I am thinking of converting the Torino over to E-85.Seems like a good alternative to what I am using now- a 50/50 mix of 110 race gas and 93 octane pump.I realize gas is cheap now( as low as $2.00 a gal in some parts of Missouri) but I also know it wont stay that way long.It seems the spread between E-85 and regular unleaded is anywhere from 10-25 percent pricewise, and I have a station only 10 miles from me selling it.If I switched is it that critical to check the content of the E-85 I am buying.That is one of the issues I have been told to be careful of.The engine is an all aluminum 427 stroker that is at 11 to one compression wise.Pro-systems and Quick Fuel both sell E-85 carbs and regulators and I wanted to know if anybody has tried this yet.Thanks for any opinions and advice, as always.

My buddy has a 69 charger with a 700hp 440 based engine. It made it into CarCraft magazine after turning the dyno at the summer event in St. Paul MN a couple of years ago. He had to double his gas tank capacity when he rebuilt for E85. He gets 2-3 miles per gallon with his car. Bad new is that he is twelve miles from the nearest E85 station. He has had this combination for three years, and is talking about going back to gasoline. Just something to think about.

requirement level for 11:1? I take that's Leaded 110 and unleaded Pump 93?
How much mileage and or use do you use that car for?

Running Alky carries plenty of bad baggage with the fuel washing parts of oil. Alky gets nasty real quickly when the engines turned off and alky grabs water from the air leeding to corrosion. The exhaust from Alky stinks..gives me a headache to be near it.
I think I'd work on getting an Alky/water injection system to tame the octane needs so you have the ability to resist detonation.

N/M

Depending on how much you drive , is it worth the expense to convert?I run a 13to1,aluminum headed engine on 100 no-lead,just fine,34total lead.You do realize that it takes almost twice as much alcohol to make the same BTU as gasoline.The reason everyones mileage has gone to crap is because the additives[alcohol]have gone up replacing good old gasoline.JMO,ROY.

I realize my mileage will go down-hey it sucks now I guess it couldnt get much worse.I am also aware it takes more to make the same amount of energy, but as little as I drive(1,000-1,500 miles a year) I thought it wwould end up being less hassle than dealing with having a 55 gal drum of race gas and also going to the gas station to fill the tank.

E85 is 85% alcohol. Alcohol is Hygroscopic, meaning that it attracts and suspends water with it. This is the reason that so - called "flex fuel" vehicles use stainless steel or plastic components in their fuel systems. You would have severe corrosion in your car's gas tank and steel fuel lines and steel parts of your carburetor which would be a huge expensive hassle.

Also, your mileage will get much worse on E85 because it contains 25% - 30% less energy per gallon. As an example a Chevy Suburban that is "Flex Fuel" equipped gets 18 MPG on super unleaded but gets 12 MPG when using E85.

Bottom line, you will get less gas mileage and spend the same amount of money on fuel. You will either modify your fuel system or suffer severe corrosion issues.

It's cheaper to run gasoline, and you don't have to stop for gas as often.



1912 Model T Ford touring Salmon (ugh!)
1913 Model T Ford Touring original Black paint
1915 Model T Ford Roadster Black
1915 Model T Ford touring Black of course!
1967 Cougar GT 390 Cardinal Red / Black
1968 Cougar GTE 427 Augusta Green / Saddle
http://www.supermotors.net/vehicles/registry/15029/50071-2

The wifes 2007 Jeep E-85 flex fuel special it states right in the owners manual that above 90 degrees you will have hot start and driveability issues.Below 32 degrees you will have cold start and driveability issues and below zero degrees the vehicle will not start at all.

http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=47094.0
I might go this way if water injection doesnt work with my 540fe procharged tunnelport...........Mike

<edit> (several hours later) And there's a HUGE amount of poor information out there regarding methanol. Over a year ago, I started running methanol as fuel to go with the N2O system in my daily driver/ECTA car. (I first started using it with N2O back in the late '70s.) A year later, now, there's no sign of damage from corrosion in any of the components. I did use teflon stainless braid to feed the CH3OH side, but most of the fittings are aluminium, the electric fuel pump is plain vanilla, and the return regulator is also garden variety. I've used almost 10 gallons of methanol in the past year---and it only flows when the N2O is on. With the planned turbos, I'll be using methanol spray instead of a mechanical intercooler.
KS

