I did a search, couldnt find a good answer.

Does anyone know if Ethanol is good value as its 4c PL cheaper than unleaded, but does it give you the same K's per litre?

I would think it would burn a lot quicker than Petrol and therefore not be worth the alleged savings.

Nah, I cant see the advantage, I think it would need to be a lot cheaper to give any value.

I was thinking of doing a full tank comparison, just to check.

But all in all, they say these Bio fuels (or one made from sugar/alcohol etc) are leading to food shortages in poor countries anyway, since petrol companies are paying more than people can afford to feed themselves.

So for now, I will stick to unleaded.

Using ethanol is a false economy. You have to burn more fuel with ethanol in it to go the same distance than you would with normal fuel.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=59627

Using ethanol is a false economy. You have to burn more fuel with ethanol in it to go the same distance than you would with normal fuel.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=59627

Cool, thanx for that, documented evidence is exactly what I was looking for. Just proves my initial thoughts.

I use the 94 octane ethanol stuff from liberty pretty much all the time in my car. I didn't notice any difference in economy or performance between that and normal unleaded and it's a tiny bit cheaper so why not. When I finally get around to chucking a new engine in my car and do a bit of work on it ill swap to 95 or 98 octane with a tune...

e85 is the go when it becomes widely available..for power that is

^ E85 is good. BUT it is a very dry fuel. Also, it burns MUCH hotter then regular petrol.

You need a MUCH larger fuel system for it as well.

^ E85 is good. BUT it is a very dry fuel. Also, it burns MUCH hotter then regular petrol.

You need a MUCH larger fuel system for it as well.

Try and tell the guys on MCA that. I posted in there a while ago saying you'd need bigger injectors etc, and got shot down by a bunch of experts telling me the stock injectors in all cars will be able to handle it etc.

^ *lol* What ever... n00bs. Have they actually played with the stuff?

To use it on a stock evo for example you need AT LEAST a 500hp walbro intank fuel pump and a set of 1000cc injectors.. thats almost twice the size of factory..

Just remember, there is no such thing as free power.. I think Ill stick to 98RON for now, and follow what the Japanese are doing. They hate E85. the Americans seem to love instant, cheap power which is why it is a hit over there, but they are always rebuilding thier motors and such...

Hence why I stay away from MCA. Too many experts whose "mate's" car did this and that so it's gotta be gospel. Or their "mate" is a mechanic so they know everything.

E85 seems like a risk to me - so much heat generated it's not funny. Good power yes, but like you say Tonba, for how long before it all goes bang?

I am a Mech. I have nothing good to say about the E85.
I have done many rebuilds due to tha fact that the owners have used ethanol. (Ethanol is what they use in Top Fuelers-its alcohol. These engines were designed to be run flatout on this fuel down the strip) not ya everyday car.
It may be cheaper to fill, but it has consequences for older cars, which ppl drive cause they cant afford newer ones.
it eats away rubber fuel lines which leads to replacment injectors and carburettor cleaning, can destroy fuel pumps, pre timing of ignition (detonation/ping- rattle under load) which creates more heat and leads to overheating, complaining about the performance of it, and engine after run(runs for 2/3 secs after u turn it off)
Unless you want to put more money into your you ol'gal go right ahead.
Americans love it... beacause its cheap and quick and it still gets u to where ya wanna go.. but ya next stop maybe a garage.
If ya so worried about cheap fuel go buy a Prius of a Hybrid Honda.

Not worth it. I had run my car on E10 for while when fuel prices skyrocketed past $1.50 in 2007. After a while I noticed a deterioration in performance, economy and occasional skipping/slight jolt from the motor when driving. Switched back to ULP and no problems.

I am a Mech. I have nothing good to say about the E85.
I have done many rebuilds due to tha fact that the owners have used ethanol. (Ethanol is what they use in Top Fuelers-its alcohol. These engines were designed to be run flatout on this fuel down the strip) not ya everyday car.
It may be cheaper to fill, but it has consequences for older cars, which ppl drive cause they cant afford newer ones.
it eats away rubber fuel lines which leads to replacment injectors and carburettor cleaning, can destroy fuel pumps, pre timing of ignition (detonation/ping- rattle under load) which creates more heat and leads to overheating, complaining about the performance of it, and engine after run(runs for 2/3 secs after u turn it off)
Unless you want to put more money into your you ol'gal go right ahead.
Americans love it... beacause its cheap and quick and it still gets u to where ya wanna go.. but ya next stop maybe a garage.
If ya so worried about cheap fuel go buy a Prius of a Hybrid Honda.

