Ethanol conversion?

On May 7, 6:55 pm, "Valued Corporate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y)"
<DwightSchr... DeleteThis @DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b... DeleteThis @greenba.com>
> wrote:
>
> >  It seems that Subarus love ethanol, which is close to a
> >racing fuel for them.
>
> How exactly are Subies different from any other modern piston engine
> in regards to ethanol?

Probably no difference. I was quoting the guy who spent 10 years
messing around with ethanol with his Sube. In any case, I hear so many
complaints about ethanol by those stuck with E10 that I thought it
worth citing an example of excellent performance with E85 when the
conversion is thorough (mixtures right, fuel pressure raised, to
mention two changes I happen to remember).
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On May 7, 4:57 pm, spamTHIS....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 7, 4:11 pm, Uncle Ben <b....TakeThisOut@greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I recently learned that the energy cost to produce ethanol for cars is
> > much less than the energy benefit, contrary to popular belief.  (In
> > fact, the reverse is true for gasoline, which has not seemed to
> > prevent our huge use of gasoline.)  Further, if we are at or near
> > "peak oil," the price of gasoline is never going to come down and stay
> > down.  Biofuels (not hydrogen nor hybrids IMHO) are our only hope if
> > we are to stop sending boatloads of money to people who would destroy
> > us.
>
> > So I have looked at the pros and cons of using E85 (85% ethanol, 15%
> > gasoline), which has recently become available in Albany, NY, near
> > where I live.  It seems that Subarus love ethanol, which is close to a
> > racing fuel for them. The energy density of ethanol is lower than that
> > of gasoline, but what counts is miles per dollar, not miles per
> > gallon. (Stories of corrosion damage by ethanol are apparently not
> > true for modern cars, in which neoprene has replaced lots of the
> > rubber that used to be used. Methanol is a different story.)
>
> > One can buy kits to convert any fuel-injected car for ethanol/gasoline
> > use in any proportion. The kits are supposed to fool your ECU into
> > enriching the mixtures without lighting up the Check Engine light.
> > One intrepid WRX user on another forum just replaced his fuel
> > injectors with others of a greater nozzle diameter, as I understand
> > it.
>
> > What happens if one fills up with E85 and does nothing to "convert"
> > his car?  I imagine that performance would suffer somewhat, but would
> > the car run OK although somewhat lean? Is it really necessary to
> > convert?
>
(snip)
>
> Perhaps a useful experiment would be to fill the tank with various
> mixtures of 'gas' and 'E85' and see how much E85 it can tolerate?
>
> Dave-

Good idea. I'll do it.
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

spamTHISbrp.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> If the computer, O2 sensors, and fuel injectors cannot adapt 'rich'
> enough you'll be running the engine very lean, which will destroy it
> in short order.

Hi,

Over the weekend I was at racing event where one of the "special" events
involved a New Beetle that's being campaigned throughout the US running
on E85.

I asked the fellow what tuning mods they had to do to run it on E85. He
said they'd swapped out the ECU for a programmable aftermarket unit
(makes sense for different track conditions, I suppose) and they had to
enrich the mixture by approx 25%. I didn't ask if he achieved that w/
just the ECU, or if he had to swap out injectors, too.

Now since this is for racing apps, street use might not require THAT
much enrichment. However, I'd probably consider looking at what GM and
Ford have done w/ their "flex fuel" models to see how they handle the
transition between fuels on the street before going too far w/ a vehicle
not originally designed for E85.

Rick
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On Wed, 07 May 2008 20:25:35 -0400, "Valued Corporate #120,345
Employee (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchrute DeleteThis @DunderMifflin.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:13:19 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben DeleteThis @greenba.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In any case, I hear so many
>>complaints about ethanol by those stuck with E10
>
>What have you heard?
>
>We've had E10 here in Connecticut for ~ 5 years, since MBTE was
>banned. I've never heard anyone complain, except for aircraft or
>classic car uses.
And it gives roughly 5% poorer gas mileage on most cars.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On May 7, 8:58 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 20:25:35 -0400, "Valued Corporate #120,345
> Employee (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr... RemoveThis @DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:13:19 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b... RemoveThis @greenba.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> In any case, I hear so many
> >>complaints about ethanol by those stuck with E10
>
> >What have you heard?
>
> >We've had E10 here in Connecticut for ~ 5 years, since MBTE was
> >banned.  I've never heard anyone complain, except for aircraft or
> >classic car uses.
>
> And it gives roughly 5% poorer gas mileage on most cars.
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Yes, the estimates run from a few percent to 15 percent worse mileage.
And the price is not lower enough to compensate.
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On May 8, 7:51 am, Frank Boettcher <fboettc... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b... DeleteThis @greenba.com>
> wrote:
>
....
Biofuels (not hydrogen nor hybrids IMHO) are our only hope if
> >we are to stop sending boatloads of money to people who would destroy
> >us.
>
> You might want to share the fully objective learned information that
> caused you to draw this conclusion. Be sure to factor in the
> unprecedented rise in food prices that you are paying with the
> diversion of crops to ethanol production, a not so hidden cost. I
> have to eat, I don't necessarily have to drive.
>....
OK. The best presentation I have found of the state of things is a
new book "Energy Victory" by Robert Zubrin. To summarize,
the most important use of oil in the US is for gasoline for
transporation, and that requires liquid fuels. I am all in favor of
nuclear plants for generating electricity. but we need a form of
energy that is readily used in cars. The current theory is to
generate hydrogen and compress it or liquify it and carry it around
for fuel cells or combustion.

