E85 -- experience

On Wed, 14 May 2008 06:06:57 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben.DeleteThis@greenba.com>
wrote:

>On May 14, 7:45 am, Frank Boettcher <fboettc....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Dano58
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dan.dibi....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 13, 9:50 am, Uncle Ben <b....DeleteThis@greenba.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 13, 8:56 am, "Dominic Richens" <k....DeleteThis@storm.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> > "Uncle Ben" <b....DeleteThis@greenba.com> wrote:
>> >> > > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his
>> >> > > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else
>>
>> >> > >http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341
>>
>> >> > > He has two years of experience with it and loves it.
>>
>> >> > Do you have a laptop you can connect to the OBDII port?  Would be
>> >> > interesting to log the O2 sensor and STFT/LTFT data, along with MAF, RPM and
>> >> > speed so you can watch the ECU trying to compensate.
>>
>> >> > You'd need to buy an interface box - I got my ELM327 box off eBay for 1
>> >> > euro, 20$ shipping from Hong Kong - (said it only worked with CAN-BUS but
>> >> > works fine with my 95 Legacy's OBD-II)
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > Dominic Richens | k....DeleteThis@storm.ca
>> >> > "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"
>>
>> >> Yes, I do, but I tried to save a few bucks by getting the model that
>> >> only gives the codes, not all the rest of the diagnostic data.  Your
>> >> choice was better.
>>
>> >> There is a YouTube video that shows a disassmbly of an engine that
>> >> ran, unmodified, for 102,000 miles on E85.  No problem. Ethanol is
>> >> just not that dangerous to your car.  That was what encouraged me to
>> >> try E42 on my still unmodified 1999 OB.
>>
>> >> Thanks for the constructive suggestion anyway.
>>
>> >> Ben
>>
>> >Ben, you believe everything you see on YouTube?
>>
>> >Regardless, I'm interested in your experiment, although you might have
>> >trouble getting your car to pass an emissions test, based on the fact
>> >that there aren't any 'conversion kits' certified by the EPA. To
>> >really judge the impact, you should do a smog test immediately before
>> >and immediately after the conversion.
>>
>> >Dan D
>> >'99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's)
>> >Central NJ USA
>>
>> Certainly not as reliable a source as YouTube, but......
>>
>> http://autos.aol.com/article/hybrid/v2/_a/are-there-problems-with-e85...
>>
>> Frank- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Note that the title of the article is a question, not a claim. The
>article doesn't quote any actual experience with E85, just theoretical
>predictions. Let's look at some real data:
>
>Fuel efficiency: Not a 40% reduction; a 5% reduction, more or less
>according to how one drives. And that is in miles/gallon, not miles/
>dollar, which increases. In my case using E30, the drop was from 25 to
>24 mpg, which is subject to refinement as I get more experience.
>Today I install my kit and can burn E85. Will report.
>
>Price:--Not more than gasoline; 25% less than gasoline at my station
>in NY. In CO, some stations discount much more And that is with the
>current scarce production of ethanol. (In Brazil they make ethanol
>for 83 cents per gallon.)
>
>Smog:-- Not a rise in organic emissions; an actual reduction in
>organic emmissions by 40% or more. In FFVs or conversions with good
>kits, one approaches stochiometric combustion. And there are hardly
>any particulates in the exhaust, unlike gasoline. (Particulates form
>nucleation points for smog creation.)
>
>And then there are the advantages. No billions of dollars sent to
>OPEC!
>
>Thanks, Frank, for providing a chance to discuss these questions.
>

You know, you're right. Each time I or anyone post an alternative
view it allows you another opportunity to present some more
unsubtantiated propaganda. Won't happen again.

With reagard to the referenced article by U. S. News and World Report,
I'll let those who wish to read it to make up their minds about the
meaning of the title.

