E85Forum.com

jdorff · Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 25 Location: RTP NC USA

Since this tread was on E30, I though it would be a good place to link to the E30 study done by Professor Bruce Jones, Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato. He studied 15 different domestice cars running on E-30. It's somewhat dated at this point, but still worth while: http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/e30_report.pdf

The same folks are now testing FlexTek E-85 conversion kits. See http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read.php?id=old-1154958299

jachristner · Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 64 Location: Kokomo, IN

The results in that report look promising. I think I'll start trying E30 in my 1992 Cavalier and and see what happens.

jachristner · Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 64 Location: Kokomo, IN

Well, today I pumped 5.3 gallons of E85 into the 15.2 gallon tank on my 1992 Chevrolet Cavalier and topped off with 87 octane unleaded. I didn't check if the unleaded contained 10% ethanol or not. Depending on that factor, the mix currently in the tank is 29.6-33.6%.

I drove a few miles through town on an errand before heading back home on the highway. The Check Engine light didn't come on during the 20-minute drive. After seeing what it does with the rest of this tank, I'll decide whether or not to increase the percentage.

Smile

jdorff · Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 25 Location: RTP NC USA

jachristner · Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 64 Location: Kokomo, IN

My tank was almost empty today so I refueled with more ethanol. This time I filled it with 35% ethanol. I didn't have any malfunctions or problems with E30. The only thing I noticed was that the cold engine seemed more hesitant to rev until it was warmed up. But it was barely noticeable and may have been something I didn't notice until I started watching for things.

I've been assuming 85% for the E85 pump but the sticker stating 'Contains 70% ethanol minimum' makes me wonder if it's not full strength. I've been too lazy to go inside and ask so far but I may next time.

hotrod · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 872 Location: Colorado

specialgreen · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:40 am Post subject:

Vinod's talk was very interesting. His talk centered around the use of corn ethanol as a stop-gap measure until cellulosic/biomass ethanol is feasible. Once you get over that hump, then of course the argument for ethanol fuel is compelling. But I wonder if cellulosic ethanol is a slam dunk?

He also advocated allowing importation of ethanol, tax-free, provided that domestic consumption exceeded domestic production. That would give producers an interesting moving target: "Produce more than current demand, or else you'll have to compte with foreign ethanol!"

Vinod advocated the placement of E-85 pumps in 10% of filling stations, which sounds great to me. An alternative approach would be to legislate the use of new "dial-a-blend" pumps, such as are used in Sweden, for all new filling station construction, with a goal of total replacement of gasoline pumps within (say) 15 years (probably the useful life of a fuel pump anyways). These new filling stations would have an E-85 tank which could be used "straight" at the pump, or could be blended with gasoline at the request of the consumer (for example, with "E-5", "E-10", "E-20", "E-30" and "E-85" buttons). This would provide the 10% pump availability which Vinod is looking for, without requiring an extra pump, or retrofitting existing stations prematurely.

Vinod talked about how GM is shipping a yellow gas cap to vehicle owners who have FFVs. If we had "dial-a-blend" pumps, then the FFV gas caps could include RFID tags that would select the E-85 blend by default.

"dial-a-blend" availability would also "prime the pump" for progressive national standards of E-10, E-20, etc. The default blend on the pumps would increase as ethanol production increases. It would also provide the infrastructure to meet demand when cellulosic ethanol produces fuel which is significantly cheaper than gasoline. At that point, consumers will dial-up the E-20 or E-30 blends to reduce their costs.

jachristner · Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 64 Location: Kokomo, IN

I'll have to try that water test.

The dial-a-blend pump sounds like a great idea. I'd be all for that.

1outlaw · Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 89 Location: Central Wisconsin

May I suggest asking the station owner what the blend is- if you get the right person- they will have the delivery ticket showing them blend amounts. However this may be difficult in a chain store with clerks. I advise some caution with the water test method- I have done it several times as has the state of Wi. fuel testers and have found it to only be an indicator method. The state used it on one of my facilities and told me I was off so I got them to dilute it to 10% and use their regular lab equipment plus send it off to an outside lab- then is when they discovered the water test was not accurate enough- My blends were right on.

hotrod · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 872 Location: Colorado

How much was the testing error they had?

One of the issues with the water test is 50 cc of water plus 10 cc of alcohol does not equal 60 cc of alcohol mix. The alcohol mix actually takes up a slightly lower volume than the original components. You have to judge the percentage mix based on the amount of petroleum left.

ie. if you mixed 50 cc of 10% ethanol gasoline mix (theoretically containing 45 cc gasoline and 5 cc alcohol) and 50 cc of pure water, you would end up with a mixture of about (estimating -- here need to find a chart for the combined volume)

Something like 45 cc gasoline and 53 cc of water alcohol mix.

The other issue is do the regulations specify the mixture percentage by weight of product or by volume?

Alcohol is so hygroscopic the molecules of water and alcohol take up less space as a mix than they do as pure liquids.

Larry

1outlaw · Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 89 Location: Central Wisconsin

Larry- the state inspector keep coming up with excess 1% in a 10% blend. I do not remember the error % we got in our plant lab on E85. Some of the problem I think the state inspector had was his sample collection method and trying to test it in the back of his truck.

The regulations are enforced by volume in Wisconsin-as this is how the fuels are metered.