FUEL PROBLEMS with Ethonal

[big bubba]

"Water injection has been around for a long time. It doesn't hurt an engine". vsteel
guess my own uneducated reply would be that for the most part, it's ethanol based fuel that attracts moisture in the 1st place. regards

 

[WM75Guy]

Copperhead, to some this may appear a personal attack but that is not my intent. Please forgive me for this is a little long and direct but there are two points that I believe are worth pointing out in this discussion that have me confused. :confused3:

As for ethanol being so bad and a lousy fuel economic wise, then you would be hard pressed to explain how the new engines in development are getting as much power from E85 as the same engines get from diesel, and do so more economically. GM has been testing a 3.2L EBDI engine that gets the same HP and Torque from 3.2L on E85 as the 6.6L Duramax Diesel. And better mpg. And that engine, which is being tested in GM 3500HD pickups, reduces net weight from the vehicle by over 400 lbs. No DPF like diesel, no SCR like diesel, just simple cat converters. Cummins just released a news article about how they have been testing a 2.8L inline 4 using E85. Not sure about how some folks see it, but 250HP and 450 lb torque from that 2.8L running E85 is pretty impressive. Better torque than a lot of V8's, and gets there lower in the RPM band. Again, lighter and cheaper than a comparable diesel engine and yet easily equivalent or more in power and economy.

Dave, your general contentions are correct, to a point. The first, the fuel tax deal governments benefit from due to decreased mpg, is not long lasting. Cummins, GM, and others have engines in testing phase right now, that get better hp and torque than current crop of engines, at a lower displacement, along with as good or better mpg than current engines running gas, and doing it all on E85. GM's 3.2L EBDI engine in testing now, gets the same HP and Torque as the 6.6L Duramax diesel, and better mpg, on E85. Cummins 2.8L inline 4 banger, currently in testing, has 450 lb torque (better than most small V8's) and as good or better mpg, again, from E85.

Well, the BTU energy content is less than gas, but that does not equate to less mpg or performance when the engine is designed specifically to take advantage of all the features of the fuel. Case in point, the GM 3.2L EBDI engine in testing right now. Primarily designed for E85, but is also flex fuel capable. On E85, it has the same HP and Torque as the 6.6L Duramax diesel, while getting the same fuel economy as the diesel. Now there is a strong difference between the BTU content of ethanol compared to diesel, much more than the difference between gas and ethanol. Yet, an engine half the size of the 6.6L can generate the same HP and Torque using a fuel with lower BTU content and considerably cheaper in price at the pump. This engine has been under testing in 3500HD pickups.

#1. Saying something over and over does not make it a fact. How is GM involved with the Ricardo engine? From everything I can find GM is not involved. This seems to be old news as Ricardo started a two year development project in 2009 using a GM engine and put it into two demonstrators to market it. As of yet it has not made it into production with any OEM.

Ricardo and Growth Energy to demonstrate benefits of extreme ethanol optimization - Ricardo

These are two quotes from the Ward's Auto article.

"Ricardo initiated the EBDI concept as an example of 陷域髪treme engine downsizing to illustrate the potential for ethanol, says Rod Beazley, product group director-gasoline engines at Ricardo Inc.'s Detroit Technology Campus."

"Oddly, GM did not collaborate on the engine project. Ricardo picked the engine, 6-speed automatic transmission and 3500 HD because the supplier worked on them and is very familiar with them, he says."

Ethanol V-6 Delivers Massive Torque | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto

Ricardo Boosts Ethanol Engine Technology Using GM Motor - PickupTrucks.com News

From the Society of Automotive Engineers article: "The Ricardo EBDI prototypes are based on GM逞ｴ 蝪擁gh feature V6 architecture. They豎*e modified significantly to improve power and durability. Development was funded by Ricardo out of its R&D program."

Ricardo begins EBDI V6 road test program - SAE International

I didn't write it, they did. Take it for what it's worth. The previous argument was expressing how marine engines are affected, and I just took a quote from the Marine Engines and Fuels website. I have no dog in that hunt, as I don't own a boat.

Oh, that doesn't mean you don't have a dog in the hunt.

#2. I have to agree with Bumperm. For someone that does not have a dog in the hunt, you seem to have an agenda of some sort with all the posting about the Ricardo engine and E85.

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/oil-fuel-lubricants/307430-e85.html

http://www.silveradosierra.com/ecotec3-5-3l-v8-f193/2014-5-3-t145410-50.html

http://www.silveradosierra.com/engine/getting-a-new-truck-6-0-or-duramax-t215522-10.html

 

[Diamondpilot]

The problem is not ethanol per say, it's trying to run it in an engine developed to run on gasoline.

