Assessment of the Operation of Vehicles on Ethanol Blend Fuels

[johnydep]

Sorry if this has been reported before.

Assessment of the Operation of Vehicles in the Australian Fleet on Ethanol Blend Fuels

This is a must read; http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosp...els-report.pdf

Carburetor vehicls can not use Ethanol fuels, due to incompatable materials in the fuel system, and in some cases very poor performance.

Fuel injected vehicles produced after 1986 are fine, but the deposits left on valves, pistons & rings is a concern.

The photos tell the story, I'll be limiting my use of Ethanol fuel from now on.

7 CONCLUSIONS
The objectives of the study as laid out by the Department of the Environment and Heritage (now the Department of the Environment and Water Resources) in RFT 107/DEH2005 were to:

a. Obtain an assessment, based on an experimental study, of the suitability of vehicles in the current Australian fleet to operate on 5% and 10% ethanol blends (E5 and E10); and
b. Obtain accurate and reliable information which could be used to inform future polices relating to ethanol blend fuels, including labelling requirements.

Orbital developed a structured approach to achieve these objectives and have undertaken the necessary testing and analysis consistent with the proposed approach. The key findings from this study are summarised in Table 7.1. The findings are based on assessments of performance/driveability, materials compatibility and durability when vehicles are operated on ethanol blended fuels compared to operation on neat petrol. Three overall grades are assigned in this summary table:

• Unsatisfactory: The assessment of a vehicle highlighted evidence of negative impacts which could potentially lead to serious safety concerns and/or issues which would be clearly unacceptable to the average user.

• Doubtful: The assessment of a vehicle showed evidence of some level of degradation to the vehicle itself and/or its operability, but the concerns were not sufficient to warrant an unsatisfactory rating.

• Satisfactory: No issues sufficient to warrant concern were identified.

In assessing the results for performance/driveability the relative frequency and likely consequence of the issues was taken into consideration. For example, poor starting at -10oC would not alone cause the assigning of “doubtful” or “unsatisfactory” grading. For example, the Toyota Hilux was assigned an unsatisfactory grading due to its tendency to stall or hesitate on acceleration during the hot start tests, and not because of its tendency to occasionally stall on cold starts.
For materials compatibility, both the function of the fuel system component and the implications of a failure of that component were taken into consideration when assigning gradings. For example, with fuel injected vehicles the material compatibility of the fuel regulator diaphragm is critical as this predominantly elastomeric component separates fuel from the outside world. A leakage there would result in unmetered fuel entering the engine or leaking on to hot engine surfaces. With E10, all diaphragms showed signs of distortion (when wet) and stiffening (when dry). The Ford Festiva specimen additionally showed evidence of material breakdown (crumbling of the elastomer) and hence was assigned unsatisfactory rather than “doubtful”. Further the changes to the diaphragm material can also affect the performance of the regulator in terms of metering of the fuel system; however this is a secondary concern compared to potential fuel leakage and would not on its own warrant a grading of doubtful.

For durability results, the implications of a failure for any particular part of the engine or fuel system were taken into consideration when assessing the severity of the issues. Some issues, such as engine deposits, could go unnoticed until the vehicle breaks down, potentially requiring costly repairs. Should some other components fail, for example a fuel filter, the repair costs may be more modest but the sudden failure of the component while driving would represent a significant safety concern.
Reductions to the life of the engine/vehicle were also considered, but on their own would not be sufficient to warrant an unsatisfactory grading.
Carburettor vehicles tested on E5, regardless of age, had either unsatisfactory or doubtful aspects of materials compatibility and issues with their performance or driveability. The carburettor vehicles tested on E10 are not suitable for operation with that fuel.
All three vehicles had unsatisfactory materials compatibility with E10. The vehicles also had either unsatisfactory or doubtful performance or driveability. The carburettor vehicle which underwent durability testing was rated unsatisfactory on both E5 and E10.