I thought some of you guys were smarter than to mindlessly parrot bad information. Thats disappointing. E85 is not corrosive, some of you guys are thinking of methanol. I soaked a piston and a rod and some bearings in E85 for more than six months. Absolutely nothing happened to them. Some of the fellows on the E85 forum soaked a holley in E85. It was fine months later. 99.9 % of the bad stories you hear about ethanol are misunderstandings or outright lies. It just doesn't cause the problems attributed to it. When talking power and mileage, many have trouble keeping the differance between ethanol and methanol staight. You don't need 'almost twice as much', and you don't have to fear getting 'about half the mileage'. Some of you are thinking of methanol again. The reason the alcohols can make lots of power is because of their wider limits of flammability. Gasoline's stoichiometric ratio is about 14.7 to 1. Methaol's, 6. something and E85 9.75. If you go too rich or too lean, a gasoline mixture will fail to ignite. The wider limit of flammability of the alcohols means that you can run stupid rich and still have the spark light the fire, so you can make plenty of power. But that doesn't mean you HAVE to run that rich. One of the fellows on the E85 forum is running a 17 to 1 fuel ratio on lean cruise. Gasoline wouldn't let you do that. I've been running E85 in two 3.8 fuel injected cars. Neither have shown any problems. Last summer in 100 + heat, no trouble. Now that it is down in the thirties in the mornings, the cars usually need to be cranked longer before starting. I blame this on my using E85 in unconverted cars not intended for ethanol. They both have 9 to 1 compression. Neither car is worth more than a couple of hundered bucks, so I can experiment without fear. But all of that stuff aside, I wouldn't expect great results with only 11 to 1 compression. To get the best out of E85, you compression and lots of it. If you have a grandmother cam, 12 to 1 should be enough. If you have a more performance oriented cam, I would want to start with 13&1/2 or 14 to 1. If you're running pump gas now and rattling, you could blend in 20 % E85 and see how your engine likes it. Cal

I was on the design and developement team for Stanadyne Automotive/Delphi for the direst injection program of E85. We had tons of problems and as far as I know they are NOT completely fixed. To start with, the fuel pump could NOT make the min required cycles during test due to Material failure of the springs. We had to go back to the material supplier for a special grade of stainless.

As for "soaking" parts in E85 and not having a problem, well no kidding, you shouldn't. But when you run the stuff and get it flowing and moving it pulls water in, then the problems start. We ran "soak" tests with the same results that you got however during run in on the test stands and dynos we had a 65% failure rate. I don't think I really care foe a 50/50 shot that my car will run right or run at all. BTW the new cars comming out that run on E85 are required to have a limp home feature, does that tell you any thing. You should have seen the Dand PFMEA process we had to go through, what a nightmare that was.


dedom

Dedom, a 65 % failure rate of which parts ? Is the problem ethanol as a fuel, or is the problem with the direct injection system itself ? Carbs and throttle bodies don't have so much trouble. Fuel pumps need nicer components because ethanol is electrically conductive, and gasline isn't. But Walbro is able to make fuel pumps that live with ethanol, do you mean to tell me that Delphi can't ? I find that hard to believe. Cal

located in the gas tank. Stanadyne/Delphi pumps mount on the engine and are metal. E85 has no effect on plastic.. BTW Bosch, Stanadyns direct competition has the same problems. Sorry you cant believe it but it is true with many volums of test data to back it up but I don't think the companys involved would ever release it.

Just because you are unwilling to research the problem does not make you an authority on it. E85 does produce lower gas mileage in EPA testing of vehicles that are made for it. It produces similar mileage results in Consumer Reports testing, or any other testing by anyone. It is not even arguable, it is a fact. The reason for this is elementary physics. E85 contains less energy per gallon. Again, a fact that is not disputable.

E85 "flex fuel" vehicles must be made with different fuel system components to combat the severe corrosion problems encountered. Again, this is automotive industry standard practice in responce to actual problems encountered, not something that is mythical, or supposed, or imagined.

Get a clue.





1912 Model T Ford touring Salmon (ugh!)
1913 Model T Ford Touring original Black paint
1915 Model T Ford Roadster Black
1915 Model T Ford touring Black of course!
1967 Cougar GT 390 Cardinal Red / Black
1968 Cougar GTE 427 Augusta Green / Saddle
http://www.supermotors.net/vehicles/registry/15029/50071-2

Here's a typical dissertation on what E10 does in boat motors. A small subset of what goes on with E85 and methanol.

http://www.factsaboutethanol.org/?p=299

Alcohol - grain/wood/shine/etc - is hygroscopic and corrosive, period. That's why most alcohol racers run a "top lube". Anything aluminum in the system that is not protected by anodizing is going to get eaten. If it sits for a while, this nice funky white crap starts to collect in the carb and other places. I believe that is the result of moisture absorption. And no, you don't want to run an alky motor fat ("stupid rich", unless you like changing the oil a lot. I'll be happy to show you a guy that likes to run his race motors "stupid fat" - he's on his 4th this season, IIRC. I know a lot of folks that run methanol and when the cars sit for a while, they put on a gas carb and run gas through the system to clean it out. E85 certainly works as well as methanol, used under the right conditions. Used in a typical vehicle with a typical driver "I dunno, that red light on the dash has been doing that for a month" probably not. And, there ain't no corn around here, nearest pump is 200 miles. Not much of a fuel good for anything in some parts of the country.

