Dad races his Cuda on E85. All you have to do is fatten up the jets enough to make up for the lack of BTU's the E85 has compared to gas.

Other than that, there are no other changes.

 

I have heard some sanctioning bodies have considered using E85 because of the increased octane. I have not heard whether it has been adopted tho.

The increased volume and weight of the fuel could be a problem in some types of racing.

E85 does require a different mixture. Check out the info at the sites I linked.

 

I think I heard or read that Nascar is using it now in the Busch and Nextel Cup cars. I haven't heard anything negative about it other than some slight tuning changes...

Vern

 

Denise McCluggage is a respected Sports Car Racer and the article again is in Automotive News Magazine not on line. Also, why do all the Auto Companies say not to run E85 in conventional engines unless they are flex fuel? DUH!

From an E85 Web Site:
What are the differences in an FFV compared to a regular gasoline-only model? Are different parts used?
There is only one major additional part that is included on an FFV, the fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio. A number of other parts on the FFV’s fuel delivery system are modified so that they are ethanol compatible. The fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel injectors, computer system, anti-siphon device, and dashboard gauges have been modified slightly. Alcohols are corrosive. Therefore, any part that comes in contact with the fuel has been upgraded to be tolerant to alcohol. Normally, these parts include a stainless steel fuel tank and Teflon lined fuel hoses.

Fred.

 

We disagree - and the subject is not so much E85 as it is all the blends of gasohol. I agree E85 is wasted in an engine not tuned for it - but I still tell you that alcohol is alcohol and it will not damage any vehicle built after the fuel crisis in the 70s.

Gasohol is a trade name that has come to mean 10 to 15% alcohol, E85 is, of course, 85% alcohol - and I understand several of the big city's winter blend can be as much as 40% alcohol.

With this summer's gas crunch caused by the loss of some of the North Slope crude, the State of California has relaxed its label requirements for the make-up of the fuel we buy. They require a statement that alcohol may be added or mixed with the fuel, but no longer require the station to post just how much alcohol (what percentage).

From my experience, some stations are running as much as a 50% blend. Worse, it is station by station, so you can not even avoid a certain brand of gas.

And, yes, your performance sucks and your mileage is poor - but we do not have a gas shortage that we would blame on the big oil companies or the republican administration.

And the alcohol does not damage your vehicle, even those with smog controls.

 

Please get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasohol

Gasohol is 10% alcohol max but some distributors cheat a little but not even close to the figures you listed.

It looks like Minnesota will have E20 in 2013 but then that state government is nuts...

Alcohol WILL damage older vehicles.
http://www.answers.com/topic/e85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

 

Torque, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I live in California, my fuel mix is set by the California Department of Energy, not some European group or even the Federal Government.

I have read what your links list as E85 requirements for vehicle components and all I can say is that it is all overkill - it reads like they are building the space shuttle and not a passenger car. These changes are very expensive, and add little extra protection to the vehicle.

The cost of providing this extra protection far exceeds the cost of replacing a standard component should it fail once in the life of the vehicle.

Those same papers state that all cars 1988 and newer are built for a 20% mix - I fail to see the difference between 20% and 85% mixture on these parts - things like gas lines, filters and such.

Neither one of us is likely to change his mind without a few more years experience with blended fuel - so lets just agree to disagree on this.

I did enjoy reading one paragraph - which I have copied below. It is not part of the argument, but a bit of history. It does show how long this subject has been around.

"Historically, the first widely-sold flexible-fuel vehicle in the United States was a variant of Henry Ford's Model T intended for use by self-reliant farmers who could make their own ethanol. Surprisingly, it is capable even to this day of running on E85, or gasoline, as it was designed to operate on either ethanol or gasoline, at the user's choice. Henry Ford's subsequent 1927 Model A likewise was an early flex fuel vehicle. It, however, eased the driver's method of accommodating various blends of alcohol and gasoline through a driver's control on the dash with a **** that was turned to control air fuel mixture and pulled to choke the single-barrel Zenith carburetor. This dash-mounted control provided easy control of all the major adjustments required for easily burning alcohol and gasoline in varying proportions, including enough range for burning today's E85 blend of alcohol and gasoline in any mix of E85 and gasoline."

 

If you knew a little more about chemistry and material science you would know the difference between 10% (gasohol not 20%) and 85% ethanol mixed with gasoline and would not "fail to see the difference" on effects of solvent mixtures on vehicle components. Please check with the local University Chemistry or Engineering departments to improve your understanding. Fortunately you are not building these vehicles and there are very knowledgeable Engineers that build the flex fuel vehicles that DO understand the differences.

Personally I am glad we are not all driving Model-T's around. Vehicle science has come a long way since then.

Also California oxygenated fuel is limited to 5.7% ethanol. Perhaps you misread something and read it as 57%???
Please see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/ty..._gasoline.html

California's CARB board works hand in hand with the EPA, ethanol suppliers, petroleum suppliers, and fuel additive suppliers to provide standards, testing, and certification for fuel mixtures sold in California and the rest of the United States. Individual stations are severely limited on the blending of fuel mixtures sold to the public. If you suspect a station is selling substandard fuel report them to the CARB.

 

Sorry, Torque, didn't mean to be such a burr under your saddle. But the fact is that it was not difficult to get 18 MPG out of a heavy, powerful V8 automobile in the 70s - while now we drive light weight beer cans that you can dent just looking at - and get less than 30 MPG. That is, we may have doubled our mileage but given up the ability to tow with our cars, and now spend 10 times (inflation adjusted) on those light duty toys.

