info on E 85 tune
 

Just wondering if anyone out there has a tune for E-85? I have a flex fuel f-150 and was thinking of getting a gryphon. I would think with the octane level (105 in some cases) being so high that you would get a lot more power out of a tune. Does anyone have a E-85 tune or did you all just get the 87, 91, and 93 tunes? Or does PHP even have a E-85 tune? I PMed groovey chick, but no response yet, probable lost in space. lol

They're really snowed under crowsnest. I don't really know if Bill has an E85 tune or not. It actually needs to be different than an E10 tune because in addition to the fact that timing can be advanced due to the higher octane rating, it burns properly at a richer air/fuel ratio than ordinary gas. (I seem to remember something like 9.8:1?) Maybe, the flex fuel vehicles automatically adjust for this, but I don't really know.

I don't have a vehicle that burns E85, so it's kind of a moot point for me.

- Jack

Thanks for the response. I was just curious about it. I would think more octane=more POWER. And everybody loves POWER. :happy-dancing:

In general, that's true. But timing needs to be advanced to take advantage of the higher octane and make that extra HP.

I'm going to quibble a bit here, and I'm not trying to put anyone down - just trying to shed some light on what I think can be a common misconception regarding high-octane fuel.

First, high-octane does not really mean "high power", "better fuel" "cleaner burning", "more efficient" or any of that. It is not "a treat for your engine", as I've heard someone say.

Higher octane refers simply to a fuel's resistance to "detonation" - an explosive burning that may be counterproductive. Back in the bad old days, we had really high compression engines, and these would compress the mixture so much that "standard" grade fuel would actually ignite under diesel compression - before the spark even fired (low octane gas is somewhat easier to ignite). So, if the mixture ignited as the piston was on it's way up, well short of Top Dead Center (TDC), the fuel expansion is working against the piston travel and you get "ping", reduced power, stress on the engine, and higher heat.

High octane kept the fuel from igniting until the spark commanded it, which, DOES occur slightly before TDC, but there is not an appreciable amount of expansion until the piston has passed TDC. And then, the burn is more controlled - instead of being too rapid, it expands at a rate that more nearly matches the piston's movement down the cylinder, giving a "controlled push".

We used to get high octane by adding lead compounds to the fuel, which had the added advantage of supplying some lubrication to the moving parts but the disadvantage of giving everyone lead poisoning.

We got rid of leaded fuels, and most engines had their compressions reduced - way, way down. Then, there were some advances that raised the "octane rating" of gas without adding lead (I think Amoco was a leader in this). So, manufacturers started raising the compression a bit in some engines to take advantage of this. (Higher compression DOES give higher power because there is more total expansion in the power stroke).

Now: Our f150 engines are designed to burn 87 octane gas. The spark is commanded to fire at a point where the burn will be controlled and will give an "even push" on the piston. If you put higher octane gas in it and don't adjust the spark, the burn starts too late! Remember, higher octane has a slower flame front advance rate. You would probably lose power if you did nothing but add the expensive gas, exactly as Sburn said!

So, using higher octane, we can advance the spark a bit - about 0.5 degrees for each octane point. The burn starts earlier, and it is expanding most rapidly as the piston is moving most rapidly (in the middle of the power stroke). You DO get more power with this gas now. With a programmer, the amount of fuel delivered (the A/F ratio) can be adjusted for even more power.

But, even though E85 has super high octane (anti detonation) properties, it has much less energy potential compared to ordinary gasoline (it's also highly corrosive). So, we can advance the spark, and even adjust the A/F ratio, but, we're not going to see as much total power output as we had using ordinary gas, so, we're going to see more fuel used for mile driven, simply because there is less energy available per gallon.

This is not to say that you can't design the engine from the ground up to use alcohol instead of gasoline. And if the engine is properly designed, it can outperform a street vehicle. Race cars do this all the time. They also burn a lot of fuel.

Now, I've probably said a few things incorrectly here, and I'm happy to have anyone "clean up" anything I got wrong.

