timfitz63

Wasn't quite sure where on the forum to post this for maximum visibility; Moderators can feel free to move it accordingly.

Haven't seen much media coverage about this:

Warnings Not to Use 'E15' Gas In Your Car | Fox Business

Although GM is not listed among them, the long and short of it is that several car manufacturers say that using E15 (not widely available -- yet) in your car will cause engine and fuel system damage not covered under your warranty -- and may actually void your warranty...

Just submitted FYI...

FtrSpeedy

Ok well how is e15 worse than e85? There is some missing info you didnt get/post.

novaderrik

E85 doesn't hurt anything.. E10 has been around here longer than the 22 years i've been driving and i've never had to fix anything that i'd attribute to the ethanol- unless replacing a dry rotted original gas hose or factory mechanical fuel pump on a 40 year old car can be attributed to the ethanol and not just old age..

W.E.G.

See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-cars/1735793/

W.E.G.

They simply are not the same fuel at all.

E15 is 15% alcohol.

E85 is 85% alcohol.

W.E.G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Moreover, in our thirdgen cars with simple computers, without going down the road of PROM-burning, I don't know how you you notify the ECM that you are using a new fuel with different burn-characteristics.

Maybe some folks' cars will tolerate all these weirdo-fuels that are appearing. I suppose at some point, we will need a permission-slip from Big Brother to drive any car that has a steering wheel. Until then, I think I'll stick with the fuel that is closest to the fuel that was sold when my 25-year-old car was built. I'm too old to be anybody's lets-see-if-it-burns-up-the-motor guinea pig. If they want to poke me, they can wait for the autopsy, which shouldn't bee too long of a wait at this point.

timfitz63

In addition to what others have offered, E85 is not commonly available to the general consumer. It's effectively reserved for fleet vehicle use, and as others have said, requires minor engine changes/adjustments to work effectively in an internal combustion engine.

E15 is 'worse' because (at least according to those reporting on this topic) of the greater ethanol content when compared to the commonly-sold E10 that almost everyone gets when they put fuel in their gasoline-powered vehicle. Most vehicles sold to this point ('Flex Fuel' vehicles aside; they account for only a small percentage of all the vehicles sold in this country) were engineered to run on a fuel having no more than 10% ethanol content (i.e., E10). Because ethanol is water-soluble, it attracts and retains water, which in turn is corrosive, particularly to ferrous metals. So, the higher the ethanol content, the greater capacity for the fuel to attract and retain water... And despite what most proponents of ethanol-based fuels claim, ethanol (which is essentially grain alcohol) will dry out rubber and cork seals and gaskets in the fuel system (fuel pumps in particular seem susceptible to these effects) and engine more quickly than petroleum-based fuels... Although vehicles built following the government mandate that gave us E10 are engineered to mitigate this problems (better rubbers, more corrosion protection in fuel system components), those built before that time (i.e., older F-Body vehicles) do not have these protective measures engineering into them.

As "W.E.G." says: it's best to use the fuel your vehicles was designed to run with. For a lot of the older-generation F-Bodies, that's 100% gasoline. But pure gasoline is getting tougher and tougher to find, so E10 is becoming about the only fuel one can get to run in these cars. Right now I'm having engine troubles with my '89 Formula, which (I believe) was built well before the E10 mandate; a lot of the symptoms are now pointing toward a fuel system problem (perhaps fuel pump), and now this warning from AAA has got me wondering: has years of running E10 in my 80's-era fuel pump led to its demise...?

Savage388

Wait is it even possible to find 100 percent gasoline? I thought the government mandated E10 on pump gas. I'll say now if E15 does happen I'll either go the whole way and run E85 or switch to 100 octane race gas and raise my comp ratio. This stuff is really no good for our older cars and will require re tuning to avoid a lean condition because the way the ethanol burns.

W.E.G.

I saw a pump with straight gas in South Carolina a few weeks ago.

Never see it Northern Virginiastan.

timfitz63

Theoretically, yes:

http://pure-gas.org/

In practice, however, it's a bit more difficult. Proportionally, very few gas stations -- in even petroleum-producing states like Texas -- have ethanol-free gasoline. But you might get lucky and live near one of the stations that does supply it... I never seem to be that lucky...

