E-85

[Dyoct]

I don't "bemoan" it. I just point out that it's not the magic bullet solution so many people say and media seem to report it as being.

 

E85's chemical properties give it a disadvantage in the fuel economy department compared to gasoline. To make this alternative energy truly economically viable it needs to be more than 25% cheaper than gas while at the same time not adding additional costs to our food. In my opinion for that to happen, gas will have to be much more expensive than it is now, or the U.S. capacity to grow corn will have to improve as well.

 

I don't know if there is is a way an engine can improve the fuel efficiency of E85. If there is, then maybe somebody out there is working on it.

[akirby]

What you say shows that you don't understand turbocharging. Your comment is only true if you falsely assume the turbo is either "on" or "off". The wastegate and other controls allow variable levels of boost to the point of effectively disconnecting the turbo, if necessary. Saab is doing exactly what you "seriously doubt" in production cars sold in Europe for the past 2 years. In that time, it became the most popular FFV engine in Europe.

 

Even if the MKR is a concept vehicle, it doesn't necessarily follow that the engine is only for that concept. The link I provided was for a site that had this engine as one of the choices for a possible 2009 Taurus SHO. It also shows that the technology is there to do what you doubt can be accomplished, even if Ford isn't yet putting it in production models. I'm glad to see that Ford is joining other manufacturers to innovate in this area.

 

If you are wondering why I keep talking about future product, it means you didn't read my first post. A poster bemoaned the inefficiencies of E-85, pointing out that "it needs major revamping." I agreed that the current technology is not very efficient and provided information about future technology "revamping" in the works to exactly address that problem. You came back looking at past results to dispute my information about future technology. Continue to be closed minded if you want; deny that the technology is possible even when it is currently available to others and availability for us is a year or two down the road. My mission was to provide information, enlighten and highlight future benefits.

 

Ok, now I understand how the turbo provides variable boost to take advantage of E85's higher octane for more power. In this regard E85 is nothing more than high octane racing fuel. That still doesn't change the fact that fuel economy is 30% lower with E85 in a FFV vehicle, even WITH Saab's biopower system. This is from the SAAB 9-5 UK website for the 2.3 biopower engine:

 

*Performance figures with E85 fuel -There is no official fuel certification for E85, therefore the economy figures are based on petrol consumption, E85 consumes around 30% more fuel than petrol.

 

So even with Saab's turbo technology there is still a 30% loss in fuel economy. If you could tune an engine exclusively for E85 or E100 then you could probably make up a small portion of that deficit but no more.

[handlebear]

My previous ride was an 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. It had a switch on the dash for either 87 or 91 octane gas. With 87 octane, the boost was limited to 10 psi. On 91, it was 15 psi. E85 cars have a sensor (light beam, IIRC) that determines the ratio of gas to E85. The engine management computer then accesses different maps for fuel delivery. On a turbo or supercharged engine, the computer could increase the boost based on the percentage of gas vs E85.

[akirby]

My previous ride was an 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. It had a switch on the dash for either 87 or 91 octane gas. With 87 octane, the boost was limited to 10 psi. On 91, it was 15 psi. E85 cars have a sensor (light beam, IIRC) that determines the ratio of gas to E85. The engine management computer then accesses different maps for fuel delivery. On a turbo or supercharged engine, the computer could increase the boost based on the percentage of gas vs E85.

 

Of course you can, and you'll get more power. But you'll still get 30% less fuel mileage.

[wkienzle]

Ok, now I understand how the turbo provides variable boost to take advantage of E85's higher octane for more power. In this regard E85 is nothing more than high octane racing fuel. That still doesn't change the fact that fuel economy is 30% lower with E85 in a FFV vehicle, even WITH Saab's biopower system. This is from the SAAB 9-5 UK website for the 2.3 biopower engine:

 

*Performance figures with E85 fuel -There is no official fuel certification for E85, therefore the economy figures are based on petrol consumption, E85 consumes around 30% more fuel than petrol.

 

So even with Saab's turbo technology there is still a 30% loss in fuel economy. If you could tune an engine exclusively for E85 or E100 then you could probably make up a small portion of that deficit but no more.

 

Since there isn't any testing method, they don't have government supported numbers. "Around 30%" is not exact and is more of a CYA estimate to set expectations based on the performance of other vehciles in the market.

 

On the other hand, here is an article that says "While fuel economy in city and mixed driving conditions is unlikely to show an improvement [with E85], preliminary testing indicates that up to a 15 percent gain can be expected at cruising speeds because of better combustion with higher efficiency." http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/press/041203.html

 

Here are other articles with the same theme:

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1946 (more of a post than an article, but explains all the points clearly)

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8703

http://www.saabscene.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31633560 (real-life comparison between petrol and E85 - results show a 14% difference in fuel economy.)

 

I like Dyoct's "wait and see" openmindedness. Who knows what will happen with US emissions regulations and technology by the time the car arrives here.

[wkienzle]

I don't "bemoan" it. I just point out that it's not the magic bullet solution so many people say and media seem to report it as being.

 

[snip]

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to overstate your point or put words in your mouth. Maybe its just me bemoaning the fact that technology is moving so slowly to resolve the shortcomings of E-85. Yes, I believe most of the shortcomings can be overcome to make E85 competitive. I guess its the optimist in me.

 

Next step after this one: start using something better than feed corn to make ethanol. A fuel producer in the Chicago area used spoiled (outdated) candy to make their ethanol. Unfortunately they got out of the petrolium business. Coincidently, the Brach's candy plant in Chicago closed around the same time. hmmm.

[wkienzle]

My previous ride was an 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. It had a switch on the dash for either 87 or 91 octane gas. With 87 octane, the boost was limited to 10 psi. On 91, it was 15 psi. E85 cars have a sensor (light beam, IIRC) that determines the ratio of gas to E85. The engine management computer then accesses different maps for fuel delivery. On a turbo or supercharged engine, the computer could increase the boost based on the percentage of gas vs E85.

 

Cool ride! You must have been sorry to see it go.

 

I knew someone with a Renault Fuego Turbo (early 1980's). I think it had the same type of switch on the dash. Knock sensors made the switch obsolete.

 

I understand that on 2nd generation FFV's, the fuel sensor to determine the ratio of gas to E85 was eliminated. That work is now one of the Oxygen Sensor's functions. E85 contains more oxygen; the sensor detects this in the exhaust gas, causing the ECU to enrichen the mixture.