- Jack

I'm curious about this too, since we have E85 for just at a dollar a gallon

Jack,
Ya beat me to it as usual.. but you are correct about octane ratings. it is purely for preventing pre-detonation of the fuel. END OF STORY! it doesn't do anything else. Here is Colorado our regular gas is 85 not 87 octane but can be used as 87 becase when you are a mile or more high in altitude the oxygen in the air is less so that is a natural inhibitor of combustion.. E85 requires about 15 to 20% more fuel to go the same distance or produce the same power. and thus you will see your E85 mpg drop by 15 to 20 % so unless the gas is more than 15% to 20% Less expensive that regular gas you are not saving anything... locally to me its only about 20 to 40 cents a gallon cheaper than regular gas

Thank you southpaw - nice addition from you to the octane and E85 story too!

- Jack

Here's a link for nationwide and state-by-state percentage spread in prices between gas and E85:

http://e85prices.com/


Nationwide, there's an overall 12% difference right now. A few states have as much as a 16% difference and some (AZ, UT), show E85 is more expensive than gas.


I'll save my opinions about E85 for another forum section...

Good link, Sburn! I have not noticed E85 for sale here in Tucson at all. I KNOW what my opinion of E85 is (and it's not good - I ranted on it in a couple of other threads, here, and on f150Online).

I'll be interested to see your opinion!

- Jack

All I am going to say is that Jack and I agree on this point.

Good post Jack, Sburn, and Soutthpaw.

Jack, Bill and I have already some threads and or posts on this subject.
Sorry I can't post links to them.

Lars
:thumbs up yellow:

In Utah, CNG is actually pretty popular as its about 75 cents a GGE (gasoline gallon equivalent)
compare to $2.19 a GGE here in CO when I had my CNG crown vic. if we had a decent infrastructure for CNG fueling stations nationwide it would be a great choice for alternative fuel.. Along with the various new Biodiesel sources like algae, synthetic engineered bacteria diesel etc..
Natural Gas is the product used to make hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells... why add the extra step? We have the fuel and technology to run CNG now.

Good, southpaw - I do think CNG is a viable alternative. We have a lot of CNG vehicles on the road here in Tucson, most notably, city buses. As you say though, the infrastructure is the BIG problem. If I put a CNG tank in my truck and then travel up to Mt. Graham, I'd like to think I can refill the tank in Wilcox, when I come back down off the mountain.

- Jack

I think this is where Obama should have taken his infastructure improvement package... but doesn't seem like it is going to be in there.... there are some real benefits ot CNG. one is that after 25K miles the oil looks as clean as the day you put it in the engine because there is no by-products of combustion... 25 or 30K mile oil changes... I can't help but think the oil companies have something to do with the lack of CNG popularity
Los Angeles CA has the largest Clean Air mass transit system in the nation. just more useless info.
I also remember reading that for the cost to build 1 mile of 6 lane Freeway you could build 76 miles of Monorail... I am a big supporter of building monorail systems too... I think they could solve a lot of mass transit issues but Politics and special interest money keep it from happening... Like the recent attempt to make the funding of a monorail/train from Disneyland to Las Vegas look like a bad ides.... If you have ever driven on I15 from CA to LV on any Given Friday or Sunday you would see how many people would benefit and how much emissions it would reduce... as well as good for the economy of both states...

OK, I see we're having the E85/Alt fuels conversation here, so I won't start another thread in the conversation pit section.

E85 has to be one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated on the taxpaying public. Left to a purely free market to decide, E85 would not exist. It's only because of tax breaks to the corn growers, tax breaks on the retail level, lobbyists, and government mandates that we've gone this far on the E85 scheme.

Just in terms of physics, E85 has ~20% less energy per unit volume. So, with an unmodified Flex Fuel engine, the mileage goes down by the same amount. One could recoup that 20% by upping the compression ratio to take advantage of the much higher octane rating of E85, but then the engine is dedicated to using only E85 or E100, so it becomes useless for gasoline. With only a tiny, tiny number of E85 stations, and 50 years worth of gasoline vehicles, it would be unwise and a very bad business plan to start down the path of going to anything like alcohol-only vehicles.

