I am looking for a fuel size Chevy - GMC van and a few have been flex fuel ,
Anyone have one ? What are the problems ?
When we ran alcohol in our races cars it used 50 percent more fuel than gasoline !
Is this the same with flex fuel which eats up the price difference between gasoline and flex fuel e85
Can I just run regular gasoline ?
Thanks for your advise
You can run regular gas in a flex fuel vehicle, it'll adjust the mixture to suit, so that regular gas gets regular gas MPGs. Only downside is 1 more sensor to fail (fuel alcohol sensor).
It's FLEX fuel for a reason. It's flexible. It can run anything from 100% gasoline (0~ ethanol) to E85 (~85% ethanol) or any mixture of the two. Compared to standard gasoline models, they'll typically have larger fuel injectors, different ECU calibration, and in some cases alcohol sensors.
The more ethanol in the mix, the more your fuel economy will suffer. E85 can add a bit of power with proper ECU calibration. And the alcohol does a great job at keeping the fuel system clean. The higher octane of E85 cn reduce preignition. It also burns cooler and cleaner than standard gasoline. It may or may not be cheaper than regular unleaded gas at the pump, and the reduction in fuel economy may or may not offset that price difference.
If the vehicle requires or prefers premium gasoline, then the math has a better chance of working in favor of E85.
GameboyRMH said:You can run regular gas in a flex fuel vehicle, it'll adjust the mixture to suit, so that regular gas gets regular gas MPGs. Only downside is 1 more sensor to fail (fuel alcohol sensor).
Depending on how recent of a flex fuel vehicle you are getting, they may not have a fuel sensor. Every one I've worked with recently don't have them, and rely on the WB fuel sensor, and let it decide what the fuel is. And it will run a special algorithm every time you fill up the tank to re-check.
Can you mix the fuels , say half gas and half e85 ?
alfadriver said:GameboyRMH said:You can run regular gas in a flex fuel vehicle, it'll adjust the mixture to suit, so that regular gas gets regular gas MPGs. Only downside is 1 more sensor to fail (fuel alcohol sensor).
Depending on how recent of a flex fuel vehicle you are getting, they may not have a fuel sensor. Every one I've worked with recently don't have them, and rely on the WB fuel sensor, and let it decide what the fuel is. And it will run a special algorithm every time you fill up the tank to re-check.
Now that is interesting.
Yes, you can mix the fuels. The alcohol sensor (or apparently the lambda sensor) will detect exactly what the percentage of ethanol is and adjust the calibration to suit. E85 isn't always 85% ethanol anyhow, so this is required.
The common GM flex fuel sensor is under $100, FYI.
californiamilleghia said:Can you mix the fuels , say half gas and half e85 ?
Yes. Interestingly enough, E85 isn't actually E85 all the time. It can be as low as E60.... But blending the fuel has to be dealt with.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Saving that flex fuel sensor is a decent amount of money. Which also reduces warrantee risk.
Your mileage tanks. My Focus mileage drops significantly, but on the upside, holy hell it wakes the engine up.
In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid :
My experience with flex fuel has been fantastic. My 4X4 Ford V8 pickup gets around 24 mpg on regular unleaded. I have tried various fuels 87 octane 88 octane 92 octane and 92 octane non oxygenated ( yes I know) I did get 1 mpg better with 92 octane non oxygenated. But as you know it’s not legal. Sure doesn’t make economic sense either.
It gets roughly 3mpg less on E85, if I could ever keep my foot out of the throttle it might get a bit better. But boy the added power of E85 makes that hard!!!! How much fun is E85? Well at 12,000 my rear tires were 2/32 smaller than the front. All it takes to smoke em’ is floor it!
I buy E 85 any time the price difference is greater than 30 cents ( right now it’s only8 cents ) at 30 cents difference it’s really a push but don’t forget to add the fun factor!
E85 can be as low as 51% ethanol or as high as 83% at the pump.
In the winter it tends to be closer to the 51% but late in the summer it’s closer to the 83%
If you buy it from venders like VP fuels its 85% ethanol and 15% gas, usually a higher octane than 87.
