Can I/ Should I use E85 in my car that says it can use 10% ethanol?

[VaderSS]

Running a 25/75 ratio of E85/E10 is going to put you at 29% ethanol. No way I'd put that much in a vehicle that the manufacturer said is good for 10%.

Not worth it. Just drive less or sell it and get something that gets better fuel economy.

If you want to try for 15%, it would be .7 gallons of E85 per 9.3 gallons of E10. Not worth it, IMO.

 

[ron350]

Be warned that Flex Fuel vehicles use different fuel system o-rings than non-Flex Fuel vehicles.
The previous o-ring of choice for fuel injection was standard Viton but which slowly brakes down when exposed to Ethanol and Methanol and a few other chemicals.

Any one with information on the specifications for Flex Fuel approved o-rings please chime in and start a new thread.

 

[GT Mike]

O-rings in non-FFVs are standard black neoprene. Viton (green) O-rings are what are used in most, if not all FFVs.

 

[don_xvi]

Glad to see a lot of factual info on E85 in this thread. You "can't" run E85 in a non-FFV vehicle (it might go but not well). The Stoich is closer to 10:1 instead of 15:1. A fuel injection system typically can't adjust that far and you'll get bad hesitations and quite possibly stalls on tip-in. You'll probably set "stuck lean" codes when you exceed the ECU's capability to adjust. Been there, done that; I did engine calibration on an FFV-capable vehicle. A carb will be even leaner since it can't adjust itself. MPG will, real world, drop ~20%. I'd have to see good data that showed that any manufacturer's system didn't suffer a significant MPG loss as you're pumping in something with less energy.
Also, as pointed out, fuel system components and valves/seats have to be tolerant of the alcohol. Manufacturers "give away" the upgrade components on non-FFV variants.

 

[92saturnsl2]

I don't see why it's not possible to run ethanol in a non-FFV vehicle. You'd run certain risks, but I don't think you're going to kill an engine with a couple tankfuls. Even with ethanol running much leaner due to the different stoich ratio, it doesn't detonate or preignite due to the lean mixture as gasoline would.

Just for grins I tried a tankful of E85 (about 8 gals put into a 10gal tank) in my 07 Chevy Aveo. I'm through about half of the tank and I haven't noticed any ill-effects except maybe a small loss of power. Fuel economy appears comparable to normal gasoline, maybe a small percentage lower (I've gotten the normal 180mi out of a half tank just like normal).

There's numerous stories floating the web of drivers who've used E85 in non-FFV vehicles for thousands of miles (one car over 130k) without problems. I'd like to hear reports of drivers actually having problems.

 

[psudaytona]

I think its possible that you wouldnt have MAJOR problems(ie destroying valve seats, corroding lines, etc). That being said, the folks on this board are a different breed from normal folks. I say that in a positive way

We all like to tinker to find an advantage on our vehicles. What sets up apart, is that most of us are more mechanically savvy than your average driver. If an "anyman/woman" pumped their tank full of E85 and had some sorta of issue, they wouldnt have a clue.

Near my place I only have one station that sells E85, a Sheetz in pleasant hills. They have large and quite catching signs warning of the dangers of running the E85 in normal cars/trucks. They apparently have had issues with people filling non FFV on the pump.

I think much of the caution is simply legal protection, "we told you it wasnt a good idea..." type of thing.

 

[Texas Aggie]

The engine in these pictures doesn't seem too bad. There are some others on the site, as well.

http://www.rune85.com/internal engine.htm

 

[cowpie1]

My wife used to have a 2002 Chevy Cavalier that was not a FFV. Just for grins, we loaded it up with E85. The check light came on about 30 miles down the road. Ran good though.

The problem is the programming for the ECU regarding the oxygen sensors. Running E85 causes the ECU to go crazy. A overfueling/underfueling condition would probably be the result and therefore cause mechanical problems. The addtional sensors and programming put in the FFV eliminate the problem. It senses the ethanol level in the fuel and compensates accordingly.