Frank
>
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On May 14, 7:55 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:27:32 -0400, "Valued Corporate #120,345
> Employee (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr... RemoveThis @DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:18:57 -0700, Rick Courtright
> ><rcourtri... RemoveThis @iname.com> wrote:
>
> >>Uncle Ben wrote:
>
> >>> I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions.  If it is
> >>> just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of
> >>> driving on E29.
>
> >>Hi,
>
> >>I don't know about other States' emissions procedures, but here's a
> >>"thought" from California:
>
> >>As some of you already know, we've got the strictest emissions laws in
> >>the US, and simple EPA certification is not always sufficient to pass.
> >>Many of you US drivers/owners know about the "California" and "49 State"
> >>cars...
>
> >Er...  49 , my butt!  <G>
>
> >Many northeastern US states have true California emmisions standards
> >these days.
>
> There is no more "49 state" and "Cali" calibration any more. ANY new
> car sold in the USA has to meet the same standards no matter which
> state it is sold in.
> No "High Altitude" calibration any more either.
> OBD2 looks after all of that.
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

According to the NY DMV at

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/vehsafe.htm

the emissions standard in NY outside of the NYC metro area are (1) all
the emission control equjipment installed and operating and (2) no MIL
light. In the metro area there is an additional requirement for a
sniffer test on the exhaust.

My car is in the Albany area, and it meets the requirements running
E29 before any conversion. I expect it to pass running E85 after the
conversion.

Ben
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:27:32 -0400, "Valued Corporate #120,345
Employee (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchrute DeleteThis @DunderMifflin.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:18:57 -0700, Rick Courtright
><rcourtright DeleteThis @iname.com> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Ben wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is
>>> just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of
>>> driving on E29.
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I don't know about other States' emissions procedures, but here's a
>>"thought" from California:
>>
>>As some of you already know, we've got the strictest emissions laws in
>>the US, and simple EPA certification is not always sufficient to pass.
>>Many of you US drivers/owners know about the "California" and "49 State"
>>cars...
>
>Er... 49 , my butt! <G>
>
>Many northeastern US states have true California emmisions standards
>these days.

There is no more "49 state" and "Cali" calibration any more. ANY new
car sold in the USA has to meet the same standards no matter which
state it is sold in.
No "High Altitude" calibration any more either.
OBD2 looks after all of that.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

Uncle Ben wrote:
> ... That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to
> disconnect the battery every time.

There should be a reset button in the glove box...
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On May 14, 11:39 pm, -rick- <nob... RemoveThis @home.nut> wrote:
> Uncle Ben wrote:
> > ... That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to
> > disconnect the battery every time.
>
> There should be a reset button in the glove box...

I have more information now about the reset for a different fuel:

The converter I bought (Full Flex from "change2e85.com") has a memory
for MAPpings. The recommendation is that after conversion, you should
first run a tankful of E50 (roughly half and half of E10 and E85 mixed
at the pumps). This gives the converter an easier task finding the
right mapping for its first taste of ethanol. It remembers that
setting, so that when you try E85 it has less distance (so to speak)
to go to find the new right setting. It's like a ladder with a bottom
rung, and top rung, and one in the middle.

Then you are ready for anything! No battery disconnects required.

In my case, I started before conversion running E29. Customer service
told me that I could then go straight to E85 without a problem.

Ben

PS: Thanks for the info Rick. I don't have such a button. Maybe that
is for OEM FFVs only.
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On May 10, 2:51 pm, Uncle Ben <b... RemoveThis @greenba.com> wrote:
> Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his
> car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else
>
> http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341
>
> He has two years of experience with it and loves it.
>
> Ben

Today the conversion to FFV was finished. It was not as easy as
expected:

The converter I bought (Full Flex from "change2e85.com") consists
merely of a control box with a pair of wires for each cylinder, 4 in
my case. The connectors at the end of the wires are for the fuel
injectors, one male, one female. You remove the original connector
from the injector, replace it with one of the pair, and connect the
other wire to the original connector. This puts the control box in
series with your fuel management system for each cylinder.

There is a Youtube video that shows two boys, 12 and 9, making this
conversion under adult supervision in about 10 minutes. But the car
was not a Subaru.