The fuel injected vehicles tested are on the whole suitable for operation on E5, although potential durability problems were identified for one vehicle. Given that this is more of a long term issue it has been rated as a “doubtful aspect” rather than being “unsatisfactory” – though it is debatable if reducing an engine’s long term durability is acceptable.
The fuel injected vehicles tested on E10 had either unsatisfactory or “doubtful aspects” in terms of materials compatibility. More than half the fuel-injected vehicles tested also had “doubtful aspects” with regard to durability.
From the above summary of findings it is reasonable to conclude that ethanol blended fuels are not compatible with carburettor vehicles. The vast majority of vehicles built before 1986 are carburettor vehicles. It should be noted that carburettor vehicles also include some of the popular small cars built through to 1994, as well as some medium sized cars through to the late 1980’s and some 4wds and light commercial vehicles built through to 2003. The study results provide evidence against allowing E5 to be sold unlabelled in Australia since there are a significant number of vehicles on the road, effectively all carburettor vehicles, which are not compatible with E5.
The results from this study generally support advice from vehicle manufacturers and importers as published by the FCAI with regard to vehicles which are not listed as suitable for use with ethanol blends, particularly E10.
On the assumption that these results carry across to all vehicles which are not identified by the FCAI as suitable, an analysis of the Australian vehicle fleet’s ethanol suitability has been undertaken. This analysis was based on the current FCAI listing (as updated in December 2006) and the ABS 2005 and 2006 Motor Vehicle Census data.
Using the most recent Motor Vehicle Census, which provides data on the Australian fleet as at March 2006, it is estimated that at least5 59.5% of the petrol fleet would be suitable for use with E10 based on the FCAI advice. This compares with 55.6% of the fleet in March 2005. The increase in suitability in 2006 is a function of both the retirement of unsuitable vehicles (including pre-1986 models), and the entry of new, ethanol-ready vehicles into the fleet.
Based on the FCAI advice, a marginally higher proportion of the fleet, 60.6% using the 2006 ABS data, would be suitable for the use of E5 because some European models listed as not E10 suitable, are suitable for E5.

[The Monty]

Ive been using E10 since december 2005, have had no problems other than the flat tyre it caused...

[Tiapan]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Ive been using E10 since december 2005, have had no problems other than the flat tyre it caused...

how did ethanol give you a flat tyre?

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Tiapan

how did ethanol give you a flat tyre?

Hehehe, lol. Just an old joke, in other words, it seems like it hasnt done anything to the car. Infact, I hev run a great 1/4mile time and dyno runs, all on Ethanol, and like I said I have been using it over 40000k's and I cant find anything that has gone wrong from using it yet.

[Bill_R]

Here was i thing this was some ground-breaking news or something.
typically government - spend money on doing an assesment when there is plenty of info out there already.
Most vehicles can handle E10 quite well. For a full list see:
http://www.autoindustries.com.au/eth.../00000005.html

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

Here was i thing this was some ground-breaking news or something.
typically government - spend money on doing an assesment when there is plenty of info out there already.
Most vehicles can handle E10 quite well. For a full list see:
http://www.autoindustries.com.au/eth.../00000005.html

I think the Federal Governmant was hoping for an all clear so that 5% Ethanol could be added to all unleaded fuel, with no labeling. :eclipsee_

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project Background

In September 2005, the Prime Minister announced that testing of vehicles in the Australian market would be undertaken to validate their operation with E5 and E10 ethanol blends. It was also announced that subject to the results of vehicle testing, consideration would be given to whether to allow E5 blends to be sold without a label.

In consultation with Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Industry, Tourism and Resources and Transport and Regional Services, the Department of the Environment and Heritage (now the Department of the Environment and Water Resources) sought tenders to assess the suitability of selected vehicles in the current Australian fleet to operate on E5 (5% ethanol in petrol) and E10 (10% ethanol in petrol) blends. The objectives of the vehicle testing study were to:

a. Obtain an assessment, based on an experimental study, of the suitability of vehicles in the current Australian fleet to operate on E5 and E10 ethanol blends; and
b. Obtain accurate and reliable information which could be used to inform future policies relating to ethanol blend fuels, including labelling requirements.

In July 2003 the Australian Government limited the amount of ethanol permitted in petrol to 10%. It has been generally accepted that most new vehicles in the Australian fleet are suitable for operation on ethanol blend petrol (up to 10%).
.....