Also the net energy per acre of land used (how much corm makes how much E85) doesn't look favorable. Very, very large areas will need to be planted to support fuel corn growing. Take the number of gallons of alcohol yield per bushel, the number of bushels per acre, and the number of acres needed to grow that many bushels and you will likely find that that the US doesn't have enough land to switch to fuel corn production without displacing people and animal food production. Add in the fertilizer and irrigation costs required, plus the energy needed to transport that fertilizer, water, and get the harvest to the distillery. Corn has an unfavorable energy density (KW/Joules, or whatever per bushel) compared to an identical volume or mass of crude oil, so much more energy is spent just moving it around in its raw state.

The Middle East, Russia, etc are far from perfect places to deal with for oil. But aside from the political issues, oil generally flows rain or shine. Ask a farmer about droughts, bugs, fungus, storms, floods, etc.. that all lower crop yields. I don't have any data, but I suspect that, given the usual supply/demand constraints, E85 prices would also tend to bounce around and be subject to the same commodity speculation that already happens now with farm products.

If you want a good data point from the real world, ask somebody who uses fuel as part of their business. Trucking firms. Taxi fleets. Delivery routes. All of those folks make their monthly nut by managing fuel cost and efficiencies. And unlike the government, they tend to do what makes sense from a business standpoint. If there were any value whatsoever in E85, trucking firms, taxi fleets, delivery drivers and such would be clamoring for E85. But, I don't know anybody in those fields who can afford a 20% hit in fuel efficiency costs.

You won't see anything but diesel used in long haul trucking. CNG/LPG are perfect for in-town routes with lighter and smaller loads. But a CNG tank big enough to go cross country takes up too much space that would be used for paying freight. Ditto for any electric schemes. Batteries weigh a lot, so that takes away from the amount of revenue freight weight that can be hauled.

We got Flex Fuel only vehicles because our government thought it was a good idea. They mandated it to Detroit, because Detroit had this bad habit of only building vehicles that people actually want to buy. State and local governments bought FFV vehicles because they had no choice and because they don't actually have to do things like show a profit every month.

You really don't want to get me started on other goofy schemes like hydrogen...:doh:

Correct. Diesel will be the fuel of choice for a long time for hauling. But CNG makes a lot of sense for those 95% of single occupant vehicles commuting daily on Urban freeways.. Great way to eliminate our dependence ou Foreign oil in the short run

Diesel is really the ultimate alternative fuel as u can make it from almost anything that yields oil... like the algae is a 50-60% oil yield to weight ratio. and it grows in a few days....
Diesel electric hybrids have the potential to get double the MPG of current Gas/electric hybrids...

Biodiesel motors/fuel have by far the most advantage in the organic fuel market over the gassers. They have made the most gains over the years.
Also wanted to point out that part of the ethanol industry was also out of the farmer's pocket-called the corn check off. But if the tax are taken into effect the farmer isn't really paying for it.

Some of the ethanol producers are switching production materials to switch grass which requires 5-7 times the amount of corn. So that would not cut into food production but it may cut into acres harvested of corn.

Lars

Nice post, Sburn (and not just because we're in agreement). :drinks:

I put a similar one up on f150Online quite a number of months ago only in it I was more concerned with the total energy cost to produce E85 and the harmful effects on the environment. Your points are equally valid. It's clear, isn't it, that Big Ag (Cargill, ADM and the like) are the ones benefiting from the ethanol craze and are the driving force behind it?

Southpaw, I liked your reference to light rail and strongly believe we should be moving more goods by ordinary rail as opposed to long haul trucks (but that's another lobby isn't it)? There's been some talk of light rail in Tucson, but I don't really see it as viable. We have no real "City Center" and we're too small. We're a bit like Colorado Springs. It can work well in cities like Phoenix and Denver though, and I'm happy to see them trying it.

I think I like the idea of diesel replacing gas as a fuel for ordinary vehicles. It does truly seem to be a renewable energy source.

But hey, guys - if enough of us get behind these ideas and make enough noise, government WILL start to listen! We just need to keep convincing other people that our ideas are right.

