Most newer vehicles have additional "Downstream" O2 sensor placed after the cat(s). This allows for a better reading, and results in a truer mixture control. Not to mention, the ECU is more capable of interpreting the signals, as it was programmed with ethanol blends taken into account.

 

I think the proper thing to do would be to use a wideband o2 sensor and air/fuel ratio guage and jet the carb to compensate for the change.

But the change is insignificant anyway, that shouldn't be needed unless you use E85.

 

The downstream sensor, as far as I know, is used to make sure the cat is running hot enough to catalyze effectively, it actually is not used to measure the A/F ratio.

The ECUs are faster and capable of finer control, I agree, but they're still using the primary O2 sensors to determine whether or not the car is running at 14.7:1, nothing else.

 

It's not the oxygen sensors fault for lower fuel mileage with ethanol blended gas. The blended fuel has less BTU's per gallon, so naturally you will get less power and fuel mileage. Here's a link.

Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG | Gasoline Fuels | US EPA

 

Nail on the head. Doesn't matter if it's carbed, OBD1, 2, or 1 million.

You can build a motor to run the stuff, though, and make some serious power. Only issue is that E85 is way less prolific than gasoline or diesel. In some areas, you'd be better off with an electric car or CNG/Propane.

 

When I had my 2.9 Ranger my gas mileage on a trip I took once or twice a month went from 25 mpg. to 17 mpg. The funny thing was, at first I got 25mpg. going and 17 coming home. It took me awhile to figure out that I was filling up with no ethanol gas in PA. to go to DE. and then filling up there with ethanol gas to come home. So, it did affect that truck.

Ethanol has all but killed any gas mileage on my wife's 1992 Old. It doesn't like the stuff and there isn't much we haven't tried to get it to run right on it. I know of two people that had their cars repaired and paid for by a gasoline dist. due to ethanol loosening up all the gum and clogging the injectors. Also a lot of outboard motors and smaller engines here have had problems.

I don't know about my 1981 4.9 because I didn't have it before ethanol hit here. I do know I'm only getting 10mpg and that's driving very conservative.

Bottom line is, ethanol is a joke. It takes approx. 4 gal. of fuel to produce 1 gal. of ethanol when the farmer, transportation etc. is taken into account. Last but not least, new studies have shown ethanol is emitting some things into the atmosphere that are as bad or worse than what it replaced. I'm all for a clean environment but I don't like being sold a bill of goods and that's what they've done with ethanol and Global Warming.

 

Links, please. Cite your sources.

I don't like it when people present this kind of information with no way to verify it via
credible & authoritative sources.

"I read it on the Internet, so it must be true."

 

I wrote to the EPA asking that if I get 20-30% less mileage, how are my vehicles not creating more emissions? Response was "public comment period is over". 15% ethanol has been approved. Recently the fuel line fell apart on my chainsaw after 2 tanks of ethanol mix.

 

In the time it took you to make that post you could have looked it up yourself..

Here are some that agree and disagree:
Does ethanol generate more energy than the amount needed to produce it? - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org


I much more inclined to side with cons on Ethanol...

I did some work at a large power company that is using wind turbines. Their internal studies found wind turbines are not capable of producing enough energy to make up for what it took to manufacture, ship, install, and maintain. Yet the continue to buy and install them...

I have no reason to believe ethanol is any different from the studies I have read.

It is politically driven...

 

While ethanol made from food grains such as corn is "a joke" (i.e. hugely subsidized not economically or environmentally sustainable), ethanol made from cellulosic (woody) biomass is not. Cellulose is the most abundant biopolymer on the planet, and is is actually made of glucose (the primary fermentable sugar). Estimates suggest that cellulosic ethanol has the potential to replace up to 30% of annual petroleum consumption in the U.S., while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emission (Perlack et al. 2005). Furthermore, unlike food grains, cellulosic biomass such as wood waste, crop stalks, and municipal paper waste are usually negative value commodities (i.e. you have to pay to get rid of them). This, along with its natural abundance, make cellulose a more economical and sustainable source of biomass for ethanol production compared to food grains such as corn (Hahn-Hägerdal et al. 2006).