The whole point of a flex fuel vehicle is that it can burn any concentration between 85/15 ethanol/gas up to 100% gas. So if you fill up with E85, then at 1/4 tank you fill with E15, then the next time you fill with ethanol-free gas when it's at 1/2 tank, you don't have to worry about what concentration of ethanol is actually in the tank. The sensor takes care of that. It figures out how much ethanol is in the fuel line and adjusts the mixture of air/fuel accordingly. You can fill with whatever concentration of ethanol/gas you wish at any time and the computer will adjust.
It is mostly a wash (except for emissions) Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline, but you burn a proportionately higher concentration of ethanol. Ethanol is cheaper, too, but you burn more of it so it is pretty much a wash on cents-per-mile.
Most people think that the math works out to more power with ethanol... and it can, but not in a flex fuel vehicle. In order for ethanol to burn properly (and because of its higher effective octane rating) it needs more compression to extract that energy. In an engine that is specifically built to burn gasoline will do best on gasoline. An engine built to burn exclusively ethanol will work best on ethanol. A flex fuel engine has to be built with compression to match the lowest-octane fuel (in this case, gasoline) and therefore won't make as much power on ethanol.
An example: If you had a gasoline engine that makes 300 hp with 9:1 compression and want to convert it to ethanol, you can't just dump in more fuel and expect the same amount of power. A properly engineered ethanol-only build of the same engine would likely have more like 13:1 compression to be able to extract the BTUs from the fuel. In that case, it would still make right around 300 hp, but without that extra compression, you'll lose power compared to the gasoline fuel. For this reason, most flex-fuel vehicles make notably lower power outputs as the concentration of ethanol increases.
The short answer is, a flex fuel vehicle's big benefit is emissions. For all other purposes, the benefits and drawbacks cancel each other out.
I am a huge fan of reducing emissions (I'm a tree hugger) so I have considered flex fuel vehicles. Unfortunately, my current budget just afforded me a 1994 Mazda. Not many flex fuel vehicles in my price range.
Curtis, you're ignoring The Case Of The Turbocharged Engine. They loooooove ethanol. You can make significantly more power with it because of the octane. It's basically great smelling race gas. We have a 1995 Miata here that's a daily driver that will scale itself between about 350 and 450 hp depending on what we pump into the tank, and the big numbers are on E85. IIRC it will run more boost which is effectively the same as a higher compression engine, but get a big part of the gains from jamming in a bunch of timing. This has a nice side effect of improving the turbo response too.
But on naturally aspirated engines, the gains are minimal. They're there - if you want to win CSP in a Miata, you had better be full of corn juice - but it's not enormous. I know that at least one of our members reports good success with E85 on the BRZ, and if they're using the lambda sensor to calculate alcohol content instead of just hoping that E85 is always 85% ethanal then I'm cool with that.
Curtis said:The whole point of a flex fuel vehicle is that it can burn any concentration between 85/15 ethanol/gas up to 100% gas. So if you fill up with E85, then at 1/4 tank you fill with E15, then the next time you fill with ethanol-free gas when it's at 1/2 tank, you don't have to worry about what concentration of ethanol is actually in the tank. The sensor takes care of that. It figures out how much ethanol is in the fuel line and adjusts the mixture of air/fuel accordingly. You can fill with whatever concentration of ethanol/gas you wish at any time and the computer will adjust.
It is mostly a wash (except for emissions) Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline, but you burn a proportionately higher concentration of ethanol. Ethanol is cheaper, too, but you burn more of it so it is pretty much a wash on cents-per-mile.
Most people think that the math works out to more power with ethanol... and it can, but not in a flex fuel vehicle. In order for ethanol to burn properly (and because of its higher effective octane rating) it needs more compression to extract that energy. In an engine that is specifically built to burn gasoline will do best on gasoline. An engine built to burn exclusively ethanol will work best on ethanol. A flex fuel engine has to be built with compression to match the lowest-octane fuel (in this case, gasoline) and therefore won't make as much power on ethanol.
An example: If you had a gasoline engine that makes 300 hp with 9:1 compression and want to convert it to ethanol, you can't just dump in more fuel and expect the same amount of power. A properly engineered ethanol-only build of the same engine would likely have more like 13:1 compression to be able to extract the BTUs from the fuel. In that case, it would still make right around 300 hp, but without that extra compression, you'll lose power compared to the gasoline fuel. For this reason, most flex-fuel vehicles make notably lower power outputs as the concentration of ethanol increases.