Wow.

Its amazing how wrong so much of that is.

Top Fuelers run on Nitromethane combined with methanol (90/10% mix). They do not run on ethanol. God dam :kb:

As for detonation, yup - thats why cars are meant to be tuned to the fuel they use. Not put a fuel in and expect it to just work.

I bet this is a similar discussion to what occured when 'unleaded' came in. Nothing but mis-information and fear mongering.

So much misinformation about all ignition engine fuel types!

I don't use E10; being in the bush its not available. However when we were doing the cam and head tests Graham was filling with E10 all the time. I didn't detect any issues at all and when we were in a place where he could only get unleaded or premium he filled with premium and there was no difference performance wise.

All fuel named "petrol" can be a blend of up to about 100 compounds. It is not a pure substance. Depending on what is most economical, whats in storage from other refining operations, what octane is needed, the climate etc the companies blend. Currently they can only use a maximum 5% benzol by law due to cancer, before that there was up to 40% in petrol. Remember BP, "benzol power" advertising. Then there is Shell with "methyl benzine". Thats toluol from the coke ovens when coal is coked. Its a solvent and paint thinner. Great octanc booster so common in large amounts during summer, and lesser amounts in winter due to causing starting difficulties. It was the main ingredient in F1 turbo fuel, and still makes up about 40% of F1 fuel. Premium and 98 have more toluol to increase the octane, raise the fuel density and so improve fuel economy. A heavy fuel contains more energy, more carbon and hydrogen atoms so when in closed loop mode the ECU can reduce injector pulse width and reduce fuel consumption. Xylene, another paint thinner and great octane booster, is also added, particularly to premium and 98. Then there's acetone, alkylates etc etc. These blends change all the time. Professional race teams buy up a 12 month supply at a time so that the engine tune and development isn't affected by fuel variations. Even very expensive race fuels that are carefully blended have batch numbers so that racers can buy from a single batch, so can report improvements or problems with certain batches.

Ethanol is a pure fuel, so is methanol(legally both fuels have to be "doped" before they can be sold to the public. Metho is ethanol doped with 5-10% methanol depending on the country's law. 100% ethanol in the USA is actually 97% ethanol and 3% petrol). Both have good refrigerant qualities so if not run lean they cool the engine internally. In fact frosting/icing of the manifolds and throttles can be an issue. Both have very high octane levels too. The main negatives are they attack some rubbers and plastics, they absorb water so can cause corrosion to steel and non-anodised aluminium(in competition water may be added to allow a leaner mixture and improve economy and to act as an anti-detonant), and they have less energy per volume so more has to be burned to produce power. A naturally aspirated engine built and tuned for ethanol or methanol will produce more HP, about 15-17% for methanol and 11-14% for ethanol is typical compared to 100/130 avgas.

If the car maker states that E10 is suitable then you can be sure that the use of it won't harm the car. It has fuel tank, injectors, hoses etc that are ethanol resistant. Most European cars are only suitable for E5.

Is E10 worth it? That depends on the price saving, the octane of the E10 and type of car you drive. You burn about 3.5% more fuel so 91 octane E10 wastes money unless you spend most of your time in open loop mode. Most places I've seen E10 in the cities it was 2-3 cents cheaper than unleaded and about 10-12 cents cheaper than premium so 94/95 octane E10 saves money if your engine needs a 95 octane fuel. It may also save money in cars with knock sensors as these are typically built with a high compression ratio for 95/98 octane and use the sensor to cut back spark advance when knock is detected when using 91 octane. So with more advance there will be better economy.

Is E10 "green" and good for the environment? Definately not, but it may allow us another energy source so we can use our cars longer.

Cheers,
Alan

I was actually referring to the whether or not it is as economical as Standard Unleaded.
As I would think it would burn faster, so negating the cost benefit of it being cheaper.

Didnt meant to start a gang war! :uzi::rocket:

Edit: BTW thanks for some of the in depth responses. Nice info.

i use the 98 ethanol fuel all the time never have any problems car runs really well

I have a TE, so 98, from what I have read, is almost useless.

