Automakers continue to quietly void warranties if you use E 15 gas.

On Monday, 3 February 2014 10:26:36 UTC+8, JR wrote:
> I saw that at www.libertypost.org

How could they tell, unless you had the excess ethanol in the tank when it
came into the workshop? To monitor the car for whole warranty period,
what sensors could discriminate ethanol from hydrocarbons?

In article >,
> wrote:
>On Monday, 3 February 2014 10:26:36 UTC+8, JR wrote:
>> I saw that at www.libertypost.org
>
>How could they tell, unless you had the excess ethanol in the tank when it
>came into the workshop? To monitor the car for whole warranty period,
>what sensors could discriminate ethanol from hydrocarbons?

If the hoses have all turned to goo and are leaking, there's a sign that
some improper fuel was used.

The problem is that elastomers in seals and hoses are often not stable in
high concentrations of ethanol.

Now, I'm not surprised if someone runs E15 through their '72 Ford and
the jets need to be redrilled and the carb seals all fail. This was a
big deal when gasohol was first introduced during the energy crisis of the
seventies.

But I'm kind of shocked that any car being made today uses materials that
aren't stable in ethanol.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:
> On Monday, 3 February 2014 10:26:36 UTC+8, JR wrote:
>> I saw that at www.libertypost.org
>
> How could they tell, unless you had the excess ethanol in the tank when it
> came into the workshop? To monitor the car for whole warranty period,
> what sensors could discriminate ethanol from hydrocarbons?

It is actually very easy to tell just from the engine data.

Straight gas will run lower numbers on enrichment both long and short
term than E10. O2 numbers are different for straight gas and E10. You
will also see different contaminants in the oil and carbon deposits
inside the engine.

The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed engine.


--
Steve W.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> On Monday, 3 February 2014 10:26:36 UTC+8, JR wrote:
>>> I saw that at www.libertypost.org
>> How could they tell, unless you had the excess ethanol in the tank when it
>> came into the workshop? To monitor the car for whole warranty period,
>> what sensors could discriminate ethanol from hydrocarbons?
>
> If the hoses have all turned to goo and are leaking, there's a sign that
> some improper fuel was used.
>
> The problem is that elastomers in seals and hoses are often not stable in
> high concentrations of ethanol.
>
> Now, I'm not surprised if someone runs E15 through their '72 Ford and
> the jets need to be redrilled and the carb seals all fail. This was a
> big deal when gasohol was first introduced during the energy crisis of the
> seventies.
>
> But I'm kind of shocked that any car being made today uses materials that
> aren't stable in ethanol.
> --scott

It's not the materials like that that fail. It's actually hard parts
that fail due to the lean mix. Burnt valves, damaged heads, piston
damage are all showing up.

--
Steve W.

wrote:
>
>The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
>compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
>pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed engine.

That's pretty shameful. What if they are run on super-low-octane Mexican gas?
I would expect competent engineers to design systems to deal with such things
seeing that they are only software changes today with no need to swap jets by
the side of the road.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2014-02-10, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
wrote:
>>
>>The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
>>compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
>>pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed engine.
>
> That's pretty shameful. What if they are run on super-low-octane Mexican gas?
> I would expect competent engineers to design systems to deal with such things
> seeing that they are only software changes today with no need to swap jets by
> the side of the road.

The fuel system materials are good for E10, that's what they are tested
to. However that doesn't mean they can't hold against E15. The
manufacturers don't know until something dissolves.

The O2 sensors for a typical car can only read so far. Too much ethanol
will go beyond their range. The ranges for various pramaters programmed
into the computer also only go so far. Usually E85 or other fuels
require a different fuel map as well as other software changes. That is
the computer needs to be reflashed for the intended fuel. There are of
course systems that can do flex fuel, etc and so forth, but I believe
they use more expensive and/or additional sensors to allow the computer
to 'see' more of what is going on and thus adjust to it.

On 2/10/2014 3:20 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
>> compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
>> pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed engine.
>
> That's pretty shameful. What if they are run on super-low-octane Mexican gas?
> I would expect competent engineers to design systems to deal with such things
> seeing that they are only software changes today with no need to swap jets by
> the side of the road.
> --scott
>
My Bonnie manual claims E15 is acceptable to use, and it even has an
air/oil cooled engine (oil cooled heads). But the compression ratio is
very modest at 9.2:1.

