Anyone running straight E85??

[Jasonb1982]

I've been searching around and wondering if I can run my 03 Max off of E85. From what I saw I think all I may need is an adjustable fuel regulator and turn up fuel pressure 20% when running ethanol. Now I realize the 20% approx fuel economy loss associated with it however the local E85 pump is only $2.40 a gal. compared to the $3.85 I filled up with the other day; still results in savings. I tried searching and didn't come up with much. Thanks.

[SilverMax_04]

Bad idea.

Ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline and is a much stronger solvent. If your car was not designed to handle E-85 (the Maxima was not), you will very soon damage your fuel delivery system. And the highly solvent nature of ethanol could also damage your engine (which was also not designed to burn E-85). The damage to the engine could well result from insufficient lubrication of the cylinder walls after the highly solvent E-85 is continually burned in this engine.

I have recently done the calculations and find that gasoline contains 113.1 K BTUs per gallon (net) and ethanol contains 79.3 K BTUs per gallon (net). Thus, a blend of 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol will contain about 84.4 K BTUs per gallon (net). At $2.40 per gallon for E85, you are paying 2.84 cents per 1 K BTU (net). At $3.85 per gallon for gasoline, you are paying 3.40 cents per 1 K BTU (net). So there is a slight saving by buying E-85 -- until you have to get your fuel delivery system repaired. The two would be a "wash" on a BTU cost basis if gasoline costs only $3.21 per gallon. But remember that there are government subsidies that get the E-85 ethanol cost as low is $2.40 -- without those subsidies, it would be more expensive than that.

On the basis of these net heating values, E-85 has 25.4% less energy than gasoline with no ethanol.

If anyone cares, I can go through the calculations I made to get those net BTU numbers, starting with gross heating values from Wikipedia expressed in BTU per pound for both gasoline and ethanol. No one wants to know gross BTUs per pound but rather net BTUs per gallon.

[Jasonb1982]

Yes, I'm well aware of the BTU rating difference between e85 and gasoline. gasoline does burn hotter and produce more power hence the mpg loss associated with e85. My only question is what exactly makes my car available to run on e85 then? From the research I've done all these new flexfuel chevys and dodges have these things done to them to make them "flexfuel": stainless steel fuel lines, tweaked ecu, different fuel regulator/injectors. Nothing has been done to engine.

[SilverMax_04]

I'm not certain what your exact question is. But I will raise a few issues about ethanol.

Back in the late 1980s when 10% ethanol was first mandated in Colorado for "air pollution purposes," there were a number of older vehicles that developed problems because their fuel delivery system had been designed for gasoline only and could not withstand the more corrosive and solvent nature of even 10% ethanol. Rubber fuel lines failed, deposits were loosened and then plugged different parts of the fuel delivery systems in these older vehicles. By the early 1990s most of these older vehicles had been replaced with vehicles designed to handle 10% ethanol.

Now you want to run 85% ethanol in a vehicle that was only designed to handle 10%. Not a good idea. There are fuel lines and gaskets in your fuel system that will not stand up to 85% ethanol. Stainless steel fuel lines are only one issue.

I was simply speculating on possible engine damage due to lack of lubrication when burning E-85. I don't know if Dodge or Chevy do anything more to their engines to handle the extreme solvent nature of ethanol being burned inside of the cylinders. I suspect that they do something, but do not know for certain.

Don't get sucked into the ethanol political boondoggle. Soon the fact that ethanol does not make economic sense will become more apparent and, hopefully, many of the government subsidies (paid by taxpayers) will be eliminated. If ethanol had to stand on its own merits, without sibsidies or government mandates, it would soon dry up.

[20V6]

I do, in my '95 - for the last 13000km... (8100 miles)
Abcesso Flex Fuel Kit.
No issues at all!
Power output and torque is up.
No knocking or pinging. E85 has 104-105 octane.
Consumption +29%
Prior to installing the kit I was using 50/50 in the Max for at least 8000km.
Pollution check done this september: CO=0.01, HC=12, CO2=15.3, O2=0.1, Lambda=1.00 (E85 only in the tank)

I do the same with my 01' Ford Focus, and use 50/50 mix in my '71 Volvo 142 and '73 Porsche 914.

Works like a charm in all of them!

[grey99max]

Originally Posted by SilverMax_04

Bad idea.

Ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline and is a much stronger solvent. If your car was not designed to handle E-85 (the Maxima was not), you will very soon damage your fuel delivery system. And the highly solvent nature of ethanol could also damage your engine (which was also not designed to burn E-85). The damage to the engine could well result from insufficient lubrication of the cylinder walls after the highly solvent E-85 is continually burned in this engine.

So what's your opinion of using race fuel in a '99 Maxima? Will it damage your fuel delivery system? Will it damage your engine?

I sure hope not - but I probably would have noticed after three years of the stuff.....

[SilverMax_04]

{See some of my comments in these brackets} -- and then below.

Originally Posted by 20V6

I do, in my '95 - for the last 13000km... (8100 miles)
Abcesso Flex Fuel Kit.
No issues at all! {see below}
Power output and torque is up. {Have you run a dino test or is this only your opinion?}
No knocking or pinging. E85 has 104-105 octane. {correct, but unless you change the engine's compression ratio and computer, your Max can't take advantage of this extra octane. Remember, octane is not a measure of power, only resistance to engine knock.}
Consumption +29% {Ah -- the BIG Issue. This is about consistent with the fact that ethanol has about 30% less energy per unit (gallon or liter) than gasoline.}
Prior to installing the kit I was using 50/50 in the Max for at least 8000km.
Pollution check done this september: CO=0.01, HC=12, CO2=15.3, O2=0.1, Lambda=1.00 (E85 only in the tank)

You need to do a calculation of cost per mile (or per kilometer) to determine if you are ahead using E-85 versus E-10 -- or if available E-0 or undiluted gasoline. My suspision is that your cost per mile (KM) using E-85 is higher than it would be burning gasoline. The price break here in the states is generally not enough to offset the loss in miles per gallon with the higher (85%) concentration of ethanol. That is why so few stations here have converted to offer this fuel -- people have found that it is generally not economic -- even with the tax breaks that some states offer to get people to burn it.

But most E-85 users feel that they are "making a difference" for the planet -- even though they would be hard pressed to scientifically prove that they are when the ethanol is produced from corn.

[SilverMax_04]

Originally Posted by grey99max

So what's your opinion of using race fuel in a '99 Maxima? Will it damage your fuel delivery system? Will it damage your engine?

I sure hope not - but I probably would have noticed after three years of the stuff.....

This racing fuel likely has a higher concentration of Toluene and other high-octane aromatics (xylene). If that is the case, there should be no damage to your fuel delivery system. It also should not damage your engine.

However, if this fuel is not lead-free, it will damage your cat-converter. I've been told that racing fuel is now all lead-free. But in years past, this fuel had a reasonably high concentration of TEL (Tetra-Ethly Lead). Suspect this is no longer the case, but don't know for certain. You should be able to ask your supplier if the fuel is lead-free.

[20V6]

Originally Posted by SilverMax_04

{See some of my comments in these brackets} -- and then below.

You need to do a calculation of cost per mile (or per kilometer) to determine if you are ahead using E-85 versus E-10 -- or if available E-0 or undiluted gasoline. My suspision is that your cost per mile (KM) using E-85 is higher than it would be burning gasoline. The price break here in the states is generally not enough to offset the loss in miles per gallon with the higher (85%) concentration of ethanol. That is why so few stations here have converted to offer this fuel -- people have found that it is generally not economic -- even with the tax breaks that some states offer to get people to burn it.

But most E-85 users feel that they are "making a difference" for the planet -- even though they would be hard pressed to scientifically prove that they are when the ethanol is produced from corn.

Torque and power - only personal perception. However burning Ethanol in a piston engine is known to increase torque slightly because it's burning slower (longer) than gasoline.

Octane - I know I can't utilise 104 octane. Not an issue for me, I never get pinging or knocking anyway with 95 RON. However, you guys running 87 (RON+MON)/2 might get knocking and decreased performance because the ECU adjust timing less agressively.

Consumption - up by 29%. Still profitable for me because of a high price break: NOK 8.59 vs. 12.95. E85 corrected for 30% consumption increase: 8.59x1.3=11.17 Still quite a saving.
Of course you will have to do the math with your own figures.

For the record: When (if) gasoline drops to 11.17 (my break-even point) I'm back on gasoline.

