Thoughts an E15?

Pentalab said:

If ur AFR is 15-15.1 it's way outa whack. It should be 14.5 to 14.7 with NO ethanol.... and slightly lower still WITH 10% ethanol....and still lower if E15 used...... and WAY lower if E85 used.

15-15.7 is a LEAN condition.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's weird. Bounces between 14.7 to 15.2 at idle, but averages around 15. AFR is good at WOT, just weird at idle. Thank you...

The smallest exhaust leak before the O2 sensor can throw afr off at idle. Ask me how I know

I've run E-85 only in my 2011 GT for 2 years now. Driven low miles (<5k / year) and have had no issues. Like others have said, only items needed are larger injectors and a tune.

My experience with 10% ethanol fuel.
It will attack certain plastic and rubber parts. It will corrode aluminum and steel.
I have replaced every rubber/plastic fuel system part on every small engine I own. You can't leave it in a steel tank too long because it will rust the inside. Aluminum carburetor? Forget about it.
I now use non ethanol fuel in all my off road equipment. No more problems.
I had an 05 Suburban that was e85 capable. Normal e10 mix got me 19 mpg. E85 I averaged 13 mpg.
There is a reason Ford doesn't recommend using it. Cleaner? debatable. More used fuel is more carbon, that's what " they" are worried about, right?

Derby said:

My experience with 10% ethanol fuel.
It will attack certain plastic and rubber parts. It will corrode aluminum and steel.
I have replaced every rubber/plastic fuel system part on every small engine I own. You can't leave it in a steel tank too long because it will rust the inside. Aluminum carburetor? Forget about it.
I now use non ethanol fuel in all my off road equipment. No more problems.
I had an 05 Suburban that was e85 capable. Normal e10 mix got me 19 mpg. E85 I averaged 13 mpg.
There is a reason Ford doesn't recommend using it. Cleaner? debatable. More used fuel is more carbon, that's what " they" are worried about, right?

Click to expand...

Yeah, any fuel system open to the air like carbs with a bowl vent are screwed. Even with stabilizers and fresh gas, I've had this gunk even after a long winter in my edelbrocks.

2526Bullitt said:

Have you all seen the movie Ideocracy? It seems we are living it......

Click to expand...

I actually made a Facebook group for tagging called "Idiocracy was a documentary" a few moths back LOL. The movie was meant to be a comedy, but the world is going that way very quickly. Scary stuff...

Spammer reported


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2526Bullitt said:

The mustang owners manual states to not use anything above E10

View attachment 82317

Click to expand...

I noticed that as well in my OM. I just went thru all this w/ my car. The issue as I see it is any ethanol % above 10% may kick the STFT+LTFT out too high +% & set off erroneous lean DTC’s due to NB O2 sensor operation (mine were at B1@ +7.8, B2 @ +13.3 w/EVAP isolated w/ tune fuel stoich set @ 14.64 but E10 fuel @ 14.13 in tank….NB O2 sensors picking up the 3.67% of O2 that was embedded in the E10 fuel but not accounted for in tune calcs plus any extra O2 detected on top of the unaccounted for 3.67%). The larger issue is this will throw off PCM calcs due to the PCM using the wrong fuel stoich AFR in tune to 1.) as Juice has stated, not take full advantage of the ethanol thru ignition timing advancement but also 2.) will throw off emissions as PCM calcs all this off fuel stoich AFR in tune so any back end O2 picked up by NB O2 sensors is not accounted for thus can potentially overrun cat substrates & set off P0420/P0430 DTC’s…..regardless of cats physical abilities to treat exhaust.

When I reset the tune fuel stoich AFR to match the E10 fuel (14.13), all this corrected itself so now STFT+LTFT hold in the +-2.3% range, engine CL power has improved & emissions has also improved (cat CE ratios dropped from .149 avg to .090 avg on both banks….using the same cats)……all just from correcting this in the tune to match the fuel in tank.

2011 & up using WB O2’s will be better since WB’s actually meter the O2% in exhaust thus can more accurately meter the F/A ratio & they have fuel stoich AFR of 14.08 in tune for E10 stock so E15 is no big deal…..but 2010 & earlier that are stuck using NB O2 sensors this may start causing some issues, mainly emissions but depending on specific fuel blend %, some noticeable CL performance loss.

