Pure Alcohol
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,946
Likes: 62
From: in the woods of MA
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...
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...
Hotshot
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 3
From: Marengo, Iowa
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.
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
From: Riverview, MI
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 know, us west Tennesseans have been consumers for at least 100 years.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,946
Likes: 62
From: in the woods of MA
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...
But you're right that most of those processes are getting more efficient...
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Burr Oak, IN
Go E85!!!
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!!!
Last edited by White Shadow; Jan 30, 2006 at 06:38 PM.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 12
From: Sioux Falls SD
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.
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Burr Oak, IN
Diablo Tunes
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.
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.
Last edited by White Shadow; Jan 31, 2006 at 03:25 PM.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 12
From: Sioux Falls SD
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
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
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,946
Likes: 62
From: in the woods of MA
Originally Posted by White Shadow
You will always get 10% to 15% less milage with E85-nature of the beast.
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Burr Oak, IN
E85 inefficiency
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.
Last edited by White Shadow; Feb 1, 2006 at 08:27 PM.
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Burr Oak, IN
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.
Last edited by White Shadow; Feb 1, 2006 at 08:24 PM.
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,557
Likes: 44
From: Concord, NC
Then you could take advantage of all of that high octane benefits since the burn is slower
Cargo Master
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,931
Likes: 12
From: SW Michigan
Flame speed
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
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Burr Oak, IN
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!!!!!!!