The short answer is, a flex fuel vehicle's big benefit is emissions. For all other purposes, the benefits and drawbacks cancel each other out.
I am a huge fan of reducing emissions (I'm a tree hugger) so I have considered flex fuel vehicles. Unfortunately, my current budget just afforded me a 1994 Mazda. Not many flex fuel vehicles in my price range.
Look at what GRM found. They tested E85 and found more horsepower. Same Miata. Normally aspirated.
Go ahead I’ll wait. Read the article.
Bigger injectors you say?
...Booooooost!
Mild add-on, but any flex fuel vehicle also gains an overlooked ability- no matter where you are or what station, you should be able to get fuel there and even try out some of the wacky blends like E15/E20.
Far western Nebraska had some WIERD fuels. One station we frequented in Chadron had Regular 87/93, Diesel, E15 / E20 / E85, Propane, and Agri-Diesel at a minimum.
Curtis said:Most people think that the math works out to more power with ethanol... and it can, but not in a flex fuel vehicle. In order for ethanol to burn properly (and because of its higher effective octane rating) it needs more compression to extract that energy. In an engine that is specifically built to burn gasoline will do best on gasoline. An engine built to burn exclusively ethanol will work best on ethanol. A flex fuel engine has to be built with compression to match the lowest-octane fuel (in this case, gasoline) and therefore won't make as much power on ethanol.
An example: If you had a gasoline engine that makes 300 hp with 9:1 compression and want to convert it to ethanol, you can't just dump in more fuel and expect the same amount of power. A properly engineered ethanol-only build of the same engine would likely have more like 13:1 compression to be able to extract the BTUs from the fuel. In that case, it would still make right around 300 hp, but without that extra compression, you'll lose power compared to the gasoline fuel. For this reason, most flex-fuel vehicles make notably lower power outputs as the concentration of ethanol increases.
This is an owner's manual for a 1999 Ford Ranger. Look at the columns for the 3.0 V6, which was offered in both standard gasoline and flex fuel configurations. Note the identical compression ratios listed, and the 6% increases in both hp and tq while running e85.
This is a powertrain that was sold 20 years ago, and developed all the way back in the mid 80s. It has no fancy variable anything. No forced induction. Just a naturally aspirated, cast iron, pushrod, boat anchor of an engine that sees hp and tq gains just from switching fuels thanks to the flex fuel programming in the ECU. A more modern engine, with more modern engine management should be capable of larger gains without doing anything crazy to hardware specific to ethanol.
Curtis said:The short answer is, a flex fuel vehicle's big benefit is emissions. For all other purposes, the benefits and drawbacks cancel each other out.
I am a huge fan of reducing emissions (I'm a tree hugger) so I have considered flex fuel vehicles. Unfortunately, my current budget just afforded me a 1994 Mazda. Not many flex fuel vehicles in my price range.
So you know, I would not really consider E85 an emissions benefit. PM is non existent, NOx is lower, CO is kind of mixed, but HC are worse. And worse enough to be a problem. Plus you get various aldehydes that are not exactly good for you that gas does not do. And getting E85 start and get the catalysts going is tougher than gas. I really would not call it a net emissions benefit. It's even more confusing when you try to factor in CO2- is it should be neutral, but it's not.
Also, with many modern engines kissing 12:1 now, and that 90% of engines are knock limited at engine speeds that are actually used, E85 will help the overall power curve quite a bit- maybe not the max that much, but it will very much fatten up the lower engine speed parts.
Keith Tanner said:Curtis, you're ignoring The Case Of The Turbocharged Engine. They loooooove ethanol. You can make significantly more power with it because of the octane. It's basically great smelling race gas. We have a 1995 Miata here that's a daily driver that will scale itself between about 350 and 450 hp depending on what we pump into the tank, and the big numbers are on E85. IIRC it will run more boost which is effectively the same as a higher compression engine, but get a big part of the gains from jamming in a bunch of timing. This has a nice side effect of improving the turbo response too.