I use E10 exclusively in both my TJ and TH with no dramas. In fact if I switch back to "standard" ULP my consumption figures go from mid 8's Ltrs/ 100kms to mid 12's Ltrs/ 100kms and takes at least three tanks to get back down.
They run like dogs too when on the non E10.
They feel stronger (power and torque wise) when on the E10.
E10 = 700kms + per tank vs ULP = 550kms per tank.

Useless fact below:
Chrysler will void your warranty if your'e caught running "standard" ULP. E10 only.

i use e10 all the time not really any difference

Hmmm,

I feel like doing a full tank comparison now.

Just filled up yesterday tho. Being cheap Wednesday.

Have to give it a go next week.

Practically all Australian built cars can run perfectly fine on E10 fuel, including every generation of Magna and 380. If an E10 fuel is causing pinging or loss of power its a sign that there may be another problem with the engine.

Ethanol is an excellent solvent, it can dissolve sludge in the fuel lines and tank which may cause a few issues for some people, but overall these are simply picked up by the fuel filter (which is why its there) or is burned off. Supposedly the engine will end up being cleaner.

If E10 is supposed to be so bad for fuel economy, then E85 would have to be significantly worse again! I suspect running E10 requires the ECU to re-learn, such as people claim when installing a K&N filter, new exhaust etc etc. If they require the ECU to re-learn, then E10 would require it moreso!

The food shortage issue isn't one! At least not in Australia. In Australia the ethanol is derived from sugarcane, something that we aren't in short supply of, something that isn't really a food product (its a non-essential additive), would probably be good to go without for the most part (we consume too much), and is perfect for ethanol production. In other countries they use whatever they can get their hands on, which is typically proper food crops. In the US, they use a lot of corn which is stupid as it is a poor product for producing ethanol.

What people in Australia should really be annoyed with is the $50 billion gas deal announced the other week. Politicians love tipping facts in their favour, its definitely not worth $50 billion to Australia, all Australia will see from the deal is a few royalty payments and tax. Much of the labour will go to overseas Visa (and probably non Visa!) holders. The companies involved are Mobil and a chinese petroleum company, and the LNG is being sold for less than or barely scraping market price.

Why is this relevant? because Australia imports 40 percent of out petroleum, and we don't need to! LNG is perfect to be turned in to petroleum products including petrol using one of the various gas to liquids (GTL) processes. GTL would also mean cheaper petrol as its cheaper to product petrol through GTL than refining it here or importing it from overseas! A GTL plant could also produce higher quality fuel at no extra cost, meaning the standard fuel could be 98 or even 100+ by default. Did I mention its also more environmentally friendly? I have heard there is a tiny GTL plant starting up in Victoria I think, no doubt the politicians will milk that.

Australia is more about getting the quick buck or vote buying than actually doing anything for the long term. We always have been. Australia has invented many things that people use in everyday life, and we could have been a much more prosperous country if we took advantage of those things. Instead these things have just gone overseas or sold overseas without capitalising on them here.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, Australia contributes 1 percent (thats right, 1 percent) to the worlds Carbon emission. The latest figure was from 2005 said 1.1, but China and India have increased emissions thus reducing our contribution. Anyways, through this emission trading crap that the government is putting forward, if we cut our emissions by 10 percent, that means a reduction on a world wide scale of 0.1 percent contribution.

The current carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is just below 390ppm, which seasonally varies by around 3ppm. The current increase is around 2ppm annually. Now, consider 40 years time thats 80ppm increase, so by 2050 it would roughly be 470ppm at current emissions. When you consider Australian reduction of 10 percent (so 0.1 percent on a global scale) that would equate to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2050 of 469.92ppm. Thats right, a decrease of 10 percent of emissions from Australia equates to a difference of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2050 of 0.08ppm! The seasonal variation is 3ppm! Now, consider Australia losing business to overseas where they have no emissions policy (and if they did the companies wouldn't abide by it), the reduction of 10 percent (or more) in Australia could equate to actually increasing CO2 since we're moving those production costs overseas!