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

I just graduated from EFI101.com course and found that there are some programs for tuning Ethanol adjustments that are very simple to enter data into a table.

navy02ws6

Right. E85 is for all those cars (mostly newer Impalas and full-size GM trucks) that have the "Flex Fuel" badge on the back. Put E85 in a regular car and you won't make it out of the gas station's parking lot.

E15 is the new "replacement" for regular gasoline that is supposed to be "okay" for all other cars. IIRC, most gas stations currently offer E10 (10% ethanol) and will be switching to E15 soon.

Frankly, I can't imagine more ethanol content doing us any good, but I've yet to see any real study that shows the harmful effects of it. I have heard it is much worse for carbureted cars than FI cars though.

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

So would run Stabil ethanol treatment, would that help. I know it is very hard on fuel pumps and I don't know what else.

peterc005

We've been using E10 in Australia for years without any dramas.

It should be fine for any car new enough to have fuel injection and a catalytic converter.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

What? If you don't have a flex fuel vehicle, you can't run on E85.

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

Here in lies the problem.. 3rd Gen's aren't new and if they still have a converter, then what?

chazman

iTrader: (4)

GM is the only major manufacturer to not state that E15 voids their warranty because they don't want to step on the toes of their government masters and make the EPA look bad.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

From
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33959

chazman

iTrader: (4)

E10 is the only gas you you can get around here, for at least that past 20 years. Your fuel economy does go down compared to pure gas. E15 is a whole other story, with lots of documented cases of engine and fuel system damage.

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

I know you can by E-85 specific fuel pumps. I don't know if they would be any different though. Would they be efficient enough on E-15?

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Ethanol doesn't make our cars more efficient. It makes them LESS efficient. There is less energy in ethanol than in gasoline.

Now, if our cars had hardened fuel systems, MUCH higher compression, higher flowing injectors and a different tune - that's a different story. Then they could run on E85 but not on gas. But out cars are designed to use 87-93 octane gasoline. Even E10 reduces the efficiency of our cars in their factory state.

The issue with E15 is that it appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY more problematic, (eg., water seperation) than E10.

The 2014 Gen5 LT1 has a scary powerful computer, VVT, direct injection and a bunch of other stuff. That engine is sophisticated enough to pick up some power from E85. But like I said, that's not the case with our cars.

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

I wouldn't even attempt to run that low of octane. I know more of what you are talking about now

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

With separation of fuels in the tank, theres no guarantee the motor sees a set fuel type so 1 tune will not compensate for changes in fuel concentration. Just make sure you dont let fuel sit in the tank for very long. Keep filling it up and running to make sure everything stays mixed.

Components will need replaced with ethanol compatible pumps and lines.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Anyway, corn based ethanol is all about politics and corruption, with the taxpayer footing the bill. Corn based etoh is a pretty crappy fuel.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

E85 is fantastic for turbo cars....thats about it. Dont see the advantage in everyday drivers and n/a builds.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Sure. IF the engines a built to use it.....

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Any engine can be built to use it and yes that has to be done, but boosted cars really benefit from the octane and cooling effects alcohol offers. Combined with methanol injection, you can see huge power gains. Seems a better fuel for a boosted application if you are going to use E85 as a fuel. I've seen a stock bottom, cam/heads LS2 make over 816whp on just 11 psi boost. Just a simple fuel system that used to run on gas. The power per dollar is better in this application than in any other IMO.

novaderrik

i've been buying E85 out of pumps at regular gas stations since i got my 84 T Type in '04. i pass 3 different stations that sell E85 on my 24 mile commute to work every day. never had any problems with it other than making my T Type much more fun to drive. in fact, that car sat for 4 months with a 3/4 tank of straight E85 when the fuel pump died in it -not related to the fuel- the car sat with half a tank of gas from 91-'04 when the head gasket popped on the previous owner and he never got around to fixing it, and the pump made noise for 4 year of me driving it before it finally quit working- and the inside of the tank and everything in it looked brand new when i dropped it..

i do lose some fuel economy when running straight E85, but if i keep the blend down to around 50% i can get more power without losing any economy on most cars.. my old 97 Cavvy and my current 98 Cavvy run just fine on up to 50%, but my 04 Cavvy hated more than 20%.. for whatever reason, i've never tried it in my Camaro.. i'm not pulling these percentages out of my ***- there is a blender pump at the local Cenex that lets you pick E10, E20, E30, E50, and E85 and i always run a couple of tanks of a given fuel before judging it.. unless it runs like total crap like my 04 Cavvy did, in which case i go back to less ethanol.

all that being said, i think the different regional gas blends add to this.. when i took the Camaro from MN to TX last summer, i found out that the gas in different states operated differently in my car- Iowa and Arkansas gas caused it to detonate, start hard, diesel, and lose a couple of miles per gallon but the gas in Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma ran just fine. i always just bought the cheapest gas they had at whatever station i stopped at..

timfitz63

Interesting. But the T-Type is turbocharged; higher compression ratio, so it'll tolerate ethanol much better -- and may even like it, as you have perceived...