But on naturally aspirated engines, the gains are minimal. They're there - if you want to win CSP in a Miata, you had better be full of corn juice - but it's not enormous. I know that at least one of our members reports good success with E85 on the BRZ, and if they're using the lambda sensor to calculate alcohol content instead of just hoping that E85 is always 85% ethanal then I'm cool with that.
Yep, the BRZ is high enough compression it could take advantage of the E85. BIG midrange boost in power. On the dyno 15-20hp more than 91.
You just log it a bit everytime you fill it up. Keep an eye on STFT and LTFT and you're good to go.
The new Miata is even high compression, so I'd expect similar gains if it has the headroom in the fuel system to run E85.
alfadriver said:Curtis said:The short answer is, a flex fuel vehicle's big benefit is emissions. For all other purposes, the benefits and drawbacks cancel each other out.
I am a huge fan of reducing emissions (I'm a tree hugger) so I have considered flex fuel vehicles. Unfortunately, my current budget just afforded me a 1994 Mazda. Not many flex fuel vehicles in my price range.
So you know, I would not really consider E85 an emissions benefit. PM is non existent, NOx is lower, CO is kind of mixed, but HC are worse. And worse enough to be a problem. Plus you get various aldehydes that are not exactly good for you that gas does not do. And getting E85 start and get the catalysts going is tougher than gas. I really would not call it a net emissions benefit. It's even more confusing when you try to factor in CO2- is it should be neutral, but it's not.
Also, with many modern engines kissing 12:1 now, and that 90% of engines are knock limited at engine speeds that are actually used, E85 will help the overall power curve quite a bit- maybe not the max that much, but it will very much fatten up the lower engine speed parts.
I will agree that modern powerplants with higher compression do take better advantage E85. My point was more that (unless you have variable compression) one fuel will always be a compromise. You either run high compression and then crutch it with tuning on gas, or run lower compression and crutch it on E85.
I will disagree, though on emissions. Not disagree with your numbers, but disagree because you're looking at gross emissions, not net. Any of the NOx, CO, or HCs that you spit out the tailpipe on Ethanol had to first be manufactured by plants that extracted those components from the biosphere, not from fossil fuels. There is still a significant impact from fossil fuels in the process of making Ethanol, but the difference is staggering between fossil fuels and biofuels. Instead of dragging carbon up from decayed prehistoric stuff and spewing it into the atmosphere where it was never intended is a lot different than an ear of corn pulling things out of the biosphere and you simply returning it. Those elements already exist here. It doesn't matter if the corn falls to the ground and decomposes, or we turn it into alcohol and burn it. The only difference is that burning it temporarily turns it into something that will eventually make its way back into another ear of corn.
Granted, the way in which you return it (internal combustion) turns those HCs into some temporarily nasty things, but I would rather dump some HC that will degrade in a few months if it came from algae instead of fossil fuels. Burning biofuel is simply returning the same exact stuff that you took out of the atmosphere in a temporarily worse form. Fossil fuels are taking nasty stuff, turning into worse nasty stuff, and taking it from deep underground and putting it in our homes.
I chuckle all the time at CA's laws and perceptions concerning biofuels. If you drive a Prius burning fossil fuels, you can be in the commuter lane because you are saving the universe with a plastic car with batteries that have to be made in third-world countries that don't have emissions laws. Burn biodiesel in a 1985 Mercedes that has a lower net emissions profile and doesn't have the carbon impact of making a new vehicle? You're a dirty, filthy, cancer-inducing, mother-earth-hating, selfish bastard who wants to club baby seals and eat babies while they're still alive.
The big benefit I see with buying flex fuel is being "future-proofed" from whatever E10/15/20 they push on us.
Gearheadotaku said:The big benefit I see with buying flex fuel is being "future-proofed" from whatever E10/15/20 they push on us.
I'm cool with that, as long as they do it sensibly. I am just old enough to remember the last of leaded gasoline and my parents struggling to find leaded fuel for the 73 Nova we had.
Fast forward to now when no one cares and it is generally considered a good thing to not burn tetraethyl lead.
California changed some of the cars that can now go in car pool lane ,
Looks like many Hybrids are out , e85 has been out for years .
full electric or hydrogen are allowed and some plug in hybrids
Early Prius are out.....