From what I understand ethanol or E85 is happiest when used in internal combustion engines making about a 20 to 1 compression ratio, not the 10 to 1 we see with these Flex Fuel gasoline engines we currently have.

Companies like Cummins are currently working to convert diesel engines to E85 engines. This is a smart move because as most know a diesel engine has a strong bottom end and a top end that commonly support 18 to 1 all the way up to 22 to 1 compression ratios. These engines make better than diesel power, run cool because of the alcohol, and are extremely clean. Not to mention they run on a cheap fuel. And running at an optimal compression ratio the efficiency is nearly doubly of running the same fuel in a low compression flex fuel joke.

The issue is the availability of E85. I only know of 2 stations currently selling it in a 20 mile radius of my home. And as demand goes up so will the cost.


Now the most important part of this equation is designing a fuel system to support the ethanol. This includes a system to detect water and remove it if the concentration is too great.

Chris

 

[WM75Guy]

The issue is the availability of E85. I only know of 2 stations currently selling it in a 20 mile radius of my home. And as demand goes up so will the cost.

Chris

Same in East Texas, there are none according to the DOE Find Alternative Fuels website. Closest to me is 65 miles away in Dallas. Dallas has plenty but once you leave there going east the next is in Shreveport, Louisiana, 187 miles away. The profit must not be there. While a good marketing department can create demand, it does not appear the retailers are interested as I don't see any advertising campaigns for higher ethanol blends in my area.

One reason it is not more prevalent is the cost to the retailer. Older underground tanks and pumps were not UL Listed for E85. At the time most were installed E85 was not around. Some retailers tried to sell E85 by just changing out the nozzle and the signage. Once the information that no dispensers and tanks were UL Listed for E85 became known in the fire prevention/inspection business we had to, by code, not allow E85 to be stored or dispensed from unapproved devices. Most retailers did not want to spend the money to install new E85 listed tanks and pumps so they quit selling it.

The same situation exists today. Regular dispenser are listed for a max of 10% ethanol. The most popular model of Gilbarco dispensers sold are not UL Listed for E85. Regular gasoline, diesel, E15, and E85 all have to have separate hoses so you have to buy a more expensive Flex Fuel dispenser to sell ethanol. The mid grades are still blended at the pump as I thought. Gilbarco makes a pump that uses three underground tanks of 87 octane no lead, 93 octane no lead, and E85 to dispense five grades, 87, 89, and 93 no lead, E15, and E85, thru three hoses. At the pump it blends 87 & 93 to make 89. It blends 87 and E85 to make E15. Add another hose and underground tank if you want diesel.

 

[3930dave]

It will be the large commercial users that will adopt these new ethanol engines first. They'll probably have their own fill station on-site, for short haul trucks.

Once the engine technology is field proven (manufacturer level), it will make sense for the above commercial users to set this up, if they can find medium term supply contracts for ethanol - good performance, and it gets them far away from the headaches of modern diesel emission controls.

The same users that are running Propane (few these days) and NatGas here now, are the likely adopters for these ethanol optimized engines. I welcome ethanol being burned in these purpose built engines - if you are going to burn it at all, it's better to do it efficiently.

Rgds, D.

 

[vsteel]

10%??
I'm pretty sure that's way off. More like 40%

And what does E85 have to do with diesel?


Sorry, you lost all credibility with me here.

I did look at the numbers and with most recent data the difference is 33% The data I was looking at before has been amended. So you can look at an overall energy loss of 3.3 percent but again that is not taking into account the octane factor which will offset some of that because of the timing and other engine factors.

Ethanol doesn't come for free energy wise. You have to use some energy to get ethanol. Right now the most popular source in America for this is corn. To get this corn you have to prep the field, plant, lots of times cultivate, then harvest. We are only using the seed of the corn for the ethanol and the rest of the plant goes to waste. If we would use silage the ratio (off of the top of my head) goes from 4-1 to 7-1. Because we could use the entire plant to make the ethanol we get a better conversion. Other countries use things like sugar cane which because of the sugar content are even better at making ethanol. The switch grass that I mentioned doesn't require lots of care, plant it once and year after year you can just cut it and turn it into ethanol so it has a good conversation factor. Diesel is a measurement of the energy needed to be expended to create the ethanol. While the numbers of conversion can be argued the overall jist is there. Corn is a terrible conversion (for a while it was argued that it was energy negative), very high sugar plants or cellulose is better. It is sometimes referred to as second or third generation conversions.