WB full time closed loop systems go by lambda, so they can adjust to pretty much any fuel. Stoic is different for the fuels based on alcohol content, but lambda is always 1 for stoic, and WOT is set as % lambda. With the only difference of a flex fuel tune being the timing tables.
Thats my understanding from research. Theoretically, I could increase the ethanol % till I run out of injectors. Timing is adjusted + and - based on knock sensors.

Juice said:

WB full time closed loop systems go by lambda, so they can adjust to pretty much any fuel. Stoic is different for the fuels based on alcohol content, but lambda is always 1 for stoic, and WOT is set as % lambda. With the only difference of a flex fuel tune being the timing tables.
Thats my understanding from research. Theoretically, I could increase the ethanol % till I run out of injectors. Timing is adjusted + and - based on knock sensors.

Click to expand...

As far as Copperhead & up PCM strategies go, I learned the same so I agree w/ that, but the majority that’s reading all this are 3V’s using SO PCM’s that ain’t gonna follow due to being stuck w/ NB O2 sensors which actually need the tune fuel stoich AFR to be much closer to the actual fuel in tank to be more accurate & most are still set at stock @ 14.64 in tune so if/when E15 hits the difference will be fairly large (guessing in the 6%-8% range which will actually push STFT+LTFT past the 10%-15% LTFT range where PCM may start kicking out lean codes if STFT’s can’t get back to the 450mV switching avg…..away from home computer so can’t use my EPA spreadsheet to get a definitive result).

I just can’t understand why Ford hasn’t issued TSB’s for these 05-10 S197’s (or even SN95’s) to get this changed in tune to fix this already or even EPA to issue an exemption to allow this to get corrected (I know why, ain’t gonna bite on an electric vehicle to be a guinea pig…..marketing 101) already due to emissions impact (they already know…..have read the reports myself, why E85 was never adopted by EPA as an alternative fuel for gas powered ICE….NOx is the main issue along w/ poor MPG) but par for the course. This is 1 of those things I know I’ll have no issue w/ EPA w/ me already making this correction in tune so not worried bout it…..it’s the correct thing to do w/ this platform & all know it.

I agree 100%, OEMs should offer a TSB update so cars can safely run E15 to E0 without issues. Its not even that hard to do. And the shops would have all these cars come through the shop so they can upsell jobs "while it's here we noticed you need......" lol

2526Bullitt said:

I guess the reason I'm asking this question is the directive the federal government is taking to lower the price of gasoline...

Click to expand...

The assholes in government care not about the price, they only care about optics and getting re-elected
FJB and his stupidity and ignorance............ E15 will do nothing to lower the price of fuel, same deal with depleated the reserves- maybe a short term drop of pennies then right back to bs pricing

they have an agenda, force electric vehicles upon everyone.... they will do whatever they want to accomplish that! damn the consequences

and just for some factual data....
gf's has a ford focus, 2.0L manual transmission.......
when she fills up with the 88 octane E15 she typically averages about 28mpg...... dozens of tanks of fuel and this is the result
when she fills up with the 87 octane E10 she typically averages about 32mpg........ dozens of tanks of fuel and this is the result
that is a more than 10% difference in mpgs

she has run the E85 which varies so greatly from E50 to E75ish locally, and she only gets about 22mpg when she runs that shit........ only a handful of tanks becasue I tried to explain the financial loss she is enduring running the E85...ie, it actually costs her more monies even if it is less per fill, the fills are so much more often

I have filled her car up with some 93 no ethanol a few times (since that is all I ever run in any of my gas burning vehicles and equipment) and she still only got about 32,33 mpg on those tanks of fuel

we did take her car to california and back multiple times to see her parents,
all fill ups done on E10 netted 42mpg average for the 4300 mile trip
all fill up done with no ethanol 91 or 93 (since 93 was not available everywhere) netted 43 mpg for the entire 4300 mile round trip (clearly her car sees no real benefit from running 93 no ethanol it appears)


My 3.7L 2013 does get 2-3 mpg better running 93 no ethanol than it does running on 87 E10---even with the tuner changed for sad fuel difference......... I have only run 93 no ethanol in the car ever since for the past 9 years

I am hardcore against ethanol, as if it was so great why subsidize it with stolen tax dollars and why force feed it to people against their will!

every problem in the world is a direct cause from the government, they cannot fix any of the problems despite their claims to 'try"... lobbyists and politicians are the root of all evil

Just like thier other idiot suggestion to suspend the gas tax, yeah, so they will just raise other taxes to recoup those losses- the politicians will never do what is in the best interests for jo average citizen taxpayer, they only care about feelings, optics and getting re-elected to remain in power and keep stealing millions every year for themselves......