If you were planning on buying a car just for the carpool lane privilege look at the new list ,
In a few years this will all go away as there will be too many EVs with one person driving in the carpool lanes that they will be as clogged as all the other lanes.....
Where is Elon and his tunnel when we need him !
z31maniac said:Keith Tanner said:Curtis, you're ignoring The Case Of The Turbocharged Engine. They loooooove ethanol. You can make significantly more power with it because of the octane. It's basically great smelling race gas. We have a 1995 Miata here that's a daily driver that will scale itself between about 350 and 450 hp depending on what we pump into the tank, and the big numbers are on E85. IIRC it will run more boost which is effectively the same as a higher compression engine, but get a big part of the gains from jamming in a bunch of timing. This has a nice side effect of improving the turbo response too.
But on naturally aspirated engines, the gains are minimal. They're there - if you want to win CSP in a Miata, you had better be full of corn juice - but it's not enormous. I know that at least one of our members reports good success with E85 on the BRZ, and if they're using the lambda sensor to calculate alcohol content instead of just hoping that E85 is always 85% ethanal then I'm cool with that.
Yep, the BRZ is high enough compression it could take advantage of the E85. BIG midrange boost in power. On the dyno 15-20hp more than 91.
You just log it a bit everytime you fill it up. Keep an eye on STFT and LTFT and you're good to go.
The new Miata is even high compression, so I'd expect similar gains if it has the headroom in the fuel system to run E85.
It doesn't even have to be direct injection type compression ratio's, my friend had a 2012-ish Silverado with the flex fuel 6.2 in it. The only bolt ons were an intake and long tubes. He had it tuned on 91 octane and e85 and would change between the tunes as needed. There was a noticeable (not huge, but definite seat of the pants) difference from the 91 octane tune and e85 tune. I'll see if he has the dyno numbers between the two tunes. The truck 6.2's of that timeframe where around 10.5, so on the higher end but nothing crazy.
Curtis said:I will disagree, though on emissions. Not disagree with your numbers, but disagree because you're looking at gross emissions, not net. Any of the NOx, CO, or HCs that you spit out the tailpipe on Ethanol had to first be manufactured by plants that extracted those components from the biosphere, not from fossil fuels. There is still a significant impact from fossil fuels in the process of making Ethanol, but the difference is staggering between fossil fuels and biofuels. Instead of dragging carbon up from decayed prehistoric stuff and spewing it into the atmosphere where it was never intended is a lot different than an ear of corn pulling things out of the biosphere and you simply returning it. Those elements already exist here. It doesn't matter if the corn falls to the ground and decomposes, or we turn it into alcohol and burn it. The only difference is that burning it temporarily turns it into something that will eventually make its way back into another ear of corn.
Granted, the way in which you return it (internal combustion) turns those HCs into some temporarily nasty things, but I would rather dump some HC that will degrade in a few months if it came from algae instead of fossil fuels. Burning biofuel is simply returning the same exact stuff that you took out of the atmosphere in a temporarily worse form. Fossil fuels are taking nasty stuff, turning into worse nasty stuff, and taking it from deep underground and putting it in our homes.
Can you explain that more?
NOx is a natural by product of combustion- you don't get that from the ground or (generally) when you make alcohol. When you get air hot enough, O2 and N2 will make NO, which is bad for you. So it's not "manufactured" anywhere but in the combustion chamber. CO is the same way- it's made when HC's don't fully combust, again, it's not part of the manufacturing process. HC is, though- it's just that you make it differently. Lots of HC's are released when alcohol is made, it's what you smell. It's a little tighter controlled for oil products, as the smell and health effects are bad enough that it's regulated from the source.
As for the harmful HC that get into the atmosphere, it matters a LOT whether you let enzymes turn starch into sugar and then let yeast turn that into CO2 and ethanol. By not doing the latter two steps, the break down of the corn don't make a lot of gasses that are harmful to your health. The chemicals created are very different from each other depending on what happens to the corn. Heck, if you let corn decompose, you actually end up holding some CO2 and HC's into a system that takes a lot of time to let it back out (if it ever does).
And I totally disagree about the Prius vs. the 1985 Mercedes. The NOx produced by the mercedes would not be part of the prius process, ever. And that's pretty bad for your health. Kill you fast by it's gas emissions vs. slow for the CO2, I suppose. There's also not enough 1985 diesel cars out there to move the planet, so new cars have to be built every year. The world will not move with used cars alone.....
