The real point of my earlier post was to point out that you can usually find a study to back up what ever point of view you want to take. The web site linked to is interesting, but it no more "blows holes" in the view that ethanol is an energy minus than the UC study mentioned in the radio report "blow holes" in the opposite point of view. Also was mentioned, the differences seemed to be what they included in their set of measurements, not a disagreement about any particular calculation (At least in the two mentioned in detail). Read em all, pick what you like...

They also mentioned that switchgrass was probably the best domestic bio source of ethanol, which I found interesting - that wouldn't have been my first guess...

 

I have seen elsewhere that switchgrass is better at producing ethanol as well, not the first time I had seen it, but was the first I had seen that site itself. I have seen time and again how the studies that claim ethanol is an energy loser are based on ethanol production's early days. There are getting to be more self sufficient plants that require NO fossil fuels to produce the ethanol.

 

The reason everyone is trying to produce ethanol with corn is becasue it'll be the first time Tennessee Hillbillies will be knowledgeble engineers.

I know, us west Tennesseans have been consumers for at least 100 years.

 

I think you'll find that a lot of the fossil fuels used are not in the distilling process, but in the agricultural and transportation steps of the process. And things like enegery to run pumps for irrigation, drying, etc. And in the production of fertilizer. That one alone is huge - in the studies listed in the USDA report the above web site info is based on, most all of the studies list the energy required to produce feritlizer as about half as much as required for the entire conversion process.

But you're right that most of those processes are getting more efficient...

 

Sometimes you have to look at the motivations behind "studies" and those that produce and promote them...

 

I have a 2003 F-150 with a 4.2 V-6. The injectors and most of the fuel system components are almost identical to the flex fuel 3.0 V-6. The only thing lacking is the ethanol sensor in the tank(you really don't need this if you keep track of whats in there),pcm tuning, and a slightly different fuel pump, although I haven't had any problems with the stock F150 one. I installed a 3-way diablosport chip. The 3 tunes are 1)87 stock, 2)93 performance (50/50 blend of cheap gas/ethanol), 3)100 octane tune for pure E-85. Sure you gotta keep tract of what's in your tank, but WOW!!! pure E-85 kicks ***. Approx 30 hp and 40lbs torque-especially down in low rpm's. Been burning pure E-85 for approx. 6000 miles and the only problem I've encountered is harder starting at about 25 degrees and below-that's where the blending with gas comes in. Gas is now approx. $2.44gal, and E85 is $2.09- $2.19 depending where you get it. I get about 2mpg less-E85's only drawback, but still gettin 18 mpg. Bottom line-if you want to use it, you can-as long as your fuel rails, hoses ect... don't contain aluminum or brass, and you have a programmer, or chip, and the guts to try it. GO AMERICA!!!

 

white shadow, what did the third tune on your chip change to run the e85? i tried running 30% ethanol in my 99 f150 by mixing e85 and e10 and lost about 3.5 mpg with the stock computer.

 

According to my scan tool data, tune #2 (93 octane) has about a 6 degree additional advance over stock and remapping of fuel curve. The same for tune #3(E85) except that total advance over stock is about 12 degrees. You will always get 10% to 15% less milage with E85-nature of the beast. E85 is advertised 105 octane, in reality, it's closer to 96-100 octane depending on quailty of alcohol, and the original octane of the denaturing (the 15%) gas.
So, it is wise to get your E85 tune on your chip for about a 96-100 octane to be safe. The extra timing will insure you squeeze all the power out of the fuel. I did a lot of research, and worked close with MotorHaven before attempting anything. I've only tried this on the 4.2 V-6, don't know if it will work on the 8's.

 

White shadow,
My 99F150 was a V6 just like yours, but I traded that for a 99 Ranger with the 2.5 L four and would be interested in running this setup for that. My compression ratio is 9.37 and I have two spark plugs per cyl. I would think it would work nie if the fue system can handel the ethanol.

I am not worried about finding e85 as we have plenty here in south dakota.
Dan

 

WhiteShadow - Is this 10-15 reduction in mileage due to the E85 having less BTUs than straight gasoline per unit volume, or some inefficiency in the system, or???

 

NEWENGLANDHERDSMAN, E85 is 10-15% less efficient due to lower BTU's and the fact that most engines run about a 9:1 comression ratio. To get same milage from E85, you would have to increase the compression ratio to 10:1 and ideally 11:1, but this would probably decrease the life of the engine somewhat, unless it was built for this specifically. Then you could take advantage of all of that high octane benefits since the burn is slower. Check out some of the web links included in previous threads in this category, there are tips to convert yor engine.

 

99F150, I haven't had the opportunity to help on a 2.5. I thought the compression ratio for a 2.5 is 9.28:1, but my memory ain't as good as it used to be. Check out your fuel system and see if there is any aluminum or brass or plastic (the fuel lines will be plastic, but those are generally ok)that can be damaged by E85. I personally put about 20 oz. of diesel per 30 gal tankful to help lube the fuel pump due to the "dry" type of fuel that E85 is. I have done experiments with E85 and a small amount of diesel, and as long as you have a good sealed fuel system, Phase separation don't seem to be a problem.

 

Higher octane fuel actually has a higher flame speed than lower octane fuel. The difference is in the auto-ignition temperature and the ignition delay time. Another big reason alcohol gets less fuel mileage in a gasoline engine is that the stoichiometric a/f ratio is close to 6:1 instead of ~15:1 for gasoline.

 

EPNSCU, you're correct about the flame speed, gasoline is about .34 mps, and alcohol is something like .43 mps. But the 6 to 1 fuel ratio is for methanol, the ratio for ethanol is about 9 to 1. E85 runs very nicely at 10~12 to 1 fuel/air ratios, due to the fact that alchol fuels also have much wider flammability limits than gasoline. DF, at work

 

Lets put it this way, I have good luck with E85, great power, but a slight mileage loss, but since it is about 10% cheaper, it's all even. My buddies and I decided to do this to support American farmers instead of the countries that hate us, and greedy oil companies. If I have any problems that arise from using E85, I will let you guys know first. MotorHaven was very helpful in programming the chip, so start there first. In fact, I just visited thier site and the Diablo Delta chip is cheaper now than when i got it last year. But the best strategy is to buy a Ford that is already equipped to run E85. Go E85fuel.com for a list of vehicles. Go America!!!!!!!