In support of the information posted above...I found this on http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_5a.html .

"What are the differences in an FFV compared to a regular gasoline-only model? Are different parts used?

There is only one major additional part that is included on an FFV, the fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio. A number of other parts on 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 gauges have been modified slightly. Alcohols are corrosive. Therefore, any part that comes in contact with the fuel has been upgraded to be tolerant to alcohol. Normally, these parts include a stainless steel fuel tank and Teflon lined fuel hoses."

"Can a car be retrofitted or converted to use E85?

We do not recommend the conversion of a gasoline-only vehicle to operate on E85. FFVs that come with original equipment from the manufacturer have the same warranties as gasoline vehicles and they are specially suited to use E85 as efficiently as possible and to burn cleaner."

"Will I hurt a gasoline-only vehicle if I use E85?

Yes. Longer-term use of E85 in gasoline-only vehicles may cause damage because of the incompatibility of the alcohol fuel with the parts in gasoline-only engines. Performance and emissions will also be compromised."




Duke

 

I don't want to get into a pissing contest around here.I would like a good E-85 tune from Mike with a disclaimer concearning,all known problems concearning corrosion,or any other negitive chemical effects from the use of E-85.That will never happen!!
It does need to be understood that Mike Troyer is in no position to dispute the claims from Ford, or any other manufacturer, concearning the negitive effects the use of E-85 may cause in a non FFV.
Mike Troyer, does not seem to me to be a man who is ready to commit professional suicide.
Sometimes the whole picture needs to be looked at.Focus on a small personnel part might get tempers flaired and cause a long drawn out dispute.

 

I have seen this and I have seen another (I think it was either Nebraska or your home state of Minnesota) that refutes it entirely. As for the additional sensor. Having searched motorcraft.com and having spent a couple of hours with the Parts Manager at a local Ford Dealership, we have not been able to find this "sensor". In fact, the O2 Sensors between the 2006 F150 FFV and the 2004 F150 have the same identical part number so are interchangeable. The 2006 F150 FFV does have a number of adjustments, built in to the factory program, specifically for Ethanol and referencing Ethanol by name. I just have not been able to determine if these are in fact coming from a special "sensor" or if they are simply the result of the O2 sensors seeing the change. Ford builds in a 25% variance before setting a lean code, based upon O2 sensor readings, into the 2004 and up F150s. For the FFV version they increase this to nearly 29% before setting the adaptive too lean code CELs.

Next, I raise my eyebrows when I see an article referencing the generic term "alcohols" since there are miles of differences between Ethanol, Methanol, and Gasohol.

Lastly, Yes the non-FFV PCM can be reprogrammed to deliver fuel effectively and burn it efficiently (nearly as efficient as gasohol - 50/50 Highway / City). The Pro Racer Software and an XCAL2 cost less than $700 retail and can be bought for less. That is just plain bunk. I know I know, Troyer has pointed out inconsistencies in my learnings and statements over the past 6 months. This is a fact. And, I am in the process of fixing up a 98 F150 with 243K on it for the same purpose. I may have issues with the fuel delivery of these vehicles down the road. So be it. I just don't think an authoritative source exists especially since E85 has only been around for a year. There is always some pain that goes along with progress.

 

At least someone is giving it a good go around.

 

Well I kept reading about this all night as it has my interest. From what I've read I'd bet solid money that you'll be fine for the next year or so depending on driving habits. BUT that E85 mixture will start eating away at seals, fuel tank and fuel hoses.

As a matter of fact a funny thing is happening as I type this. I'm at the dealer getting my oil changed and having my driver's side seat fixed (it came loose a little from the floor). You'll never guess what came driving up to the dealership. It's an old guy, 70+, driving a Ford Taurus. He was complaining of his car stalling often and having a very difficult time starting.

The service manager is talking to him now (as I type this), aparently the guy has been using E85 in his tank for going on two years now and it has ruined his gas tank and hoses. The old guy is all pissed off because he thought all Ford Tauruses are E85 ok and he doesn't understand a difference in the type of gas (just thinks it's made differenty but has the same "stuff" as regular gas.

I'll try and get a copy of his service report from the lady at the desk and then copy it on here.

So it does sound like there are some minor upgrades the FFV vehicles have for fuel delivery to protect against the corrosiveness of E85. I think the best idea would be to trade in on a FFV enabled F150 and run your mixture where you know it's safe. Sure you could run it on your F150 you have now but two years down the line you'll probably end up like this guy sitting across the room from me. Look at it this way, the money you'll save in replacing these parts later on will account for any loss on a trade-in.

Hat's off to you for trying something new though. It takes pioneering to develop new ways to fuel our vehicles, right or wrong in how you went about showing it. I don't condone what you did on here by saying this and I think you realize what you did wrong. Best of luck to you!

