New SGII Problems
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,468
From: Jupiter, FL
Re: New SGII Problems
I think we can all agree that Ethanol is a highly contraversial topic. But I see no reason for all the anamosity in the posts.
Gary, I view you as knowledgable in FE methods. John, I view you, based upon posts here and in other groups, as knowledgable in Ethanol. Gary, could the chart that John posted be one he created, i.e., not fake, because it was his tank data?
There is absolutely no need to be so **** critical here. Gary, you are very pasionate about your views on ethanol. Don't let that passion detract from the value of this forum.
Gary, I view you as knowledgable in FE methods. John, I view you, based upon posts here and in other groups, as knowledgable in Ethanol. Gary, could the chart that John posted be one he created, i.e., not fake, because it was his tank data?
There is absolutely no need to be so **** critical here. Gary, you are very pasionate about your views on ethanol. Don't let that passion detract from the value of this forum.
The article misleads the reader by talking about things like our high compression engines. I've built many race engines and had to use octane boosters even with the highest octane gas that could be bought. Most people don't understand that 87 octane has a higher BTU than octanes above 87. As you raise your octane the gas burns slower and the BTU's go down. The only reason you want to raise the octane is to take advantage of the higher compression HP. The reason for using a lower BTU fuel for high compression engines is to prevent Pre-ignition which causes the engine to knock or ping and will cause damage to an engine. The reason you want to use 87 octane in a vehicle like our FEH is because the lower octane gas has more energy from the higher BTU. The FEH has a lower final compression ratio and is more efficient with straight 87 gas.
Ethanol has a much lower BTU than straight 87 octane, so the more you add, the less energy you get and the more inefficient the engine is. The article I quoted says E-85 only reduces emissions by 15% from staight gas. This would make E-10 less than 2% cleaner than straight gas. I lose at least 5mpg when using E-10 which means I run out of 15 gallons of E-10 about 75 miles sooner. Now that I've dropped from 45mpg to 40mpg, it will take almost 2 extra gallons of E-10 to get me where I would have been if I used straight gas. Has anyone also notice the loss of power and higher RPM's at highway speeds? My '05 FEH now pings at higher RPM's after the boost of the electric motors is over.
Now tell me Big Oil has not figured this out and has not got to the law makers to mandate E-10.
GaryG
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,616
From: All over the Central U.S.
Re: New SGII Problems
This is, of course, just one data point, my own 2005 FEH.
I just used it last month to tow a 2,000 pound very square, box shaped trailer. I used it to tow through the Rocky Mountains with some steep grades, that exceeded 8% for short sections with sustained 5% and 6% in places. I had two, 200 pound passengers, 100 pounds of luggage more or less, and a 25 pound dog in the car with me.
I used an approx. 50/50 ethanol to gas mix.
I used some ethanol because I wanted the extra horsepower for towing.
I didn't use all E85 because my tank was not empty at the time I found the
E85 pump.
My MPG was about 24 MPG. But how much of that was from the ethanol, and how much was from towing a 2,000 pound trailer uphill at an average of 55 MPH?
My engine ran at LOWER RPM using ethanol, and a few other owners with CVT report this effect also.
My engine ran cool, no hotter than 202'F on the steep hills.
Most of the time towing, my engine ran at 190'F or close to it.
It is true that our cars ( and most out there ) cannot take advantage of all the advantages of ethanol. But it can take advantage of some of the benefits. A cleaner, renewable fuel being one of them.
Lower MPG by itself is not an evil sin, as Gary is so obsessed with.
GaryG would be against running our cars on pure air, if it gave lower MPG on his almightly ScanGuage.
-John
I just used it last month to tow a 2,000 pound very square, box shaped trailer. I used it to tow through the Rocky Mountains with some steep grades, that exceeded 8% for short sections with sustained 5% and 6% in places. I had two, 200 pound passengers, 100 pounds of luggage more or less, and a 25 pound dog in the car with me.
I used an approx. 50/50 ethanol to gas mix.
I used some ethanol because I wanted the extra horsepower for towing.
I didn't use all E85 because my tank was not empty at the time I found the
E85 pump.
My MPG was about 24 MPG. But how much of that was from the ethanol, and how much was from towing a 2,000 pound trailer uphill at an average of 55 MPH?