- Jack

I can see where CNG makes sense for buses and delivery drivers. I'm not so sure about mom's grocery getter. Conventional CNG tanks are heavy and take up a lot of room. One data point I found was that a CNG tank, equivalent to the driving range of 15 gallons of gasoline, weighs ~500 lbs empty. In contrast, a 35 gal gas tank, now plastic, weighs what, 30 lbs dry.

So any CNG vehicle starts off with a ~470 lbs weight penalty. In a small car, that's a big penalty in terms of the percentage of dead weight you're pushing around, which is going to hurt mileage. If you want to keep the mileage the same, or if you want to maintain cargo capacity, then 470 lbs. is going to have to be taken away from somewhere else in the car. It's not clear to me where you could take 470 lbs out of the average subcompact that wouldn't adversely affect safety.

I'm convinced CNG works for delivery trucks and buses because the added weight of the CNG tanks is only a small percentage of the total vehicle and cargo weight. I'm not seeing how it works in a single occupant daily driver unless somebody willing to sacrifice mileage, cargo/passenger capacity, or safety.

The Bell Tolls for E85
 

"Pacific Ethanol Inc. is running on fumes.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the Sacramento-based company warned it could run out of operating cash by the end of the month, unless it finds additional capital and restructures its existing debt.

With little profit in making and selling ethanol, it has already shut down three of its four ethanol fuel plants -- including a $140 million facility opened last fall in Stockton.

It is in default on more than $260 million in loans, but the company's creditors have agreed to give it until April 30 to try to restructure its debt, find additional sources of financing or both."

Quoted from:

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.d..._NEWS/90401011

Great! That's one business I'd like to see fail!

- Jack

as for the cost of E85, I just got diesel a couple days ago for $1.48 a gallon:happy-dancing:. the E85 at that same station was $1.70 and reg gas was $1.72...

Yea there is hardley any difference in the price of e85 here, but we only have one station :whistle1: Diesel is still right at 2.00+ here :sigh:

I think that this got off the subject just a little bit. Everyone has there own opinion on everything, and I am glad to live in a country where I can voice that opinion. Good people have died to give me that right, and I am very greatful to them and their families. Now back to my original post. Is there an E-85 tune or not? I guess I am going with no since I haven't heard anything one way or another.

I think you are gonna have to wait for Bill to answer that. My guess is that it would need to be a custom tune... if he has not already written some E85 tunes then it would probably require some live tuning. Though as you can make some significant changes using E85 esp to the timing due the the higher Octane ratings I am sure the net result would be much better than running the stock (factory) program that is still programmed for regular gas

I'm going to respectfully insert a note here to remind everyone. Octane rating is NOT a measure of power! Higher octane means the fuel is more resistant to ignition under extremes of temperature and pressure (pre-ignition) and, it actually burns "slower" - does not "explode".

Southpaw, I was not taking anything away from your absolutely correct post. I just get "twitchy" when I hear anything about hi-octane fuel.

- Jack

I was not trying to compare E85 to regular gasoline...What I was getting at was that you could have a more advanced timing and probably a longer injector "on" time to dump more fuel in the engine due to the Air/Fuel ration that E85 can burn at thus giving more power than running E85 on the factory stock settings. (this would probably negate any $$ savings compared to gasoline as it would use more e85 than the stock tune) As far as i am aware the engine cannot tell the pecentage of E85 vs gasoline in the fuel tank to make changes.. thus it would need to be done manually.. So from that perspective an E85 tune would be a great idea. Also, unless you run it exclusively or drain your fuel tank before filling you probably are running a mixture more like E50 or E60 for example.
I was not trying to compare E85 to regular gasoline... as I mentioned before I am aware of and pointed out that Octane only inhibits combustion.

Exactly correct southpaw! I knew you understood octane, but I've found there are a lot of people who really don't. And, I agree with you. It DOES seem you would have to "tune" for E85 to get any benefit from it, doesn't it?

- Jack

That's how Brazil implemented wide scale ethanol use in cars originally designed for gasoline. It's a wiring harness that goes between the fuel injectors and the (gasoline) PCM that just keep the injectors on for 20% longer.


