 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Subaru Cars / May 2008E85 -- experience
Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341 He has two years of experience with it and loves it. Ben Three days ago I filled my 1999 OB 2.5L, unmodified, with a splash- mixed E41. After 70 miles, the MIL (CEL) light went on because of the lean mixture. So today I added E10 enough to bring the tank composition to E29. Mileage on E0: 25 mpg normal suburban driving Mileage on E41: 24 mpg, same driving, 154 mi. We'll see if the MIL goes off with E29. Ben > After 70 miles, the MIL (CEL) light went on because of the > lean mixture. You have a Mother In Law light? That's gotta suck.  SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. > > After 70 miles, the MIL (CEL) light went on because of the > > lean mixture. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's gotta suck. > -- That's Mothers I'd Like to meet. Actually it's the formal name of the Check Engine Light, and the translation is Malfunction Indicator Light. > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ben Hi, If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let the ECU learn again? > Hi, > If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let > the ECU learn again? Tony, the ECU did learn again, without my disconnecting the battery. I don't know enojugh about this question to answer or explain it, but everything worked OK. I suppose the mixture is monitored continuously and the injector pulse is then continuously being adjusted. BTW, changing from E42 to E29 and driving a bit managed to turn off the MIL again. It took 70 miles at E42 to bring on the MIL but only 7 miles at E29 to turn it off again. I would guess that that means I went just over the line at E42. My converter kit should arrive in 3 days, and then I should be ready for E85. >>Hi, >>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > My converter kit should arrive in 3 days, and then I should be ready > for E85. It will, learn eventually. But , if you expect HIGHER octane, it is probably better to force the ECU back to the factory map. Then it starts from max advance and retards on knock detection. If you don't do that, and the system has already retarded the timing, it may take a very long time to advance it, if ever. I hope I have that right. Anyway, you should really consider resetting the ECU with a scanner or by battery disconnect/w'ever. AND use multiple tankfuls for any mileage calculations. Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) > >>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let > >>the ECU learn again? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and the system has already retarded the timing, it may take a very long > time to advance it, if ever. Thanks, Tony and Carl, for the info on MAPs and ECUs and changing fuels. I had never known about these things before. But what I am doing (when my kit comes) is to convert my car to an FFV. So the design goal is to enable me to change fuels drastically and often. On the road I might be running E85, fuel getting low, and no E85 station within 100 miles. I would then switch to E0, or pure gasoline. That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to disconnect the battery every time. I remember reading that the FFVs detect the concentration of ethanol and adjust quickly to it. I don't know what sensor detects the change, but it must be there somewhere. In my recent experiments before installing the kit, if there were drastic errors in timing and mixtures, I should have experienced poor acceleration, stumbling, or even stalling, not to mention poor mileage. In fact, that did not happen. I can't explain it, but things went very smoothly, and the cars pep and smooth running was great. Cars are getting too complicated for us amateurs! Ben > ... That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to > disconnect the battery every time. There should be a reset button in the glove box... > > ... That is supposed to be routine. I shouldn't have to > > disconnect the battery every time. > > There should be a reset button in the glove box... I have more information now about the reset for a different fuel: The converter I bought (Full Flex from "change2e85.com") has a memory for MAPpings. The recommendation is that after conversion, you should first run a tankful of E50 (roughly half and half of E10 and E85 mixed at the pumps). This gives the converter an easier task finding the right mapping for its first taste of ethanol. It remembers that setting, so that when you try E85 it has less distance (so to speak) to go to find the new right setting. It's like a ladder with a bottom rung, and top rung, and one in the middle. Then you are ready for anything! No battery disconnects required. In my case, I started before conversion running E29. Customer service told me that I could then go straight to E85 without a problem. Ben PS: Thanks for the info Rick. I don't have such a button. Maybe that is for OEM FFVs only. >> >>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let >> >>the ECU learn again? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Ben I doubt they detect Ethanol at all. More likely they monitor the engines performance and adjust fuel/oxygen ratio to keep it within some performance parameters. I bet they can tell the octane by engine output and temperature, etc. Of course, this means the ECU designer must have some logic that says E85 is not the engine malfunctioning... CL >>> >>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let >>> >>the ECU learn again? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >CL Actually, some vehicles DO have a fuel analyzer on board. Generally some sort of optical refractometer or transmittance device that can determine the composition of the fuel to within 13% or something like that. GM early flex fuel vehicles used this. The new flex-fuel Impalla calculates the fuel composition every time the fuel cap is removed by running an algarithm on the O2 sensor data. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>Hi, >>>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Carl I doubt unplugging the battery would reset an ECU. Normally data like this once calculated is stored in non-volatile memory and is not erased from battery disconnect. Especially engine info as you can get battery disconnect like behavior during cold crank. CL >>Hi, >>If you changed fuel. Wouldn't it proper to disconnect battery and let [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > My converter kit should arrive in 3 days, and then I should be ready > for E85. Hi, If you reset the ECU it'll learn faster. That's what I used to do. > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else > > http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803341 > > He has two years of experience with it and loves it. Do you have a laptop you can connect to the OBDII port? Would be interesting to log the O2 sensor and STFT/LTFT data, along with MAF, RPM and speed so you can watch the ECU trying to compensate. You'd need to buy an interface box - I got my ELM327 box off eBay for 1 euro, 20$ shipping from Hong Kong - (said it only worked with CAN-BUS but works fine with my 95 Legacy's OBD-II) SignatureDominic Richens | knob@storm.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!" > > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his > > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Dominic Richens | k...@storm.ca > "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!" Yes, I do, but I tried to save a few bucks by getting the model that only gives the codes, not all the rest of the diagnostic data. Your choice was better. There is a YouTube video that shows a disassmbly of an engine that ran, unmodified, for 102,000 miles on E85. No problem. Ethanol is just not that dangerous to your car. That was what encouraged me to try E42 on my still unmodified 1999 OB. Thanks for the constructive suggestion anyway. Ben > > > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his > > > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ben Ben, you believe everything you see on YouTube? ;-) Regardless, I'm interested in your experiment, although you might have trouble getting your car to pass an emissions test, based on the fact that there aren't any 'conversion kits' certified by the EPA. To really judge the impact, you should do a smog test immediately before and immediately after the conversion. Dan D '99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's) Central NJ USA > > > > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his > > > > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > really judge the impact, you should do a smog test immediately before > and immediately after the conversion. ... although you might have > trouble getting your car to pass an emissions test, based on the fact > that there aren't any 'conversion kits' certified by the EPA. To > really judge the impact, you should do a smog test immediately before > and immediately after the conversion. Actually, the kit I have ordered has been given EPA approval, according to www.change2e85.com . I think there is at least one other, I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of driving on E29. Regarding ethanol energy balance see http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml which cites the Pimental paper along with several others refuting it. There is also a quotation about the energy balance of gasoline and MBTE. > I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is > just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of > driving on E29. Hi, I don't know about other States' emissions procedures, but here's a "thought" from California: As some of you already know, we've got the strictest emissions laws in the US, and simple EPA certification is not always sufficient to pass. Many of you US drivers/owners know about the "California" and "49 State" cars... Anyway, aftermarket mods that relate to emissions are generally certified out here by CARB (Calif Air Resources Board--or Bureau?) and should ship w/ an approval sticker in the box. When a car's smogged out here, it goes thru both a visual and an actual emissions test regimen. The visual includes inspection for missing, disconnected or damaged elements of the system, plus inspection of any aftermarket changes. So my next door neighbor installed a CARB certified intake device, and put the sticker under the hood. Then he took the car to be inspected. The fellow doing the work looked at the new system, then asked where the sticker was. Neighbor pointed it out, and all was good. Inspector told him that even though this particular system had been approved, if the sticker is NOT installed on the vehicle, he has to fail the car on visual! I know, it's one of those stupid bureaucratic things, but still one of those where you need to know the rules before starting to play the game so you don't lose by default! A call to your local