My engine ran at LOWER RPM using ethanol, and a few other owners with CVT report this effect also.
My engine ran cool, no hotter than 202'F on the steep hills.
Most of the time towing, my engine ran at 190'F or close to it.
It is true that our cars ( and most out there ) cannot take advantage of all the advantages of ethanol. But it can take advantage of some of the benefits. A cleaner, renewable fuel being one of them.
Lower MPG by itself is not an evil sin, as Gary is so obsessed with.
GaryG would be against running our cars on pure air, if it gave lower MPG on his almightly ScanGuage.
-John
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 720
From: Southeast Coastline
Re: New SGII Problems
I'm for and against Ethanol and here's why.
Against:
Bottom line for me is... today, E10 cost me more money. I can't speak on E30 or E85 as both would most likely VOID the remainder of my Ford Warranty. Until Ford announces that it's supported in my FEH (or any of them from 2005-2009), I won't be running the higher blends and given the choice to pay more for straight gas, I would be running that in my FEH instead of E10. Really, what is the reduction of pollution in an already SULEV2 vehicle as compared to all other vehicles on the road? What is the benefit of cutting my straight gasoline use by 10% (via added ethanol) when I'm losing 10-15% in efficiency. The numbers just don't add up. I'm using more regular gas at any FE lose over 10%. As for E10 bringing lower prices, that's a joke in my area. For years the my area had the some of lowest gas prices in the nation but recently two things happened: our pumps went to E10 and my local fuel cost went to above the national average. I can't find straight gas to compare to but I can't see how it would be priced much higher than national average except for it (artificial) novelty.
Sure there are a lot of vehicles that CAN run on ethanol blends but how many run efficiently or cleaner outside of those manufactured as E85 capable?
For:
As for my other cars, I'll happily run E10 as they are: older, have a higher compression engines, and don't get much miles (or MPG) anyway. I might even look into E85 someday as I have carb/injector/ECU/timing control over them and there are no warranty concerns. I'm already eyeing an EV conversion for the little MG though so it will hopefully be using E-nothing someday.
I feel that ethanol (especially the higher blends) is a good product when paired with a properly tuned/designed engine but the fact is, other than the relatively new E85 capable vehicles, there are a vast majority of vehicles that are not tuned for ANY ethanol blend (including the 2005-2008 FEH) and they will never see the true benefits without some type of retrofit/tune. I don't expect the vehicle manufacturers to supply this, EVER.
Forced E10 blends will have one major effect: help subsidize the ethanol production chain and it's developing technology by creating (artificial) demand. In the long run this will probably be a good thing as research finds alternative production methods and current production gets more efficient. The aftermarket may even catch on and produce mass appeal retrofit kits (I know that there are already some out there). Also, attrition will remove older cars and replace them with more ethanol tolerant ones (much like fuel injection has quietly replaced the carburetor).
Obviously ethanol has it's pros and cons, I just feel that E10 is a poor example when judged on it's merits with today's equipment. I'm hoping for a better showing as time moves on.
Against:
Bottom line for me is... today, E10 cost me more money. I can't speak on E30 or E85 as both would most likely VOID the remainder of my Ford Warranty. Until Ford announces that it's supported in my FEH (or any of them from 2005-2009), I won't be running the higher blends and given the choice to pay more for straight gas, I would be running that in my FEH instead of E10. Really, what is the reduction of pollution in an already SULEV2 vehicle as compared to all other vehicles on the road? What is the benefit of cutting my straight gasoline use by 10% (via added ethanol) when I'm losing 10-15% in efficiency. The numbers just don't add up. I'm using more regular gas at any FE lose over 10%. As for E10 bringing lower prices, that's a joke in my area. For years the my area had the some of lowest gas prices in the nation but recently two things happened: our pumps went to E10 and my local fuel cost went to above the national average. I can't find straight gas to compare to but I can't see how it would be priced much higher than national average except for it (artificial) novelty.
Sure there are a lot of vehicles that CAN run on ethanol blends but how many run efficiently or cleaner outside of those manufactured as E85 capable?
For:
As for my other cars, I'll happily run E10 as they are: older, have a higher compression engines, and don't get much miles (or MPG) anyway. I might even look into E85 someday as I have carb/injector/ECU/timing control over them and there are no warranty concerns. I'm already eyeing an EV conversion for the little MG though so it will hopefully be using E-nothing someday.