Duke

 

Duke,

I will say it again. All I was trying to do was get a discussion going to share information. I have said some things that were wrong. At the time, I believed them to be accurate. Regardless of age, learning is something we should do everyday. All I have been doing is going after the facts. That has been the challenge. This board contains a lot of very knowledgeable people. Unfortunately it also contains people who speak from an authoritative position but don't always use facts in their explanations. Then, when they are challenged instead of re-examination, they simply go after a person's character. That is no good and defeats the purpose of the forum. It is; however, something that happen in everyday life. When some try to break away from the crowd, many in the crowd react by trying to pull them back in. It really is ok and regardless of my approach or the attacks on me, it isn't the first time and I doubt it will be the last.

You, on the other hand, have done a lot of digging and I am sure have learned a lot. Now, you and others are in a position to decide what to do. So, let say a fuel tank, fuel pump, and hoses cost $1000. Let's assume this will happen to me after 2 years of driving on E85. Now let's do the calculations.

I drive 34,500 miles per year. At 11.4 MPG (Current on E85) that is 3,026 gallons. I was getting 12.2 MPG with Troyer's 93 Octane Hi-Perf tune. I would then have utilized 2,828 gallons of 93 Octane Fuel. I have just begun manufacturing my own ethanol and without the federal credits and without the sale of the distillers grain, the gross cost per gallon not counting my the 1 hour per day of labor is: $1.21 (This also does not include a second round of fermentation of the same wort which I have been told will produce additional fuel). 93 Octane Gasoline is now selling for $3.39 per gallon here. I have been buying E85 for $2.43 per gallon here for the past two weeks.

So. If I don't mfgr my own. My annual savings is:$2,234 or $4,468 over 2 years.

If I do mfgr my own (I have a batch fermenting rigth now): My annual savings is: $5,926 or $11,852 over two years.

These calculations show replacing a fuel tank, some hoses, even injectors, and the fuel rail are a small price to pay if, in fact, they do corrode.

I didn't get my dyno run scheduled until next Thursday so I won't have that data until next week.

 

Why not be prepared for the day and install ffv stuff on your truck. I would hate to be out on the road and have a probelm.

 

He's not gonna have a problem. This crap isn't rocket science. If the truck's fuel components can handle 10% ethanol, then why not 100%? Ethanol is ethanol. And unless you have water contamination, the "engine corrosion" issue is a moot point. I'm gonna put the stuff in my stock 1997 F150 when the stuff comes readily available in my area. I'm not gonna do any mods, except what the edge can help me with. If it screws up every fuel system component it won't be that hard to fix, and if it rusts my engine out, I'll just have to put my standby engine in. Will it run lean? Probably, but who cares. I bet that won't hurt it either. And I'm gonna find out. In another year or 2, my truck will have WAY over 200,000 miles, so I'm gonna make it my guinea pig.

 

Are you serious????

Lets break it down to a more basic level.... (from snopes.com)

"Coca-Cola contains small amounts of citric acid and phosphoric acid; however, all the insinuations about the dangers these acids might pose to people who drink Coca-Cola ignore a simple concept familiar to any first-year chemistry student: concentration. Coca-Cola contains less citric acid than orange juice does, and the concentration of phosphoric acid in Coke is far too small (a mere 11 to 13 grams per gallon of syrup, or about 0.20 to 0.30 per cent of the total formula) to dissolve a steak, a tooth, or a nail overnight."

Ok, does that make sense to you? Now a 10% concentrated solution is a world of difference from 100% concentration. If you really don't believe that, I suggest you try drinking a 12 oz can of coke, then a 12 oz glass of phosphoric acid and then let us know the results.

Now I'm not saying that the components can't operate with a higher ethanol than what the specs say, but if you push it too far you will have problems.

Here are a few things that Wikipedia has to say about Ethanol...

"Unfortunately, ethanol cannot be transported by pipeline due to its chemical volatility. It currently is transported by railways and barges.
Also some of the problems experienced with ethanol include:
# Ethanol-based fuels are not compatible with some fuel system components. Examples of extreme corrosion of ferrous components, the formation of salt deposits, jelly-like deposits on fuel strainer screens, and internal separation of portions of rubber fuel tanks have been observed in some vehicles using ethanol fuels.
# The use of ethanol-based fuels can negatively affect electric fuel pumps by increasing internal wear and undesirable spark generation.
# E-85 is not compatible with capacitance fuel level gauging indicators and may cause erroneous fuel quantity indications in vehicles that employ that system.
# E-85 is capable of dissolving large amounts of water at conditions down to -77°, thereby impeding the detection and removal of water from the fuel system."

Again, I'm not saying that you can't convert a non-FFV to run on Ethanol, just don't assume that everything is "ok" just cuz it hasn't broken yet.....

 

The answer to that question is a toss up. The careful side of me agrees with you. The push the limits, somewhat reckless, side of me completely disagrees. In this case, I still do not know what the limits are and I don't believe anybody does. I know Duke presented a case of a gentleman running E85 for 2 years in his taurus. We do not know the year of the taurus, the maintenance schedule, what if anything he did to prepare the vehicle, etc. I have run into a cab driver who shares a cab with another driver and both drivers agreed to run nothing but E85 in the vehicle. They made no modifications whatsoever and have been running E85 for over a year now. This is a cab that runs over 50,000 miles each year. Their fuel economy has suffered; but, as of the last time I bumped into him, they had not had any mechanical issues whatsoever. The vehicle was a late 90s Chevy Impala.

