Ethanol

Mike Holdstock · Post by **Mike Holdstock** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:09 pm

Dear all
while absorbing and executing the good advise I have had on front struts and front bumper adjustment/fix,
I was wondering if anyone else had any opinions around the longterm effects of running BX14RE on ethanol? Ethanol (85%, 15% ordinary petrol95 oct) is freely available in Sweden, and the last couple of years I have tried to use as much of it as I can. Currently - what passes for summer in Sweden - I am running with about 80% of the tank with the 85% ethanol, during the winter at least 25% (and it gets down to -15C here regularly). Greater percentages seem to give gripes and sluggishness.
Anyone else tried?

The price difference means that it is about evens - about 25% cheaper than 95 octane regualr petrol, and the increased consumption means more or less quits on running cost. And I have a better conscience.

Mike

fourwheelsteer · Post by **fourwheelsteer** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:50 pm

If I remember correctly ethanol can have a corrosive effect on certain aluminium alloys and it will also degrade some rubber compounds. From what I remember, having written some stuff on E85-powered SAABs I think some components had to be changed. Quite how the components of a BX will be affected is not something I could say.

Sorry that's not very helpful.

Mike Holdstock · Post by **Mike Holdstock** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:06 pm

Thanks Fourwheelster. If I can do anything for you in the land, or at least currently the land, of Saabs and Volvos, just shout.
Mike

TB2 · Post by **TB2** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:54 pm

About the conscience bit: I'm not convinced at all. If it's ethanol made of crop I'm strictly against it. Soil should be used to grow food not fuel. If it's made of bio waste, the fermentation process again emits green house gases into the air. Also, just because the fuel doesn't come from burried sources it doesn't mean it doesn't pollute the air faster than the green on the planet can absorb it. This carbon neutral concept doesn't make any sense.

Imho, this whole "bio fuel" hype is way off.

Until fusion reactors are used to produce H2 by electrolysis which power hydrogen fuel cell cars, I'll stick with diesel from the ground and an economical engine like the 1.7 TD coupled with an economical driving style, using public transport where it's not much of a bother.

Way2go · Post by **Way2go** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:29 pm

TB2 wrote:About the conscience bit: I'm not convinced at all. If it's ethanol made of crop I'm strictly against it. Soil should be used to grow food not fuel. If it's made of bio waste, the fermentation process again emits green house gases into the air. Also, just because the fuel doesn't come from burried sources it doesn't mean it doesn't pollute the air faster than the green on the planet can absorb it. This carbon neutral concept doesn't make any sense.

Imho, this whole "bio fuel" hype is way off.

I agree. On the diesel front, taking SVO off supermarket shelves and putting it into car tanks resulted in a price hike from 30p to over a pound to be similar (just under) to the cost of diesel thus distorting your grocery spend!

Also the CO2 absorbing rainforests are now being massively decimated further in order to fulfill the crop demand of these folk choosing to stuff it in their cars rather than the product the engine was designed for.

Post by **docchevron** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:52 pm

TB2 wrote: using public transport where it's not much of a bother.

There's am issue with that aswell really.

Even brand new modern shiny buses that run diesel and ad blue aint that green really.

Ok, if every trip they are full of punters (which actually does very little to reduce the amount of fuel used) then yes, buses are a winner over the car.
But in most area's they are only full at peak times, spending the majority of the day running round with few or no people on them, which is pointless and does more damage to the environment than driving a car (that is assuming one believes that the planet is doing anything out of the normal cycle due to car use etc)..

Equally, modern trains aint that great for emissions output, and again, in terms of miles covered versus emissions then for 82% of journeys the car is still less damaging, in terms od total people carried over a set mileage.

And as for ships... well...

TB2 · Post by **TB2** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:30 am

docchevron1472 wrote:There's am issue with that aswell really.

Never thought that much about it, but now that I researched a bit, I can fully agree! Trains need lots of infrastructure and busses are losers if they're empty. I just read this report the "Institute of Physics" has released for the Boston and SF regions in the US.

Nice read: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326 ... 61c8758b8b

Here's a chart

But an empty car still is very bad, and I usually drive alone or with one passenger. And as for daily commuting, the biggest problem for the car are clogged up streets and no place to park. In any case, I still think ethanol fuel is quite pointless.

TB2 · Post by **TB2** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:32 am

Brilliant. Wrong link, no editing possible. Here's the picture:

Note to self: Next time, try the preview button
Note to admin: Why not set a 2 minute time out on removing the edit button?

kiwi · Post by **kiwi** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:10 am

Personally I would not touch the stuff!

Well at least in New Zealand I would not! My reasoning is that back in 1996 NZ done away with leaded fuel which at the time was the highest octane available 95 Octane. During the transition phase (they diluted the 95 octane tanks) a few problems occured in which the O-ring seals and rubber started leaking fuel past. Ironically that March and April the Fire Service reported the least amount of Car Fires as people paniced to fix ageing fuel systems.

Then a few years ago they changed the mixture of the Diesel and again faults occured but this time more hush hush from the media. Which I found odd.

Couple years back be push for the Bio Fuels to be introduced and targets set which because of the high oil price and now a change of goverment got scrapped before any wide spread issues could occur.

As far as I know there is not many places in NZ that sell a Bio Fuel Blend of ethanol? Besides that the stuff was going to cost more at the pumps and yep kiwis have tighter purses than a scotsman

Actually with all the chemicals and additives to improve the fuel of late it could come to explaining why I have noticed the Carb gaskets leaking a little?

Reality is we have no idea what we are putting in our tanks and just trusting the signage on the pumps and the fact our cars still move. So if there is no choice then will have to use the Ethanol stuff.

As for the enviromental promoting for the stuff? Erm you want to explain that to the Indonesian Rainforests cut down to grow bio fuel?

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:52 am

Very interesting chart. Shame that being from the US there is no 'Conventional Diesel Sedan' category. Worth mentioning too that their 'Conventional Gasoline Sedan' is likely to be rather heavier and thirstier than your average European motor.

TB2 · Post by **TB2** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:57 pm

jonathan_dyane wrote:Worth mentioning too that their 'Conventional Gasoline Sedan' is likely to be rather heavier and thirstier than your average European motor.

Quoting from the report what they used as reference:

IOP wrote: where E M is total energy or emissions per PKT for
mode M ;
2. Methodology
M is the set of modes {sedan, train, aircraft, etc};
c is vehicle, infrastructure, or fuel life-cycle component;
EF is environmental (energy or emission) factor for
component c;
U is activity resulting in EF for component c;
A sedan PKT is PKT performed by mode M during time t for
(2005 Toyota Camry), SUV (2005 Chevrolet Trailblazer), component c.
and pickup (2005 Ford F-150) are chosen to represent the
range in the US automobile fleet and critical performance
characteristics [10–12]. 83% of rail passenger kilometers
are performed by metropolitan systems (with Amtrak serving
the remaining) [1]. The generalized rail modes (heavy
rail electric metro, heavy rail diesel commuter transit, and
light rail transit (LRT)) are chosen to capture the gamut
of physical size, fuel input, and service niche. The metro
and commuter rail are modeled after the San Francisco Bay
Area’s (SFBA) Bay Area Rapid Transit and Caltrain while
the LRT modes are modeled after San Francisco’s (SF)
Muni Metro and the Boston Green Line. Air modes are
evaluated by small (Embraer 145), midsize (Boeing 737) and
large (Boeing 747) aircraft to represent the range of impacts
from aircraft sizes, passenger occupancy, and short to long
haul segment performance [13].