• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Converting to E85 (ethanol fuel)

If you look at the link, you can also choose to download an Excel sheet instead of looking at the HTML version: http://ahman.1go.dk/

I think the Excel sheet is a little easier to read.

Both the HTML page and the Excel sheet is updated with new cars a couple of times per month.
 
What is the avg. difference in iat?

And how much farther could you go with a heat spacer?

How much advance and at what psi have you run on it and have you had any sort of ping yet?
 
Tick said:
What is the avg. difference in iat?
Before the point of injection there is of course no change in IAT, but after the point of injection the intake charge is being cooled a lot more than with gas because of the low AFR numbers.

Tick said:
And how much farther could you go with a heat spacer?
Heat spacer?
Are you talking about one of those thick low-conducting gaskets?

Tick said:
How much advance and at what psi have you run on it and have you had any sort of ping yet?
I have not tried a lot of advance over what my "redblock chips" already gives, but you can run MUCH more boost because of 104-105 octane and a cooler intake charge.

You can also raise the CR a lot without pinging and thereby increasing the power and fuel-efficiency. I have not done this yet, but it is on my list to do in the future. (Somender Singh?s groove theory is also something I would like to try)

A lot of people that are running LH2.2 have advanced their timing statically with around 10 degrees. How much advance that is possible I do not know, but if you were to advance the timing in the map of LH2.4, MS or any other aftermarket EMS you could probably get equally or better mileage and power with E85 than gasoline.

The only ping I have experienced is heat-induced due to 15-16psi on a 13C at 4500rpm+ on kick-down, and that is what you might expect with the stock turbo/IC at those boost levels actually, regardless of fuel. Also, add the KG2T and a 3" exhaust with race-cat to that equation and you will see that the 13c is miles out of its efficiency range...
 
frpe82 said:
Before the point of injection there is of course no change in IAT, but after the point of injection the intake charge is being cooled a lot more than with gas because of the low AFR numbers.

Isn't there an opposite heat-soak effect? Meaning the charge cools the manifold in general, dropping iat at the sensor?

Heat spacer?
Are you talking about one of those thick low-conducting gaskets?

Yeah, like a 25mm spacer to stop heat from the head passing into the manifold.

I have not tried a lot of advance over what my "redblock chips" already gives, but you can run MUCH more boost because of 104-105 octane and a cooler intake charge.

Keep us updated as you push the limits on this experiment further. I'm picturing an icy intake mani and a glowing turbo.

Great write up btw.
 
Tick said:
Isn't there an opposite heat-soak effect? Meaning the charge cools the manifold in general, dropping iat at the sensor?
There is no IAT sensor. At least not on LH2.2/LH2.4. And since the injectors are placed in the end of the manifold next to the head, the manifold will not be much cooler at all. The head and valves as well as all the other things mentioned will of course be kept cooler with E85 though.

Tick said:
Yeah, like a 25mm spacer to stop heat from the head passing into the manifold.
I have seen those in action and they work remarkebly well actually. The manifold stays a lot cooler. It may be concidered a good upgrade.

Tick said:
Keep us updated as you push the limits on this experiment further. I'm picturing an icy intake mani and a glowing turbo.
This usually happens when the temperature drops. As soon as you start to give it some gas it will start to ice up around the fuel-rail and the injectors, while the turbo starts to glow. Kinda' cool if you ask me...:-D (Many people have given their reports on this, so it is actually true)

Tick said:
Great write up btw.
Thanks!
 
JohnMc said:
The bit about LH-Jet Volvo's not having any dissolvable parts in their fuel system gives me a great deal of comfort.

Some info for MS equipped vehicles.

1) MSII and FCS (Fuel Composition Sensor) - It's no suprise that the cramped firmware on MSI boxes can't handle the additional tasks, but MSII already has support for the GM FCS. no need to set up multiple fuel tables, it interpolates the correction factors from the regular gas table based on the reading from the FCS. This would allow you to run various mixtures through the tank (full E85, half & half, E10) with no on-the-fly reconfiguring. Lots o' info: http://www.megasquirt.info/flexfuel.htm

2) MSI boxes - I guess no support for the FCS, and possibly there won't ever be. An alternative would be a dual map setup. One map set up for gas, the other set up for E85. You'd have to run the car pretty close to empty before switching over. I think you can rig up an external switch to flip that will switch between tables so you wouldn't have to have a laptop with you. If you were really l337 you could probably also swap ignition tables and alter your MS-managed boost controller at the same time...
What about MSI running only E85- not some random mix of ethanol and gas?
 
Billiam500 said:
What about MSI running only E85- not some random mix of ethanol and gas?
Assuming your injectors won't max out, just up the req fuel number by 39%. And call it a day.
 
I just wanted to say that they lowered the price of E85 in Sweden today.