Vehicle science may have come a long way, but it was in the wrong direction. Your "very knowledgeable Engineers" have forgot the practical use for the vehicle - and produced an over-engineered mess that is too complex for easy maintenance.

I am just a technician, but I have worked in engineering all my life - and know well that engineers are incapable of leaving a simple design simple - they always have to "improve" it.

Like I said, we are never going to agree on this, but I do wish you well.

Clint

btw, I did study all the California Reports on gasohol - (most are outdated now) and have worked with my county on the permit for the largest ethanol plant to be built on the west coast. It is going in about 4 miles from my house. I was against it, but there was no legal reason to stop it. And the politics were such that it is heresy to speak against home grown gas.

 

Oh man do you have that right!

We still must recognize that "home grown" fuels have their limits and drawbacks.

I can remember getting over 20MPG out of several cars (battle tanks) back in the late 60's running 70MPH down the highway. Particularly a 65 Dodge Polara with a 318 and a 68 Plymouth Fury with the same engine.

I totally agree that todays cars are unwieldy, unrepairable, unmaintainable hunks of tinfoil. I recently used one of them (supposedly a SUV, not much on utility tho) to tow a U-Haul out to CA and was limited to 1800# of tow weight. The radiator capacity seemed to be the limiting factor but I am sure there are others.

Some things have improved immensely but other things have degraded. Remember when:
-We had to change radiator hoses every year to avoid failures on the road???
-It was outstanding to get 30,000 miles out of a set of tires?
-It was normal to expect 70,000 miles before an overhaul on a GM, 90,000 on a Ford, or 120,000 on a Mopar engine?
-We had to replace points and plugs every 10,000 miles and plug wires every 20,000?
-All we had to carry was a set of points, condenser, plug wire, duct tape and bailing wire for road repairs? Speaking of which it was POSSIBLE to do roadside repairs!!! Nowadays a vehicle has to be hauled into a master computer to be "talked to" so we can find out what MIGHT be wrong!

Personally I like some things about the new vehicles but not others. The engineers have produced the cars that the majority of people wanted driven by sales and of course politics. It is mainly our own fault that we have these complicated beer cans.

However I do like to try to keep facts straight when we are talking about things on FTE. I hate to see someone damage their vehicle$ or get hurt because of advice offered here. Especially old hard to replace vehicles.

 

[QUOTE=Torque1st]Please get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasohol

Gasohol is 10% alcohol max but some distributors cheat a little but not even close to the figures you listed.

It looks like Minnesota will have E20 in 2013 but then that state government is nuts...

Alcohol WILL damage older vehicles.
http://www.answers.com/topic/e85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85[/QUOTE]

Good post Torque1st.
The uninformed can do whatever,but, Iwill never run E85 in my 55 or any other of my vehicles.
Fred

 

[QUOTE=fking1 . . . The uninformed
Fred[/QUOTE]

It is likely a mistake to assume that someone who disagrees with you is uninformed.

It is possible he is informed and sees things that you miss. For instance, E85 is not the issue here - we all agree not to run it without major engine changes, but there are other blends that contain alcohol.

And, in California, CARB sets the emission standards, but it is the Dept of Energy that controls the mix of chemicals that make up our fuel. And again, the Governor has the power and obligation to make whatever changes are needed during a fuel shortage under his emergency powers - subject, of course, to the Federal EPA requirements.

It is a bit to simplistic to think that because this is the way it is done in Kansas that the rest of the world does things the same way.

But, in the end, we all agree that E85 will not work well in a unmodified engine, and E10 or even E20 may work ok, but may not be the best.

 

Be informed, please see the California standards I linked to. Nothing to do with Kansas.

I have more links to CA, CARB, and EPA standards for fuels, but they are rather technical and long, if you need more information. Of course you could always do the research yourself thru Google, the Library of Congress and other search agents. Searching for them yourself may even force you to read some of them instead of just assuming things.

 

Please, we have kept this from getting personal, lets not start now.

I have read what you linked to, and also reports by the Ca Department of Energy and the Governor's task force. I have also watched several state legislative committee meetings on CSPAN, and attended three Ethanol conferences this summer.

I am not an expert on alcohol, but am as informed as any layman involved in county regulations reguarding the operation and zoning for alcohol producers.

I reject much of the information you link to - some has been superceded, some has changed as the companies learn more about the process, and some is just plain wrong.

In addition, much of the process they describe is overkill, designed more to drive the cost of such fuels up than to add value to the product.

I suggest you ignore any data more than a year old, and remember that the rules and regulations can and have been changed or suspended due to the current fuel shortage.

Like I said, we are never going to agree on this, plus we have answered the original question posted in this thread. We are beating a dead horse, and I have unsubscribed from this thread.

I do wish you well - in Kansas or wherever you may be.

Clint

 

Nothing personal, sorry you take it that way.

I am well aware of the standards that have been superseded due to the changes with MTBE etc. I have no control over the update frequency of some of the links and information but if you follow the links, sub links, and references, as well as doing your own simple research you will find the alcohol concentrations in fuel you spoke of are just plain wrong as well as many other pieces of information you stated like alcohol "doing no damage" and your "failure to see differences". My location makes no difference, but if that is an attempt to make this personal you have tried multiple times. I have a sister living near Fresno also that faces these regulations daily in her work as well as other relatives in CA.

How about coming up with some links from "reputable" sources you have mentioned supporting your statements re alcohol in fuel concentrations and California regulations that allow these stated variances from station to station as well as data to back up your statements re engineering "overkill"? I am sure the automakers would be interested in all the factual data you can come up with to help them redesign flex fuel vehicles and vehicles in general to save costs and eliminate unneeded protection.