I did search, and the posts realting to ethanol and the tuner were quite old and not was I was looking for... that said:

I am heavily considereing the XCal2. In a correspodance with Atina Troyer, she mentioned that TP doesn't recommend ethanol. I'm right smack in the middle of corn country, and ethanol is .10 cheaper per gallon at 89 octane, vs 87 octane regular. I've also ran ethanol in every car I've ever had. I've also come across this site:
RFA Website

Now, it says that I can lose 2% MPG, but, seriously, if I had an 89 performance tune or the 10% ethnol, am I really gonna know vs an 87 performance tune? I'm sure there is more a difference from the 87 to 93 or premium octane tunes. I'm looking at this from a dollars and cents standpoint. Will I use the premium octane tune? Yeah, from time to time, but I'm gonna be mostly looking at the 89 octane 10% ethnol blend.

What's the word??

 

Anyone that cares about fuel costs, fuel mileage or performance would not want to run ethanol-blended fuels, as the ethanol portion has about half, to at best, maybe 70% of the energy content (BTU per gallon) of "straight" gasoline - not a recipe for performance or MPG.

Far too many people look at only one thing - cost per gallon - wrong move,as that means very little. What matters is the actual amount of money spent for fuel - not the cost per gallon.

 

I don’t look forward to the day when ethanol is widespread and mandatory; maybe I’ll be too old to drive by then

 

Amen - although I would welcome a change to *straight* ethanol, as that would give us a much cleaner engine and far fewer emissions - and far higher octane levels and more power with proper re-tuning. We'd have to burn more of it, and it's a bit caustic, so we'd need a slight redesign of fuel devilry systems on vehicles and slightly larger gas tanks to compensate for the lower BTU content. This is what has power Indy race cars for decades, and ethanol (straight) burned in enough quantity gives you an automatic 20% power increase, too.

That would be such a winner and a no-brainer - put our farmers back to work, the oil companies could still distill & distribute it, etc - but nah, that would make too much sense and Bush & his oil company buddies would hate it.

 

Mike,

Wow. You and I have talked a lot about this and while I am certainly not going to challenge your knowledge and experience of tuning and these trucks in general, I still believe, in this case, you have not done as much research as maybe you could. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting you work beyond your usual 7 days each week; but, the facts simply do not correspond with your statements above.

I entered the following in another post and didn't get any reaction. Perhaps now, I can get some return comments.

It almost appears that confusion is occuring between "Ethanol" and "Methanol". It is true than the energy content in "Methanol" is 50% that of gasoline. It is; however, not accurate to say that today's "Ethanol" contains 1/2 the energy content of gasoline. In fact, when we conduct the following calculation, we see that the energy content of E85 is 74% that of the current blends of gasoline available.

Gasoline BTU Content 114,000
Ethanol BTU Content 76,000
Methanol BTU Content 56,800

90% Gasoline / 10% Ethanol is therefore: 110,200
15% Gasoline / 85% Ethanol is therefore: 81,700

The resulting percentage is 74%.

Now, does an energy content of 74% mean that you will get 74% the performance from your truck ? Not necessarily. Remember, the Octane Rating is 105 for Ethanol. This means that with proper tuning, you will not lose fuel economy or performance. In fact, you will absolutely gain performance and fuel economy if your driving habits remain the same.

OK. Now, what about the fuel system. Can a non-FFV vehicle fuel system handle the more corrosive nature of Alcohol vs. Gasoline. It is the water found in ethanol that creates a corrosive behavior. Lower % of water results in less corrosion. Putting that to the side. Does GM or Ford believe that the fuel system needs to be altered to burn a higher concentration (over 10%) of ethanol. Let's start with the fuel injectors. A simple comparison of the fuel injectors for a 2005 Chevy Silverado, 2005 Chevy Tahoe, or a 2005 Ford Explorer (& SportTrac) show that the Fuel Injectors for the FFV vs. the Fuel Injectors for the Gas are identical. Hmmm. Mike pointed out that because of the low availability of e85, the automakers are not that concerned about premature wear. Of course, this is logical as well; but, I seriously doubt failure will occur in under 100,000 miles.

So, what is the risk in burning higher concentrations of ethanol is our vehicles. Quite simply... Air/Fuel requirements for 100% ethanol is 9/1. Gasoline, of course, is 14.64/1. So. A 90/10 blend of Gasoline to Ethanol is 14.1. While the E85 Blend of 15/85 Gasoline / Ethanol is 9.85. So, the real issue we face when attempting to run a higher blend in our trucks is getting the air/fuel, spark advance, and timing adjusted properly. It would be nice to change compression; but, that isn't so easy and our trucks are already at 9.8/1 compression. If; however, we get these adjustments right, fuel economy should not degrade and performance will improve.