So work out the logic in the emissions trading plan. It is purely a vote buying scam playing on peoples fear, rational or not, of climate change. Even if Australia stopped emissions completely overnight, in 2050 the reduction would be from 470ppm to 469.2ppm (thats right, an 80ppm increase, Australia contributing 1 percent). People wonder why the opposition was opposed to it!

Now this all comes back to ethanol. In effect, due to the transportation and processing of it (since they're not currently biofuel/bioblend bases), the 10 percent reduction in CO2 actually equates to roughly 5 percent reduction in CO2 of the ethanol alone. This reduction is not from the exhaust, its considering that the carbon dioxide was effectively pre-recycled through the source of the ethanol.

So from an environmental, and economic standpoint ethanol isn't a bad thing for Australia. In terms of what it does to your car, it doesn't affect it and if it does run badly on it its probably due to another reason. I would be very reluctant to see Americans view on ethanol as they have been stuck in their ways, and Japan have in reality very little care for the environment. I'm not talking about their whale killing etc, I'm talking about their cutting down of rainforests, especially in eco-sensitive areas, and their general attitude to other people. Afterall, climate change isn't affecting Japan in such a negative way as other countries, they just don't want to 'lose face' over it.

In terms of Americans, GM spent hundreds of millions (I heard a billion but even americans can't be that stupid) on their pushrod 2V 5.7L V8 in the late 90's (might have even been more recent and the 6.0L), and when they had problems selling thatwhat did they do? they increased it to 6.0L, using the same crappy tech. When they realised that wasn't selling they increased the size to 6.2L.

Ford still had their olf 5.4L V8 which Ford Australia were using for a while, which was a very inefficient V8. That only recently went to a DOHC and the QOHC (used in the FPV's) is an Australian design and head built here. They have become a lot better now, but their 3.5L V6 they wanted to put in the Falcon over here actually had less power, less torque at a higher RPM, and used more fuel than the then current BF Falcon (the FG Falcon has improved on the fuel and power figures). The only reason why the engine was considered was it was a fully alloy engine which reached proper operating temperature quicker and meeting the Euro V standards, whereas the Falcon only gets there once the engine is warm.

The principal of the point is many Americans would be opposed to it because they are from a certain sector of American 'industry', some that just hate it because they hate change like with the engines, or they hate it because they have ties to oil companies that could only lose out from the deal.

In terms of the test on that Drive site, I'd say it was a little suspicious. The E10 fuel shouldn't use 10 percent more fuel, that just doesn't make sense. Personally I think economy is great out of e10 fuel, I'd go as far as to say its probably slightly better more than anything, since I've been running it for a while and its cleaned my fuel lines and injectors, and the ECU has adjusted for it. The cleaning of the system and keeping it clean would overcome the possible slight reduction in fuel economy.

I can't see how catalytic converters could be damaged by ethanol fuel either, since ethanol is C2H5OH, it doesn't introduce anything foreign into the cycle, the output is exactly the same as normal fuel (carbon dioxide and water). In fact, ethanol burns more completely than fuel, so the supposed power loss and fuel economy reduction due to a lower energy fuel is counteracted by the cleaner burning process of the ethanol. The possible effects on catalytic converters overseas is more likely due to other additives they happened to put in to the fuel.

I didn't mean to rant but I just wanted to make some valid points about the pros' and cons of ethanol fuel in a wide scope, and also to submit my POV about these gas deals which are actually bad for Australia, especially considering the $50 billion LNG project is really only worth say, $5 billion to Australia when it could have easily been worth upwards of $150 billion over 30 years using it strictly for GTL through reduced bowser costs, increased productivity due to cheaper fuel, the profits from it remaining in australia (even as LNG thats $50 billion straight out), replacing the 40 percent fuel import (alone meaning a very good thing for trade balance) and actually exporting it to New Zealand, Asia, particularly Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries and the royalties and tax from those projects could have gone in to proper environmental tasks such as developing wave power and geothermal power, both of which are the only renewable (actually geothermal technically isn't renewable but anyways) energy resources that can provide baseload power.

Ethanol vs Unleaded, run a few tanks of it then decide :)

burfadel: Wow, did you do your thesis on this or something?

nice copy and paste job.

tonba, dunno why your saying ethanol burns hotter (in particular e85).. it burns cooler.. the cooling affect is one of the main advantages

The food shortage issue isn't one! At least not in Australia. In Australia the ethanol is derived from sugarcane, something that we aren't in short supply of, something that isn't really a food product (its a non-essential additive), would probably be good to go without for the most part (we consume too much), and is perfect for ethanol production. In other countries they use whatever they can get their hands on, which is typically proper food crops. In the US, they use a lot of corn which is stupid as it is a poor product for producing ethanol.