And I don't want to jinx your luck, but just because you haven't had fuel-related issues with pumps or seals doesn't mean they won't eventually happen... Again, the more robust seals/gaskets in a turbocharged engine may be helping to delay the detrimental effects of ethanol on older formulations of rubber and cork... Just sayin'...

peterc005

Ethanol is better for the environment, and every litre of ethanol is one less litre sold by people who hate the western world.

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

We don't E85 offered where I live in upstate N.Y. how much or cheaper is it than regular 93 Octane?

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

chazman

iTrader: (4)

The problem is corn based ETOH. Corn is a very inefficient way to get ethanol, requiring more than one gallon do fossil based oil to produce one gallon of ethanol.

timfitz63

Bullseye. But since when has the politics of eco-science been held to what's scientific or logical...?

peterc005

From what I've read that is not correct.

It will to some extent depend on how electricity for the ethanol production process is generated E.g. green or fossil fuel electricity generation.

A problem discussing environmental issues is that a scientific issue has become political.

Can you provide a scientific reference source to substantiate the assertion that "Corn is a very inefficient way to get ethanol, requiring more than one gallon do fossil based oil to produce one gallon of ethanol"

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Oh, you can google it if you like, Peter. You'll find plenty of links. Sugar cane, for example is a better source for ETOH ....or pretty much anything else other than corn.


What do you mean by "green electricity"?

Maverick H1L

iTrader: (8)

For the link... Now I know where to get REAL gas .

Anyways, anyone that thinks Ethanol is better for the environment should probably go back to school. Using Ethanol requires MORE fuel to make the same amount of power in ANY GIVEN ENGINE. Which means MORE pollution and LESS efficiency. If you haven't noticed, current engines are supposedly more powerful and efficient than those of 15-20 years ago. Yet, except for those hybrid things, fuel mileage really hasn't gone up that much. Why? We're no longer using straight gas!

Basically, plain and simple, Ethanol is a waste of the resources used to produce it and a waste of perfectly good food, all in the name of the backwards science that is known as Environmental Conservation. The government only wants you to think that gasoline would be more expensive without the Ethanol in it, but this is hardly the case, and food prices would drop as well because so much of our corn and whatever other crops wouldn't be used to make that junk, AND the fuel costs to plant and transport your food to processing centers and retail would go down. But, then, that means that the "good old" Fed wouldn't be able to collect as much in the way of gas taxes. Poor babies.

ibmtech

iTrader: (1)

I am wondering the same thing. I know the chevy dealership across town from where I live has free electrical plug-ins for their cars that are all electric..

What a great concept.. I would have to drive all the way across town to refill my battery, then by the time, I get home the battery is half dead.. What a novel idea.. I think, I will buy two of these. One for cruizing back and forth to the dealership and the other to drive back and forth around the block. I hear they are great and get great gas mileage because they don't use gas.. Oh, hell, now I am all pissed off again and don't know why

musicfreako

iTrader: (1)

And now we have these mega farms with their contacts demanding that we keep using more of their corn. One of our big farmers around here is scooping up every acre he can touch and planting corn. He trucks every kernel to South Bend Indiana's ethanol plant. Don't think it's just politicians wanting higher ethanol levels mandated...

Vader

I'm not a chemical engineer, but my friend actually IS. There is a chemistry / physics argument that ethanol concentrations of up to 22% should be no problem in any fuel system constructed after 1978 so long as it has an active O² sensor and some method of fuel control, such as a feedback carb like the E4ME or EFI system.

Will it require more liquid fuel to make the same level of power (all other items like compression and cam being equal)? Yes!

Will it cost more to fuel your vehicle? Probably not, since the lower cost of ethanol offsets some of the penalties for pumping, carrying, and using more liquid volume.