Before today it cost me 7.99sek/L = $1.12/L = $4.24/gallon.
Today it cost me 7.24sek/L = $1.01/L = $3.82/gallon.

Compare that to the gas price of 12.49sek/L = $1.75/L = $6.62/gallon.
 
frpe82 said:
No. The narrow band lambda sensor doesn?t have a clue about AFR, only lambda.

The ECU will tune to lambda=1 on idle regardless of the fuel used, and lambda=1 for E85 is 9.8.

what about an LC1 wideband?
I cant remember if it bases the analog output signel off of the afr
or if its a direct corrilation to lamda...
(aka do i need to reprogram it....)
 
You'd need to program it if you wanted to see different numbers on E85. But really, why bother? It would then read 'low' on straight gas. Just understand that a reading of 14.7 is still stochiometric, regardless of the fuel used. Any higher numbers, you are running lean. Any lower numbers, you are running rich. Converting the exhaust gas numbers back to an AFR is just a purely cosmetic, aesthetic step, not crucial to anything.

All the gauge knows is that the wideband sensor voltage is somewhere between 0 and 5 volts. Past that, the numbers it shows you are entirely arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
JohnMc said:
You'd need to program it if you wanted to see different numbers on E85. But really, why bother? It would then read 'low' on straight gas. Just understand that a reading of 14.7 is still stochiometric, regardless of the fuel used. Any higher numbers, you are running lean. Any lower numbers, you are running rich. Converting the exhaust gas numbers back to an AFR is just a purely cosmetic, aesthetic step, not crucial to anything.

All the gauge knows is that the wideband sensor voltage is somewhere between 0 and 5 volts. Past that, the numbers it shows you are entirely arbitrary.

i'm using the LC1 as my only o2 sensor
hence why i'm asking
because you can actualy use the programming to recentre what is stoch...
but from my understanding as long as i have it programmed into the LC1 that lambda = 1 = .45v for the output to the ECU it will work just fine....
 
Couple questions. I have 42 and 46lb injectors.

Will an adjustable fpr allow you to lower the fuel pressure lower than normal?





I was thinking larger injectors with lower fuel pressure. To keep from maxing out the fuel pump and leave some room to grow, and also allow different injectors to be used.

I understand also that there are lower and higher bosch fpr's that will work. 2.5 fpr, 3.5 fpr, etc, maybe a 4.0. Any similiar bosch design.

What are factory injector lb/hr?

Like maybe you could throw in a 2.5fpr, 46lb injectors and run gas, then bump it up with the adjustable fpr for e85, etc. If you could lower the fpr lower than 3.0 with the adjustable it wouldn't be needed I guess?

What's this about special injectors for e85?
 
davidmacq said:
Will an adjustable fpr allow you to lower the fuel pressure lower than normal?
Only if you replace the stock FPR, not by putting another FPR in series with the stock one.

davidmacq said:
What are factory injector lb/hr?
30-32lb/hr depending on year and model.

davidmacq said:
Like maybe you could throw in a 2.5fpr, 46lb injectors and run gas, then bump it up with the adjustable fpr for e85, etc. If you could lower the fpr lower than 3.0 with the adjustable it wouldn't be needed I guess?
You would need less fuel than 46lb/hr injectors @ 2.5bar to run gasoline, unless you are running a bigger AMM to offset the fuel map.

davidmacq said:
What's this about special injectors for e85?
There is really nothing special about them other than that they are certified for E85. Most injectors that came with an electronic EMS will work. At least the ones we use for our Volvo?s (like the ones that came on S60/V70R, browntops, CFI?s etc.).
 
Were all '88 Volvos made to work with ethanol? I wonder if my Walbro is E85 tolerant and if the Ford CFI injectors are.
 
ovlov760 said:
Were all '88 Volvos made to work with ethanol? I wonder if my Walbro is E85 tolerant and if the Ford CFI injectors are.
The Walbro is of a pretty modern design, and it is not designed specifically for gasoline. It doesn?t have any natural rubber or cork-gasketed parts. I have a single in-tank pump as well ('98 945T), it is from Volvo and was designed to run at least E10 and is therefore ethanol certified. I am 100% sure the Walbro will work excellent.

I am running CFI?s with E85, and I am probably not the only one. And how many people actually use the CFI?s in their modded Volvo?s every day, or drive the original cars the CFI?s came from? Many! And what fuel are they running? At least 90% of all those vehicles all over the world have been running on E5 or E10 for the last couple of years.
 
A little more interesting reading for you guys...

Added section to the article in post #1: Performance application and fuel needed
 
Some studies has been made to estimate some other effects of E85 other than the usual things mentioned before. A comparison was made regarding the relationship between E85 and gasoline, and how good the cooling properties are:

An engine at operating temperature (of 82*C I think it was) with the supply of 20*C warm air and 20*C warm E85 has equal performance / cooling properties as the same engine running 20*C warm air and an equivalent of -63*C cold gasoline...!