The detonation/pre-ignition sensor feedback should retard spark timing
enough to prevent damage from E15, unless they doing something stupid in
order to game the EPA tests.

--
T0m $herm@n

T0m $herman wrote:
> On 2/10/2014 3:20 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
>>> compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
>>> pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed engine.
>> That's pretty shameful. What if they are run on super-low-octane Mexican gas?
>> I would expect competent engineers to design systems to deal with such things
>> seeing that they are only software changes today with no need to swap jets by
>> the side of the road.
>> --scott
>>
> My Bonnie manual claims E15 is acceptable to use, and it even has an
> air/oil cooled engine (oil cooled heads). But the compression ratio is
> very modest at 9.2:1.
>
> The detonation/pre-ignition sensor feedback should retard spark timing
> enough to prevent damage from E15, unless they doing something stupid in
> order to game the EPA tests.
>

The ecm mapping only goes so far. The O2 sensors and injector mapping
also only cover so much.

They design for 87/89/93 octane with up to 10% ethanol. Then put the
required octane and ethanol % in the book.

If you want to burn more ethanol buy a flex fuel. Just hope the ethanol
sensor doesn't fail. They are not cheap.

--
Steve W.

On 2/12/2014 3:01 AM, Steve W. wrote:
> T0m $herman wrote:
>> On 2/10/2014 3:20 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
>>>> compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
>>>> pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed
>>>> engine.
>>> That's pretty shameful. What if they are run on super-low-octane
>>> Mexican gas?
>>> I would expect competent engineers to design systems to deal with
>>> such things
>>> seeing that they are only software changes today with no need to swap
>>> jets by
>>> the side of the road.
>>> --scott
>>>
>> My Bonnie manual claims E15 is acceptable to use, and it even has an
>> air/oil cooled engine (oil cooled heads). But the compression ratio
>> is very modest at 9.2:1.
>>
>> The detonation/pre-ignition sensor feedback should retard spark timing
>> enough to prevent damage from E15, unless they doing something stupid
>> in order to game the EPA tests.
>>
>
> The ecm mapping only goes so far. The O2 sensors and injector mapping
> also only cover so much.
>
> They design for 87/89/93 octane with up to 10% ethanol. Then put the
> required octane and ethanol % in the book.
>
> If you want to burn more ethanol buy a flex fuel. Just hope the ethanol
> sensor doesn't fail. They are not cheap.
>
Here in Iowa [1], Magellan Pipeline only sends 84 and 91 octane straight
gasoline, so our choices at the pump are 87 octane with 10% ethanol, 87
octane ethanol free blend of the 84 and 91 octane, and 91 octane
straight. The ethanol free 87 octane is typically $0.30 more per gallon
than the 87 octane ethanol blend, but I run it in the motos just to be
on the safe side.

[1] One of the few remaining states that requires pump fuel to be at
least 87 octane.

--
T0m $herm@n

"Steve W." > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Monday, 3 February 2014 10:26:36 UTC+8, JR wrote:
>>> I saw that at www.libertypost.org
>>
>> How could they tell, unless you had the excess ethanol in the tank
>> when it came into the workshop? To monitor the car for whole
>> warranty period, what sensors could discriminate ethanol from
>> hydrocarbons?
>
> It is actually very easy to tell just from the engine data.
>
> Straight gas will run lower numbers on enrichment both long and short
> term than E10. O2 numbers are different for straight gas and E10. You
> will also see different contaminants in the oil and carbon deposits
> inside the engine.
>
> The way most ECMs are mapped they cannot richen the mix enough to
> compensate for the E15. That causes excess heat in the cylinders,
> pre-ignition becomes a big problem and you end up with a destroyed
> engine.
>
>

Thats compleat bull, we have pkups that are not flex fuel been running
E85 and all kinds of mixes for YEARS. (with no problems) That couldn`t
happen if the ecms were that small of maps range. If it will handel E10
it won`t even notice E15 difference. KB