I feel that ethanol (especially the higher blends) is a good product when paired with a properly tuned/designed engine but the fact is, other than the relatively new E85 capable vehicles, there are a vast majority of vehicles that are not tuned for ANY ethanol blend (including the 2005-2008 FEH) and they will never see the true benefits without some type of retrofit/tune. I don't expect the vehicle manufacturers to supply this, EVER.
Forced E10 blends will have one major effect: help subsidize the ethanol production chain and it's developing technology by creating (artificial) demand. In the long run this will probably be a good thing as research finds alternative production methods and current production gets more efficient. The aftermarket may even catch on and produce mass appeal retrofit kits (I know that there are already some out there). Also, attrition will remove older cars and replace them with more ethanol tolerant ones (much like fuel injection has quietly replaced the carburetor).
Obviously ethanol has it's pros and cons, I just feel that E10 is a poor example when judged on it's merits with today's equipment. I'm hoping for a better showing as time moves on.
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 311
From: Dry Heat, AZ
Re: New SGII Problems
If you want to run higher concentrations of ethanol, buy a flex-fuel vehicle. You will be slowly (or perhaps quickly) destroying your non-flex fuel vehicle by running E30,E50,E85 or whatever. Putting a pulse stretcher to avoid the MIL from the LFT exceeding 25% will cause many problems and does not address the following issues:
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%. Flex fuel vehicles generally have larger injectors and can vary the fuel pressure comensurate with the % ethanol detected to avoid this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
4: Evapoative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners. Corn is the worst way to get ethanol IMHO.
Now for the flood of replies saying "I know someone who put 350,000 miles on a car running ethanol with no problems whatsoever, blah blah,blah"
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%. Flex fuel vehicles generally have larger injectors and can vary the fuel pressure comensurate with the % ethanol detected to avoid this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
4: Evapoative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners. Corn is the worst way to get ethanol IMHO.
Now for the flood of replies saying "I know someone who put 350,000 miles on a car running ethanol with no problems whatsoever, blah blah,blah"
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,468
From: Jupiter, FL
Re: New SGII Problems
If you want to run higher concentrations of ethanol, buy a flex-fuel vehicle. You will be slowly (or perhaps quickly) destroying your non-flex fuel vehicle by running E30,E50,E85 or whatever. Putting a pulse stretcher to avoid the MIL from the LFT exceeding 25% will cause many problems and does not address the following issues:
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%. Flex fuel vehicles generally have larger injectors and can vary the fuel pressure comensurate with the % ethanol detected to avoid this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
4: Evapoative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners. Corn is the worst way to get ethanol IMHO.
Now for the flood of replies saying "I know someone who put 350,000 miles on a car running ethanol with no problems whatsoever, blah blah,blah"
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%. Flex fuel vehicles generally have larger injectors and can vary the fuel pressure comensurate with the % ethanol detected to avoid this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
4: Evapoative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners. Corn is the worst way to get ethanol IMHO.
Now for the flood of replies saying "I know someone who put 350,000 miles on a car running ethanol with no problems whatsoever, blah blah,blah"
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
He might stop using E-85 now!
GaryG
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,616
From: All over the Central U.S.
Re: New SGII Problems
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
Studies ( links to follow ) show no harmful effect of this in the first 250,000 miles. Most studies only go for 100,000 miles, few go for 250,000 miles, as few owners keep cars to 250,000 miles. Some do, but not the national average. The total acid content is trival at best. 0.002% to 0.007% in pure E100. I don't know what percent of the 0.007% could be "formic acid" as there are trivial, almost below detectible limits of other acids as well. The pH of E100 ranges from pH 6.5 to 7.5. More neutral than most tap water.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%.
I don't have info on this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
This is false and mis-leading. Flex Fuel vehicles have very few extra "sensors". In most cases, the "myriad" equals 1 or 2. It's true what you say about there being a small sample size, but, this appears to not happen. It DOES NOT happen in the FEH and I've put mine under EXTREEME load with ethanol in tank. 5,000 RPM sustained for 10 minutes going uphill with a trailer.
4: Evapoative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
You are producing fuzzy math. Gasoline has a reid vapor pressure of 9.x.