[Ives]

That's interesting, I'll have a more thorough read tonight.

Thanks for the heads up!

[vztrt]

Been running the XR on ethanol since Jan 06 and the car goes well, starts well and hasn't given me grief. Also on the BF falcons there is a sticker that says you can run the car on E10.

[4vxc]

there was something on the news last week about the federal govt planning to make a minimum 5% Ethanol contect mandatory. So I suppose we just stop driving old cars overnight?

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by 4vxc

there was something on the news last week about the federal govt planning to make a minimum 5% Ethanol contect mandatory. So I suppose we just stop driving old cars overnight?

Instead they need to regulate to make E10 avaialble at all stations - but label it.
I only heard of the increase to 2% for regular fuel.

[ebxr8240]

Stoic air/fuel ratio

Gasoline 14.6
Ethyl t-Butyl Ether 12.1
Amyl Methyl Ether 12.1
Toluene 13.5
Methyl t-Butil Ether 11.7
Diisopropyl Ether 12.1
Butyl Alcohol 11.1
Isopropanol 10.4
Methanol with cosolvent 8.8 0.
Ethanol 9.0
Methanol 6.4

[BigAL_250]

What's in a carby that makes it unsuitable?

I've been using it for a while now, and haven't noticed any problems.

Infact i haven't had to add lead additives when running on E10.

[T3rminator]

That looks like some heavy testing there.

Shame they only sampled cars that were listed as unsuitable. I wonder what the combustion chambers and pistons look like for vehicles that have been listed as suitable. Those photos don't look good at all.........

I've been using PLUS95 (E10) for a while now.... notice the car runs better.

[Chippar]

Originally Posted by fullthrottle

That looks like some heavy testing there.

Shame they only sampled cars that were listed as unsuitable. I wonder what the combustion chambers and pistons look like for vehicles that have been listed as suitable. Those photos don't look good at all.........

I've been using PLUS95 (E10) for a while now.... notice the car runs better.

Yes I agee. Why not also test the vehicles in the Govt fleet that are listed as suitable for ethanol blended fuel and then give a comparison between both findings.



2.2 Project Outline
Clearly not all vehicles could be tested. It was assumed unnecessary to test
vehicles which their respective manufacturers had already indicated were compatible for use with ethanol blended fuels up to 10%. Therefore, the test fleet was comprised of vehicles which had not been identified by the FCAI (listing as at May 2006) as suitable for use with ethanol blended fuels.
A selection of 16 vehicles best representing this segment of the current Australian
Orbital Australia Pty Ltd Page 17 of 170 February, 2007

[4vxc]

Originally Posted by bigal_1701

What's in a carby that makes it unsuitable?

I've been using it for a while now, and haven't noticed any problems.

Infact i haven't had to add lead additives when running on E10.

gaskets, rubber, eg O rings, P/V's ect.

don't know what your talking about about not needing lead additives. The E10 isn't going to stop valve recession

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by bigal_1701

What's in a carby that makes it unsuitable?

I've been using it for a while now, and haven't noticed any problems.

Infact i haven't had to add lead additives when running on E10.

Originally Posted by 4vxc

gaskets, rubber, eg O rings, P/V's ect.

don't know what your talking about about not needing lead additives. The E10 isn't going to stop valve recession

Ethanol is corrosive to Zinc plated steel, some plastics & brass. There's a list in the report.

You'll still have to use a lead substitute, but bigall might mean that the pinging stops due to the higher Octane.

I have an old XC ute and have been using E10 in that for a while. Last year I would have used E10 approximately 60% over standard unleaded, the engine ran smoother & no pinging but early this year the fuel pump rubbers let go and started spraying fuel under the bonnet.
At the time I thought it old age but after reading the report it may have been the E10.
The carby also played up, the idle jet became blocked. This was easily fixed and never occured again, I knew this was caused by the E10's excellent cleaning action and accepted it as part of the process of using the fuel in such an old vehicle.

E10 has a part to play in the needs of our energy industry, but the fuel companies and Government should make the list of compatible vehicles more readily available.