BTW: 12.95/liter = $8.36/USgal

[20V6]

Originally Posted by SilverMax_04

Back in the late 1980s when 10% ethanol was first mandated in Colorado for "air pollution purposes," there were a number of older vehicles that developed problems because their fuel delivery system had been designed for gasoline only and could not withstand the more corrosive and solvent nature of even 10% ethanol. Rubber fuel lines failed, deposits were loosened and then plugged different parts of the fuel delivery systems in these older vehicles. By the early 1990s most of these older vehicles had been replaced with vehicles designed to handle 10% ethanol.

Now you want to run 85% ethanol in a vehicle that was only designed to handle 10%. Not a good idea. There are fuel lines and gaskets in your fuel system that will not stand up to 85% ethanol. Stainless steel fuel lines are only one issue.

I was simply speculating on possible engine damage due to lack of lubrication when burning E-85. I don't know if Dodge or Chevy do anything more to their engines to handle the extreme solvent nature of ethanol being burned inside of the cylinders. I suspect that they do something, but do not know for certain.

I'm not going to comment on this because I don't know the longterm effects on my vehicles yet either.
However I'm just going to put in this link for people to make up their own mind: http://www.convertanycar2e85.com/faqs.htm

[SilverMax_04]

Originally Posted by 20V6

Torque and power - only personal perception. However burning Ethanol in a piston engine is known to increase torque slightly because it's burning slower (longer) than gasoline.

Octane - I know I can't utilise 104 octane. Not an issue for me, I never get pinging or knocking anyway with 95 RON. However, you guys running 87 (RON+MON)/2 might get knocking and decreased performance because the ECU adjust timing less agressively.

Consumption - up by 29%. Still profitable for me because of a high price break: NOK 8.59 vs. 12.95. E85 corrected for 30% consumption increase: 8.59x1.3=11.17 Still quite a saving.
Of course you will have to do the math with your own figures.

For the record: When (if) gasoline drops to 11.17 (my break-even point) I'm back on gasoline.

- Torque & Power: As I suspected, this is only your opinion. For the same amount of power, you will need about 30% more volume of E-85 to generate the energy that gasoline would provide. At WOT (Wide Open Throttle), can your fuel system deliver that much added volume? I don't know, but suspect not. I tend to doubt if you can feel any torque difference because of ethanol's slightly slower burn rate. As I pointed out in earlier post, you need a dino test to actually prove your perceptions.

- As I pointed out in my long discussion on octane and what it means, RON (Research Octane Number) is the octane measure used to advertise octane in the rest of the world --other than the US and Canada that use by law (R+M)/2 octane and which is posted on the gas pump. A rough approximation of the (R+M)/2 octane for 95 RON gasoline would be about 90 octane number. Because octane is not a very linear measurement, it would require actual measurement of both R and M octane of ethanol to convert the 104 RON for Ethanol to this measurement system.

If you want to read the details in my earlier post on octane, go here:
Octane Number and what it means

- Looks like you have done the calculations to determine that you are getting a better value out of E-85 than out of gasoline. I don't have the time to check your calculations, so will accept them as valid. I do know that many here in the states have tried E-85 and done the calculations and gone back to gasoline -- because of better economics for it.

[20V6]

Originally Posted by SilverMax_04

- Torque & Power: As I suspected, this is only your opinion. For the same amount of power, you will need about 30% more volume of E-85 to generate the energy that gasoline would provide. At WOT (Wide Open Throttle), can your fuel system deliver that much added volume? I don't know, but suspect not. I tend to doubt if you can feel any torque difference because of ethanol's slightly slower burn rate. As I pointed out in earlier post, you need a dino test to actually prove your perceptions.

WOT returns a duty-cycle of 90% on the injectors. I have a LED that's measuring this for me.
BTW you don't need to enrichen that much at WOT when you're using E85 vs. gasoline. E85 burns at far lower temperature than gasoline, hence less need for the rich mixture which only purpose is to cool the engine sufficiently.

Originally Posted by SilverMax_04

- As I pointed out in my long discussion on octane and what it means, RON (Research Octane Number) is the octane measure used to advertise octane in the rest of the world --other than the US and Canada that use by law (R+M)/2 octane and which is posted on the gas pump. A rough approximation of the (R+M)/2 octane for 95 RON gasoline would be about 90 octane number. Because octane is not a very linear measurement, it would require actual measurement of both R and M octane of ethanol to convert the 104 RON for Ethanol to this measurement system.