Ethanol has a reid vapor pressure of 2.x. E10 has a reid vapor pressure of 10.0 since you have basically all the vapors of gasoline, plus a few vapors of ethanol added. Get your ethanol concentration higher, and the evaporative emissions are MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN GASOLINE. The break-even point is about E40. Blends of ethanol less than 40% are only slightly worse than gasoline from a RVP standpoint. http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels...8/29680014.htm
In fact, you can try this. Take a cup of E100 and hold a lit match above it. It will not ignite, as the vapors are so low. Try that with gas.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners.
I am totally in favor for this, but cane has it's limits. It is perishable like lettuce. You have to grow it, harvest it, and convert it at the same rate. You can't store it in a silo for the winter.
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
I am totally in favor of this also! But how are we going to get there unless we start testing and reporting? At least I am contributing!
-JohnApparent Proof at 60'F: 200 to 203 ( denaturant content raises proof )
Density at 60'F: 0.787 to 0.794 ASTM D-4052
Water Mass: 1% maximum ASTM E-203
Ethanol Volume % Minimum at Shipment: 93.5% ASTM D-5501
Methanol Volume % Maximum at Shipment: 0.5% ASTM D-5501
Sulfur ppm ( wt/wt ) Maximum at Shipment: 10 ASTM D-5453
Solvent Washed Gum mg/100mL Maximum at Shipment: 5 ASTM D-381
Sulfate ppm Maximum at Shipment: 4 ASTM D-7319
Chloride mg/L Maximum at Shipment: 32 ASTM D-4806
Copper mg/L Maximum at Shipment: 0.08 ASTM D-4806
Acidity Maximum Percent by Weight: 0.007 ASTM D-1613
Ethanol pH: 6.50 to 8.99 ASTM D-6423
Approved Denaturants per ASTM D-4806: 1.96 to 4.76 percent.
Corrosion Inhibitor Additive: 13 to 20 pounds per 1000 barrel ASTM D-4806
***ASTM International (ASTM), originally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, is an international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services. The organization's headquarters is in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, about 5 miles northwest of Philadelphia.
ASTM predates other standards organizations such as BSI (1901), DIN (1917) and AFNOR (1926), but differs from these in that it is not a national standards body, that role being taken in the USA by ANSI. However, ASTM has a dominant role among standards developers in the USA, and claims to be the world's largest developer of standards. Using a consensus process, ASTM supports thousands of volunteer technical committees, which draw their members from around the world and collectively develop and maintain more than 12,000 standards.
Last edited by gpsman1; Nov 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM. Reason: added ASTM standards for ethanol
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 311
From: Dry Heat, AZ
Re: New SGII Problems
Originally Posted by DesertDog 
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
Studies ( links to follow ) show no harmful effect of this in the first 250,000 miles. Most studies only go for 100,000 miles, few go for 250,000 miles, as few owners keep cars to 250,000 miles. Some do, but not the national average. The total acid content is trival at best. 0.002% to 0.007% in pure E100. I don't know what percent of the 0.007% could be "formic acid" as there are trivial, almost below detectible limits of other acids as well. The pH of E100 ranges from pH 6.5 to 7.5. More neutral than most tap water.
You are completely missing the point. Formic acid forms in ethanol and blends when water is present. It can get there either from contamination or repeated cold starts in cool, humid or rainy weather. The vehicle manufacturer has to expect the worst and design accordingly. If nitride coatings weren't necessary, they wouldn't be there on FF vehicles.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%.
I don't have info on this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
This is false and mis-leading. Flex Fuel vehicles have very few extra "sensors". In most cases, the "myriad" equals 1 or 2. It's true what you say about there being a small sample size, but, this appears to not happen. It DOES NOT happen in the FEH and I've put mine under EXTREEME load with ethanol in tank. 5,000 RPM sustained for 10 minutes going uphill with a trailer.
My statement is correct. Your reply is false and misleading. You obviously have a sufficiently rich mixture at full power. Consequently, you have a richer than stochimetric mixture when closed loop. This is unavoidable with a narrow band sensor and the band-aid method you are using. The effect of a lower A/F in closed loop will be somewhat lower ICE RPM. Of course, fuel economy and emissions suffer but you seem to be OK with that. You have erroneously concluded that the lower RPM is due to ethanol producing more power. In fact it is the richer mixture that is causing the slight power increase. If you run pure gasoline at less than 14.7:1, you will also get more power and thus lower RPM at a given vehicle speed.
