Eastern Canada has had E10 since at least the early 90s when I first remember using it. It was called Gasohol at the time.

Aside from motorheads, most drivers had never thought twice about not using it. Problems? Failures? Complaints? Unheard of.

Then the media got hold of it........................

 

Yup.

BTW, the owners handbook of my (just recently acquired) 1988 Ser III VDP V12 says E10 is OK to use.




Political opinionators, specifically . That pretty much ended any hope of sensible discussion.

Cheers
DD

 

@ Sparkenzap

Because the reduction in seal life is small, and well outside their expected warranty period. The reduction in life is something on the order of 3-5% for most vehicles (at least most of the engines I was performing research on in college). When fuel system seals are expected to go more than 150,000 miles, that's a negligible reduction, and well outside of the time period for which jaguar has to care, so they say it's fine, and it is. And the problem with ethanol has never been it making the seals soft, it's always been that it makes the seals too hard, and they pull back from their mating surfaces and leak or crack out and leak.

@ MrFeathers

I don't believe that for a second. An engine not designed to run on E85 will not live for long being run on it. The tuning required for E85 is COMPLETELY different. The stoiciometric ratio is massively different (on the order of 40%), and you have to add a LOT more E85 relative to gasoline for proper combustion. If an engine tuned to run on gasoline is fed E85, especially a mid 90's engine that has essentially NO ability to compensate, it will run very lean very quickly and it WILL be damaged in short order. The only plasible explanation for that situation, if true, is that some GM engines in the 90's were flex-fuel capable but weren't touted as such beyond a small note in the owners manual.

Living in Missouri, my experience in this state and those surrounding. But as little as 10 years ago, in the middle of the cornbelt, E10 was very rare. Basically everything was E0 rated (which was really more like E3-E5). I can't speak to any other region, but E10 only became commonplace in my area about 10-12 years ago.

Again, most cars will run just fine on E10. You will see a small performance and effeciency reduction, and you will see a tiny amount more wear to your fuel system. But both are generally negligible, and offset by the lower cost of E10 (which is all due to subsidies artificially reducing the price of ethanol, but that's another discussion).

In summary, your Jag will run A-OK on E10, you will just see a small reduction in economy and power, and your fuel system seals will fail a small amount more quickly when your car has 150k on it and needs more extensive fuel system work anyway for other reasons.

 

Capezagrande:
I appreciate your thoughtful and informative posts, and I agree for the most part. And I have no data to dispute your claim that the seals will harden with ethanol- my data supports it, BUT, earlier in this thread, the premise was that ethanol TURNS SEALS TO MUSH.

Mush does not equal rock hard. So, that points to the very essence of my doubts about all of this ethanol debate. First it does this, then it does that, then you add 2 stroke oil to it and all is well and so on and so on and scooby dooby doo!

 

By the phrase "turn to mush" earlier, I meant drying up to the point of powdering, at which point you get a mushy slurry of fuel and powdered seal coming out of the joint that's leaking (which I've only seen on cars and bikes from the 70's).

 

There's plenty of examples around proving that it has been done successfully, although it's a dumb idea. I think you've spent too much time theorizing and not enough time observing real life.

 

That might be the reason. If so, GM was smart to start early and work the bugs out. The sooner we can wean this country off foreign oil, then better!

 

One of my favorite quotations, which is applicable here and in many other situations, is:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.

This is all the more true when there are many variables involved and where interactions of one or more variables with others can effectively cancel each other out or potentially magnify effects in unexpected ways.

Nothing replaces field testing. One absolutely has to allow observed data to "ruin a perfectly good theory."

Brian

 

Can any car use E85?

I assume this is the video that was earlier referenced? The article continues where they talk about "DO NOT TRY THIS, you could severely damage your engine", because most non-FFV engines can't fully compensate for the additional ethanol content. Most engines do not have the amount of adjustability required to compensate for the heavily increased fuel requirement of E85. Most standard gas engines operate at about an 11-13 air-fuel ratio at WOT, as gas has a stoichiometric ratio of around 14.7, and they run slightly rich for safety margin and good flame nucleation around the spark plug. E85 has a stoich ratio around 9.5. This means you have to run about 35-40% more fuel with E85 per volume of air as you would in a normal gasoline engine. But if you run E85 in a standard engine, it's still metering the same amount of fuel per volume (or mass, depending on system type) of air as it was with gasoline. This means that on E85 it is running VERY, VERY lean. Which means that it is going to ping and detonate itself to death in short order. This is partially countered by the high octane rating of E85 (106-113 depending on which E85 and which rating system) and by some engines having a low static compression ratio, making them less prone to detonation. This is why some non-FFV engines can run on E85, if badly. Their compression ratio is low enough and there's enough headroom in the cam timing and injector overrun that it isn't immediately pinging itself to death. But it's going to run like crap and it is doing damage, even if it isn't immediately catastrophic, and most engines don't have this kind of leeway. Most engines that have a higher static compression ratio and limited cam phasing will be destroyed in short order.

