e85 superethanol

[dave21478]

Hi,

I noticed a new petrol station reasonably near me has started stocking E85 superethanol at 85c per litre. Running a V6 petrol car, I like the idea of going back to 60p per litre motoring again.

Ive had a quick rummage on the net and found lots of conflicting advice, but the gist is that normal petrol cars wont run on this without extensive modifications. What I could find mentioned changing fuel lines and possibly fuel pump, advancing ignition, upping the fuel rate and upping compression ratio. This is serious work to any car, and most modern cars cant easilly have ignition and fuellng changed without binning the ecu and fitting a fully re-mappable aftermarket unit. This sort of work would cost several hundred, if not thousands of pounds in parts alone, never mind fitting costs.

From what I could find, there are a couple of cars available from new which will run on this stuff. Mostly Saabs.

 

If this is the case, why are intermarche going to the hassle and expense of stocking this stuff, if practically no-one can use it?

 

OR - is what they sell in some way treated or altered to be useable in normal cars? I didnt get a proper look at the sign, I was heading out of town and scanning the price boards where I saw it. All it said was E85superethanol - 0.85€ / litre alongside the normal petrol and diesel prices.

[Alex H]

Checkout this hybrid [:D] French / English website - it has a list of compatible cars

http://www.e85-ffv.com/en/index2.php

All you need is the 'magic box' for €490 [:)]

[dave21478]

edit - just found kits are available which seem to be a piggy-back ECU that ups the fuelling by modifying the injector pulses.

Costs seem to be around 500€

i need to research this further, but as a rough example with a 60 litre tank like mine....a 50cent saving per litre means roughly 30€ saving per fillup, so even accounting for poorer mpg on e85, within less than 20 tanks you would make back the kit price and start saving money.

thing is, I have read elsewhere that just upping the fueling without advancing the ignition is harmfull to the engine long-term, which stands to reason as overfuelling any car will lead to "borewash" which rapidly wears out piston rings and cylinders.

 

[Chancer]

We too have a pump at intermarche for "bioethanol" made from betteraves (sugar beet) as I am diesel I have never looked at the price.

We are a big bio fuel area with a university specialising in new bio materials from crops etc, to my knowledge there is only one car, i think a ford focus C-max that uses the pump and that is owned by the mairie and plastered with bio end eco banners.

If it is that much cheaper I am surprised that no-one else has converted anything, especially something old with carbs and a dizzy, I am capable of it but get 65mpg from my deisel so not much incentive.

Does the 85 signify the RON octane rating?  If it does ten I would suggest that the ignition would need retarding massively to avoid pre-ignition, or block/piston/head work to significantly lower the compression ratio, both of which would reduce the oerating efficiency of  a modern petrol engine to such a degree as to make the savings miniscule and not worth the power loss.

If bio-fuels do take off then we are likely to see new generation engines starting to appear from the manufacturers.

Editted

GPL (LPG) seems very cheap by comparison at the moment.

[dave21478]

i dont know what the 85 signifies, but the RON is way over 100 for bioethanol, compared to 95 for normal unleaded, hence the need to advance the timing.

I have had a qick look and to be honest, Im not that impressed with these "conversion" kits, they strike me as a bit of a bodge to fire the injectors for longer and nothing else on the engine is altered.

As you said, perhaps the thing to do would be to have an old car with points, dizzy and carbs, which would allow for easy adjustment - use this day to day and keep the vectra for longer runs where i need the comfort or for towing.

 

 

[AnOther]

[quote user="dave21478"]overfuelling any car will lead to "borewash" which rapidly wears out piston rings and cylinders.[/quote]Not to mention poisoning the Cat too, a potentially wallet busting expense.

The warranty makes interesting reading with multiple "get outs":

The consumer is required to have the product installed by a specialized professional certified by the importer, as well as to maintain and regularly tune his vehicle according to the vehicle’s manufacturer instructions and not to use or drive the vehicle in a way that is detrimental to the vehicle’s reliability. Should he fail to comply with these conditions, the importer and the manufacturer would disclaim all liability.

The importer, the manufacturer and the distributor/retailer/ fitter are free of fault should any loss or damage occur, caused or suffered by the product, directly or indirectly, as a main or accessory cause, whatever its nature, may it be suffered or caused by the consumer.