Mike told me that I should monitor Exhaust Gas Temps. He suggested that my EGT would be higher than normal. He is assuming my current 72% Gasoline / 28% Ethanol blend is causing a lean condition in my truck. It is my understanding that Lamda is Lamda regardless. Since I have a wideband LM-1 installed in my truck and I constantly monitor fuel trims, it appears to me that adjustments have indeed been made to handle the additional oxygen present in Alcohol. In fact, my truck is running and performing better than ever with this blend as compared to a 93 Octane 90/10 blend and fuel economy has not changed one bit.

Further:
A brazilian vendor mfgrs a fuel injector converter "Flextek" available in the US from XcelPlus. This converter lengthens the pulse width for the fuel injectors by 30%. A simple calculation show that 30% more fuel when compared to a 90/10 blend of Gasoline results in an Air/Fuel of 9.85. Now, the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge has been conducted for several years starting in 1998. At least one of the groups determined that e85 in a Chevy Silverado required a 10.7/1 air/fuel to operate optimally. Since the flextek is non-adjustable, this is not going to provide those of us who seek the best possible tune, the best possible results. And, of course, the flextek handles fuel only. I do not expect this device to become widely utilized in this "follow the leader" country.

Please, please, please. Poke holes in this.

 

tschaid;
Are you using the "Flextek" available in the US from XcelPlus,or are you doing your own tunning as needed?I am interested in this,please continue to post or direct me to any other place you are posting your findings and or results.Thanks Tom

 

TSDan,

I purchased and installed the Flextek in my truck; but, never turned it on. The flextek has an "A" switch and a "G" switch. When the "A" switch is thrown, the flextek lengthens pulse widths for the fuel injectors adding a fixed 30% into the combustion chamber. When I read about this and researched it and its utilization, I went ahead and ordered it. I decided to phase it in changing the fuel filter after 1000 miles. To date, I continue to run a 70% / 30% gas/ethanol blend. I know I know. Our trucks should not like this; but, my truck really likes the increased alcohol. Since Mike believes my truck is running lean, I am going to install an Exhaust Gas Temp probe into cylinder 5. While my monitoring shows air/fuel is fine (judging by lamda), this will provide proof positive.

Now, over the weekend I uninstalling the Flextek and am sending it back. Why? Because it provides no method to adjust except through the PCM. This fixed 30% troubles me because during a read of an article, I learned that while the calcs show stoich at 9.7 to 9.8 for e85, Nebraska University, during the 2000 Ethanol Vehicle Challenge, ended up setting the Chevy Silverado they had modified to 10.7 / 1. If I have to modify air/fuel anyway even with the Flextek installed, why do I need the Flextek. I do know of a number of people using the Flextek in the cars & trucks and are running e85 with no other mods. One person has a 2001 Escort Zx2 and has put over 30k on it without issues to date.

I will lookup some of the links and repost. These efforts concern Mike; but, it is my nature to push the envelope as far as possible. And, I am now acquiring components for the Still.

 

Hi Tom,

You're mistaken in your assumptions, I'm afraid - nowhere have I ever said that having only 74% relative energy content gives you only 74% relative power or performance.

Additionally, the BTU content is a moving target from one refinery run to the next, from one company to the next, and so on, it's *never* some set number. In fact, you *rarely* get 110K or more BTU from pump gasoline these days, and rarely do you get such a high % of BTU from ethanol compared to gasoline, either - which is perhaps why Indy race teams running methanol figure the conversion at 2.1 gallons of methanol to 1 gallon of gasoline, in terms of energy comparison/how much additional fuel they have to burn.

And no, sorry, but I'm not even remotely going to get into some prolonged debate here about this - I simply don't have the time.

 

I am not interested in that either Mike and further digging is required and will be done. I suppose you could say the BTU contents I utilized were assumptions at this time. They are; however, widely quoted by many many people including Engineers. Now, that being said. Does it really matter if the BTU is lower on both the gasoline and the Ethanol than those widely published. Also, I don't think I ever specified it was you who said 74% BTU will result in 74% performance because I know you don't believe this based upon the conversations we have had.

In the end, it is only about how well our trucks perform, both day in and day out and under WOT during those rare times when we ask everything of our trucks. Of course, longevity is also everybody's concern. I have poured a lot of cash into my truck and will pour more; but, that doesn't mean I want to replace an engine.

No debate requested here. Just open and honest dialogue. Thanks always for your input.