(also, if you really think China does not have emissions rules, then you should catch up on the rules- they do, and they are pretty Draconian, thanks to the years of them being lax)
alfadriver said:Curtis said:I will disagree, though on emissions. Not disagree with your numbers, but disagree because you're looking at gross emissions, not net. Any of the NOx, CO, or HCs that you spit out the tailpipe on Ethanol had to first be manufactured by plants that extracted those components from the biosphere, not from fossil fuels. There is still a significant impact from fossil fuels in the process of making Ethanol, but the difference is staggering between fossil fuels and biofuels. Instead of dragging carbon up from decayed prehistoric stuff and spewing it into the atmosphere where it was never intended is a lot different than an ear of corn pulling things out of the biosphere and you simply returning it. Those elements already exist here. It doesn't matter if the corn falls to the ground and decomposes, or we turn it into alcohol and burn it. The only difference is that burning it temporarily turns it into something that will eventually make its way back into another ear of corn.
Granted, the way in which you return it (internal combustion) turns those HCs into some temporarily nasty things, but I would rather dump some HC that will degrade in a few months if it came from algae instead of fossil fuels. Burning biofuel is simply returning the same exact stuff that you took out of the atmosphere in a temporarily worse form. Fossil fuels are taking nasty stuff, turning into worse nasty stuff, and taking it from deep underground and putting it in our homes.
Can you explain that more?
NOx is a natural by product of combustion- you don't get that from the ground or (generally) when you make alcohol. When you get air hot enough, O2 and N2 will make NO, which is bad for you. So it's not "manufactured" anywhere but in the combustion chamber. CO is the same way- it's made when HC's don't fully combust, again, it's not part of the manufacturing process. HC is, though- it's just that you make it differently. Lots of HC's are released when alcohol is made, it's what you smell. It's a little tighter controlled for oil products, as the smell and health effects are bad enough that it's regulated from the source.
As for the harmful HC that get into the atmosphere, it matters a LOT whether you let enzymes turn starch into sugar and then let yeast turn that into CO2 and ethanol. By not doing the latter two steps, the break down of the corn don't make a lot of gasses that are harmful to your health. The chemicals created are very different from each other depending on what happens to the corn. Heck, if you let corn decompose, you actually end up holding some CO2 and HC's into a system that takes a lot of time to let it back out (if it ever does).
And I totally disagree about the Prius vs. the 1985 Mercedes. The NOx produced by the mercedes would not be part of the prius process, ever. And that's pretty bad for your health. Kill you fast by it's gas emissions vs. slow for the CO2, I suppose. There's also not enough 1985 diesel cars out there to move the planet, so new cars have to be built every year. The world will not move with used cars alone.....
(also, if you really think China does not have emissions rules, then you should catch up on the rules- they do, and they are pretty Draconian, thanks to the years of them being lax)
As I stated, you're still making yucky stuff with any combustion, but the point is, it eventually returns to non-yucky stuff. The difference is that an ear of corn pulls Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen from the atmosphere and soil to make its product. Once the yucky stuff you make from combustion returns to its non-yucky form, it hasn't augmented the carbon or hydrogen that already exists in the biosphere. Fossil fuels augment the atmosphere with those elements by extracting it from beneath the biosphere and dumping it in our space.
So yes, the 85 Mercedes is putting more yucky stuff from the tailpipe than the Prius. The difference is, 100% of the yucky HC stuff from the Prius is sourced from outside the biosphere vs. far less in the Mercedes. I'm speaking of the hydrogen and carbon. Both make NOx from the atmosphere, but the offset from the fact that the hydrocarbons come from up here instead of down there by far offsets the net emissions. A large portion of the biodiesel mercedes' emissions is "recycled" from up here instead of made fresh from down there.
A short article HERE
It is also important to note that the batteries are assembled in China and Japan, but the raw materials are mostly sourced from elsewhere, sometimes places without strict emissions laws... or any at all.
Sudbury provides most of the Nickel and (aside from the completely editorial nature of this story) has really suffered a lot from its production
You'll need to log in to post.
