Disconnected ramblings:

A couple of vehicles back I bought an E85 capable pickup. There was an E85 station on the way to Cabelas that I'd fuel at, along with one within distance of work. I could easily feel the horsepower loss and fuel mileage dropped significantly. But I figured I was doing my engine and the environment a favor. Boy was I wrong. At 25,000 miles the very expensive (for vehicles) spark plugs were done in. I traded the truck in shortly thereafter.

Early this century I was hunting with a friend who at the time was a senior vice-president for Chevron in Anchorage. Curious to understand the truth about oil production I steered our evening conversations in that direction. Although I could never quite get him to come right out and say that there was plenty of crude remaining, he did tell me that the perceived "shortage" of oil today is actually a shortage of refinery capacity. He further explained that refineries are so expensive to build it takes a decade to recoup the construction cost, and because the Feds view on oil (and hence their regulations) have been so unpredictable the oil companies have decided not to build any new refineries.

I like "talking" with you guys. For Scalywag, here is what the E85 forum owner has to say about the EPA deal.

There you go guys and gals have at it..




Personally I can live with it... means less pressure on Corn Prices = lower Ethanol Prices = lower E85 prices


Gets everyone to back off/ ease off ethanol (anti ethanol and corn ethanol people)


Lets back track for a minute and remember that 99% + of ethanol production is used as nothing more than an additive (E10)


and the Industry wanted another additive E15 to be next.. No one cares about ethanol as an additive (and most hate /despise it being forced upoon them)...


I'm here because I believe in ethanol as an ALTERNATIVE fuel... As a Consumer of ethanol as an Alternative Fuel (E85) my consumer interests are not going to be the same as the Industries .


They are looking out for their INVESTORS , Profit margins and the like.. just as they should to a point./. nothing inherently wrong with that.. just the way it is.


the EPA will have a 60 day comment first before they implement the new Standards for next year

For Barnstormer----I had a 2001 Ford Taurus that used mostly E85 except when I went to Louisiana. It ran problem free for 45,000 miles and I know a guy in WI that ran one for over 200,000 miles on E85. It was a ethanol plant car and it was running good when he changed jobs. I'd carry jugs of E85 with and I always remember that I could put in Arkansas pure gas mixed with a few gallons of E85 and it got 28 mpg which was better than it would have gotten on Iowa E10. Also, on your pickup, here are some numbers on a new Chevy that some after market performance outfit came up with. Different outcome than yours. I have a E85 Ford Focus now and here is a post I made on the Focus Forum.

While not a Ford, here is what the new Silverado can do with E85 vs. 93 octane.
Quote:
Using 93-octane pump gas (9% ethanol), the 5.3L belted out 307hp at 5200rpm and 332 lb-ft of torque at 4200rpm on LPE’s Dynojet 248 through the factory 6L80E transmission. This was good enough for 7.5-second 0 to 60mph times, and 15.94 at 90.7mph in the quarter-mile.
Quote:
Taking advantage of the ’14 model’s Flex Fuel capabilities, LPE dumped in some E85 and repeated its tests. The on-board sensor read 65% ethanol content, with 1/8 tank of E10 diluting the mixture, when the dyno read 321hp and 355 lb-ft of torque. This certainly seems in line with GM’s 380hp crank horsepower rating when using E85 (355hp on gasoline) as well as the subsequent acceleration tests.
Quote:
With E85 in the tank, however, the E92 computer upped the timing to help increase power to 321hp and 355 lb-ft of torque.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...#ixzz2k9DVO8V6

Ran across this in our local rag this morning.


http://www.dailyrepublic.com/business-and-real-estate/epa-proposes-reducing-biofuel-mandate/

180Marty wrote:...the E92 computer upped the timing to help increase power to 321hp and 355 lb-ft of torque.

180Marty - I believe my truck was a first or second year attempt with E85, which no doubt meant they hadn't yet mapped the computer properly. And what both you and Skalywag have said about varying qualities of fuel could also explain what I experienced.

Thinking back to the early 70's I had a 289 Mustang that had 12:1 pistons, two 500cfm Holeys, etc etc. It dyno'd 350h.p. at the crank. In those days the only way to get horsepower to exceed cubic inches (without superchargers and nitro) was very high compression, very high octane fuel, very radical cam profiles, and very large amounts of fuel. Fast forward to 2001 and the Z06 Corvette I had at the time had more horsepower then cubes, burned pump gas, and got 26mpg on the freeway. All thanks to closed-loop fuel injection, electronic ignition, and sensors everywhere connected to a kick-ass computer.

Unfortunately aircraft engines are stuck not in the 70's, but in the 60's which is even worse - mechanical fuel injection and fixed timing, and manufacturers have zero incentive to change that. I mean a 520 cube engine that only produces 300 h.p., and only for 5 minutes, really!?

And the idea of putting diesel engines in airplanes is not an advancement, but rather a lateral move to address the Avgas problem.

What we really desperately need is to bring automotive engine technology into aviation, then the types of fuel we run expands dramatically. I know some of that is happening now in the experimental community. Couple this with innovative aircraft design and that's why I think the future of GA is experimental.

Of course this is all just my opinion and I could be wrong. It's happened before.

Very well said barnstormer. That is aviations biggest downfall, IMHO. Thebway our engines are stuck in the 60s really is sad, and does limit their working with new fuels these days.

Now that we've hacked up ethanol pretty good, anyone wanna try to tell me that DPF systems are better for the environment on deisels? Haha.

A friend that designs ethanol plants and has spent a lot of $$$ in Detroit testing different blends and emissions etc. sent these videos. They are pretty interesting, especially towards the end of both.

"If we want to help ethanol, shouldn’t we be concerned about the fuel chart near the end of the small engine video and then ask why EPA uses these studies in their model."



Small Engine Issues Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNk4Am3K ... e=youtu.be



Ethanol Blending Value Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIc-rAhJ ... e=youtu.be

Barnstormer wrote:Early this century I was hunting with a friend who at the time was a senior vice-president for Chevron in Anchorage. Curious to understand the truth about oil production I steered our evening conversations in that direction. Although I could never quite get him to come right out and say that there was plenty of crude remaining, he did tell me that the perceived "shortage" of oil today is actually a shortage of refinery capacity. He further explained that refineries are so expensive to build it takes a decade to recoup the construction cost, and because the Feds view on oil (and hence their regulations) have been so unpredictable the oil companies have decided not to build any new refineries.

And refineries are nasty beasts that no one wants in their neighborhood. So probably add another 10-20 years lead time to find someplace that would even take one. While some of them have gotten much larger, a new refinery hasn't been built since 1976.

Trivia: Mexico only has a tiny portion of the refining capacity it needs and sends much of its oil to Houston for refining. Some friends of mine have a nice little business doing computer modeling of pipelines.