Furthermore, is it not now widely postulated that the overall envronmental impact of biofuels is no lesser than that for hydrocarbons and perhaps more significantly, one mans biofuel is, or may well become, another mans empty stomach !

 

[Chancer]

I was reading some bumpf from the Conseil Generale today about our regions production of cereals (we are the 1ere producteur in France), betteraves and bio-fuels.

It mentioned that the average price paid to producteurs of blé was 170 to 10 Euors per tonne, an increase of 60% this year.

Its nice to know that someone close to home is benefitting from the misery of others[:'(]

[Daktari]

Another bit of useless information .... its termed "E85" not because of the RON but because its a mixture of 85% Bioethanol and 15% regular unleaded gasoline

[buckdendave]

It's 85% ethanol.

To get equivalent performance, it's necessary to burn more of it.  That means bigger jets with a carburettor (remember those !) or remapping of the engine management system (or whatever) with fuel injection.  Then maybe the ignition timing.  Then your fuel system has to be compatible with the ethanol (which is polar unlike plain old regular petrol, so some plastic components might not be, unless designed for it in the first place).

The bottom line is that you have to burn more of it, so it doesn't necessarily save any money.  If you believe that biofuel is a good thing environmentally then maybe it's a benefit.  Also burns cleaner and has nicer emissions.

Dave  

[dave21478]

Selfish I know, but I dont give a chuff about the potential eco benefits or problems, I was just after cheaper motoring, but it looks like too much of a ball-ache to get a modern car running well with it.

I might get a jerry cans worth and try it in the old lawnmower.

 

[Moulin85]

I am no expert on this stuff but we use ethanol at work and it destroys most types of rubber fairly quickly.

From what I have read in the English motoring press most modern engines are ok at 10% ethanol, Ford say 15% for there units, but anything above that and the entire fuel system has to be specifically designed to use the stuff.

To meet EEC directives on average CO2 all UK petrol will be 10% ethanol soon, other European countries will be forced to follow as emission regulations get tighter.

[AnOther]

Looks like the market for older cars with shall we say "agricultural" pushrod and carburettor engines (the venerable B series as in my MGB for instance) could blossom [;-)]

I'm with you Dave, I just want cheap transport and all this eco/bio nonsense it just tinkering on the fringe of the problem.

When the country with 0.5% of the worlds population but which consumes 80% of it's resources gets it's act together in a meaningful commited way (naming and shaming not permitted but you know who I mean) then I might start to think about being more ecologically minded.

Everything is getting a bit out of hand now I feel. I'm absolutely not anti progress but I sometimes wonder just who is benefitting from it all.

30 years ago for instance 30mpg used to be a sort of benchmark for the average family cars fuel consumption and yet, despite the massive advances in automobile engineering what is it now, not much more. Nearly all the gains have been wasted in the never ending quest for more power and speed, which frankly nobody really needs, or more pointedly, can realistically use, plus increases in weight because of all the now "essential" driver comforts. Admittedly diesel technology had come on it leaps and bounds but even there there is a sting in the tail because the improvements in efficiency are just used as justification for the development of bigger and bigger vehicles which otherwise would be completely unviable. Just who need a V8 4.2l or worse, V12 5.3l as used in the Audi Q7 for instance ?

The complexity of modern cars and the resultant cost of major repairs means that their lifespan is likely to be considerably shorter than was the case for more simple designs so the frequency of repalcement and the ecological cost of manufacture must be factored in to the overall picture. On that basis it wouldn't surprise me if we were actually going backwards not forwards.

 

[Chancer]

I couldnt agrre more with you Ernie.

Regarding just who benefits from the eco/rechauffement mondial mantra I recommend that you read he novel "State of fear" by Michael Crichton, actually maybe you were the person that already recommended it on this forum.

I like you think that modern cars are remarkably inefficient in terms of their real purpose, moving people and their possessions as opposed to being a "lifestyle statement" I think the cynical rebadging of retro euroboxes as the "New Mini"  "new Beetle" and "new Fiat 500" is a grave insult to their original farsighted designers.

