Use of ethanol in Chrysler products

"Sharon K.Cooke" > wrote in message
...
> Doesn't your owner's manual say that a 10% Ethanol blend is OK, or that a
> 5%
> Methanol blend is OK?
>
> wrote:
>>
>> With the increase in gasoline prices, there is renewed interest in
>> ethanol. If I remember correctly, Chrysler and most other manufacturers
>> warn against the use of gasoline containing ethanol.
>>
>> Is it safe to use gasoline with ethanol or not?
>>
>> -Kirk Matheson

Newer cars are designed to use a blend of gasoline with up to 10% ethanol. I
would avoid methanol at all costs, especially in cold weather since its use
can lead to phase separation of the water in the gas resulting in an
expensive repair to purge the fuel system and tank. Older cars should avoid
both blends if possible, especially methanol. That includes "dry gas".

Richard.

Richard.

It's been 4 years, but my recollection is that the Delphi and Ford
engineers that I worked with talked about the gasoline used in South
American countries in general as being absolutely the worst, and
impossible to design for. They use high alcohol content, and there's a
lot of sulfur in it - awful environment for fuel components.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> What is the situation in Brazil? Is the alcohol content not much higher
> than 15%. Do they use methanol?
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
> [..]
>
>>From my days designing fuel pump products (4 to 13 years ago), the
>>practical limit in systems of the day (at that time anyway) was 15%.

yes it is, and if you have the ffv(flex fuel vehicle) engine mangement
system in your chrysler
you can run at 85 % ethanol the way is is

wrote:

> With the increase in gasoline prices, there is renewed interest in
> ethanol. If I remember correctly, Chrysler and most other manufacturers
> warn against the use of gasoline containing ethanol.
>
> Is it safe to use gasoline with ethanol or not?
>
> -Kirk Matheson

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Norvin wrote:
>
> > line, gas is a better deal. Also it would seem strange that when
gas
> > goes up 20-30 a gallon, E85 is still about 10 cents cheaper.
>
> Not strange at all. Ethanol is *VERY* heavily subsidized by means of
very
> generous fuel tax exemptions, production tax credits and so forth.
> Archer-Daniels-Midland, the company that makes virtually all of North
> America's fuel ethanol, has bought many politicians in both parties
to
> make sure of that! Without these Federal subsidies, ethanol as a
motor
> fuel or motor fuel additive would be an even bigger joke than it is
*with*
> the subsidies.
>
> DS

And oil ISN'T subsidized??? What about the Gulf War and the Iraq War?
I'd say that oil companies have benefited very HEAVILY from this
subsidy paid for with billions of dollars and human lives. So, if I go
out and buy a ton of straw for $60 and make 75 gallons of ethanol from
it, while using $5 of wood to distill it, and burn the fuel in a high
compression engine that is optimized to run ethanol at nearly the same
efficiency as gasoline, then is it still a big joke?

Mgrant

"Mgrant" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Norvin wrote:
> >
> > > line, gas is a better deal. Also it would seem strange that when
> gas
> > > goes up 20-30 a gallon, E85 is still about 10 cents cheaper.
> >
> > Not strange at all. Ethanol is *VERY* heavily subsidized by means of
> very
> > generous fuel tax exemptions, production tax credits and so forth.
> > Archer-Daniels-Midland, the company that makes virtually all of North
> > America's fuel ethanol, has bought many politicians in both parties
> to
> > make sure of that! Without these Federal subsidies, ethanol as a
> motor
> > fuel or motor fuel additive would be an even bigger joke than it is
> *with*
> > the subsidies.
> >
> > DS
>
> And oil ISN'T subsidized??? What about the Gulf War and the Iraq War?
> I'd say that oil companies have benefited very HEAVILY from this
> subsidy paid for with billions of dollars and human lives. So, if I go
> out and buy a ton of straw for $60 and make 75 gallons of ethanol from
> it, while using $5 of wood to distill it, and burn the fuel in a high
> compression engine that is optimized to run ethanol at nearly the same
> efficiency as gasoline, then is it still a big joke?
>
> Mgrant

Excellent point, ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way. Many
believe prohibition was a way to suppress it's use in automobiles in the
twenty's as gasoline had not yet established it's dominance.