Now that being said.... I had a '98 Chevy P/u with the 454 V8 and I could put E85 in it and it would run great all day long without a CEL or problem. I actually ran it for some time with about E50 (mixing levels of E85 and E10 fuels). Got decent mileage and good performance.

 

[beanoil]

Originally Posted By: VaderSS
Running a 25/75 ratio of E85/E10 is going to put you at 29% ethanol. No way I'd put that much in a vehicle that the manufacturer said is good for 10%.

Not worth it. Just drive less or sell it and get something that gets better fuel economy.

If you want to try for 15%, it would be .7 gallons of E85 per 9.3 gallons of E10. Not worth it, IMO.

Actually, this works pretty well. I've tried an E30 blend in my Rendezvous, and performance is identical to E10. I look for the new standard to be E20 in another year, as the eth wagon gets on the move. I don't think any OBD-II car would have trouble with E20. If there are driveability issues, a quick PCM flash would seal the deal.

 

[ShiningArcanine]

Originally Posted By: ron350
Be warned that Flex Fuel vehicles use different fuel system o-rings than non-Flex Fuel vehicles.
The previous o-ring of choice for fuel injection was standard Viton but which slowly brakes down when exposed to Ethanol and Methanol and a few other chemicals.

Any one with information on the specifications for Flex Fuel approved o-rings please chime in and start a new thread.


I am curious, what is a flex-fuel vehicle? Is it a vehicle that was certified by its manufacturer to run E85 or E10? If a flex-fuel vehicle is a vehicle certified by its manufacturer to run E85, then one certified to run E10 would be a non-flex-fuel vehicle. If that is the case, then according to your information, the o-rings in non-flex-fuel vehicles certified to run E10 will break down, as they are in the presence of ethanol, which has been federally mandated to be run in every vehicle in the country. Of course, since ethanol reacts with the o-rings, the reaction will be dependent on the concentration of ethanol, which in E85 is 8.5 times more concentrated than in E10. If the reaction is first order with respect to ethanol, then it will proceed 8.5 times faster in E85 than it will in E10. If it is second order with respect to ethanol, then it will proceed 72.25 times faster in E85 than in E10. If it is third order with respect to ethanol, then it will proceed 614.125 times faster in E85 than in E10. Etcetera. Given that engineers like to take approximations of things and that automobile manufacturers like to save money by cutting corners, it is possible that the engineers used a material that ethanol does degrade, but at a rate so slow that it would take so much time to degrade the o-rings that all of the vehicles will be out of service, or at the very least, out of warranty.

Of course, I am ignoring the case where the vehicle is not certified to run E10 by its manufacturer, but nothing interesting happens there, so I see no point in including it.

This means that our E10 certified vehicles might not be able run E10 in time spans that we deem acceptable, at least not without replacement of the o-rings (and perhaps other parts as well).

 

[ShiningArcanine]

Given that $1 per gallon ethanol will ensure that cars are going to run on E85 in the future (assuming that pure gasoline is $3.00 per gallon and pure ethanol is $1.00 per gallon, E85 will cost $1.30 per gallon) and that a company found a way using bacteria to produce ethanol at $1 per gallon out of just about anything (1), I did some research regarding the problem of viton o-rings degrading the presence of ethanol and found a paper detailing the conversion of an E10 vehicle to run E85 by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2). The paper mentions the problem of rubber components degrading in the presence of ethanol and then subsequently praises viton as an excellent material for having "the highest continuous heat resistance and outstanding resistance to swelling." I am not sure how that ensures that viton will resist degradation by ethanol, but given that the paper praises it immediately after citing the problem of degradation of rubber components in the presence of ethanol, it would seem that viton does not readily degrade in the presence of ethanol.

I have not had time to finish reading the paper, but so far, it has been very informative.

1: http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23
2: http://www.engr.unl.edu/~ethanol/unl-sae2.pdf

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ShiningArcanine
Given that $1 per gallon ethanol will ensure that cars are going to run on E85 in the future (assuming that pure gasoline is $3.00 per gallon and pure ethanol is $1.00 per gallon, E85 will cost $1.30 per gallon)


Would make sense, wouldn't it ?