Myriad is qualitative and not quantitative. I have never seen a FF vehicle with only 1 sensor to determine ethanol content. It is absolutely imperative to know what the ethanol content in the fuel is to have acceptable power, economy and emissions.
4: Evaporative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
You are producing fuzzy math. Gasoline has a reid vapor pressure of 9.x.
Ethanol has a reid vapor pressure of 2.x. E10 has a reid vapor pressure of 10.0 since you have basically all the vapors of gasoline, plus a few vapors of ethanol added. Get your ethanol concentration higher, and the evaporative emissions are MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN GASOLINE. The break-even point is about E40. Blends of ethanol less than 40% are only slightly worse than gasoline from a RVP standpoint. http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels...8/29680014.htm
My math is not fuzzy. RVP is not an absolute predictor of evapoative emissions in autos and it doesn't mix linearly when ethanol and gas are mixed.
Ethanol's volatility does have a benefit for racing engines, as the cooling effect of the incoming charge is much, much greater with ethanol than with gasoline.
In fact, you can try this. Take a cup of E100 and hold a lit match above it. It will not ignite, as the vapors are so low. Try that with gas.
Try spilling them on the ground and see which evaporates sooner. A lot safer and more meaningful experiment.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners.
I am totally in favor for this, but cane has it's limits. It is perishable like lettuce. You have to grow it, harvest it, and convert it at the same rate. You can't store it in a silo for the winter.
Sugar cane is not perishable like lettuce. I have had canes for weeks in the kitchen with no rot. Sure, they lose a lot of their juice but you can still eat them or bury them and watch a new cane shoot up.
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
I am totally in favor of this also! But how are we going to get there unless we start testing and reporting? At least I am contributing!
You really think the automobile makers don't do their own comprehensive testing?????If it was really as simple as you claim, a FF FEH would have been in production long ago.
-John
1: Formic acid eating away the aluminum components like cylinder heads and intake manifolds. Flex fuel vehicles have hard nitride coatings to prevent this.
Studies ( links to follow ) show no harmful effect of this in the first 250,000 miles. Most studies only go for 100,000 miles, few go for 250,000 miles, as few owners keep cars to 250,000 miles. Some do, but not the national average. The total acid content is trival at best. 0.002% to 0.007% in pure E100. I don't know what percent of the 0.007% could be "formic acid" as there are trivial, almost below detectible limits of other acids as well. The pH of E100 ranges from pH 6.5 to 7.5. More neutral than most tap water.
You are completely missing the point. Formic acid forms in ethanol and blends when water is present. It can get there either from contamination or repeated cold starts in cool, humid or rainy weather. The vehicle manufacturer has to expect the worst and design accordingly. If nitride coatings weren't necessary, they wouldn't be there on FF vehicles.
2: The MTTF of fuel injectors decreases substantially for duty cycles greater than 70%.
I don't have info on this.
3: Lean misfire under full load due to the much richer open loop A/F ratio ethanol blends require. A flex-fuel vehicle has a myriad of sensors to detect % ethanol and adjust accordingly.
This is false and mis-leading. Flex Fuel vehicles have very few extra "sensors". In most cases, the "myriad" equals 1 or 2. It's true what you say about there being a small sample size, but, this appears to not happen. It DOES NOT happen in the FEH and I've put mine under EXTREEME load with ethanol in tank. 5,000 RPM sustained for 10 minutes going uphill with a trailer.
My statement is correct. Your reply is false and misleading. You obviously have a sufficiently rich mixture at full power. Consequently, you have a richer than stochimetric mixture when closed loop. This is unavoidable with a narrow band sensor and the band-aid method you are using. The effect of a lower A/F in closed loop will be somewhat lower ICE RPM. Of course, fuel economy and emissions suffer but you seem to be OK with that. You have erroneously concluded that the lower RPM is due to ethanol producing more power. In fact it is the richer mixture that is causing the slight power increase. If you run pure gasoline at less than 14.7:1, you will also get more power and thus lower RPM at a given vehicle speed.
Myriad is qualitative and not quantitative. I have never seen a FF vehicle with only 1 sensor to determine ethanol content. It is absolutely imperative to know what the ethanol content in the fuel is to have acceptable power, economy and emissions.