1967 Falcon 4 door 351C-4V
1970 Mustang 351C-2V
http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
Owner built, owner abused.

I could still batch up enough to run all of my cars on 10%-15% of it for almost nothing, but the type of use is a big factor. It can not sit, water will spoil it. It eats, as pointed out, most things used to contain it. Cross link HDPE (a petrochemical) tanks are about all there is. And filtration of water is another thing. Zeolite shows promise,but last I checked most of that's in the Ukraine. Another cost factor. Formic acid from water contamination in combustion can destroy an engine in a few miles. Missouri law only allows enough white liquor to made per year by an individual for human consumption. You couldn't make a scratch on your fuel costs. If I could I would.

One thing, corn is never going to be the answer. That's drinking liquor. That is foodstuffs, it takes a lot of land, and it burns up the soil. The dirty 30's and the filthy 50's should be a lesson. Fuel cost may go down, but corn flakes go up, not to say it can't be part of a picture, but it isn't going to do it all. Sugar would be great, a lot cheaper, much shorter batch runs and better yield. But we don't have sugar cheap enough to make it pay as fuel. The countries that can run ethanol use the waste from huge sugar making operations so their cost is really cheap.

Switchgrass is a possibility, but what environmental requirements will it take to mash it? Batch times? The yield is high, but its crickets chirping on how to do it. Yeast doesn't touch it, so what kind of super bacteria will it take to do it? Not one I want in my yard I would guess. So we are looking at a lab style infrastructure, and we know that costs money.

As much as I would like to see it happen, wishing won't make it so. In a drag car, sure drain the tank, purge it with Argon and fill it up next week. In a driver or a boat, forget it. For now...

Royce, your information isn't even close to complete. You're correct in the statement that E85 contains less energy per gallon. Your flaw is in supposing that one can simply count buts per gallon and know what fuel economy will be. Flame speed and thermal effiency come into play here, and in a big way. All of the fuel economy tests you have referanced were all done comparing E85 to gasoline in gasoline cars. Thats what flexfuelers are, gasoline models with a wideband O2 sensor and bigger injectors. If one were to test a 9 to 1 gasoline car against a 14 to 1 E85 car, everything the same but compresssion, you'd find the E85 car gets the same mileage on E85 as the gasoline car does on gas. Its been done, dozens of times already.
The flexfuels that are currently sold don't seem the right way to go to me. If you try to run a gasser on E85, or an E85 car on gasoline, it isn't going to run as well as it ought. If you want to run E85 and have it work well, I'd recommend at least 12 to 1. If you have a decent cam, more compression yet.
Now this fear of ethanol as corrosive is just utter balderdash. You guys have to learn the differance between the alcohols. The OH hanging on the back of the molecule is what makes it acidic. Methanol, with a short construction, is very corrosive. Ethanol, with a molecule that is twice as long is a very weak acid- we can even drink it !- and it just isn't strong enough to do damage to your engine. 99% of the problems folks have with ethanol fueled engines is due to the solvent action of ethanol loosening up crude that was in the tank and clogging filters, carbs, and injectors. As far as ethanol caausing damage to parts by dissolving them, it just ain't happening. But there is plenty of money being made off from dirty fuel systems.
Now, the fiberglas tank thing, I wouldn't want to do that. What chemicals you get by dissolving 'glass resin with ethanol I have no idea. Add an extra tank if you must. But I don't think fibreglas tanks are a good idea with normal gasoline either. Gasoline contains several aromatic compounds that I wouldn't want to mix with 'glas either.
If you don't want to try it, fine. Your engine, your choice. Leaves more of it for me. But you don't have to badmouth it with disinformation just because somebody else is willing to ask questions or experiment. Cal

We put it in glass jugs for a reason. The oils from anything else would spoil the proof. If you want true uncut "big bubble" it has to have gone from still to sealed glass. You pour "big bubble" from a clay jug and proof it, you will find water. Always. If you put it in metal,the last little bit will be rusty slime.

Sugar liquor primarily is carried in plastic milk jugs, which are cross link HDPE. It keeps well enough for drinking, but fuel will still need to be dried.

I am not saying these obstacles can't be overcome, but reread my previous post. Those are the obstacles. Yield vs viability. To run it as fuel we poured it through a sack of corn grits to dry it. It has to be higher proof than drinking liquor to not be corrosive. And the longer it sits, the lower the proof gets, water gets in it and it becomes corrosive when you burn it. Switchgrass may be the answer but what does it take to break it? I tried to mash it with strong yeast. No luck, no breakdown at all.

Down in Carolina the family knew a little 'bout rotgut too. But nobody thought 'bout waste'n it in automobiles!