PontiacBonnevilleClub.com

willwren wrote:You ignored my post above. I'm curious about your response:

There is little time for me to be able to reply to all the fast and furious posts that keep attacking without providing any substantive data to back them up. Also, I have a real life and my wife says it's time to log off for the evening. Regrettably I will need to reply to your questions at a later time. Good night.

Who's attacking? I merely asked for your response to my views on converting to E85 and it's impact on me and my pocket:

willwren wrote:So I have:

Spend money on the car.
Spend time installing the conversion crap.
Spend more per mile in fuel costs.
Drive an hour to refuel.
Lose power.

You started this topic, so don't expect every reply to be considered an attack. You made your point, and we're making counterpoints as you requested. Yet when I ask you to evaluate my list of concerns.......it's an attack?

I'm asking for your opinion. And I understand it will be quite difficult. That's why I did it.


You see, you're not the first E85 preacher we've seen on this Forum. I understand being passionate about something, but when you're over-passionate to the point you are blind to the alternate view, it becomes a problem. Particularly when you try to sell your ideas to others, with no regard given to the points they bring up.

"You buy gasoline 15% lower (60 cents cheaper) because of ethanol adding to the fuel supply."

I was in NJ last week and filled up at a shell station 89 octane @ $3.59 a gallon. They do not blend ethanol with gas in the NY-NJ area. I am home in Memphis and the gas prices are the same as NJ but the gas here has 10% ethanol. On 89 octane I get around 430 miles out of a tank of gas, I only get 350 with gas containing ethanol. Simply put, no matter how many links you post and I don't care if God himself backs your words... Ethanol is less efficient than gasoline on our cars and I have driven thousands of miles to get my facts. This is not an attack but my real world findings say screw E85!

My mileage and 1/4 mile track ET's both suffered on BOTH cars immediately after a 10% ethanol blend was implemented here. All WCBF attendees that showed up with the same exact setups as last year had the same effect, in spite of IMPROVED track conditions. I agree 100%, but I'd appreciate an explanation from the topic author that addresses my other concerns quoted above.

The people that care about ethanol for performance reasons will set their car up to run it better than it would on gas.

If we started with ethanol and for some reason we had to get away from it in favor of gasoline, everyone would complain that they had to retard their timing and lost power in their high compression engines. We have to get away from gasoline one way or another. What's a good way to get 400 hp without an oil based fuel and still have a range of a few hundred miles?

If you are going for performance going with E85 is not a bad choice. E85 has an octane rating of 105. Forced induction vehicles can experience a 5% increase in performance. While only losing 10% MPG. NA cars will normally see around 20-25% MPG loss and some performance loss. E85 has 84,100 BTUs of energy compared to about the 130,000 BTUs in straight gasoline. The stoichiometric ratio for E85 is about 9.76 pounds air to 1 pound E85. Ethanol is an oxygenated fuel so it has oxygen in it. That lowers the A/F ratio.

If you want to convert to E85 you need to make sure that you have big enough injectors that can flow the required amount of fuel to meet the air fuel ratio of E85. You are also going to need a tune for E85 since it wont work with your gasoline tune. You will also need to change your fuel pump for one that is safe with alcohol fuels. You need to make sure that all your fuel system gaskets can take the corrosiveness of the ethanol. If you run E85 after running gasoline you better replace your fuel filter because it will clean out everything from your tank and lines.

Now i am a member of my Local DSM club and alot of the guys use E85 when they go out and race. Most of them use an Apexi S-AFC to add the proper amount of fuel to make there cars produce more power than they can with Straight Gasoline. I believe that converting to E85 would be beneficial to the L67 but only if you do it right.

willwren wrote:My mileage and 1/4 mile track ET's both suffered on BOTH cars immediately after a 10% ethanol blend was implemented here. All WCBF attendees that showed up with the same exact setups as last year had the same effect, in spite of IMPROVED track conditions. I agree 100%, but I'd appreciate an explanation from the topic author that addresses my other concerns quoted above.

well maybe you and everyone else who suffered should have tuned their car for E10. Probably would have run faster even if by a tenth or couple hundredths.

Ron Vogel and another 12 second GTP out by me run E85, although they have a seperate tune for it and don't use it to DD. I'm not sure what changes they made to use E85 just pointing out it has been done in a couple of L67's with positive results.

Using it as a race fuel on a non-daily driver with a special tune is one thing.

Using it for a daily driver costs you in the long run. Which is probably why they haven't done that. As far as decreased performance is concerned, I had already advanced my timing and was running Torco to boost my octane further. The octane effect of E10 is neglible because the pump fuel is adjusted to still be 92 octane.

The reduced energy per gallon is what hurt our performance.

willwren wrote:Who's attacking? I merely asked for your response to my views on converting to E85 and it's impact on me and my pocket:

Willren, when replying please also attend to the questions I have posed for you:

Domestic E85 is much cheaper for the taxpayers of this nation, as gasoline costs over $10 per gallon due to our military being in the Middle East and financing our national debt, much of which is caused by importing petroleum.

