E15 and maybe E30 fuel ?

[ghlkal]

Originally Posted by scottfab

What's everyone' s guess as to a list of changes to our
cars that would be needed?

There's a thread on CF Tech/perf entitled "Back to Premium" where the owner was running E85 for years with only a change in injectors, underhood fuel lines, and a tune.

I would think the E85 would be corrosive to a number of components ...

[Don in VT]

Hi All,

Great thread. I am also wondering about the fuel bladder in the tank, does anyone have a take on that component ?

Cheers and Happy New Year !!!

Don

[scottfab]

Originally Posted by ghlkal

There's a thread on CF Tech/perf entitled "Back to Premium" where the owner was running E85 for years with only a change in injectors, underhood fuel lines, and a tune.

I would think the E85 would be corrosive to a number of components ...

It would seem an opportunity for someone to offer a conversion kit to harden our cars against Exx fuels.

[Hog]

Originally Posted by Schrade

This INCREASES injector pulsewidth?

And does the BLM deviate from 128 after the change?

No phase separation under BOTH static and dynamic conditions?

1) All else equal, yes, commanding a 14.2:1 stoich ratio from a 14.7:1 Stoich ratio will have a net effect of increasing pulsewidth in order to supply MORE fuel with a lower net energy content. if running 100% Ethanol or E100 would be 9:1, in other words to COMPLETLEY burn 1 pound of 100% Ethanol, you would require 9 pounds of Oxygen.

2) If changing from E0 to E10 fuel and then commanding a Stoich ratio of 14.2:1 in the ECM will keep the BLM at or around 128. With E10 fuel the BLM will be closer to 128 when commanding a 14.2:1 Stoich Ratio vs. a 14.7:1 Stoich Ratio.

3) This little Youtube video contradicts my earlier assertion that Phase Separation will NOT occur with E10, if you consider that what is occuring in this video is indeed true Phase Separation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO3x5o0W7-M

Here are some pics of actual Phase Separation


Here is an older (1995) paper which describes the amounts of H2O that Gasoline/Ethanol and Gasoline/MTBE fuel mixes can absorb at varying temperatures.
www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/rfg/waterphs.pdf

This more modern(2008) paper is from the "Oak Ridge National Laboratory" so is a good source of the corrosive properties of Ethanol. It even talks of the "passification" of the corrosive properties of Ethanol with small 0.1%-0.2% concentrations of water within the E10 mixture. I alluded to this in an earlier post.
www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/itp/documents/ORNL%20Ethanol%20Pipeline%20... The 1st 5 pages are where the majority of the info is located. It actually lists materials which are are resistant and susceptible to the corrosive effects of Ethanol.

Labs dont get much better than the "Oak Ridge National Laboratory". Lotsa history associated with those labs. It supplied the Manhattan Project with the weapons grade Uranium-235 which was used in the "gun type"
Uranium cored atomic bomb code-named "Little Boy". This bomb was
dropped over Hiroshima. This was the 1st time that the "Gun type Uranium" device was ever tested fullscale. Reason being:
1) It assuredly would work based upon Mathmatical/Physics calculations and
2) there was limited quantities of weapons grade Uranium-235 as compared to the larger quantities of Plutonium-239 which was used during the "Trinity" test at the "White Sand Proving Grounds" and in the "Fatman" bomb which was detonated over the city of Nagasaki Japan. But I digress, my apologies.....

peace
Hog

[Schrade]

I would have agreed that phase separation is extremely limited, for 2 reasons:

1) The fuel system is sealed (limited atmospheric gas exchange / vapor recovery), and..

2) Phase separation is at 2 'interfaces'; liquid / liquid, and liquid / atmospheric gas.

With respect to '2' (correct me if I'm wrong here), but separation of water from the alcohol constituent, is exponentially lower - not linear equivalent, than the absorption of atmospheric water vapor in the tank (which again, is limited by the sealed fuel system).

[A26B]

We (Jerrys LT5 Gaskets & Parts)) started stocking Viton-A seals for the LT5 fuel system, 2 or 3 years ago, in consideration of the expanding use of ethanol in gasoline fuels. We still carry the Buna-N seals but hardly ship anymore. Virtually all of our sales are Viton-A. better seals for ethanol can be obtained but the cost is several multiples higher and the Viton-A is performing just fine.

I installed a set of new buna seals in the fuel system for a couple of days dyno testing. No leaks were encounted with 10% ethonol blended gasoline (Texas) but upon disassembly a week later, the buna seals were swelled and softer than new.

I recommend the use of Viton-A fuel system seals exclusively.

[Don in VT]

Hi,

I posted a comment on the fuel tank bladder with respect to the increasing amount of alcohol in our gasoline. No one seems to be interested in the topic and I thought I would bring it up again just in case someone recently joined the thread and did not read my comment. I can conjure up a terrible scenario where the tank bladder material brakes down and clogs up the entire fuel system from fuel pump to injectors. Also the bladder is there to minimize the fire hazard in the case of a rear end collision and if the alcohol has reduced the effectiveness of the bladder system that is also not good.

It appears that we have members that have considerable chemical knowledge regarding the newer fuels perhaps they can shed some light on the tank bladder potential problems.

Just thought I would try again.

Don

[efnfast]

Thanks Jerry, good lord we get amazing support here.

[A26B]

Originally Posted by Don in VT

Hi,

I posted a comment on the fuel tank bladder with respect to the increasing amount of alcohol in our gasoline. No one seems to be interested in the topic and I thought I would bring it up again just in case someone recently joined the thread and did not read my comment..........
Don

Don, from my perspective, it's not a lack of interest or concern but rather a lack of knowledge regarding the composition of the tank liner. If the material were known, then research could be conducted and an answer given.

[Don in VT]

Hi,

First I want to apologize for my poorly worded post earlier in the thread. Thanks Jerry for taking issue with my comments and grounding me in reality.

I think the answer to my question has been staring me in the face all along. I visited the Corvette Forum and searched the technical section using just the term "fuel tank bladder" and for the most part my questions were answered.
From what I can gather, from the Corvette Forum, the fuel tank/bladder system is a "tank within a tank" and not a flex bag type bladder so in reality the plastic inner tank holds the fuel and for the most part should last a long long time partly because it is protected by the outer metal tank. The very fact that the inner tank has not been a topic of concern,over the years, indicates that the inner tank material is not adversely affected by the alcohol or whatever we put in the tank. Unless I want to spend a lot of money on a custom fuel cell the factory system seems to be working and as the old saying goes "It is what It is and if it is not broke don't fix it".

Happy New Year

Don