I would just love to see back to back tests of the original versus the retro versions of these cars in respect of fuel efficiency, mass, drag coefficient corrected for frontal area (CDA I think) etc but of course that would never happen all the time the motoring media cow-tows to the global manufacturers.

Just think back to the original press adverts for the Mini showing how many passengers it could carry and the impressive amount uf luggage including in spaces that just dont exist in modern cars i,e, across the dash shelf, front and rear door storage within the door volume, under the rear seat in not forgetting on the boot thanks to the stays and the hinged number plate and light assembly.

Ever wondered why you have and will never see in print a photograph of the original car beside the retro version? For me the answer is more cynical than just the fact that the new pretenders look bloated and ugly in comparison to the originals.

Editted.

Re complexity, I once swopped a VW flat four engine from a MOT failure Beetle to my campervan, it took less than an hour to remove both engines, remove both sets of cooling shrouds, manifolds and heat exchangers  (as they turned out to be incompatible) and refit the new assembly before beng able to drive away, this was not in a workshop but at the side of the road.

It wont be long before modern engines will refuse to operate unless talking to their original ECU, for reasons of emmisions and protetcting the environment of course![6]

[dave21478]

Hurrah! someone else "gets it"!

modern cars are such a frivolous waste of resources imo. They have the potential to be truly economical, but its all diluted down with needless gadgetry.

the newer rage of diesel engines fitted in vw and audis can give very good mpg - 55mpg or so seems to be average claimed from manufacturers for some models....but they weigh well over 1.5 tons! If they werent bogged down with useless electrical rubbish and overly insulated bodyshells the figures would be so much better.

Its a shame engine swaps arent legal here in France, as I have a serious hankering to retro-fit a modern turbodiesel unit into a classic car. This may be seen as sacrelige to the classic enthusiasts, but decent power and torque would be a pleasure to drive, and in a much lighter classic bodyshell, I would bet economy would be stunning.

 

who decided that fly-by-wire throttle would be better than a steel cable? who decided that my car should make up its mind when to switch its wipers and headlights on? who thought to make the engine almost inaccessible due to several black boxes full of electronic voodoo? oh, and when (WHEN not if) this stuff breaks...how am I going to fix that? spanners, screwdrivers and a hammer are outdated - you need a compter with the relevant software, a knowledge of network interfaces and a supply of exchange modules to swap out instead of actually repairing a component.

 

 

[Bob T]

Perhaps I should go backwards too. I could change my 140 bhp 44mpg diesel 4X4, for the 2CV that I had years ago. It had 32bhp did around 35 mpg, no aircon or airbags and struggled up hills.

I think that I would rather give up driving!

[AnOther]

Tapped a nerve have I [:D]

It wasn't coincidence that I mentioned the Audi Q7. I was in Germany a couple of weeks ago and drove a rented V8 version from Munich to Dusseldorf and back. Fantastic driving experience but what an obscenity. 0-100kph in 6.4 seconds and 260kph top speed achieved with ease but at a phenomenal cost. At more sedate autobhan speeds, i.e. keeping pace with the Golf's and cooking BMW's, MPG was mid 20's at best, push it to the limiter at 260kph though and it dropped to a shameful 7mpg. Yet despite it's gargantuan size, in terms of actual internal accommodation space I think my 1.9 diesel Skoda Estate would have given it a run for it's money, and be doing 50mpg + in the process.

Regarding DIY repairs, you won't even be able to open the bonnet soon dave so the subject becomes moot. And you'll have no choice but to use the authorised dealer for work either because no independant will be able to afford the mass of electrickery and special tools which are neccessary, and largely unique, for every different marque.

It's hard to remember sometimes that underneath all that plumbing and wiring, the beautifully sculptured manifolds and artistically moulded covers, there are still the same 4 little pistons just pumping up and down as they have since the dawn of the motoring era !

[Chancer]

I dont really have the time to post this but whilst repairing my towing plug for the journey tonight I used a 1985 towsure manual that had on the next page the kerbweights of then current vehicles, I couldnt resist doing a google search to make a comparison with the current models or retro versions, the results are shocking!