If you want to read the details in my earlier post on octane, go here:
Octane Number and what it means

Silver, if you would read that again you would notice I was pretty active in that discussion...
Different measurements set aside, you can't dispute that ethanol is a great octane-booster. And after all our cars are japanese. The japs use RON. The Maxima requires 95 RON to operate as it's supposed to - at sea level that is. It says so in the owner's manual and every other document I've seen. However due to the knock sensor you CAN use fuel with a minimum of 91 RON (which would be approx. your 87), with a loss in performance and milage.

Originally Posted by SilverMax_04

- Looks like you have done the calculations to determine that you are getting a better value out of E-85 than out of gasoline. I don't have the time to check your calculations, so will accept them as valid. I do know that many here in the states have tried E-85 and done the calculations and gone back to gasoline -- because of better economics for it.

Like I said, do the math! It's reducing my fuel cost, it might not reduce yours.
Jasonb1982 wanted to know if someone was running straight E85 in a Max. I am, that's why I replied. And there's a lot of myths out there about ethanol, some of them are maybe true, but most of them are not.
BTW I'm in posession of a TSB that describes the differences between the gasoline-only Ford Focus and the FFV Ford Focus. If you're interested PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

Oh, and again I'll point out: I DON'T know the long-term effects this will have on my car(s). However I still refer to the link in one of my previous posts about the 2000 Chevy...

[SilverMax_04]

You may well be correct on E-85 -- but I will not believe it until I see the proof from dino testing. The rest is mere speculation and conjecture.

I don't dispute the octane boost effect of ethanol. What I dispute is the belief that corn based ethanol will "save the planet" from having to use petroleum based fuels. When you do an energy balance around corn-based ethanol it comes out break even to slightly negative depending on who does the calculation. And it usually takes petroleum fuels to plant, fertilize and harvest the corn. To move it to the ethanol plant and sometimes even to run the ethanol plant. In the end when you balance the energy produced versus the energy expended producing this fuel, corn-based ethanol is not a good deal. Only government subsidies and mandates make it economic for the end user here in the USA.

As for the best octane booster, I much prefer either Toluene or Xylene to ethanol because both contain no oxygen molecules and thus more energy.

Your RON quotes can confuse some here who are used to seeing only pump-posted (R+M)/2 octanes, called Octane in my examples, below. So I will do an approximate conversion for them using essentially quotes from my 2004 Maxima Owner's Manual:
- Recommends 91 Octane (96 RON) for maximum performance.
- Says that 87 Octane (92 RON) will work adequately so long as you don't expect maximum performance.
- Says that 85 Octane (90 RON) will work adequately at elevations above about 4,000 feet. This is the fuel I use here in Colorado at between 6,000 and 7,000 feet elevation.

Most octane-obsessed owners on this site believe that their Maxima (which recommends 91 Octane) works even better burning 93 Octane (98 RON). Many try to obtain racing fuel with even more octane in the belief that they get even better performance with Octane over 93. I should point out that many using racing fuel are in California where that state's pollution control laws prevents production of street-grade premium gasoline more than 91 Octane (96 RON).

In fact, so long as their engine and fuel system are free from deposits, their Maxima should provide maximum performance (provided there have been no engine modifications) burning 91 Octane (you say that European versions only recommend 95 RON which would be only 90 Octane.).

When my 2004 was new I tried to prove that I could get better mileage burning Premium gasoline rather than Regular gasoline. I only did a few tests and the results were not necessarily difinitive. But my results actually came out with slightly better mileage burning Regular gasoline. At that time I communicated with a Maxima owner on this site (StevTec) who is an engine expert and who I have not seen here for some time. It was his opinion that Regular gasoline burned for highway cruising (where you don't call for maximum performance) should produce better mileage than Premium gasoline. My very limited highway testing tended to agree with this position. Ever since I have not put a drop of Premium gasoline in my 2004.

I'd be more curious about the "ethanol myths that are not true." As you can probably tell by now, I am not a fan of corn-based ethanol. It is a political boon-doggle in this country that has only succeeded in raising gasoline prices (due to ethanol mandates) and the retail price of corn (due to reduced supply).