Now this all comes back to ethanol. In effect, due to the transportation and processing of it (since they're not currently biofuel/bioblend bases), the 10 percent reduction in CO2 actually equates to roughly 5 percent reduction in CO2 of the ethanol alone. This reduction is not from the exhaust, its considering that the carbon dioxide was effectively pre-recycled through the source of the ethanol.

So from an environmental, and economic standpoint ethanol isn't a bad thing for Australia.

Ford still had their olf 5.4L V8 which Ford Australia were using for a while, which was a very inefficient V8. That only recently went to a DOHC and the QOHC (used in the FPV's) is an Australian design and head built here.

In terms of the test on that Drive site, I'd say it was a little suspicious. The E10 fuel shouldn't use 10 percent more fuel, that just doesn't make sense.

In Australia the ethanol is derived from sugarcane
CSR ethanol is from sugarcane and it's so called by-product molasses. There are other ethanol producers, and they get it from fermenting wheat. Molasses isn't a waste product either. Its used in the manufacture of stock feeds mainly but overall goes into the manufacture of hundreds of different products including vitamins and minerals, is used for rust removal, restoration of soils wrecked by chlorinated hydrocarbons etc and using it in ethanol production pushes up the price of these other products.

due to the transportation and processing of it
That is only a fraction of the environmental cost. It takes a lot of energy to farm sugar cane and wheat, spray it with dangerous chemicals to kill weeds and bugs, harvest it. To produce ethanol uses a huge amount of energy. The distallation process is no different than when distilling whisky, rum, vodka etc. The difference with ethanol is that all water has to be boiled off. In making spirits usually about 22% water remains. So for ethanol the distallation has to be repeated over several times.

QOHC (used in the FPV's) is an Australian design and head built here
The engine should be properly be called a DOHC but some manufacturers want to make it sound better. It isn't an Aust design. It started life as a 4.6 ltr in the Mustang. Ford Aust knew that that was too small and revvy to compete with the LS1 Gen III so they bolted the 4 valve Mustang heads on the long stroke cast iron truck block. The rods were too weak so they had Argo make steel rods for it in Morpeth, NSW. Argo previously had a contract with Ford to make about 200 sets of rods for the last Windsor blocks that ended up as 5.6 ltr stroker engines in the AU III, 250kw from memory. Aust did it first but the 4 valve 5.4 is made in America and sold in American models too.

E10 fuel shouldn't use 10 percent more
In open loop mode fuel consumption will remain the same. So hard drivers see very little drop in economy. In closed loop mode it varies with the particular engine. If the spark can be advanced for 95 octane E10 then consumption may not increase, or only increase 1-1.5%. If the timing can't be changed or there is no knock sensor then when in closed loop mode consumption increases up to about 3.5%. So worse case increase shouldn't be worse than 3.5%, and about 2.5% will be more likely.

Cheers,
Alan

I would have expected there to be a few errors in i, I was up all night and wrote it in the morning :) it didn't take me long to write it!. I agree in terms of Molasses, I was more referring to when its refined we should be using that sugar for ethanol production, as its much better than putting loads of it needlessly in foods and drink :)

The Ford engine info was based on what I heard ages ago that the heads were hand built in Australia for the GT's but I could have been mistaken!

tonba, dunno why your saying ethanol burns hotter (in particular e85).. it burns cooler.. the cooling affect is one of the main advantages

No, thats where you are wrong. It burns MUCH hotter then regular fuel.

Look, 'normal' petrol burns at 550*C. It burns red.
Ethanol burns at 700*C. It burns blue.

The chemical cooling of ethanol, only effects the intake air, not the burn temperature. Its like N20, it cools, allowing more timing, but burns hotter.