4: Evaporative emissions. Due to extremely low tailpipe emissions on current vehicles, this is now regarded as the major contributer to ground-level smog. Ethanol evaporates much more readily than gas and a non flex-fuel vehicle can't compensate for this.
You are producing fuzzy math. Gasoline has a reid vapor pressure of 9.x.
Ethanol has a reid vapor pressure of 2.x. E10 has a reid vapor pressure of 10.0 since you have basically all the vapors of gasoline, plus a few vapors of ethanol added. Get your ethanol concentration higher, and the evaporative emissions are MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN GASOLINE. The break-even point is about E40. Blends of ethanol less than 40% are only slightly worse than gasoline from a RVP standpoint. http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels...8/29680014.htm
My math is not fuzzy. RVP is not an absolute predictor of evapoative emissions in autos and it doesn't mix linearly when ethanol and gas are mixed.
Ethanol's volatility does have a benefit for racing engines, as the cooling effect of the incoming charge is much, much greater with ethanol than with gasoline.
In fact, you can try this. Take a cup of E100 and hold a lit match above it. It will not ignite, as the vapors are so low. Try that with gas.
Try spilling them on the ground and see which evaporates sooner. A lot safer and more meaningful experiment.
Sugar cane for ethanol can at the least be grown in CA,AZ,TX,LA,MS,AL and FL. In Phoenix it grows like a weed with no fertilizer and spreads like bamboo through underground runners.
I am totally in favor for this, but cane has it's limits. It is perishable like lettuce. You have to grow it, harvest it, and convert it at the same rate. You can't store it in a silo for the winter.
Sugar cane is not perishable like lettuce. I have had canes for weeks in the kitchen with no rot. Sure, they lose a lot of their juice but you can still eat them or bury them and watch a new cane shoot up.
When 3 sigma of the vehicles go 100,000 miles then it means something.
I am totally in favor of this also! But how are we going to get there unless we start testing and reporting? At least I am contributing!
You really think the automobile makers don't do their own comprehensive testing?????If it was really as simple as you claim, a FF FEH would have been in production long ago.
-John
Last edited by DesertDog; Nov 12, 2008 at 12:25 PM.
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 239
From: O.C. Ca.
Re: New SGII Problems
Nope, not off topic for the last 3 pages.... or do i need to link to something to have proof.... anyone... anyone... yea no one cares guys. just be nice and stop fighting. you're all perrty.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,468
From: Jupiter, FL
Re: New SGII Problems
Today I finished my 6th tank in my '09 FEHL and with the SGII Tank percentage at 10.4 it read a 48.7mpg average. The Nav Sys read 50.0mpg for this tank. I added 14.284 gallons of E-10 with the dash Trip at 686.5 miles which gave me a tank average of 48.06mpg. The Nav Sys is reading 1.94mpg higher and 1.94 would be 4.04% higher, so I'd say your 4.1% was very close. I think we can round it down to just 4% higher for the Nav Sys reading higher MPG averages over gas pumped.
I increased one SGII Tank to 10.8% and the other at 11.1% higher for the 7th Tank. By the next Tank of gas I should have the right SGII adjustment for the '09 FEH/MMH.
This Tank brought my '09 FWD FEHL's Lifetime MPG average with 3974.4 miles on the OD to 44.974mpg. Gas (E-10) pumped was 88.364 gallons and my average tank was 662.4 miles (6 tanks divided by 3974.4 miles).
If anyone else can confirm or have tracked their mileage with the '09 gauges and found different percentages, please post your findings. Prior Nav Sys did not have enough stored data for a complete tank of gas so those with '08 and earlier FEH/MMH cannot be compared with the '09.
GaryG
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,616
From: All over the Central U.S.
Re: New SGII Problems
Gary, what does the 2009 show for LTFT with E10?
It will move around slightly, but what's the average?
It should be positive if you have ethanol, and near zero if you have gas only.
This has been a good way for me to tell the difference if the pump is not labeled, or if I am in a state that does not require labels.
It will move around slightly, but what's the average?
It should be positive if you have ethanol, and near zero if you have gas only.
This has been a good way for me to tell the difference if the pump is not labeled, or if I am in a state that does not require labels.