Current methods for cellulosic ethanol production require costly chemical or enzymatic hydrolysis, and are not sustainable enough to promote commercialization. Commercial interests are required to advance the technology. Once these problems are solved (and I think they will be soon), transformation of readily available non-food plant waste material into a marketable, sustainable liquid fuel commodity could have positive economic and environmental implications on local, national, and global scales. I'd like to see the studies that say ethanol emmissions are toxic - consider that you can drink ethanol and metabolize it. Don't try that with gasoline.

Hahn-Hägerdal, B., Galbe, M., Gorwa-Grauslund, M.F., Liden G. and Zacchi, G., 2006. Bio-ethanol – the fuel of tomorrow from the residues of today. Trends in Biotechnology 24:549–556.<O</O

Perlack, R.D., Wright, L.L., Turhollow, A.F., Graham, R.L., Stokes, B.J., and Erbach, B.C., 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. DOE/GO-102995-2135, ORNL/TM-2005/66. ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com</st1:country-region>U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and <ST1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></ST1lace> Department of Agriculture. Available online at http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/...ton_vision.pdf
<O</O

 

This is all very interesting. I for one am not a fan of how the fuel millage has dropped in my Mach 1. I bought the car new in 2004. I do not recall seeing the 10% blend sticker on the 93.5 oct i was using. I was getting 25 mpg. Now I am happy to hit 25 with a tail wind. I also changed my driving to less aggressive. Yes I know the car is now 7 years old and has 65k miles. I do however take great care of the car. All maintenance is done on time or early. I always get good quality parts. Well so far it's only oil ect. Just my .02. I hope that someday we will see a change in fuel for the better.

 

You'll be fine, don't worry. Your '85 is designed for use with AT LEAST 10% ethanol, and I've run 25% in my truck a couple time with no adverse effect. Carb/fuel pump and other fuel system gaskets have been made to tolerate "gasahol" since the late 70's.

 

Thermodynamically speaking, ethanol has less energy per mole than gasoline. About 34% less. This makes sense when you consider that gasoline consists of a mix of hydrocarbon chains where all of the carbons are fully reduced (bound to hydrogen). Ethanol is a shorter chain (2 carbons), this doesn't effect its energy content on a per mole basis. But the fact that one of those carbons is partially oxidized (the OH group that makes this an alcohol) does reduce the potential energy released by oxidizing (burning in the presence of oxygen) this molecule. Simply put, there are less C-H bonds to oxidize in ethanol compared to gasoline because one of these bonds is already oxidized.

In pure thermodynamic terms (ignoring everything else, just measuring energy released when burned in a calorimeter), if ethanol has 34% less energy per mole than gasoline, then using 10% ethanol in gasoline reduces the potential energy of this fuel mix by 3.4% compared to pure gasoline. So claims of 20% or more reduction in fuel economy may be either exaggerated or due to some other property unique to the oxygen-sensing/fuel metering system of the vehicle.

Ethanol has less energy per mole, but it burns faster. That's why some high compression racecars are designed to run on pure ethanol. Our old trucks aren't designed to take advantage of faster burning like that. In E10 mix, every 10th molecule entering the carburetor is ethanol rather than a longer chain, fully reduced hydrocarbon of gasoline. It still gets oxidized into CO2 and water, but does so more quickly and releases slightly less heat energy in the process.

 

If you want a link or source, which one of several million do you want? There has been considerable research done on the subject and some of us have read up on it instead of jumping on people and demanding THEY TELL US.

" I read it on the internet, so it must be true." That makes as much sense as "the government demands we do it, so it must be good for us." There are credible and authoritive sources everywhere for those not too lazy to seek them out.

Local tv here where I live did a special piece on it with several "certified mechanics" talking about the damage and problems they are seeing from ethanol usage.

Some people do take the time to check into things. I did this after my gas mileage and performance went to he77 in an ethanol handbasket.

Get off your lazy bottom side and check it out for yourself. The information is there. I don't give a Rat's Azz" if you believe me or not. I've been there and done it. Evidently, your ignorance is exceeded only by your laziness.

 

Well, I believe ethanol emissions are as toxic as any other cellulosic material that is burned. Wood, grass, Rice, your wife's burned and smoking homeade bread.

Just because you may be able to drink, eat, and metabolize it in it's pure form, without ill effects, does not mean you can burn it and breathing the fumes won't kill you with enough exposure.