Ford Engineers take on E85 (FFV's)
 

I just got off the phone with one of the Engineers at Ford that I used to work with several years before I retired. He is in the Powertrain division.....

My question to him: What are the differences in the FFV's verses non FFV's?

His response:"FFV's contain a fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline
ratio. In addition a NUMBER OF OTHER PARTS of the FFV's
fuel delivery system are MODIFIED so that they are ethanol
compatible. The FUEL TANK, FUEL LINES, FUEL INJECTORS,
COMPUTER SYSTEM, ANTI-SIPHON DEVICE, and DASHBOARD
LIGHTS, are slightly MODIFIED to TOLERATE THE ETHANOL"...
" In addition E85 requires shorter oil change intervals
because of the additional H20 vapor being produced during
combustion".

I will not name this person for apparant reasons.

also add different spark plugs also

Huh? Modified dashboard lights to tolerate ethanol? I dont care who you are, that's funny right there!:lol:


TSCHAID said all of the fuel system components were the same part numbers. If that is true, i will have to stick with TSCHAID. If the parts numbers are different, i will have to side with Marc.....

The fuel pump may already be for E85 since tschaid hasnt had an explosion yet.. (might want to check that one out, PRONTO!!!) stainless lines and tank may already have been incorporated by ford.

This is from the ever popular wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
The primary differences from non-FFVs is the elimination of bare magnesium, aluminum, and rubber parts in the fuel system, the use of fuel pumps capable of operating with electrically-conductive (ethanol) instead of non-conducting dielectric (gasoline) fuel, specially-coated wear-resistant engine parts, fuel injection control systems having a wider range of pulse widths (for injecting approximately 30% more fuel), the selection of stainless steel fuel lines (sometimes lined with plastic), the selection of stainless steel fuel tanks in place of terne fuel tanks, and, in some cases, the use of acid-neutralizing motor oil. For vehicles with fuel-tank mounted fuel pumps, additional differences to prevent arcing, as well as flame arrestors positioned in the tank's fill pipe, are also sometimes used.

I'm really surprised no one has taken down to the very simple level of just asking yourself, "If Ford has been producing F150s (all along) capable of running on alternative fuels, why would they have not laid claim to that advantage?"

Especially given the fact that GM is pushing it so heavily as a benefit on their vehicles. And it's not because Ford didn't realize what they had either....they have been doing FFV and non FFV badging/packages since years ago in the 3.0 Ranger- I owned one. I know for a fact it had a bigger fuel pump and injectors because I personally have seen them. My buddy has a 3.0 FFv to this day and he bought a new fuel pump and everything for his nitrous setup and ended up keeping the stock stuff since it was better than he thought (He forgot he had a 3.0 FFv when he ordered the parts)

I would say that since most gasoline has alcohol added to it already, that the fuel system components (pump, lines, etc...) would already be up to the task. But, just because the components are rated for it, does not make it a FFV. There are additional sensors, as was pointed out in the original post, and a very different program in the PCM.

what size are the factory 5.4 fuel injectors? They will have to be 30lbs/hr or so to pump the extra fuel required with the e85. That is unless they raise the fuel pressure to compensate like an fmu on a blower car.

the 5.4 3V engine comes with 24# injectors

There are some concrete basics that must be adhered to on these FFV options.
1. The high percentage of Ethonal will make the A/F Ratio lean from a pure gasoline stand point.
2. The Ox sensors will either have to be designed to work over this extreme range or have their outputs offset for the Ethonal detected by the sensor in the fuel system.
3. The detected presence of the alky in the mix will result in a change to the PCM program that increases the fuel volume metered by the injectors and possible ignition timing changes that have been worked out by Ford.
4. The 85 % part of the mix will make it manditory that any parts of the system that lives with a small percentage of alky in regular gas formulations be changed to have long term life on E85 as well as the internal engine parts and the Exhaust system componants.
One of those is the Carbon canister that may not be compatable with E85 on a conversion basis.
5. As for the water absorption of alky, you cannot get away from this action.
Alky of either type will absorb moisture between the pump nozzle and the tank inlet while refueling.
6. If anyone thinks that Ethonal is the answer to the emmisions problem then you have a lot to learn.
Burning Ethonal releases other conversions from combustion that is equally harmfull. Some are Acetaldehyde, Acetone, Ketone and Carbolic acids with all being toxic and have enviorment effects.
7. There is a lot of engine fuel formulation sensitivity just from the engine design that makes the overall control system a compromise from one design to another for drivability and emmissions.

The back yard conversions and reprograming, while admirable, is no substitute for full lab work and only attains a limited (desired) result while ignoring many other parameters that would have to be addressed in order to mass produce a complete system that is acceptable under all present regulations.
Lastly there is a regulation that says you cannot legally put anything in your fuel or tank that has not been offically cleared by the EPA and some states for use as a motor fuel.

bluegrass,
you have brought up some excellent points. regarding your quote above, how are people getting away with using biodiesel. Is it because these are offroad applications?

Thanks for the input.

Biodiesel must be legal. Check out this site. http://epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/techlist-biodiesel.htm

Observations; If you need to inject more fuel, up to 30%, and the cost of E85 is the same as gasoline what will be the benifit to the consumer's wallet? Further to Bluegrass' statements; how much more pollutants will get into the air becasue we burn more fuel?

JMC

Presently the diesels are also very well controlled by Pcm programs as well but most are not as tightly emissions controlled or tested.
Bio fuels are also a known class of fuel that is compatable use fuel in that application.
The returns on improved emmisions are reduced by fuels that must run richer air to fuel ratios.
The N.J. manditory fuel formulations are very bad for mileage.
I have very good fuel mileage in compairison using CITGO 87 and 91 octanes using the EVO tuner, here in my area.

Barring bluegrass's comments, I wonder if this statement is true. If the f150s will stand E10 then why not E85? Seems foolish to build a truck that could be totally ruined by running a tank mixed with some E85. I say that ford banked on somebody accidentally putting E85 in the truck, and built the truck to handle it. IMHO.

But, well put Bluegrass..... This is a great topic, and some interesting reading....

I'd be willing to bet that I could fill up with E85 and the truck would run like normal. Maybe set off some lean codes, but I bet it would run fine, and suffer no long term effects.... That's what tschaid is trying to see....

I see at least one owner on this board tried E85 in a non-ffv truck and got a CEL light.
He to thought he could do it and be ok but learned different.

As long as it doesn't break my truck, I'll unscrew that POS "check engine" light. :rocker:

The only caution I would say is that a lean burning engine on alky under high loads can burn piston tops and valves much faster than full gas would ever do.
I run a 500 hp 351w powered sprinter on full methonl and if it goes lean even from running out of fuel, losing the fuel pump drive belt etc, I will have holes in the pistons on a $10k engine in the blink of an eye and a coolant temp gage would never tell this was about to happen..