Oftentimes E85 can be found for 15% or more lower than the price of gasoline. Right now the national average E85 price is 17% lower than the national average of regular unleaded. Some individual stations have a 30% price spread. Of course, if you have to run Premium, the price spread is even greater. http://www.e85prices.com/

willwren wrote:You started this topic, so don't expect every reply to be considered an attack. You made your point, and we're making counterpoints as you requested. Yet when I ask you to evaluate my list of concerns.......it's an attack?:

Willren, my first and only question when starting this thread was: "Are any of you in the process of making your cars "flex fuel" to run on E85, particularly in the Midwest where it is much more available? " Please go back to page 1 and check. I did not ask for reasons "why not," and particularly to have the same reasons stated over and over without providing any suportive links to data. By continuing to state the same thing over and over again, and not explaining why time and time again I am violating rules of the forum, it seems that an attack is going on rather than an intellectual discussion. We will have to leave that up to the readers to decide. Thank you for the PM about how to put multiple quotes into one post.

willwren wrote:You see, you're not the first E85 preacher we've seen on this Forum. I understand being passionate about something, but when you're over-passionate to the point you are blind to the alternate view, it becomes a problem. Particularly when you try to sell your ideas to others, with no regard given to the points they bring up.

Willren, you are just as overly-passionate AGAINST E85 as I am FOR it. I keep on posting opinions with links to back them up, but you keep posting the same opinions without supporting them with links. It would seem your opinion is more blind to the alternative, and you do not give regard to the opinion of others.

Thanks for the compliment "E85 preacher." Someone has to spread the good word, against the false negativity.

willwren wrote: Spend money on the car.
Spend time installing the conversion crap.
Spend more per mile in fuel costs.
Drive an hour to refuel.
Lose power.

Willwren, you certainly don't have to do this if you don't want to. Others are doing it and they have their reasons. You would spend money on your car. I imagine you already have spent $1000's and probably will continue modifying with the newest and greatest--that is what others are doing when they convert, in the same manner. The conversion parts are not "crap," but rather high-performance improvements. The http://www.e85prices.com site helps determine if you spend more per mile in fuel costs or not. Many have found that a price spread of 15% or more overcomes the lower fuel economy. National average is 17%. In Oregon you probably would drive an hour to refuel, but only for now. This winter in California a local fuel station owner is putting on in literally right down the street from us (and 19 others in the Sacramento area alone!). One may soon do the same near you, though you would not know of it yet. E85 provides more power, plain and simple (there's no arguing that). There's your answers.

willwren wrote:Actually, there are fuel-cell vehicles on the road right now. Have been for several months. And all major manufacturers plan to release vehicles powered by fuel cells within the next 5 years.

SacramentoE85 wrote:Are you speaking of the Honda FCX? How much more does that cost over a regular vehicle? And how far does it travel, and how does it compare in utility to a sedan (Bonneville) or SUV (Tahoe)?

Willwren, please answer my questions about the Honda FCX. No point in debating this point if something better is available than E85 now, if you won't answer the questions about the FCX.

willwren wrote:I'm one of the 'somewhat passionate' opponents. Not to the point of pushing my ideas, though.

Oh but Willwren, you ARE pushing your ideas. And you don't provide anything to back it up... Please, I would rather have an intellectual discussion. I am not pushing ideas, as if you refer to Post #1 on this thread I simply asked the question if anyone was doing it. That was followed by your opinions with no back-up.

Sacramento, you posted ONE view. Your links were all slanted in ONE direction. I posted the OPPOSING view.

To answer your questions, there are NO cars here converted, and NONE in the process. There was one that considered it, and never completed it. That's with a total of over 10,000 members of this Forum since 2002, some with multiple cars.

Does that answer your question?

I know 4 people with FFV's here in Oregon. Not a single one of them has been ABLE to fill their car with E85 even ONCE. Not a single drop. 3 have tried unsuccessfully to sell their cars.

SacramentoE85 wrote: Don't forget--when ethanol is made the livestock feed is still available to our food supply, because 1/3 of the bushel is a high-protein livestock feed (DDGS) that is then fed to cows, pigs, poultry, etc.!

My dad is the Director of Treasury and Finance for Christensen Farms, the 4th largest hog producer in the nation. For their hogs, when they are 50 lbs and up, they use less than 2% DDG's, and above 200 lbs they use 0. That's because DDG's are not suitable for hogs, due to the high fat, low energy nature of them. The only animals that can be fed DDG's straight are cattle, and that is only beef, and they don't even need grain! The reason the Protein animal market is so Volatile is due to the Ethanol demanding all the corn that we desperately need to feed our animals, and since the price of corn is going up, the animal price has to go up, but the animal market can't react as fast as the Grain markets, which is why my dad is so stressed out. It is the people who think that Ethanol is going to save us, whereas it is just a Band-Aid over the alternative energy market. Ethanol is the cause of raising food prices, and a gallon of ethanol takes more foreign oil to make vs. what it replaces. Think about it. Planting the corn, spraying, Combining, hauling the corn to the Plant, and then tilling the field to start the whole process. That energy is much better utilized feeding our animals and our population. Just my opinion on ethanol.