1985 Mini 1000 - 615kg

"New" Mini - 1175kg

1985 Nissan Micra - 665kg

2006 Micra - 1183kg

1985 Vauxhall Nova - 735kg

New Vauxhall Corsa - 1096kg

Original Fiat 500 (year unknown) - 499kg

"New" Fiat 500 980kg

In truth I reckon that the first minis and fiat 500's weighed significantly less than the above figures, I dont know the age of the Fiat but the mini had certainly gained some weight in its first 26 years but nothing compared to the next 20.

Then also consider that every individual piece of the modern cars are invariably lighter, made of plastic and irrepairable (ultrasonic welded seams instead of fixings etc) and you get some idea of how much extraneous junk is fitted over and above the purpose of transporting people efficiently.

I too would love to see the effect of a modern more powerfull and economical engine in a "proper" bodyshell, funny how the manufacturers prefer to make adverts showing their cars as lifestyle statements rather than saying "our powertrain is 120% more efficient than 10 years ago" its just that it has to carry double the weight!

[Anton Redman]

To be fair some of the weight gain is connected getting higher NCAP safety ratings, but IMHO both Midas and Clan shells are strong enough. The figure which always shocked me was that the Mazda MX5 was heavier than the MGB.  

[AnOther]

Don't forget that the vast majority of engines are now alloy whereas previously they would have been cast iron, a potential weight saving of 50% or more.

The MGB V8 3.5l engine for instance was 40kg lighter than the standard 1.8l iron one.

[Moulin85]

I agree with some of what is being said.

I’m a sports car nut so except for freedom of choice I see little justification for vehicles like the Q7, but I’m willing to bet that it puts out fewer pollutants per mile than an SU carburetted MGB or the majority of other cars of that era.

[AnOther]

After 30-50 years and billions of £/€/$ spent on development you might hope so but of course comparing diesel emissions with petrol is fundamentally unfair as the types of emissions are completely different. I'm no chemist but it stands to reason that if one vehicle A can travel only 24 miles on a gallon of fuel and vehicle B travel 1/2 as far again (my MGB will do 36mpg on a motorway run) then there can be no argument that in terms of sheer volume of gasses and pollutants vehicle A has produced more. What those pollutants are and their relative environmental impacts is another subject.

Actually though you might be quite surprised at what a properly maintained and carefully up SU carburetted MGB can achieve, (sorry to keep harping on about MGB's BTW but as as an owner for 20+ years they are something I know quite a lot about and the engine & variants were used in untold other vehicles so is reasonbly representative of the era.).

Below is a table of the Arizona emission standards for the MGB and although mine falls within the earlier year groups with the fitting of the later HIF SU's and a rolling road optimisation of the needles and ignition system, at MOT time it would always significantly better the figures for the final 1980 model, and remember, for the US this would be the engine strangled with a single Stromberg carburettor and auxilliary air pump (a c0n if ever there was one) resulting in a miserable 65bhp !

I don't have the actual numbers in front of me at the moment but I know I achieved HC's of around 150 and CO's of a fraction over 1.0 and 36mpg was exactly the same as we got from the 2.0l fuel injected Sierra we had for a few years.

ARIZONA EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR THE MGB BY YEAR GROUPS
	Idle Standard	Cruise Standard
1967-71
HC	500 ppm	500 ppm
CO	5.5%	4.2%
1972-74
HC	400 ppm	400 ppm
CO	5.5%	4.2%
1975-78
HC	250 ppm	250 ppm
CO	2.2%	2.2%
1979
HC	220 ppm	220 ppm
CO	2.2%	1.65%
1980
HC	220 ppm	220 ppm
CO	1.2%	1.2%

[Moulin85]

Vehicle emissions are measured as an average per mile using an international standard formula and while mpg obviously has a direct bearing, how the engine uses the fuel is the main factor. The figures I have just found in Autocar give the Q7 4.2 V8 petrol as 326g/km CO2, 294g/km for the V8 diesel. This is half the figure I read somewhere recently for the 1971 1100cc Ford Escort!

 

At the end of the day there are so few Q7’s, Aston Martin’s or Ferrari’s etc that getting rid of them wont make a nats difference to the environment but they are the soft political target to make people feel they are doing something. Try suggesting, as we did last year, that the office staff should wear a thicker top rather than turn the heating up and see what reaction you get!