Ethanol Flex Fuel
11-03-2017, 06:10 PM
#1
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 11-03-17
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethanol Flex Fuel
Hi, this is Mark in Phoenix, Arizona. I am hoping to get positive feedback from those of you in Arizona, particularly Metro Phoenix, on whether or not you would be interested in running an E83 Ethanol Flex Fuel, or the E54 that is currently available.
11-03-2017, 08:55 PM
#3
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 11-03-17
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many issues relating to why it is currently not being done, but I am in a position to overcome them. But to do so, I need help with answering the fundamental question of, is there an interest within the community to run a true on road E83 formulation as opposed to an E54 blend? And, secondly, while I can formulate and supply Arizona with a zillion gallons of E83, is there sufficient demand?
11-03-2017, 10:10 PM
#4
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
And the biggest reason is no cobalt owner is going to shell out over 4k for a standalone ecu that likely controls the direct injection system worse just for flex fuel.
There is research and lots of logged car data that states timing for the lnf isn't increased past mbt after about e45. Additional injectors or pump is needed to run full e85 on a big turbo (where extra cooling maybe needed for big power) which is cost prohibitive for 90% of cobalt owners.
Just log with hptuners, I ran e47 for a year in Colorado without constantly checking the ethanol content just looked at my fuel trims after a drive or two and made adjustments to the injector constant, never had to adjust more than 3% at any point.
There is research and lots of logged car data that states timing for the lnf isn't increased past mbt after about e45. Additional injectors or pump is needed to run full e85 on a big turbo (where extra cooling maybe needed for big power) which is cost prohibitive for 90% of cobalt owners.
Just log with hptuners, I ran e47 for a year in Colorado without constantly checking the ethanol content just looked at my fuel trims after a drive or two and made adjustments to the injector constant, never had to adjust more than 3% at any point.
11-04-2017, 02:37 PM
#6
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 11-03-17
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T man, are you and others testing/estimating the EtOH percentage of an EFF blend at the pump, and then calculating and adding the volume of an E10 needed to blend down to E40 or other desired percentage?
i am trying to identify the EFF formulation that best suites the needs of the Arizona EFF community, for on road use. Legally, for sale at retail, I must formulate a blend which contains between 51-83 percent EtOH, and which meets all of the other requirements of ASTM D5798. It is not an easy thing to do, trust me.
Last year, after the adoption of the current D5798 specification in AZ, I was forced to research and then reformulated my "E85" blends down to an "E54 EFF". My switch to E54 was a direct result of having to formulate a final blend that met all of the D5798 requirements on a year round basis, given the blend components available and the vapor pressures of those components, at the terminal level, simple as that. I also figured that the E54 would increase mileage and still maintain superior antiknock protection; sort of the best of both worlds for the EFF community.
While I initially drew criticism from many, there were others who understood that the change was actually a good thing in many respects. Your comments appear to indicate that the E54 is a good thing after all, although for you, you prefer E40.
My heart ache, and yours and others pain in the rear is inconsistency in EtOH at retail. While I have very sophisticated blending systems which very accurately formulate E54 at our terminals, with a focus on quality and meeting all of the requirements of D5798....there are others in the industry who do not even know what D5798 is. The result is inconsistency at retail.
i guess what I am contemplating doing, in Arizona, is to identify one EFF formulation (51-83%) and a handful of retailers who would commit to sort of a Top Tier EFF program, to provide EFF from a single source, me, to ensure a consistent EtOH concentration at those retail sites.
i am trying to identify the EFF formulation that best suites the needs of the Arizona EFF community, for on road use. Legally, for sale at retail, I must formulate a blend which contains between 51-83 percent EtOH, and which meets all of the other requirements of ASTM D5798. It is not an easy thing to do, trust me.
Last year, after the adoption of the current D5798 specification in AZ, I was forced to research and then reformulated my "E85" blends down to an "E54 EFF". My switch to E54 was a direct result of having to formulate a final blend that met all of the D5798 requirements on a year round basis, given the blend components available and the vapor pressures of those components, at the terminal level, simple as that. I also figured that the E54 would increase mileage and still maintain superior antiknock protection; sort of the best of both worlds for the EFF community.
While I initially drew criticism from many, there were others who understood that the change was actually a good thing in many respects. Your comments appear to indicate that the E54 is a good thing after all, although for you, you prefer E40.
My heart ache, and yours and others pain in the rear is inconsistency in EtOH at retail. While I have very sophisticated blending systems which very accurately formulate E54 at our terminals, with a focus on quality and meeting all of the requirements of D5798....there are others in the industry who do not even know what D5798 is. The result is inconsistency at retail.
i guess what I am contemplating doing, in Arizona, is to identify one EFF formulation (51-83%) and a handful of retailers who would commit to sort of a Top Tier EFF program, to provide EFF from a single source, me, to ensure a consistent EtOH concentration at those retail sites.
11-05-2017, 11:18 PM
#7
i am trying to identify the EFF formulation that best suites the needs of the Arizona EFF community, for on road use. Legally, for sale at retail, I must formulate a blend which contains between 51-83 percent EtOH, and which meets all of the other requirements of ASTM D5798. It is not an easy thing to do, trust me.
Last year, after the adoption of the current D5798 specification in AZ, I was forced to research and then reformulated my "E85" blends down to an "E54 EFF". My switch to E54 was a direct result of having to formulate a final blend that met all of the D5798 requirements on a year round basis, given the blend components available and the vapor pressures of those components, at the terminal level, simple as that. I also figured that the E54 would increase mileage and still maintain superior antiknock protection; sort of the best of both worlds for the EFF community.
While I initially drew criticism from many, there were others who understood that the change was actually a good thing in many respects. Your comments appear to indicate that the E54 is a good thing after all, although for you, you prefer E40.
My heart ache, and yours and others pain in the rear is inconsistency in EtOH at retail. While I have very sophisticated blending systems which very accurately formulate E54 at our terminals, with a focus on quality and meeting all of the requirements of D5798....there are others in the industry who do not even know what D5798 is. The result is inconsistency at retail.
i guess what I am contemplating doing, in Arizona, is to identify one EFF formulation (51-83%) and a handful of retailers who would commit to sort of a Top Tier EFF program, to provide EFF from a single source, me, to ensure a consistent EtOH concentration at those retail sites.
While I initially drew criticism from many, there were others who understood that the change was actually a good thing in many respects. Your comments appear to indicate that the E54 is a good thing after all, although for you, you prefer E40.
My heart ache, and yours and others pain in the rear is inconsistency in EtOH at retail. While I have very sophisticated blending systems which very accurately formulate E54 at our terminals, with a focus on quality and meeting all of the requirements of D5798....there are others in the industry who do not even know what D5798 is. The result is inconsistency at retail.
i guess what I am contemplating doing, in Arizona, is to identify one EFF formulation (51-83%) and a handful of retailers who would commit to sort of a Top Tier EFF program, to provide EFF from a single source, me, to ensure a consistent EtOH concentration at those retail sites.