Of course, gasoline would not even work at those low temperatures but the cooling effect of E85 is equivalent to -63*C gasoline when both are at the same lambda value.

And yes, for good performance you still need a good intercooler. Not really for the sake of avoiding pinging and detonation, but the intercooler makes the air more dense and therefore you can push more air-mass into the cylinders and get more power.
 
BDKR said:
I've allways been under the understanding that Ethanol has some negatives in terms of engine longevity.

http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=3514


From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_392b.html


It's also been my understanding that ehtanol attracts moisture. Here is a post on a board that is a guy quoting a Mercury (boat engines and stuff) dealer about ethanol.


Then there is the entry on The Auto Blog about it. http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/21/is-ethanol-ready-for-its-big-break/
One of the comments is really interesting.


And another...


In short, I'm not really convinced in spite of the aggressive nature with which it's being pushed onto the public. As a fuel, it works, but it's no saviour. The bugs and surrounding issues need to be solved.

Hey guys, learn, learn.
There are a lot of very uneducated statements here. Ethanol is a far superior fuel than Hydrocarbon fuels, "OIL/Gasoline."
Truth, if you just pour it into a none Ethonal tuned system it will be a real problem as you seem to think it is. The other possibility here is that you are paid to say these things by the oil companies.
I really don't believe that but the possibility exists.
No we will not need to emport Ethanol from anywhere. No the largest ethanol maker in the US isn't a foregin owned agent. It is a U.S. Farmer owned company in Iowa.
It also appears that those of you posting here think E-85 is something you mix with gasoline.
E-85 is 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol hence the E-85 label, "E for ethanol, 85 for 85%.
If your worried about reporgramming your ECM for each of or mixtures of the ethanol/gasoline then look at the MegaSquirt ECM. You can do almost as much as you please with this system.
You do have to learn, learn and think, think! Of course the oil companies are not going to support this but the security of this country is at stake on this oil problem. Watch the news. If we didn't need oil, if just 50% of the U.S. population would make thier own fuel and help their neighbor who can't/won't we would need oil only for durable goods like plastics, other synthetics, drugs, chemicals that only can be made from, "petrochemicals", "hydrocarbons" and live in a cleaner environment.
My old man used to say, "boy you need to enguage your brain before running your mouth."
You all sound like intellegent people and you seem to be WEB savvy so do some research.
Learn, the info is here. If you don't understand, talk to someone who does, "it's called totoring".
Have fun! Burn clean/cheap/free fuel.
I make about 1500 gal of ethanol each year.
I use absolutely free energy to distill it.
I built the still.
You can too.
I don't mix ethanol with gasoline.
I don't want that crap, "gasoline" in my machines. For your info I fly a home built aircraft that cruises at 410 mph at sea level. At 25,000 ft that is very close to the speed of sound. It uses ethanol. I make it to the West coast from Texas in about 2.5 hours if the jet stream is below 100mph. If it is that fast I load on another 20 gal or so of jet fuel before I leave the coast, Phew, nasty stuff so as to get back nonestop.
No I'm not going to offer to do the tutoring on ethanol, injectors, ECM's, aircraft.
It is easy to do.
Bottom line....... learn, learn, learn,
If your still in High School, stay and learn, learn, learn.
It doesn't take a high IQ for this it takes a little effort. Learn, learn, learn.
I've been using ethanol since 1973.
At first I used it outside the law when it was nearly impossible to make it legaly.
Now it would be stupid to break the law. It is easy to get a license to make your own brew for fuel.
P.S. I also inject a small amount of Hydrogen into the airstream entering the engines of my road vehicles that causes the primary fuel, "ethanol, gasoline etc" to change the mode of combustion to the hydrogen cumbustion mode making the burn even cleaner, faster proprogating and allowing ingition timing to be after top dead center thus saving the load of compressing against an already started combustion process like is occuring when fireing before TDC.
More miles per gallon.
More power where it belongs, "the wheels".

Same machine tuned for pure ethanol will out perform gasoline in almost every way.
1. mileage
2. brute power
3. cleaner
4. longivity
5. maintainance
6. etc,etc,etc,etc
The only people who are saying bad things about Ethanol, Ethanol mixes, "E-85", Hydrogen etc are either oil investors, producers or people who just don't understand the combustion process.
Those who don't understand the process are probably stating their opinion from making a half baked attempt to burn something besides gasoline or hydrocarbon Diesel.
It isn't any harder to burn good fuel verses the damned garbage that's been sold to us ever since Henry Ford got into a relation with the oil producers back when.
Misinformation and ignorance is the largest problem.
 
Back
Top