Why do you think E85, when burnt, leaves little or no carbon deposits?

http://www.content4reprint.com/environment/ethanol-as-an-alternative-fuel-source.htm

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id1.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k550151j73u34811/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/what-biofuels-are-in-development-53180

http://www.flexfuelkit.com.au/articles/3/1/E85-Ethanol-Myths/Page1.html

http://umakeethanol.com/methanol-fuel-production.php

http://umakeethanol.com/methanol-fuel-production.php

Seven different sites there Tonba saying the opposite of what you have posted. Ive you have a quick google search, you will find many, many more.

No, thats where you are wrong. It burns MUCH hotter then regular fuel.

Look, 'normal' petrol burns at 550*C. It burns red.
Ethanol burns at 700*C. It burns blue.

The chemical cooling of ethanol, only effects the intake air, not the burn temperature. Its like N20, it cools, allowing more timing, but burns hotter.

Why do you think E85, when burnt, leaves little or no carbon deposits?


ok so where has that come from? you are stating exact figures there..

ever single bit of evidence ive seen re e85 states lower burn temps.. hence the MASSIVE power increases EVERYONE in AUSTRALIA and USA sees using e85..

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem07/chem07060.htm

Contributing

No, thats where you are wrong. It burns MUCH hotter then regular fuel.

Look, 'normal' petrol burns at 550*C. It burns red.
Ethanol burns at 700*C. It burns blue.

The chemical cooling of ethanol, only effects the intake air, not the burn temperature. Its like N20, it cools, allowing more timing, but burns hotter.

Why do you think E85, when burnt, leaves little or no carbon deposits?

E85 leaves fewer carbon deposits because its a more pure fuel. Petrol contains tars and waxes, often 2-3% residue is permitted by govt legislation, that burn slowly and dirtily and contribute nothing to making power. The carbon deposits are mainly the residue from those tars and waxes. Can petrol refiners remove them? Yes but govt regulations permit them to remain. Its like buying and paying for meat with fat you can't benefit from. In expensive race fuels more of this rubbish is removed by more intense cracking.

Cheers,
Alan

It is personal preference at the end of the day. I think it was psychological for me not to use E10 just because there is no sticker on the fuel tank lid saying "E10 suitable" . furthermore, I saw a decline in fuel economy which rendered it not worth the cheaper 4cpl price. And, my engine is not tuned for E10's octane rating of 94, (my opinion might have been different if it was).

using my real world experience with my corolla

it has always run on a minimum`of 95 RON

It now run exclusive on 98 RON

Why well there was a time when I could not afford to fill up with my choice of fuel

saving of 4 cents a litre on a 44L fill up ended up costing me over $1000 big ones and a good six months of my time chasing a problem that my mechanic and Toyota could not nail down
A full rebuild of the fuel system solved the problem so I will no longer used E10

I understand ethanol would loosen gum build up but fuel filter came up clean and no build up in the pristine tank or lines as pressure tests were all better than expected

Toyota advised me to no longer use E10 even though they advise that the car is suitable for E10. This is to avoid any future problems

This is my experience and my 380 has had several tanks full of E10 to give the system a clean and power was down but I put that down to gum removal
and the ECU relearning

E85 I dont think any aussie built cars can take E85 I thought the only car to be able to take advantage of E85 was the SAAB biopower 9-5

And Burf great post mate
Too much short sightedness on the part of our governments have made us lose so many technologies to other countries and dont get me started on the history of IT

ummmm isnt the big point of the VEs that its E85 ready.. im sure that their is even a badge on it saying it although i could be wrong. im sure someone will let me know.

In my Magna i use united E10 95 Octane. its the same price as normal 91 Ron... ive been using E10 for about 4 years now and ive never had a problem with it what so ever!
it really is each to their own!
do you know that the normal 91ron BP stuff is E10 as well?

Holden's new Director of Energy and Environment, Richard Marshall


On the flexible fuel front, Holden is placing most of its near-future stocks with the already popular LPG and E85. The company has already announced an E85-ready Commodore range for 2010.
"E85 will take a few years to roll out," Marshall admits.
"We're looking at getting all Holden's product E85-ready in the next 5-10 years. It's a fair bet that's how long it'll take to get the infrastructure in place."

Not there yet and with the GEC may not happen for a while due to GM restructing

ummmm isnt the big point of the VEs that its E85 ready..

you cant have a car that will run on e85 and standard 91 oct unleaded ... to run e85 you need a VERY different tune ....

so, no, there will be no commodore that is e85 ready.... it will either run on e85 ONLY or it wont run on e85 at all

^ Well, Company's make devices that can measure the ethanol content in the tank, zeitronix is one.