 

I believe the video referenced is probably this one on YouTube:

E85 Ethanol Does not harm Non-FlexFueled Engines

(this is the same video indirectly referenced in the blog link posted by Cabezagrande)

Since this research (and it's a single case study, at least in the form presented) was sponsored by a group with an agenda, the results deserve to be reviewed with a great deal of skepticism. That being said, the vehicle in question was from model year 2000 and had a computer controlled engine. This allows it to make all sorts of compensations that pre-ECU era cars simply cannot make.


Honestly, I don't think that I nor any other of the ethanol-agnostic to ethanol-OK posters are suggesting that using E85 in a vehicle not designed for it is a good idea. It does appear, though, that "engines with brains" can make some pretty remarkable adjustments on-the-fly that allow them to tolerate what earlier technology would almost certainly find intolerable.


I certainly wouldn't use E85 in any of my vehicles not designed with that fuel in mind. I have no compunction about using E10 in any of my vehicles since that's what they've all been running on, all for at least a decade and some for over 30 years, and they're doing fine. It's not even like I have a choice as E0 is virtually unavailable where I live and priced *way* above E0 in those few places that claim to have it.

Brian

 

3%-5% ? Really? That's the number?

Ha! Why-o-why are we even talking about this then? There are probably several variables that result in a puny 3%-5% variance in seal life.

Oy vey


Cheers
DD

 

Which is precisely the point that many who understand probability and statistics have been making for years.

The number and types of "failures" or variance is well within that which can be accounted for by a very wide range of factors. The number of unaffected vehicles of the same type and eras of construction is astronomical in comparison.

It gives me hope when others point out this obvious truth. Thank you Mr. Dwyer!

Brian

 

You really need to quit while you're behind. E85 sold in North America is between 94-94 AKI.

The oft quoted 106-113 was incorrectly derived by mathematical calculation and not by actual testing.

Theory vs. practice again.........................

 

In 75 Nixon added 10% to the gas. In the mid 60s it was 5% . Prior to 75 you could buy 95-M at all Stations. By now and by law it should be at 35% E. We started to replace rubber in the 60s. E was to be used to as a gasoline stretcher because it was cheaper then (OPEC gas embargo). The reason it is not at 35% is that there is not enough tillable land to grow corn in the world to even do 25% in all fuel. Tanks can burn any fuel because the have a manual spark retard on the dashboard labeled kerosene, gas, perfume and Jim Beam. The rest is history. In the 60s Indy was running 100% E thus chrome pistons rings and sleeves because of the heat.

 

Never mind man, I quit. Run your Jag on E85 and I'll laugh as you knock yourself to death.

 

Nobody is suggesting that all cars can be fueled with E85 without modification or that it's a good idea.

Making a broad statement that includes absolutes like 'always' or 'never' just invites conflict.

 

Differing opinions on ethanol aside, I still wouldn't feel comfortable putting regular grade in a car that calls for premium. It may or may not hurt a Jag, but I know that the supercharged 92 Olds Ninety-Eight that I used to own would knock like crazy if I put anything but premium in it.

 

The two most problematic words in the English language.

No doubt equally as problematic in French or German as well

Cheers
DD

 

And I agree that caution is necessary.

My use of regular instead of premium began entirely by accident. I was on a road trip to my boyhood home for some parental crisis or another and filled up on regular with an empty tank. I realized my error as I went to hang up the pump, but by then it was too late to do anything about it.

Since the only thing higher octane gasoline is supposed to do is to prevent pre-ignition in higher compression ratio engines I thought I'd simply monitor what I was hearing along with whatever the OBD ECU might detect as far as undesirable knocking/pinging. I had none and never have in the several years since.

This is true for many cars that call for premium, and even some that call for regular, but not all. I would never intentionally pump in a full tank of regular for testing. If you want to see what your car does, though, try about 1/4 tank of regular once you've driven down to empty on premium. If you are going to get knocking/pinging you will get it right away (this presumes you're driving "normally" for you). If you get this, then fill up the tank with premium and it's highly unlikely to continue. If you don't, then you have your answer for the vehicle in question.

This is not a "one size fits all" situation. A single-sample case study is called for to make a determination for each car.

Brian, who has yet to own a car that knocks/pings on regular but who knows people who do