Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Re: [GMCnet] E10 Ethanol (was: RE: What the?)
| Re: [GMCnet] E10 Ethanol (was: RE: What the?) [message #66846] |
Sun, 06 December 2009 10:24  |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi, Gary.
Thanks for the additional info. My vehicles are all "somewhat" current
technology with a 1999 GMC Sierra 2500 with 6.0L gas V-8 and 2002 Ford
Explorer with 4.0L gas V-6 engines. They, as you said, probably are
capable of adapting "mo-betta" with the E10 fuels. With the "modern"
vehicles getting as much as 25 mpg, the 4% mileage deficit would only
amount to 1 mpg. For my GMC p/u truck at 15 mpg on highway, I'm seeing
MAYBE 1/2 mpg difference at most. Certainly not enough to convince me
to go out and spring for payments for 5 or 6 years to gain a few mpg.
Pretty much the same for wife's Explorer which MAY get 20 mpg on a trip
if it is driven at a steady 60 mph. Incidentally, that speed is likely
to gain you enmity of 99.9% of other Oklahoma drivers. The Ford truck
is Diesel propulsion, so not involved here.
If, and that's a BIG if, a GMC coach engine is in good condition along
with its fuel system, pump(s), carburetors, etc., I don't believe that
using E10 should cause more than 1/2 mpg decrease in observed fuel
mileage.
It's ALL ABOUT having your powerplant running in tip-top condition.
D C "Mac" Macdonald
Oklahoma City, OK
p.s. Whadayagot, Gary, and where? You have my email address.
* In my many years, I have come to the conclusion that one useless *
* man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is Congress. *
* -- John Adams (1735- 1826) *
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 07:04:27 -0800
From: casey.gary@yahoo.com
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] E10 Ethanol (was: RE: What the?)
Good post, Mac.
I can help with your desire to join the GMCMH gang - I have my eye
on another one I would like, but have to sell this one first :-).
Anyway, I did a little research on the subject:
Ethanol, on a per gallon basis, as 61% as much energy as gasoline. So
the example of E10 would contain .9 X 125,000 + 0.1 X 76,000 BTU per
gallon, or 120,100 BTU per gallon, a loss of about 4%. Modern cars
might be more adaptive. In the old days spark timing was an open-loop
affair with someone determining that over the life of the car in all
operating conditions that the spark advance should be no more than X.
Engines were either octane-limited or power-limited and often the
compression ratio was lowered so they were power-limited (meaning
that the spark could be advanced beyond MBT without detonation).
With modern knock sensing and spark control, often with the advance
for each cylinder controlled separately, the compression ratio could
be raised so that the engine is always octane-limited. That relies
on the control system to protect the engine. Put in E10 and the
controller can advance the spark a little, taking advantage of the
higher octane that might accompany the addition of 10% ethanol.
I say "might" because the refiner could use a lower octane base
stock when he knows he will be adding 10% ethanol. And another
thing - just because the pump has a label "can contain up to 10%
ethanol" doesn't mean that is how much is actually there.
Gary
Not too many interesting vehicles, but I do have a Honda scooter...
---- Original Message ----
I have been watching this big hoorah with some interest.
I have recorded my fuel usage and consumption figures
for well over 45 years. When the ethanol started being
added to our gasoline, I heard many tales of "disaster"
claiming one thing and another.
At first, I did notice that my fuel milage was maybe one
to one and a half mpg lower using the E10 fuel. However,
as "pure" gasoline became harder to find, I found that my
mpg results with E10 gradually came up over several month
to be virtually indistinguishable from those when using the
100% gasoline. For awhile last summer, many stations
went back to "pure" gasoline as their costs for that dropped
below those for the E10 mixture! Guess what! My mileage
results did not change in any noticeable amount.
I have been told by petroleum folks that ethanol has 10%
less energy content than regular gasoline. Assuming that
is true, and that the maximum portion of added ethanol
is 10%, I believe you could state that in 100 gallons of
E10, you would have 90 gallons of gasoline and 10 of
ethanol. Calculate it out and that would be 90 times
100% and 10 times 90% giving equivalent of 99 gallons
of gasoline. That's a ONE percent drop, folks ! !