But the fuel companies don't work that way.

When Petrol in Oz was $1/litre, the E10 was 96c. When Petrol reached $1.50, the E10 was $1.46, not the $1.41 that it should have been.

 

[ShiningArcanine]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ShiningArcanine
Given that $1 per gallon ethanol will ensure that cars are going to run on E85 in the future (assuming that pure gasoline is $3.00 per gallon and pure ethanol is $1.00 per gallon, E85 will cost $1.30 per gallon)


Would make sense, wouldn't it ?

But the fuel companies don't work that way.

When Petrol in Oz was $1/litre, the E10 was 96c. When Petrol reached $1.50, the E10 was $1.46, not the $1.41 that it should have been.


I would assume that there would be some overhead, but the company that is using bacteria to convert organic material into ethanol can do it for less than $1.00 per gallon, so $1.30 per gallon for E85 would make sense, although after discovering that the melting point of ethanol is -141.1 degrees centigrade, I see no reason why cars could not be designed to use E100 instead of E85, which would mean that we would be paying ~$1.00 per gallon, before taking taxes into account anyway.

 

[Rabbler]

I believe they do run E100 in Brazil and have for years.
The problem with E100 is cold weather start-ability.
the 15% gas in e-85 helps combat that in colder climates

 

[JustinH]

Originally Posted By: Rabbler
I believe they do run E100 in Brazil and have for years.
The problem with E100 is cold weather start-ability.
the 15% gas in e-85 helps combat that in colder climates


Another reason we have e85 here is so that people don't drink the fuel.

Its moonshine with 15 percent gas mixed in.

 

[lewdwig]

I just ran a tank of 25% E85 and 75% unleaded (E21.25) in my 2001 Saturn SL2. It ran fine, I got 23.53 MPG in "winter driving" - some idling while scraping the windows and brushing snow when conditions made the windows fog quickly, usually I just start and go. I typically get about 30.5 MPG in summer, mostly commuting 15 miles to work.

 

[Russ]

I have been running various ethanol blends in my 1995 F150 (5.0 L, 155,000 miles) for the past 2 months or so.
Started with E10. Idle improved slightly. Moved up to E20. Idle improved even more. No cold start issues (this was back in February). There seemed to be a noticeable increase in power and a slight decrease in fuel mileage. Moved up to E30. Same effects as with E20.
After such results I was feeling extra brave (or dumb?), and put 5 gallons of E85 in the tank. The engine was warm at the time, so there were no apparent driveability issues, apart from the CEL going on and off intermittently. The truck was parked overnight, and in the morning fired right up. However, it stalled right after pulling out of the driveway. Started right up again, and the engine performance seemed to be improving with the increase in the engine temperature. I stopped at the nearest gas station and put 5 gallons of regular unleaded in the tank. The pickup seemed to like that concoction.
On the last fill-up I put 1.5 gal. of E85 and 3.5 gal. of E10. The vehicle seemed to be fine with that mixture as well.
I have been adding FP60 at every one of those fill-ups.

The question is this: since the pickup seems to be responding positively (at least as far as I can tell) to various ethanol mixtures, should I continue with these shenanigans while telling myself that I am doing my part to save the planet, or should I come back to my senses and quit tempting fate?

 

[c502cid]

I'm running 50/50 E-85/Regular in my 98 Escort and 50/50 E-85/Premium in my 03 Silverado (8.1 V-8 computer modded) and both have not set off any CEL's or had any driveability problems. The only instance of a stall on start up was with the Escort and the temps were below zero both times. Both times fired right back up and ran fine. Fuel economy is lower but a wash at the $1/gal price differential. Screw big oil! Screw opec!

 

[lewdwig]

The E85 here was $2.80/gallon, about $0.45 cheaper.

 

[Cycle Freak]

I would try different blends of e85 and regular fuel but there is no point to it here in MI because there is barely a .30 cent difference between the prices of the two which is too small to make up for the loss in MPG.