I mentioned E85 because with the terrible energy conversions I don't think it makes sense to go to it at all. The first 10% is there to give us things like octane and cleaner burning fuel and NOT there to replace gasoline. E85 is trying to replace gasoline which taking into account the energy conversions I think is a terrible idea. If you want a green fuel biomass diesel is a much better way to go, though again you have to have the engines that can run it.

 

[mo1]

The problem is not ethanol per say, it's trying to run it in an engine developed to run on gasoline.

From what I understand ethanol or E85 is happiest when used in internal combustion engines making about a 20 to 1 compression ratio, not the 10 to 1 we see with these Flex Fuel gasoline engines we currently have.

An indirectly injected aluminum-headed spark-ignition engine running on summer E85 can get to about 14:1 static compression with "typical" timing before you start to get knock. It's a little lower on an iron-headed engine or on winter (~70% ethanol) E85. E85 is about 100-105 octane so that CR range makes sense. A 20:1 CR is compression-ignition territory as no fuel I am aware of has a high of enough octane rating to withstand that much compression without igniting. There are research engines with a 20:1 CR that can run ethanol, but they are direct-injected engines that essentially are diesel engines that run on ethanol. The big benefits of them are a faster flame front than diesels (higher potential redline), cheaper fuel than diesel, no problems with soot and the requisite emissions controls, and they can run on hydrous ethanol (95% ethanol/5% water) rather than the anhydrous ethanol required by conventional ethanol-burning engines.

Companies like Cummins are currently working to convert diesel engines to E85 engines. This is a smart move because as most know a diesel engine has a strong bottom end and a top end that commonly support 18 to 1 all the way up to 22 to 1 compression ratios. These engines make better than diesel power, run cool because of the alcohol, and are extremely clean. Not to mention they run on a cheap fuel. And running at an optimal compression ratio the efficiency is nearly doubly of running the same fuel in a low compression flex fuel joke.

The key point is that you said "convert diesel [compression-ignition] engines to E85." Compression ignition of E85 is an entirely different animal than spark ignition of E85 as in a flex-fuel vehicle, which is why the CR and power outputs are so much different.

Also, many current direct-injection turbocharged diesels are closer to 16:1-17:1 compression ratio. The old naturally-aspirated indirect injection diesels were the ones that were over a 20:1 CR, such as most pre-Tier IV compact tractors. My 27-year-old Massey Ferguson's IDI engine has a 23:1 CR for example. Putting a modern pickup diesel turbocharger with its massive boost on a 20:1 CR engine would be recipe for a new head gasket. Just ask the guys in the International IDI engine sub-forum on a popular Ford truck enthusiast website how much boost they can run in their aftermarket turbos before they pop head gaskets and you'll get a good explanation.

The issue is the availability of E85. I only know of 2 stations currently selling it in a 20 mile radius of my home. And as demand goes up so will the cost.

It is heavily location-dependent. I used to live in a small city in the buckle of the corn belt and found about a dozen places selling E85 for as little as 2/3 the price of gasoline. My current locale is well out of the corn belt buckle and the nearest town of less than 15,000 still has a place selling E85 for 20 cents/gallon less than the standard 87 octane E10.

Now the most important part of this equation is designing a fuel system to support the ethanol. This includes a system to detect water and remove it if the concentration is too great.
Chris

Compression-ignition ethanol engines don't mind the water as they are typically designed to run on hydrous ethanol. Hydrous ethanol is simply straight ethanol that is not kept sealed up from the atmosphere and absorbs about 5% water from the air. That fuel would be very difficult to use in a spark-ignition engine due to its very low Reid vapor pressure making it near-impossible to start when it's less than about 80-90 degrees outside and the water DOES cause problems in that setup as well. However a squeeze-fire engine actually likes low-volatility fuels as it develops enough air temperature in the cylinders due to the very high compression to light them off anyway.

 

[Copperhead]

Ricardo helped design GM's latest V6 offerings and then is using that platform to develop the 3.2L EBDI engine. Dr. Matti Vint, the chief engineer for the design team for Ricardo verifies this in this video. GM and Ricardo collaboration has been a long term thing for a while. So GM is involved, maybe not on the level some would expect. They provided the vehicles for the testing, and Ricardo used the GM engine they helped GM design for production. Overall a great video that discusses primarily ethanol myths, but a good presentation by Ricardo's Matti Vint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzM3RQp2STg

Long video, but addresses a lot of ethanol myths. Big discussion during the later Q&A regarding phase separation, and further regarding marine use. The video can be "dry" at times, but there is a lot of good info. It was done at a mechanics association meeting, so the technical folks and questions are good.