As we get older, we tend to become more careful in our approach. We think we know the answers so we use our learnings and take fewer chances. My son, who is now 24 years old, taught me one thing (wihtout even knowing he was the teacher) about this tendency toward risk avoidance. He took a stock 2004 Chevy Cavalier and blew up 2 motors before he got it seemingly right. His objective was plain and simple ... more power and speed. He didn't do as much research as I thought he should and his early trials cost me several thousand dollars. Each motor, from the junkyard cost about $1,000 and then there were other parts as well. I paid for these for him because he was stepping out from the crowd in his own way. It would have been nice if he could have funded his own research; but, I sure wasn't going to stand by and watch his project stalled out over a couple thousand dollars. Now, on his third try, he has an extremely fast 4 cylinder that will keep up with at least one stock corvette and has easily run away from any of the stock mustangs he has encountered. I constantly discourage this behavior because it is nuts and in our neck of the woods can get you into real trouble; but, boys will be boys. This doesn't mean I throw all caution to the wind. I don't; but, I too need to understand the limits of this project. I am not as confident as Chester, not as reckless as my son, and, I am not as cautious as I might be either.

Lastly, let's remember what a Wiki is. Simply put it is little more than this forum - 1 or more peoples beliefs about what is and is not true. A contributing source of information ? Sure; but, is it an authoritative source. Again, I ask.... Does one exist ? The fuel level indication, MPG calculation are verifiable and are working fine. Yes, the weight of E85 is different than E10 so fuel level indications should be slightly inaccurate. That hasn't been the case. Do you suppose... Just maybe... Ford and even GM began preparing for this awhile back ? Hmm.

 

Dyno results from yesterday afternoon are in. Both are second gear runs only so even more power is available.

Troyer 93 Octane Hi Perf Tune Best Run.
March, 2006 - Run 1 - 248.42 HP 287.64 Torque

E85 Tune (Pro Racer Software)
August, 2006 - Run 1 - 264.76 HP 310.77 Torque
August, 2006 - Run 2 - 261.80 HP 320.33 Torque

Datalogging also showed a lower MAF Volts and Lbs per minute compared to a run in open air on a country road - 2nd Gear Only. So air flow in the shop seems to be somewhat restrictive. Both the March run and the run yesterday were done on the same dynojet. Air Temp is March was 78.50 degrees, relative humidity was 8%, Barometric Pressure was 29.54. Yesterday, Air Temp was 83.37 degrees, relative humdity was 31%, and Baromtetric Pressure was 29.46.

Mileage since switching to E85 is now over 8,000. No issues so far. More tuning is required after I get the wideband to send its output through the Livelink software.

 

Is all the same as it was when you ran the dyno in march (other than tune). Thats alot of horses for a relatively stock and lifted truck.

 

We added Magnaflow High Flow Cats (minimal HP improvement per Troyer) since the March test and Troyer suspected a slight exhaust leak during the March test so I put new gaskets on the headers. Air/fuel was 14.34 (March) vs. 13.98 (Yesterday) on the comparable 2nd gear run. Some of the 3rd gear runs in March showed real whacky air/fuel. Of course, this is lambda converted and my actual air/fuel considering E85 ethanol is different. My wideband showed richer than the results at the tailpipe shown above. Another tuner of Mustangs reported the same thing in regard to the dynojet showing leaner than the wideband on the car he was tuning. Additionaly, I have ordered an AF1 Intake to replace the Airaid I have in the truck right now. E85 likes a lot of air. I am going to go this route before deciding if I want to go to a Whipple in the spring. Don't know yet.

Just returned from having a basic emissions test done. Following is the data. I didn't know standards are now calculated in grams per mile so I am going to go to a state testing station to retest for grams per mile on a dyno. Following are the results compared to what I think are the Federal Standards.

HC 35 PPM Idle, 37 PPM at 2000 RPM - Standard 100 PPM
CO% .05% at Idle, .05% at 2000 RPM - Standard is .5%

Finding the standards in ppm is hard so if somebody wants to correct this, that would be great.

 

Those are some great #.Very impressed on the fact you increased aprox. 6.5 % overall.Are you going to dyno after installing the AF1.I'm interested if you can post dyno sheet.
One problem biodiesel(soy) developed was a jelly residue which clogged the injectors and nozzles causing a bad spray pattern which in turn caused hot spots on pistons, this resulted in piston burn-thru.The jelly was found to be mold development in the fuel tank,lines,filters,pump,injectors/nozzles.Has there been any problem concearning mold in ethanol?

 

Sure. I just received a call and the AF1 is on the way. I am working on getting the voltage output from the LM-1 into my Livelink datalog. I still think more tuning is possible with better results. Dyno pictures are posted below. Notice on the first chart how the HP and Torque and higher across the range.

Wow on the biodiesel. No I haven't heard any issues like this with E85.