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:

> ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way

Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
>
> > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
>
> Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.

True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression) the same
fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained. And the higher compression will
produce more power and emit only carbon dioxide and water. Even if the
economy was worse (which it isn't), it is possible to construct a still and
produce ethanol for next to nothing. Also, many new cars are equipped to
run on e85 which is 85% ethanol, all other can be converted by the simple
installation of a computer chip. The electronic fuel injection does the
rest. Here is a good link if you are interested.

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/index.html

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:34:51 -0400, "Steve" >
wrote:

>
>> now you know that letting a company keep there own money is not a
>> subsidsity. the over taxing of the gas is a penilty. don`t make incorect
>> claims. KB
>
>Your right about taxing being a penalty. But if 99% of the companies pay
>tax, then the ones that are not paying taxes have gained a favour. It could
>be called a subsidy, it's all the same.
>
>

Not necessarily - As an example, Cox Communications (cable TV provider
among other things) is whining loudly and advertising on TV to "level
the playing field" with satellite TV because they are taxed and
satellite TV isn't.


But the reason they are taxed is to help pay for the fact that they
have to tear up **** to lay cable while that is unnecessary for
satellite TV.

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:

> > > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
> >
> > Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.
>
> True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression) the
> same fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.

....and an engine thus optimized could give even better performance and
economy on gasoline. That's a vicious cycle.

> And the higher compression will produce more power and emit only carbon
> dioxide and water.

Er...no. High compression + alcohol = Oxides of Nitrogen go through the
roof. Aldehyde emissions soar.

> Also, many new cars are equipped to run on e85 which is 85% ethanol, all
> other can be converted by the simple installation of a computer chip.
> The electronic fuel injection does the rest.

....with greatly reduced fuel economy and performance, yes.

No matter how much handwaving you do, you cannot gloze over the fact that
ethanol contains substantially less energy than gasoline.

On Sun, 08 May 2005 04:09:21 GMT, "Rick Blaine" >
wrote:

>
>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
in.umich.edu...
>> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
>>
>> > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
>>
>> Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.
>
>True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression) the same
>fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.

Nope. Our racing kart engines had their compression ratios upped to an extreme
when they were converted to alcohol, and they ran the tanks dry _waaaay_
earlier than the they did before the conversion. Fuel/air ratio is about 3X
for alcohol compared to gasolin- you're average car that gets 300 - 500 miles
per tank of gas would be running out at 100 - 160 miles. And... people
wouldn't buy it.

>And the higher compression will
>produce more power and emit only carbon dioxide and water.

The higher heat (we used to melt the aluminum heads quite regularly on our alky
burning racing kart engines) are going to spew NOx all over the environment.

>Even if the
>economy was worse (which it isn't), it is possible to construct a still and
>produce ethanol for next to nothing.

Yeah, right - that's why everybody did it in the 70's when the oil embargo
caused near-$4.00/gallon equivalent prices. Not. Millions of people looked
into it, and nobody did it. It wasn't feasible for an individual to do, that's
all.

>Also, many new cars are equipped to
>run on e85 which is 85% ethanol, all other can be converted by the simple
>installation of a computer chip. The electronic fuel injection does the
>rest. Here is a good link if you are interested.
>
>http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/index.html

New technology might get alcohol into cars in America OK, but people won't like
it when they have to buy 50 gallons at a time in order to run a car for the
former range of 300 miles, and with racing alcohol (methanol) going for around
$9 a gallon, this could be cause for a revolution. Ethanol might be cheaper
than methanol, but it'd have to be about a third the price of gasoline in order
to start getting economically competitive.

We have to build a transportation system based on nuclear power or we're going
to be in an oil-deprived, stone-age economy again eventually. And somebody
better get nuclear fusion to happen, too, 'cuz we'll run out of Uranium someday
too.

Dave Head