Admitedly, running E10 fuel through a fuel system that
has been sitting for many years is going to result in lots
of crud moving through lines, carburetor passages, etc.
I also remember another experience with a 64 1/2 Ford
Mustang that I bought new. That buggy started running
rough and wouldn't make over 3,000 rpm. I went to an
Amoco station and filled up with their premium, which was
totally unleaded fuel. Within two tankfuls of the "good
stuff" cleaning out the old stuff, the buggy was back to
getting 5,000 rpm when wound out and an indicated
top speed of about 110-115.
My point is, that while the E10 may initially clog things
up and cause all sorts of grief, it might be advisable for
ANYBODY buying any vehicle that has set unused for a
long time to take whatever measures necessary to do
a flushing/cleaning of the entire fuel system. It might
even take more than one initial shot to get things right.
Be prepared to change filters frequently for the first
couple of thousand miles.
I may have to sell off some of my other motorized toys
to be able to join the GMC MH gang.
As always, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
D C "Mac" Macdonald
Oklahoma City, OK
2004 F250SD Diesel 4x4
2000 Cedar Creek TT
1995 Carver 355AC
1997 SugarSand Mirage
2000 HD FLTRSEI
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] E10 Ethanol (was: RE: What the?) [message #66921 is a reply to message #66846] |
Tue, 08 December 2009 06:23  |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Response to K2Gkk note of Sun, 06 December 2009 11:24
Mac,
According to your inventory, all your vehicles are processor controlled closed loop fuel control systems. The difference between that and any open loop (no oxygen sensor) can be most remarkable. Any closed loop engine can more readily accommodate the changes in fuel composition. Even with this, some vehicles do not do E-10 as well as others.
If an engine has knock controlled ignition it may do better, but it still can show a difference. One of my cars will even get 10% better fuel rate with a 92/premium fuel. So, if the price difference is less than that, I buy premium. I did a portion of the development on this engine family and have records for the last ten years and 150+k that confirm this.
The whole game changes with the flintlock technology that most of us still use. I have only had my coach on no-OH fuel a few times, but the records are very clear. It is just exactly what we saw in the labs I was working in during the introduction of alcohol to motor fuels in the late 70's and early 80's. If an engine designed for 87RON is properly maintained, there is no emissions improvement for the addition of either ethanol or methanol to the base fuel. There is always a fuel rate penalty. This is predicable because the open loop systems cannot accommodate the lower performance fuel without sacrificing engine performance.
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] E10 Ethanol (was: RE: What the?) [message #66935 is a reply to message #66928] |
Tue, 08 December 2009 09:10 |
Larry C
Messages: 1168
Registered: July 2004
Location: NE Illinois by the Illino...
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I suspect the group got a hold of some of the 15% mix in route as all reported the problems subsided after fueling in Colorado.
__________________________________________________________________
I am guessing that the problems were caused by the CrapOhol.
This brings me to wonder if it would be beneficial to us if we had a fuel support system, not to run the engine wholly but to assist the engine when it has to burn the CrapOhol.
Maybe a minor propane injection or hydrogen or Nitrice system to over come the effects ( other then fouling ) of the CrapOhol.
It is incredible that this man created problem ( arent they all ) has been or even had to be endured and the down side is I don't think this is the end of it.
The writing was on the wall when the EPA tests stopped testing the older carborated cars. Only the cars with onboard computers are tested now and the Cash for Clunkers is a big eye opener as well.
The other finger pointer is the fact that cars today are not built for long term operation, they are all throwaways, to be recycled to build another throwaway. Their operational lifespan is limited and the low maintenance attitude, ( no chasis lube points, part warrenties "for the life of the part") and high cost of repairs is yet another hint of where it is going
It gets scary when you think where its all going.
LarC ( Thinking our "antique" vehicles will last as long as we can keep burning corn
)
Gatsbys' CRUISER  08-18-04
74 GLACIER X, 260/455-APC-4 Bagg'r
Remflex Manifold gaskets
CampGrounds needed, Add yours to "PLACES" />
http://www.gmceast.com/travel
_
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Oct 27 01:25:20 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02781 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