emissions testing station might be worthwhile... Rick > > I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is > > just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Rick Thanks, Rick. I do know that New York is not that strict. I don't think we even have any emissions testing stations. The converter I have has NOT been CARB approved, in spite of having been EPA approved for cars with OBDII. I think maybe California is protecting themselves right out of some helpful things. Ben Ben >> I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is >> just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Many of you US drivers/owners know about the "California" and "49 State" >cars... Er... 49 , my butt! <G> Many northeastern US states have true California emmisions standards these days. >>> I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is >>> just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Many northeastern US states have true California emmisions standards >these days. There is no more "49 state" and "Cali" calibration any more. ANY new car sold in the USA has to meet the same standards no matter which state it is sold in. No "High Altitude" calibration any more either. OBD2 looks after all of that. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > >>> I don't know the details of NYS inspection for emissions. If it is > >>> just regarding the MIL, I have already cleared it with a few miles of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - According to the NY DMV at http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/vehsafe.htm the emissions standard in NY outside of the NYC metro area are (1) all the emission control equjipment installed and operating and (2) no MIL light. In the metro area there is an additional requirement for a sniffer test on the exhaust. My car is in the Albany area, and it meets the requirements running E29 before any conversion. I expect it to pass running E85 after the conversion. Ben >> > > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his >> > > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >'99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's) >Central NJ USA Certainly not as reliable a source as YouTube, but...... http://autos.aol.com/article/hybrid/v2/_a/are-there-problems-with-e85/2006042712 1009990001 Frank > On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Dano58 > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Note that the title of the article is a question, not a claim. The article doesn't quote any actual experience with E85, just theoretical predictions. Let's look at some real data: Fuel efficiency: Not a 40% reduction; a 5% reduction, more or less according to how one drives. And that is in miles/gallon, not miles/ dollar, which increases. In my case using E30, the drop was from 25 to 24 mpg, which is subject to refinement as I get more experience. Today I install my kit and can burn E85. Will report. Price:--Not more than gasoline; 25% less than gasoline at my station in NY. In CO, some stations discount much more And that is with the current scarce production of ethanol. (In Brazil they make ethanol for 83 cents per gallon.) Smog:-- Not a rise in organic emissions; an actual reduction in organic emmissions by 40% or more. In FFVs or conversions with good kits, one approaches stochiometric combustion. And there are hardly any particulates in the exhaust, unlike gasoline. (Particulates form nucleation points for smog creation.) And then there are the advantages. No billions of dollars sent to OPEC! Thanks, Frank, for providing a chance to discuss these questions. Ben >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Dano58 >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > >Thanks, Frank, for providing a chance to discuss these questions. You know, you're right. Each time I or anyone post an alternative view it allows you another opportunity to present some more unsubtantiated propaganda. Won't happen again. With reagard to the referenced article by U. S. News and World Report, I'll let those who wish to read it to make up their minds about the meaning of the title. Frank ... Each time I or anyone post an alternative > view it allows you another opportunity to present some more > unsubtantiated propaganda. Won't happen again. Frank, I posted three claims: price of E85, fuel efficiency, and smog potential. The first two are direct personal observations. (The price information is readily available country-wide on the web. Just Google "E85 price." The fuel efficiency is also testified to widely on the web.) That leaves the smog potential: The article you cited mentioned smog potential because alcohol evaporates faster than gasoline. (My reply was about exhaust; forgive me.) You must be driving an antique car; otherwise you would know that your potential for any fuel evaporation is nil because your fuel system is sealed and your gas cap should be on tight. That is general knowledge. I have no financial interest in ethanol production. I'm just a retired physics professor interested in the energy problem we all face in coming decades. Ben > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Dano58 > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In his May 14th Frank reply to me, he cited an article that mentioned possible smog problems with ethanol. I have located the source of this concern in an article by one Mark Z. Jacobson, "Environmental Science and Technology", April 18, 2007, which does indeed project smog problems