Hydrogen will never do. If it is in liquid form it will slowly boil
off. I wouldn't want to go into a parking garage full of hydrogen-
powered cars and light a match there. Compression require a heavy
steel bottle to hold it, and that might double the weight of a car.

Hybrids are good, but they are expensive and heavy and they still use
enough gasoline to make them inferior to biofuels. And batteries are a
complication.

Ethanol is produced in abundance in Brazil at low cost using sugar as
a feed stock. We should not be charging a high tariff on its
importation. Nor should we be subsidizing the use of corn for
ethanol; the evidence is not clear that our diversion of corn from
food to fuel is solely responsible for world-wide food inflation, but
in any case, there are many other sources from which to make
biofuels. Coal is one of them if you consider using methanol.

Distribution of ethanol is a hard problem, but if it is important
enough, it can be solved the way Brazil solved it: require all cars
sold in the US to be flex-fuel. It goes against my libertarian
principles, but solves the nucleation problem -- how to get a user
base large enough to repay the massive installation of ethanol pumps.

Flex-fuel cars are pretty much like our gasoline cars; the main
change is in range of mixtures that work. If we have the volume of
production, the cost of a flex-fuel car should not be much more than
current cars. Conversion of current cars should cost only a few
hundred.

This is not the place to try to answer every question about bio-
fuels. Get Zubrin's book!

Uncle Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben.TakeThisOut@greenba.com>
wrote:

>I recently learned that the energy cost to produce ethanol for cars is
>much less than the energy benefit, contrary to popular belief. (In
>fact, the reverse is true for gasoline, which has not seemed to
>prevent our huge use of gasoline.) Further, if we are at or near
>"peak oil," the price of gasoline is never going to come down and stay
>down. Biofuels (not hydrogen nor hybrids IMHO) are our only hope if
>we are to stop sending boatloads of money to people who would destroy
>us.
>
You might want to share the fully objective learned information that
caused you to draw this conclusion. Be sure to factor in the
unprecedented rise in food prices that you are paying with the
diversion of crops to ethanol production, a not so hidden cost. I
have to eat, I don't necessarily have to drive.

What I've seen recently reported is that Congress is rethinking the
whole subsidy thing considering that they might have been mistaken.

>So I have looked at the pros and cons of using E85 (85% ethanol, 15%
>gasoline), which has recently become available in Albany, NY, near
>where I live. It seems that Subarus love ethanol, which is close to a
>racing fuel for them. The energy density of ethanol is lower than that
>of gasoline, but what counts is miles per dollar, not miles per
>gallon. (Stories of corrosion damage by ethanol are apparently not
>true for modern cars, in which neoprene has replaced lots of the
>rubber that used to be used. Methanol is a different story.)
>
>One can buy kits to convert any fuel-injected car for ethanol/gasoline
>use in any proportion. The kits are supposed to fool your ECU into
>enriching the mixtures without lighting up the Check Engine light.
>One intrepid WRX user on another forum just replaced his fuel
>injectors with others of a greater nozzle diameter, as I understand
>it.
>
>What happens if one fills up with E85 and does nothing to "convert"
>his car? I imagine that performance would suffer somewhat, but would
>the car run OK although somewhat lean? Is it really necessary to
>convert?
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben DeleteThis @greenba.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I recently learned that the energy cost to produce ethanol for cars is
>> much less than the energy benefit, contrary to popular belief. (In
>> fact, the reverse is true for gasoline, which has not seemed to
>> prevent our huge use of gasoline.) Further, if we are at or near
>> "peak oil," the price of gasoline is never going to come down and stay
>> down. Biofuels (not hydrogen nor hybrids IMHO) are our only hope if
>> we are to stop sending boatloads of money to people who would destroy
>> us.
>>
> You might want to share the fully objective learned information that
> caused you to draw this conclusion. Be sure to factor in the
> unprecedented rise in food prices that you are paying with the
> diversion of crops to ethanol production, a not so hidden cost. I
> have to eat, I don't necessarily have to drive.
>
> What I've seen recently reported is that Congress is rethinking the
> whole subsidy thing considering that they might have been mistaken.
>

Biofuels and alternative energy sources have their place but legislating
change is shear stupidity. Only about 5% of those in congress have
degrees in science or engineering. Yet they legislate technical
solutions from lobbyists whose clients profit from their new laws.
Environmentalists have have put a strangle hold on practical, but
environmentally friendly solutions like nuclear and clean burning coal.