Will there be more "pollution" emitted from the vehicle? No. From what I'm told, NOx and other nitrides should fall off dramatically (as it does with E-10). CO will be equal. CO² will decrease. Ozone will decrease. Sulphides will decrease. Hydroxides will increase. Some of those are classified as "pollutants" by some, but not necessarily by the EPA.

As for the argument about the cost of producing a gallon or liquid fuel from corn (or other biomass) compared to petroleum, one needs to look at the complete picture. Does a diesel powered supertanker traveling from the middle of the Indian Ocean not burn thousands of gallons of fuel along the way? They use considerably more than a 400 cu. in. diesel tractor and the rail engines hauling the cars of grain.

Of course, only a shrinking portion of our fuel is imported via tanker, so that hidden cost may be declining for those of us in North America, but do the pumps from the wellhead to the pipelines to the dock/storage facilities to the refineries not require electricity? They take a LOT more input energy than a corn plant growing in the middle of an Nebraska field.

Does the frac and producer water from wellhead operations not have to be pumped, hauled, pumped, treated, pumped, hauled, and pumped again? Yes, and with considerably more cost and care than corn mash waste (which can be and is used as animal feed supplement).

Does the refinery not use heat? Yes, and quite a it more than a distillery.

There are a lot of other facets to the picture. Without considering all the hard and soft costs, any comparison is incomplete, at best, and a "statistical lie" at worst.

chazman is right. Sugar is a lot better source for producing volumes of grain ethanol, but it doesn't grow well in Illinois, where farms that would have been paid NOT to plant their set-aside acreage are now rotating that ground into production. That takes the burden off the D of A and the American taxpayer (of which I am one) and provides either food or fuel grain for the world market. Last year was very bad in my family's fields, and without the extra bushels from the acreage (which might otherwise have been set aside for a phat check / free money from Obama) there might not have been enough reserve to feed the market. If push ever comes to shove, that lower-grade corn which can be used equally well for ethanol could be diverted into the feed/food markets. If it hadn't been grown, that option wouldn't exist. If you think that's a political issue, take a look at Brazil and other large ag nations, who are now planting corn where they hadn't before.

All that said, E-10 has been around here since 1976, when I first used it. E-22 is around and growing in popularity. I've even used E-85 in my non-flex-fuel '96 Half-Truck, and other than some nuisance lean error codes I've not had any problems in warmer weather driving.

As someone else stated, separation and contamination are concerns. The best thing we can do to prevent or minimize that is to make sure the EVAP system is intact. Newer cars are forced to be uber-**** about the EVAP systems strictly because of evaporation and condensation. Tanks must hold a test vacuum and not vent of purge unless directed by the PCM. This should minimize the hygroscopic attraction of water by ethanol, and make sure every drop of fuel you buy stays in your tank to get burned for power instead of evaporating off, allowing your dollars to evaporate with it.

There are a LOT of vehicles in North America running around making good power on E-10 (way better power than a new ThirdGen). I read and heard all the horror stories about how E-10 was going to make the earth stop spinning, cause global panic, make big rocks fall out of the sky, yada, yada. Now I'm getting to read and hear it all over again. You'd think we would learn. Worse, you'd think a group of auto enthusiasts who actually have a clue instead of falling into the "3/4-race cam, McDonalds parking lot, monkey spank" genre (thank you for that reference, Robert) would see the minor challenges that alcohol burning might present. After all, WE were burning alcohol for power decades before the ethanol-gas at the pump crowd even had a hint.

This little change should be a no-brainer for us gearheads. Who knows? Some of us might actually have to step away from carburetors and surge forward into the 1950s technological marvel called "fuel injection."

That said, I just helped my neighbor finish up his project in an '81 Y-Car. He calls it the "E85-385" - A GM/Howards N/A 14.2:1 static, long cam, CARBED engine running on E-85. He's only making about 460 at the crank so we have some tuning to do, but it's getting there.

timfitz63

Well, the eviro-political discussion on ethanol aside, the main point of the post was to alert people that several car manufacturers have already said they will not honor engine and fuel system warranty claims made against their new (as recent as 2012 manufacture) vehicles if they trace the problem to the use of E15...

So, whether there's anything to the assertion that E15 actually creates problems, or this is just a convenient excuse for 'bean-counters' to save money for the company by 'voiding' new car warranties, you'll have to decide. But it sounds like some manufacturers will absolutely not fix the problem on their own dime... That means either the EPA can pay the repair bill -- or the owner will... And I'm thinking it'll end up being the latter...