in 2020 in the Los Angeles are when it is supposed that all vehicles burn E85. (Versus reduction in smog in Atlanta.) The cause of increased smog, according to the computer simulation, was a decrease -- that's right, a decrease -- in NOx tailpipe emissions; it seems that when smog is high, NOx tends to break up ozone molecules, if I understand correctly, and thus reduce smog to a lower equilibrium level. A "hair-of-the-dog" cure. A critique of Jacobson's study -- http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1071/reapresponse_jacobsone85.pdf -- points out that Jacobson assumed as input to his 2007 study that the vehicles in 2020 would have the same properties as those of US vehicles from 1991. These 1991 vehicles were not flex-fuel vehicles; there weren't any in those days. There are other criticsms also. If you are worried about ethanol smog, read the article. Ben > The cause of increased smog, according to the computer simulation, was a > decrease -- that's right, a decrease -- in NOx tailpipe emissions; it > seems that when smog is high, NOx tends to break up ozone molecules, > if I understand correctly, and thus reduce smog to a lower equilibrium > level. A "hair-of-the-dog" cure. Hi, Both my high school chem and physics classes were right after lunch. So I managed a fair amount of "nap time" in there. However, I did stay awake long enough to learn this little thing that seems to be forgotten in too many of these discussions, and certainly in legislative chambers, something called The Law of Conservation of Matter. As I recall, it states "Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form." Now, much to the dismay of my father the physicist, I went no further in either of these two disciplines, so maybe I missed something truly important, but until someone educates me better, I'm going w/ the question my high school teacher posed: "You add one pound of liquid fuel to 15 pounds of air. Burn them. How much matter, in pounds comes out of the tailpipe?" Back in the days before calculators, 1 + 15 was 16. No matter how we sing and dance around the issue, we can't change that. All we can hope to do is change the form of that 16 lbs of "stuff" into more manageable, or less harmful, new forms of "stuff." In other words, we change "brown" smog into "green" smog. It's still smog... Rick > > The cause of increased smog, according to the computer simulation, was a > > decrease -- that's right, a decrease -- in NOx tailpipe emissions; it [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Rick As usually defined, "smog" is smoke + fog. Ain't much smoke from burning alcohol in the right mixture. Your 15 pounds of air is about 12 pounds of nitrogen, most of which comes out just as it went in -- a little warmer. If that's "green" smog, bring it on. Ben Ben > Here is the address of a thread about a WRX owner who converted his > car to E85 by changing to larger fuel injectors -- nothing else [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ben Today the conversion to FFV was finished. It was not as easy as expected: The converter I bought (Full Flex from "change2e85.com") consists merely of a control box with a pair of wires for each cylinder, 4 in my case. The connectors at the end of the wires are for the fuel injectors, one male, one female. You remove the original connector from the injector, replace it with one of the pair, and connect the other wire to the original connector. This puts the control box in series with your fuel management system for each cylinder. There is a Youtube video that shows two boys, 12 and 9, making this conversion under adult supervision in about 10 minutes. But the car was not a Subaru. Unfortunately my 1999 OB 2.5L engine has its fuel injectors way down beneath some other parts, and it was with difficulty that I was able to remove the original connectors. But I did, and then I discovered that Subaru has used two slightly different versions of its injector connectors, and mine was not like the ones supplied with the kit. The difference is a 1/8-inch shift in the position of guide fins on the injector that are supposed to slide into slots on the connector. Customer service acknowledged that problem and suggested removing the fins with a Dremel tool -- very simple, very easy. Except that one needs to remove the injectors to do that. My Chilton manual said that to remove the injectors one had to disconnect and reposition several items, including the power steering pump. Ouch! Not being an experienced mechanic, I took the car to my trusted professional. He quoted $80 to remove and reinstall the injectors. Should take an hour of his time. I modified the injectors on the spot with my Dremel tool with a cutter bit. Turned out to be two hours, because after reinstalling the injectors (without removing anything but the air cleaner), one of the injectors was leaking. Sanding down a bit of corrosion and replacing an O-ring solved that problem after several attempts, but I realized that by myself I could not even have checked for that. Moral: If your car is old, expect the unexpected. Anyway it is done, the car runs smoothly with the converter in place still running E29, and I am happy. When I refill my tank, it will be with E85, and I will report. Ben >Moral: If your car is old, expect the unexpected. I had the same engine in a 2001 OBW. Without a few gems of information, even the plugs were a pain. <G> I admire your drive and appreciate the posts. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.