EDIT: I believe SE85 is talking about the PRICE benefit of ethanol, whereas Willwren is talking about the PERFORMANCE Disadvantages, which are both valid points.

Little gasoline is actually used in production or transportation of corn. It's mostly diesel. Now, if we could use more biodiesel it could increase the demand for your dad's hogs for their animal fat.

How much corn does it take to raise a pig to market weight? Maybe it's pigs that are causing the high price of corn. What's more important to the future? Pork or energy independence?

Pork.

Roadtech195 wrote:I was in NJ last week and filled up at a shell station 89 octane @ $3.59 a gallon. They do not blend ethanol with gas in the NY-NJ area. I am home in Memphis and the gas prices are the same as NJ but the gas here has 10% ethanol. On 89 octane I get around 430 miles out of a tank of gas, I only get 350 with gas containing ethanol. Simply put, no matter how many links you post and I don't care if God himself backs your words... Ethanol is less efficient than gasoline on our cars and I have driven thousands of miles to get my facts. This is not an attack but my real world findings say screw E85!

I don't mean to get slightly "off topic" here. But I would like to say a few words about E10. The gas pumps I fill up at all have stickers proclaming 10% Ethanol. Although I can't prove it to you, I can still get very good (29 mpg) gas mileage with E10 during the summer months. Your milage (and driving habits) may vary.

Also, if your so passionate about fuel I would suggest looking at The Oil Drum site.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4308

There is some good discussions going on there that would fuel your soul.

J Wikoff wrote:Little gasoline is actually used in production or transportation of corn. It's mostly diesel. Now, if we could use more biodiesel it could increase the demand for your dad's hogs for their animal fat.

How much corn does it take to raise a pig to market weight? Maybe it's pigs that are causing the high price of corn. What's more important to the future? Pork or energy independence?

Pigs have been eating corn for a lot longer than cars have, and unless you appreciate a full tank more than a full stomach, they will still be eating it for a long time to come. As far as transportation of corn, what i meant was that it used more Foreign Oil than it replaced. I was on the gasoline Rampage, and thought diesel, and typed gasoline.

And along the same lines.....more foreign oil is USED to manufacture Ethanol than you actually get out of it, then you have to distribute it with MORE foreign oil, which ends up magnifying the disparity even MORE while the pigs are starving.

So we actually use MORE foreign oil to make and distribute something that contains LESS energy while we divert grain away from the traditional source, driving food prices up.

Diesel designed the diesel engine to run off of peanut oil, but the oil we today call diesel was more readily available and less expensive at the time. Maybe we could run E85 distributing trucks off of deep fryer oil. Speaking of which, I'll be using deep fryer oil this weekend to visit space, where my mind is right now, and get my mind back where it needs to be.

I can eat other things. I'm not aware of anyone that has pulled off a pork-only diet, and I'm sure the Jewish don't care about pork prices.

If could run 105 octane E85 for 2.97 (price quoted yesterday just across town in Dunlap http://e85prices.com/illinois.html ) versus 100-110 octane race fuel (can't find a listing, I'm sure it's not cheap) I certainly would. I could probably run a few pounds more boost while I'm at it.

Ethanol is a fantastic idea.

When non-food crops and non-food-growing land are used to produce it.

The 'cellulosic' ethanol is an idea we need to aggressively pursue. Also we should lower the sky-high import tariff we have on Brazilian ethanol. Less money going to the Chavez regime and more money going to a country who is our ally. And it's all free-market economics how that one will work. So the greenies get their ethanol, the hawks keep Chavez better contained, and we gain (hopefully) lower energy prices.

J Wikoff wrote:I can eat other things. I'm not aware of anyone that has pulled off a pork-only diet, and I'm sure the Jewish don't care about pork prices.

If could run 105 octane E85 for 2.97 (price quoted yesterday just across town in Dunlap http://e85prices.com/illinois.html ) versus 100-110 octane race fuel (can't find a listing, I'm sure it's not cheap) I certainly would. I could probably run a few pounds more boost while I'm at it.

And a stock 94/95 L67 would whoop your at the track because there's less ENERGY in that fuel, even if you adjusted your timing far enough to take advantage of it, which would cost you (costly) tuning.

I could do that with my 95 on pump gas (10% ethanol 92 blend) right now. The performance factor is no argument when you look at the lower energy per gallon. OCTANE only gains you timing. But the actual energy available in the fuel is severely lacking.