Derby said:

....
Normal e10 mix got me 19 mpg. E85 I averaged 13 mpg.....More used fuel is more carbon, that's what " they" are worried about, right?

Click to expand...

Thats not completely true. Yes, burning more fuel releases more carbon to the air. But if you burn 100% ethanol that carbon came from corn or soy beans which removed that amount of carbon from the air as the plant grew. So you are effectively recycling the same carbon.

Gas, diesel and natural gas are all oil based which releases new or additional carbon to the air that was previously stored underground for millions of years.

So thats the main difference, adding new oil carbon versus recycling plant carbon.

---------------

On a different topic in this thread. I think there is some confusion on exactly how a wideband O2 meter works. The sensor is reading Lambda of the exhaust gas and the gauge converts it to AFR based on how it was programmed. Stoichiometric for gas is 1.0 Lambda, stoich for E85 is 1.0 Lambda.

Yes, your ECU needs to know how much fuel to put in based on the fuel being used but the wideband is just measuring the results. If we all used Lambda like we should, the gauge would be accurate for all fuels. If the gauge is programmed such that 1.0 Lambda equals 14.7 on the display, then that is what it will display even if you are running E85. The gauge doesn't know what fuel you're burning. For example, if the sensor measures 0.8 Lambda (rich), then it will display 11.8 regardless if its gas or ethanol.

Maybe this is a better explanation
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/wideband-oxygen-sensor/

The world won't end or be saved with E15 just like it didn't end when lead was removed. People just hate being told what to do and that they need to do it because its good for them.

And if we didnt cut down those forests to make room for more ppl or to grow food for said ppl, those trees would have recycled the co2 from the fuel gasoline we burned.
But it is ICE that is the enemy according to "them", not deforestation.
Just sayin'

I'm not arguing. Just explaining a couple of things. I'm running 600 whp, 15 mpg on a slow ride and 10ish when I'm playing. So I'm not against it. But I agree, the planet would be way better with less people. You shouldn't have 10 kids when you live in a sand castle or are on welfare.

GlassTop09 said:

As far as Copperhead & up PCM strategies go, I learned the same so I agree w/ that, but the majority that’s reading all this are 3V’s using SO PCM’s that ain’t gonna follow due to being stuck w/ NB O2 sensors which actually need the tune fuel stoich AFR to be much closer to the actual fuel in tank to be more accurate & most are still set at stock @ 14.64 in tune so if/when E15 hits the difference will be fairly large (guessing in the 6%-8% range which will actually push STFT+LTFT past the 10%-15% LTFT range where PCM may start kicking out lean codes if STFT’s can’t get back to the 450mV switching avg…..away from home computer so can’t use my EPA spreadsheet to get a definitive result).

Click to expand...

Back at home now & in front of my computer, so I pulled up my EPA Excel spreadsheet & looked up info on E15......calc'd E15 fuel stoich AFR @ 13.85 which will be 5.8% diff from reg E0 unleaded @ 14.7 AFR or from E10 @ 14.13 will be 1.94% diff (E10 @ 14.08 will be 1.6% diff) or from the 05-10 OEM fuel stoich AFR of 14.64 (actually is E1) will be 5.43% diff, so in essence this is how much extra fuel is needed to maintain EQ Ratio Lambda Stoich Ratio of 1 (actual F\A / stoich F\A.....this formula needs the stoich F\A to match the fuel being burned for the results to be valid) to use up the extra embedded O2 in E15 fuel vs the others.

As you can see, all 2011+ tunes that are already using E10 fuel stoich AFR & WB O2 sensors for O2 feedback control won't have much of anything to worry about........but any 2010 & earlier tunes that are still set using E1 fuel stoich AFR of 14.64 or E0 fuel stoich AFR of 14.7 (SN95's) & are using NB O2 sensors for O2 feedback control may start having some issues w\ emissions & eventually CL performance loss thus exaggerated MPG loss as well (excessively rich mixtures that look lean if fuel stoich AFR isn't corrected in tune to match the actual fuel burned so PCM can make more accurate fueling\TQ\emissions calcs up front to match MAF calcs to counter any unmetered EVAP).

PS edit--This doesn't account for any other unmetered O2 entry from any vacuum leaks......this is extra on top of any unaccounted for O2 from mismatched fuel stoich AFR's.....................

FYI..................