[sprjenkins]

Drag racers have been using ethanol for years to boost octane and swear by it, food for thought

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by sprjenkins

Drag racers have been using ethanol for years to boost octane and swear by it, food for thought

I think you'll find that Drag racers use Methanol and have to choose their engine oils carefully, as well as change it on a very regular basis.

Ethanol fuel is used mainly for street use, and has a different chemical make-up.

Some manufacturers also require a special motor oil be used, particularly in vehicles using methanol fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel_vehicle
Pure Power!® Racing Motor Oil Extreme High Performance SAE 20W/70 CH-4/SJ is specially formulated for Nitromethane/Methanol Fueled Engines. http://www.gopurepower.com/store/lis...?cat=Motor+Oil

This is due to the high rate percentage of methanol;
Accumulation of fuel, water, acids, insolubles, and metals in engine oil is documented and compared for variable-fueled (fuel containing up to 85 percent methanol) and gasoline-fueled vehicles in short-trip service. The oil temperature at which various contaminants are removed is noted. As a consequence of emulsion formation, the viscosity of the oil in the M85-fueled vehicles increased. Due to the presence of gasoline, the viscosity of the oil in the gasoline-fueled vehicles decreased. Equations were developed to explain both the viscosity increase due to emulsion-forming contaminants (water and methanol). http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/922297

[The Monty]

I think they do use ethanol as well, not just methanol.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by The Monty

I think they do use ethanol as well, not just methanol.

Maybe we're talking about two different types of racing.

There are racing unleaded fuels with ethanol added for increased octane, but I automatically thought of this stuff Elf Methanol when racing was mentioned, probably because I had a mate involved in Top Alcohol drag racing.

I've been out of touch for quite a while now, so maybe things have changed.

[The Monty]

Im not positive, so you are probably right. Just thought I had read it somewhere is all.

[DirtyHarry]

I have read the report through from cover to cover. It pretty much confirms the unease I have always felt about using ethanol as a fuel additive.

I simply love this line from page 15: “though it is debatable if reducing an engine’s long term durability is acceptable”. A typical fat bummed bureaucrat’s perspective on the real world!!

[Piotr]

Europe has been using 5% ethanol in its fuels for years now. America sells 85% ethanol fuel which when tuned creates MORE power than petrol. There is nothing wrong with ethanol fuel as long as your car can handle it (and 99% can)

[DirtyHarry]

Originally Posted by Piotr

There is nothing wrong with ethanol fuel as long as your car can handle it (and 99% can)

On what basis do you arrive at this amazing conclusion?

From page 15 of the report:

Using the most recent Motor Vehicle Census, which provides data on the Australian fleet as at March 2006, it is estimated that at least 59.5% of the petrol fleet would be suitable for use with E10 based on the FCAI advice. This compares with 55.6% of the fleet in March 2005. The increase in suitability in 2006 is a function of both the retirement of unsuitable vehicles (including pre-1986 models), and the entry of new, ethanol-ready vehicles into the fleet.

Based on the FCAI advice, a marginally higher proportion of the fleet, 60.6% using the 2006 ABS data, would be suitable for the use of E5 because some European models listed as not E10 suitable, are suitable for E5.

59.5% and 60.6% are a long, long way from 99%.

[Piotr]

Well obviously 99% was ment to be taken seriously as a figure. But if you look at new cars I would say that the figure would be much higher. Even if you remove the shitbox's that shouldn't be registered the figure would be closer to 70%.

In a few years time I don't see a problem with E5 or more being in all fuels (With current 5% growth it would only take 8 years to be fully converted to E5). If you really love your car you can get it converted to run on E5 without too much hassle.

[DirtyHarry]

Just out of interest, what are the conequences of leaving ethanol blended fuels in your tank for an extended period. Is there a problem with water absorption?

I run on LPG most of the time, and only fill up the petrol tank about once ever two months. If I refuel on E5/E10, is the ethanol in the petrol going to absorb enough water from the air to cause trouble?

[XRQTOR]

Might be worth a read, remember that thats 85% ethanol.

http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/in...?topic=47094.0