Is possible that with the help of one of these devices, dual maps on the ecu that are automatically trigered andd provided the pump, and injectors can flow the amount, that a car could run either 91 octane, or E85, without needing a retune, and without needing any inputs from the driver.

Not saying the commodores have this.

Just saying what is possible, if a car company wanted to do it.

The VE commodores are only E10 compatible at this stage.

^ Well, Company's make devices that can measure the ethanol content in the tank, zeitronix is one.


i wasnt aware of such a device.. thanks for the info stevies

i tried gull E10 mix once here in NZ, rated 98ron and i found my fuel comsumption was up a bit and seemed a bit sluggish. didnt use it again as i figured im not tuned for 98 and been off work need the best economy i can get ha ha

So much misinformation about all ignition engine fuel types!.......... E10 "green" and good for the environment? Definately not, but it may allow us another energy source so we can use our cars longer.

Cheers,
Alan

Great info Alan we should use this as a reference document somewhere on this site, so everytime someone mentions this topic it can be reffered to. Just wondering if you have seen this...

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_110350/article.html

??

I have a tank of E10 in at them moment. It will help get rid of any moisture in the system. I am a fastidious watcher of my economy and have noted a definite difference in performance and economy. Will run the whole tank and give a comparison but I wouldn't run it regularly.

If an EMS has a knock sensor it can compensate for Ethanol. I have been in discussion with some crazy Swedes in the Volvo community who are runnign E85, all that is really neede is some supplementary fuel volume ability.
If injectors are upsized and teh pump can flow the amount to feed teh upsized injectors, the EMS will happily continue to try and achieve stocihiometric fuel burn via o2 sensor feedback when in closed loop and idling and at WOT the larger injectors will compensate by themselves. It really is that simple and seamless, except that you are now dedicated to E85, if your fuel system is too large for normal fuels.
Most modern fuel injection systems will stretch injector pulse more automatically in response to trying to achieve stoich mixtures, the only issue is when you run out of fuel delivery under load. Most cars also have enough injector flow and pump flow in reserve for this too.
One guy I talked to (and who provided me with my chips for my Volvo) ran E85 for years with just the mods listed above, on a fairly hairy 300hp 2.3 litre turbo four. No engine problems at all.
I looked into a system for my Volvo for E85 and was going to go with a nitrous fuel spray bar for enrichment on E85. Just run the standard injectors but have the spray bar hooked to a pump and switch, so you merely turn it on when you need the extra fuel and flow for E85. EMS does not care, as long as it can control the injectors to maintain teh mixtures it wants to see. What you are fundamentally doing is merely adding the extra fuel required to bring the fuel/air ratio for the E85 by adding an injector. Teh Swedish guy is running two 500cc injectors under the throttle body on his car with great results, I just think a nitrous spray bar is more elegant and easier to bolt on.
By running supplemental injectors you can also prime the intake with fuel, tehreby partially avoiding some of the cold start/run issues that Ethanol has (poor vaporisation at low temperatures).
The thing stopping me at the moment is the lack of E85 availability.
There are big benefits to running E85 from a performance standpoint, teh environmental issues in Australia are nonsense, as refinement and transport emissions making E85 are worse than making, transporting and burning conventional fuels.
Environmentalists point to countries like Brazil when touting the benefits of grain fuels, but conveniently forget to mention that Brazil is an equatorial country with massive areas of land available close to populated areas for growing the crops, and due to the climate, these crops grow very fast and do not need irrigation. Anything we grow here for fuel needs both lots of irrigation and transport to get to refineries and then to us.
Ethanol fuels also readily absorb atmospheric moisture, which makes transporting and storing them a huge issue. E10 will absorb moisture from the fuel system sure, but in doing so lowers it's octane.

Regards, Andrew.

Ethanol fuels also readily absorb atmospheric moisture, which makes transporting and storing them a huge issue. E10 will absorb moisture from the fuel system sure, but in doing so lowers it's octane.

Regards, Andrew.

It will actually increase it's octane :wtf: (resistance to detonation) with the moisture absorption. Water injection is the quickest way to increase Octane... but not necessarily performance.