Unfortunately my 1999 OB 2.5L engine has its fuel injectors way down
beneath some other parts, and it was with difficulty that I was able
to remove the original connectors. But I did, and then I discovered
that Subaru has used two slightly different versions of its injector
connectors, and mine was not like the ones supplied with the kit. The
difference is a 1/8-inch shift in the position of guide fins on the
injector that are supposed to slide into slots on the connector.

Customer service acknowledged that problem and suggested removing the
fins with a Dremel tool -- very simple, very easy. Except that one
needs to remove the injectors to do that. My Chilton manual said that
to remove the injectors one had to disconnect and reposition several
items, including the power steering pump. Ouch!

Not being an experienced mechanic, I took the car to my trusted
professional. He quoted $80 to remove and reinstall the injectors.
Should take an hour of his time. I modified the injectors on the spot
with my Dremel tool with a cutter bit.

Turned out to be two hours, because after reinstalling the injectors
(without removing anything but the air cleaner), one of the injectors
was leaking. Sanding down a bit of corrosion and replacing an O-ring
solved that problem after several attempts, but I realized that by
myself I could not even have checked for that.

Moral: If your car is old, expect the unexpected.

Anyway it is done, the car runs smoothly with the converter in place
still running E29, and I am happy. When I refill my tank, it will be
with E85, and I will report.

Ben
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On May 14, 9:06 am, Uncle Ben <b... RemoveThis @greenba.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 7:45 am, Frank Boettcher <fboettc... RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Dano58
>
> > <dan.dibi... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On May 13, 9:50 am, Uncle Ben <b... RemoveThis @greenba.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 13, 8:56 am, "Dominic Richens" <k... RemoveThis @storm.ca> wrote:
>
> > >> > "Uncle Ben" <b... RemoveThis @greenba.com> wrote:
> > >> > > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his
> > >> > > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else
>
> > >> > >http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341
>
> > >> > > He has two years of experience with it and loves it.
>
> > >> > Do you have a laptop you can connect to the OBDII port?  Would be
> > >> > interesting to log the O2 sensor and STFT/LTFT data, along with MAF, RPM and
> > >> > speed so you can watch the ECU trying to compensate.
>
> > >> > You'd need to buy an interface box - I got my ELM327 box off eBay for 1
> > >> > euro, 20$ shipping from Hong Kong - (said it only worked with CAN-BUS but
> > >> > works fine with my 95 Legacy's OBD-II)
>
> > >> > --
> > >> > Dominic Richens | k... RemoveThis @storm.ca
> > >> > "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"
>
> > >> Yes, I do, but I tried to save a few bucks by getting the model that
> > >> only gives the codes, not all the rest of the diagnostic data.  Your
> > >> choice was better.
>
> > >> There is a YouTube video that shows a disassmbly of an engine that
> > >> ran, unmodified, for 102,000 miles on E85.  No problem. Ethanol is
> > >> just not that dangerous to your car.  That was what encouraged me to
> > >> try E42 on my still unmodified 1999 OB.
>
> > >> Thanks for the constructive suggestion anyway.
>
> > >> Ben
>
> > >Ben, you believe everything you see on YouTube?
>
> > >Regardless, I'm interested in your experiment, although you might have
> > >trouble getting your car to pass an emissions test, based on the fact
> > >that there aren't any 'conversion kits' certified by the EPA. To
> > >really judge the impact, you should do a smog test immediately before
> > >and immediately after the conversion.
>
> > >Dan D
> > >'99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's)
> > >Central NJ USA
>
> > Certainly not as reliable a source as YouTube, but......
>
> >http://autos.aol.com/article/hybrid/v2/_a/are-there-problems-with-e85...
>
> > Frank- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Note that the title of the article is a question, not a claim. The
> article doesn't quote any actual experience with E85, just theoretical
> predictions.  Let's look at some real data:
>
> Fuel efficiency:  Not a 40% reduction;  a 5% reduction, more or less
> according to how one drives.  And that is in miles/gallon, not miles/
> dollar, which increases. In my case using E30, the drop was from 25 to
> 24 mpg, which is subject to refinement as I get more experience.
> Today I install my kit and can burn E85.  Will report.
>
> Price:--Not more than gasoline;  25% less than gasoline at my station
> in NY.  In CO, some stations discount much more  And that is with the
> current scarce production of ethanol.  (In Brazil they make ethanol
> for 83 cents per gallon.)
>
> Smog:-- Not a rise in organic emissions;  an actual reduction in
> organic emmissions by 40% or more. In FFVs or conversions with good
> kits, one approaches stochiometric combustion. And there are hardly
> any particulates in the exhaust, unlike gasoline. (Particulates form
> nucleation points for smog creation.)
>
> And then there are the advantages.  No billions of dollars sent to
> OPEC!
>
> Thanks, Frank, for providing a chance to discuss these questions.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In his May 14th Frank reply to me, he cited an article that mentioned
possible smog problems with ethanol. I have located the source of
this concern in an article by one Mark Z. Jacobson, "Environmental
Science and Technology", April 18, 2007, which does indeed project
smog problems in 2020 in the Los Angeles are when it is supposed that
all vehicles burn E85. (Versus reduction in smog in Atlanta.) The
cause of increased smog, according to the computer simulation, was a
decrease -- that's right, a decrease -- in NOx tailpipe emissions; it
seems that when smog is high, NOx tends to break up ozone molecules,
if I understand correctly, and thus reduce smog to a lower equilibrium
level. A "hair-of-the-dog" cure.

A critique of Jacobson's study --

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1071/reapresponse_jacobsone85.pdf
--

points out that Jacobson assumed as input to his 2007 study that the
vehicles in 2020 would have the same properties as those of US
vehicles from 1991. These 1991 vehicles were not flex-fuel vehicles;
there weren't any in those days.

There are other criticsms also. If you are worried about ethanol
smog, read the article.

Ben
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

Uncle Ben wrote:

> The cause of increased smog, according to the computer simulation, was a
> decrease -- that's right, a decrease -- in NOx tailpipe emissions; it
> seems that when smog is high, NOx tends to break up ozone molecules,
> if I understand correctly, and thus reduce smog to a lower equilibrium
> level. A "hair-of-the-dog" cure.

Hi,

Both my high school chem and physics classes were right after lunch. So
I managed a fair amount of "nap time" in there.

However, I did stay awake long enough to learn this little thing that
seems to be forgotten in too many of these discussions, and certainly in
legislative chambers, something called The Law of Conservation of
Matter. As I recall, it states "Matter is neither created nor destroyed,
it simply changes form."

Now, much to the dismay of my father the physicist, I went no further in
either of these two disciplines, so maybe I missed something truly
important, but until someone educates me better, I'm going w/ the
question my high school teacher posed:

"You add one pound of liquid fuel to 15 pounds of air. Burn them. How
much matter, in pounds comes out of the tailpipe?"

Back in the days before calculators, 1 + 15 was 16. No matter how we
sing and dance around the issue, we can't change that. All we can hope
to do is change the form of that 16 lbs of "stuff" into more manageable,
or less harmful, new forms of "stuff." In other words, we change "brown"
smog into "green" smog. It's still smog...

Rick
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On May 20, 3:51 pm, Rick Courtright <rcourtri... RemoveThis @iname.com> wrote:
> Uncle Ben wrote:
> > The cause of increased smog, according to the computer simulation, was a
> > decrease -- that's right, a decrease -- in NOx tailpipe emissions;  it
> > seems that when smog is high, NOx tends to break up ozone molecules,
> > if I understand correctly, and thus reduce smog to a lower equilibrium
> > level.  A "hair-of-the-dog" cure.
>
> Hi,
>
> Both my high school chem and physics classes were right after lunch. So
> I managed a fair amount of "nap time" in there.
>
> However, I did stay awake long enough to learn this little thing that
> seems to be forgotten in too many of these discussions, and certainly in
> legislative chambers, something called The Law of Conservation of
> Matter. As I recall, it states "Matter is neither created nor destroyed,
> it simply changes form."
>
> Now, much to the dismay of my father the physicist, I went no further in
> either of these two disciplines, so maybe I missed something truly
> important, but until someone educates me better, I'm going w/ the
> question my high school teacher posed:
>
> "You add one pound of liquid fuel to 15 pounds of air. Burn them. How
> much matter, in pounds comes out of the tailpipe?"
>
> Back in the days before calculators, 1 + 15 was 16. No matter how we
> sing and dance around the issue, we can't change that. All we can hope
> to do is change the form of that 16 lbs of "stuff" into more manageable,
> or less harmful, new forms of "stuff." In other words, we change "brown"
> smog into "green" smog. It's still smog...
>
> Rick