If I were op, I would not waste my time. Subaru can make duel fuel
vehicles. There is one E85 station in my whole state of Delaware, about
30 miles from where I live.
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:25:40 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben DeleteThis @greenba.com>
wrote:

>On May 8, 7:51 am, Frank Boettcher <fboettc... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b... DeleteThis @greenba.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>...
> Biofuels (not hydrogen nor hybrids IMHO) are our only hope if
>> >we are to stop sending boatloads of money to people who would destroy
>> >us.
>>
>> You might want to share the fully objective learned information that
>> caused you to draw this conclusion. Be sure to factor in the
>> unprecedented rise in food prices that you are paying with the
>> diversion of crops to ethanol production, a not so hidden cost. I
>> have to eat, I don't necessarily have to drive.
>>....
>OK. The best presentation I have found of the state of things is a
>new book "Energy Victory" by Robert Zubrin. To summarize,
>the most important use of oil in the US is for gasoline for
>transporation, and that requires liquid fuels.

I haven't read the book. However, I consider Zubrin no more an expert
on that subject than I do Al Gore an expert in the area of global
warming, causes and cures. I believe Zubrin has devoted most of his
career to promotion of space exploration

> I am all in favor of
>nuclear plants for generating electricity.

Ah, where were you when I needed you in the seventies when my company,
the leading producer of nuclear components and the first to engineer a
"pre liscenced facility" was being pounded out of business by
regulators, hollywood liberals, and the media.

> but we need a form of
>energy that is readily used in cars. The current theory is to
>generate hydrogen and compress it or liquify it and carry it around
>for fuel cells or combustion.

..
>
>Hydrogen will never do. If it is in liquid form it will slowly boil
>off. I wouldn't want to go into a parking garage full of hydrogen-
>powered cars and light a match there. Compression require a heavy
>steel bottle to hold it, and that might double the weight of a car.

I'm sure there was an expert that said "gasoline and the internal
combustion engine will never replace the horse drawn carriage"

I was fortunate enough to be an evaluator at the local high school
senior projects last week. One of the projects I evaluated was an
electrolisis/fuel cell device. Yes there are problems. No it is not
viable at this time. The one thing that I took away was the
enthusiasm of the student and his intent to major in Engineering with
the hope of working on fuel cell technology.
>
>Hybrids are good, but they are expensive and heavy and they still use
>enough gasoline to make them inferior to biofuels. And batteries are a
>complication.
>
>Ethanol is produced in abundance in Brazil at low cost using sugar as
>a feed stock. We should not be charging a high tariff on its
>importation. Nor should we be subsidizing the use of corn for
>ethanol; the evidence is not clear that our diversion of corn from
>food to fuel is solely responsible for world-wide food inflation


It is clear to me that with crop yield at record levels which usually
causes a reduction in the price of corn, price has risen by
approximately 25%. Direct relation to the diversion of a substantial
portion of the crop to production of ethanol, driven by subsidies.
You of course can believe what you wish.

>in any case, there are many other sources from which to make
>biofuels. Coal is one of them if you consider using methanol.
>
>Distribution of ethanol is a hard problem, but if it is important
>enough, it can be solved the way Brazil solved it: require all cars
>sold in the US to be flex-fuel. It goes against my libertarian
>principles, but solves the nucleation problem -- how to get a user
>base large enough to repay the massive installation of ethanol pumps.

I would prefer to let the free market dictate what direction we go in.
"Requiring" by the government doesn't have a great track record in my
view.
>
>Flex-fuel cars are pretty much like our gasoline cars; the main
>change is in range of mixtures that work. If we have the volume of
>production, the cost of a flex-fuel car should not be much more than
>current cars. Conversion of current cars should cost only a few
>hundred.
>
>This is not the place to try to answer every question about bio-
>fuels. Get Zubrin's book!

Maybe I will, if I can get comfortable with his credentials.

Frank

>
>Uncle Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85_in_standard_engines

--
Dominic Richens | knob.DeleteThis@storm.ca
"If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion? 

On May 8, 9:36 am, "Dominic Richens" <k....TakeThisOut@storm.ca> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85_in_standard_engines
>

Very useful reference. Thank you.

It starts out with extreme pessimism, but if you read the whole thing,
it is quite balanced and encouraging. Just don't get any water
contamination in your E85 tank.

Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol conversion?