Originally Posted by
NTX5467 
As pointed out in charts in both a "research paper" funded by an ethanol-friendly organization and also in a recent "High Performance Pontiac" issue, the optimum air/fuel ratio for prior-normal gasoline is about 14.7 to 1. In the charts, the optimum ratio for E10 is 14.2, with E15 coming in at about 13.8 to 1. This means that with increasing ethanol concentrations in the blends, the bigger the carburetor's main jets will need to be. For the ratio needed for E15, that 13.8 is approaching the "part throttle enrichment" level for most carbureted engines on prior-normal gasoline. If you jet up to get that mixture ratio, it'll make it too rich should you find some non-ethanol fuel. Maybe not rich enough to smoke, but rich enough to decrease fuel economy at cruise at approximately sea level locations. Higher altitudes will probably be worse.
In the research papers "out there", when you see who funded the research you can generally predict the outcome of their "findings".
Whether it's carburetor jets or fuel injectors, there is a certain limit to the fuel they will flow. With E10, most will tolerate it pretty well, especially if the stock jetting might be on the rich side to start with. If the stock jetting was leaner (as many emission controlled engines were), then E10 tolerance can be decreased.
If the particular engine's fuel injectors have enough capacity to flow the additional fuel for E10, things will be taken care of by the ECM. If the particular injectors are at their flow limits with E10 and E15 is used, it will probably set a "lean mixture" code, which can send technicians looking for failed intake manifold gaskets or other causes of vacuum leaks. Therefore, as the paramaters of the individual engine's fuel injectors' flow rates are known, there's no real way to predict how they'll act with E15 . . . as only the engineers who designed and the purchasing people who procurred them might know the answer to that question . . . unless the vehicle is a factory flex-fuel capable vehicle.
Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. have been building and selling vehicles in southern hemisphere locales, where E100 has been used for decades (sugar cane sourcing rather than corn). They know how to make cars work and last in that environment. In that respect, no real new testing is needed. In a carburetor part listing for (about) 1985, I found an accelerator pump cup listed for a QuadraJet 4bbl carburetor for "high aromatic fuels" in the "Export" applications. That would be for alcohol-based fuels, I suspect.
The whole issue of ethanol-extended fuels is problematic. First, the amount of ethanol added to gasoline was set in legislation during the George W. Bush presidency. The amount started out lower, then increases each year. Those projections probably would have been more accurate had gasoline not had the price increases it has over the past decade or so. The reason for the E15 level was to keep pace with the mandated ethanol for gasoline useage. Now, add in the push for greater fuel economy, which will mean fewer gallons of gasoline used and it sets the stage for the need for even higher ethanol concentrations in our now-normal gasolines. All of this to stop the "addiction" to foreign oil?
One observer recently noted that if the first presidential primaries were moved out of "middle America" (where corn is grown), the whole ethanol issue might become less of an election issue. It would seem that in consideration of more recent health developments, it might be better to replace the corn fields with grass fields to raise "grass-fed beef" on and then also put up wind generation farms for a steady monthly income (as many west Texas farmers have done). Might even opt for "solar" rather than "wind"! That would get us eating more healthy meat and also producing "green" energy to boot!
The problem with the EPA is that "cost is no object" is their stated orientation. Cost effectiveness is not supposed to be considered, according to what I've read. It's not supposed to be a politically-influenced governmental agency, yet its administrator is appointed by the sitting President, which puts some basic orientations in play right up front. Political and social agendas of the sitting President (and his party) can and do influence what the EPA does and how it does it.
In the first budget "negotiations" of the Republican House of Representatives, some of the members sought to de-fund the pump labeling requirements for the implementation of the sale of E15 fuels. That would have stopped it for about 6 months. That provision didn't make it into the final budget, though. Other Republicans have given notice to the EPA that more scrutiny of the EPA will be one of their agenda items, too. Still, though, it appears that E15 is getting ready to happen at some time in the future.
SEMA and others are "on record" as opposing the sale of E15 fuels. There are many Democrats who are, with all due respect, "open ears" for environmentalists . . . historically. Nothing wrong with that, except that big-monied lobbys can exert more "force" than a band of citizens might seem capable of. The two plays . . . "renewable energy" and "Get us off of our addiction to foreign oil" seem to be the rallying cries being acknowledged by many in the current Obama administration. While valid concerns, they are NOT the only concerns NOR are they supported in solid science as to their complete impact upon the environment and the ozone layer (which seems to be a major concern). To me, this is why sending your concerns to the Obama operatives might well not be completely heeded. On the other hand, considering the orientation of many newly-empowered Republican operatives, that avenue might be the most beneficial, in this situation. This might be one area where funding decreases might actually be beneficial for some citizens!
In some of the news articles I've read over the past year or so, the ethanol advocates have seemed somewhat arrogant in being sure to get their way, no matter what. Their orientation is that with increased ethanol concentrations in gasoline, all we'll have to do is add some chemicals to the gasoline and it'll work fine in the older vehicles . . . which may or may not be accurate in all situations. They also seem to forget that the workers who help harvest the corn which will be used in ethanol production most probably get to work in older vehicles, too, with all due respect. I wonder if they'll get a pay raise to keep their older vehicles on the road, or a bonus to purchase a newer one?
End result is that as the ethanol in gasoline issue has so many emotional ties on the environmental side of things and solid evidence of damage on the vehicular side of things, with each side funding research projects to prove their particular respective points, it's gotten to be a big mess. Even moreso in Australia, as I've seen some news accounts of.
On the SEMA website, there's a list of legislators which are friendly to the vintage vehicle hobby . . . even owning some of those older cars, too. They should be aware of the issues of ethanol in gasoline in vintage vehicles. It might be good to send EACH of them an email stating your orientations on current levels of ethanol in gasoline (E10) and the proposed increase to E15 and higher in the future. It might also be good to do this in your own words, rather than with a pre-formatted Internet document. Still, though, pre-formatted Internet documents from various websites can be good too. Key thing is to make the contact with them and state your views!
Regards,
NTX5467
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Re: Important Ethanol Message! 
Re: Important Ethanol Message! 
Re: Important Ethanol Message! 