FFV Taurus use a sensor in the fuel line that measures the optical property difference between gasoline and ethanol and is able to tell the PCM about that percentage. PCM can then manage fuel and timing for any mix between 100% gaoline and 100% E85. I'd assume that FFV F150s likely use the same scheme, but I have no first hand experience.

I have a gryphon custom tuned with 87, 91 & E85 performance tunes. I have run them all at one time or another and was pleased with the performance of each. My uncalibrated butt dyno places them in this order 91 best, E85 next and 87 heading up the rear. I did see a reduction in MPG with the E-85 of about 10-15% depending on the driving habits. MPG was about the same with the two regular gas tunes, some people see an increase useing the higher octane tunes but I didn't, sure is fun to drive though!

Jeff

Nice point, Sburn! :thumbs up yellow: I vaguely remember someone posting that there WAS a sensor somewhere, but I don't think I ever saw anything more about it (so it got filed in secondary memory). :)

It really makes sense doesn't it, that if one of their vehicles has the sensor, all flexfuel ones would have it? I guess Bill would know for sure, or, perhaps one of the techs on the forum?

- Jack

OK, so I did a little digging on this starting with my 2007 Ford F150 Wiring Manual and the Powertrain/Emissions Manual. No mention of a separate FFV sensor in either. Only slightly different wires for fuel pump and fuel gauge with FFV options are shown. NO PCM inputs for a FFV sensor.

So more digging on Google seems to suggest that Ford went away from the fuel line-style FFV sensor sometime around 2000.

Looks like Ford now does the calculations all in software with the only hardware change being a wideband oxygen sensor in place of a narrow band oxygen sensor in front of the catalytic converter(s).

Best as I can wrap my noggin around it at this late hour is that the PCM, via the wide band O2 sensor, always tunes air/fuel ratio for a lambda of 1.0 A lambda of 1.0 indicates complete burn, irrespective of the fuel used. So with the PCM software always tuning the AFR for a 1.0 lambda for whatever gas/E85 mix is being burned, you get a Flex Fuel Vehicle pretty much via software.

Excellent post, Sburn. Of course the closed loop lambda of 1.0 takes care of everything! :doh: I hate it when the "obvious" is right there in front or me and I don't see it! My stupidity really amazes me sometimes. :o

And, in case anyone missed it, Sburn just explained that there is no specific tuning needed for changing from "real" gas to the E85 "fake" stuff.

However, Bill can certainly modify the way fuel is delivered to provide even more performance gains over "stock" with this stuff, just as he does with real gas.

- Jack

Yeah, took a while for it to "click" with me, too. I'm still unclear how open-loop (cold start & WOT) mixtures get handled. I assume PCM uses a static map for that is rich for E85 and really rich for gasoline under the assumption that the open-loop operation won't be happening for long. But that' s just my guess.


I think in an earlier E85 post, I stated that the Feds mandated E85 to the auto makers. I believe that happened, but it sounds like Detroit didn't shed too many tears about it. From a 2006 "Car and Driver" article"

"With fewer than 600 stations selling E85 fuel in 37 states, why have GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler been cranking out these flex-fuel vehicles by the millions?

The answer is the mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Federal law requires that the cars an automaker offers for sale average 27.5 mpg; light trucks must achieve 22.2 mpg. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines. However, relief is available to manufacturers that build E85 vehicles to encourage their production.

The irony here is that although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. Not counting the ethanol, which is the other 85 percent, produces a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number for an E85 vehicle results from averaging the gas and the inflated E85 fuel-economy stats.

Calculating backward from our test Tahoe's window-sticker figures (which are lower than but derived from the unpublished CAFE numbers), we figure the E85 Tahoe's CAFE rating jumped from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, blowing through the 22.2-mpg mandate and raising GM's average. What's that worth? Well, spread over the roughly 4.5-million vehicles GM sold in 2005, the maximum 0.9-mpg benefit allowed by the E85 loophole could have saved GM more than $200 million in fines. That's not chump change, even for the auto giant"
From:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...stuff/(page)/1

That Car and Driver article is really an "eye opener" isn't it?

I keep hoping, now that we have someone who is scientifically trained in the Dept of Energy, (at least I think we do?) we might just finally move forward in this process of converting sources of energy into useful results. I think the Engineering Community is up to the task, if they can just get a little incentive and the resources to forge ahead.

And, I believe you are correct regarding open loop - the fueling is taken off a map that probably tries to be the best of "both" worlds. Since E85 has a much richer ideal A/F ratio, (and it's possibly less prone to ignite?), I think you're dead on too about the mixture being VERY rich for a flex fuel vehicle running real gas at start. Personally, though, I'm quite surprised at how long it takes my truck to come out of open loop after start (I can tell it has because the torque converter will suddenly lock up).

I imagine this could be an area where Bill's custom tunes would really stand out. Since WOT is also open loop, he could tweak the fueling to be appropriate for the particular fuel used - rather than tuning a compromise.

I have no doubt that the Engineering community is up to the task. My fear is that politics will continue to get in the way of rational, scientific, and data-driven discussions.

Politicians seem unaware or unwilling to discuss the decisions that need to be made regarding the trade-offs required for different sources of energy, or in the development of new sources. And our-less-than scientifically literate public tends to gravitate to the latest “fad” touted by those political or economic factions that might be operating under a different agenda.

E85 was a good example: “Cheap fuel from domestic corn and we don't have to worry about that rotten OPEC.” Sounded real good when it was put that way, but E85 didn't work out very well unless you were selling fertilizer to farmers, sucking up subsidies, or trying to get elected in the farm states. And the fact that growing corn and using it for fuel instead of food was bound to end badly.

Hydrogen was quite the fad a few years back until this pesky little thing called “Physics” got in the way. “Run your car on hydrogen and the only thing that comes out of the tailpipe is water...” was the pitch. After all the ribbon-cuttings, and and photo ops, and all the grant money spent, even little Timmy in grade school figured out from watching the experiment with a battery, water, and two inverted jars, that it took just about the same amount of energy to make the hydrogen as what was provided by burning the hydrogen.

I fear electric cars like the Chevy Volt won't end up catching on either. First, you have to plug it in, so that electricity has to come from somewhere. I'm personally OK with building nukes or mining coal to add to the electrical generating capacity, but I don't think a majority of our fellow citizens are ready to deal with that trade-off yet. Next, you have the lithium battery problem. There's only a couple places in the world to get lithium, with most being in South America. And right now, the sole source of those GM batteries, and lithium-ion batteries in general, is South Korea. If Great Leader in N. Korea keeps getting chippy, we got another international problem.

No matter what the source of energy may be, the final issue may be wide-scale implementation. Right now, Toyota Prius and Chevy Volt, and whatever else comes down the pike, are only available to those who are fairly well off. Get stuck in the morning commute in a major city and you will find yourself surrounded by all the rest of the folks driving $2,000 “beaters” to the daily salt mine so they can just make their monthly rent and keep the kids in shoes. A $30,000 Prius or a $40,000 Volt isn't going to fit into the monthly budget of most folks unless we want to turn a sizable portion of the population into debt slaves more than they already are.

This great country has the brains and resources to solve our energy issues. But it has to start with an honest and open debate that is centered around science. And, we have to find some consensus about what goal it is we are trying to achieve. Is it energy independence? Is it low CO2 emissions? Is it maintaining our standard of living and personal mobility? Any and everything is possible, but there will be trade-offs that need to be understood before we head down any more dead ends.

I dug up this old post looking for info on E-85, and I got really upset reading it. There are a lot of comments from people who have no clue about corn farmers the corn market, and what it means to our economy.

E-85 is one of the best things to happen to the automotive industry in years IMO. I'm fed up with giving Iraq oil money. Our boys are over there dying everyday, and we're supporting them with billions in oil money a year.

E-85 is an alternative fuel that requires minor or no changes to any gasoline engine to run. And all the cash stays in this country! Sure there's better ways, and they will come. But this is now.

I'm not trying to start a debate, but I just wanted to give the other side of the story that you never hear. And I AM a corn farmer. We sell 95% of our corn to Tyson (chicken feed). :) They are a very good company to do business with too!