As usually defined, "smog" is smoke + fog. Ain't much smoke from
burning alcohol in the right mixture. Your 15 pounds of air is about
12 pounds of nitrogen, most of which comes out just as it went in -- a
little warmer. If that's "green" smog, bring it on.

Ben

Ben
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:11:36 -0500, Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:

> Uncle Ben wrote:
>
>> On May 12, 8:52 pm, Tony Hwang <drago....DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let
>>>the ECU learn again?
>>
>>
>> Tony, the ECU did learn again, without my disconnecting the battery.
>> I don't know enojugh about this question to answer or explain it, but
>> everything worked OK. I suppose the mixture is monitored continuously
>> and the injector pulse is then continuously being adjusted.
>>
>> BTW, changing from E42 to E29 and driving a bit managed to turn off
>> the MIL again. It took 70 miles at E42 to bring on the MIL but only 7
>> miles at E29 to turn it off again. I would guess that that means I
>> went just over the line at E42.
>>
>> My converter kit should arrive in 3 days, and then I should be ready
>> for E85.
>
> It will, learn eventually. But , if you expect HIGHER octane, it is
> probably better to force the ECU back to the factory map. Then it starts
> from max advance and retards on knock detection. If you don't do that,
> and the system has already retarded the timing, it may take a very long
> time to advance it, if ever.
>
> I hope I have that right. Anyway, you should really consider resetting
> the ECU with a scanner or by battery disconnect/w'ever. AND use multiple
> tankfuls for any mileage calculations.
>
>
> Carl
>
>

I doubt unplugging the battery would reset an ECU. Normally data like
this once calculated is stored in non-volatile memory and is not erased
from battery disconnect. Especially engine info as you can get battery
disconnect like behavior during cold crank.


CL
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience 

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:44:35 -0700, Uncle Ben wrote:

> On May 12, 11:11 pm, Carl 1 Lucky Texan <alcky....DeleteThis@swbell.not> wrote:
>> Uncle Ben wrote:
>> > On May 12, 8:52 pm, Tony Hwang <drago....DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let
>> >>the ECU learn again?
>>
>> It will, learn eventually. But , if you expect HIGHER octane, it is
>> probably better to force the ECU back to the factory map. Then it starts
>> from max advance and retards on knock detection. If you don't do that,
>> and the system has already retarded the timing, it may take a very long
>> time to advance it, if ever.
>
> Thanks, Tony and Carl, for the info on MAPs and ECUs and changing
> fuels. I had never known about these things before.
>
> But what I am doing (when my kit comes) is to convert my car to an
> FFV. So the design goal is to enable me to change fuels drastically
> and often. On the road I might be running E85, fuel getting low, and
> no E85 station within 100 miles. I would then switch to E0, or pure
> gasoline. That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to
> disconnect the battery every time.
>
> I remember reading that the FFVs detect the concentration of ethanol
> and adjust quickly to it. I don't know what sensor detects the
> change, but it must be there somewhere.
>
> In my recent experiments before installing the kit, if there were
> drastic errors in timing and mixtures, I should have experienced poor
> acceleration, stumbling, or even stalling, not to mention poor
> mileage. In fact, that did not happen. I can't explain it, but
> things went very smoothly, and the cars pep and smooth running was
> great.
>
> Cars are getting too complicated for us amateurs!
>
> Ben

I doubt they detect Ethanol at all. More likely they monitor the engines
performance and adjust fuel/oxygen ratio to keep it within some
performance parameters. I bet they can tell the octane by engine output
and temperature, etc. Of course, this means the ECU designer must have
some logic that says E85 is not the engine malfunctioning...

CL
 >> Stay informed about: E85 -- experience