100, e85, efficiency, ethanol, ford, higher, larger, military, pistons, switch2e85, vin

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup