Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum - Reply to Topic
Ford Focus Forum
HomeContact UsAbout UsGalleryDiscussion ForumsMarketplace


Go Back   Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum > Ford Focus Third Generation > MK3 Focus > Flex Fuel...Why?

MK3 Focus The place to chat about general questions, window tinting, exterior body, interior and lighting upgrades for the third generation 2012-Current Focus.

Search This Forum | Image Search | Advanced Search    
FocusFanatics Merchandise

Thread: Flex Fuel...Why? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
02-03-2015 10:10 PM
StingRay Lol that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say ethanol burns hotter.
02-03-2015 09:38 PM
schrodingersbox [QUOTE=cessna1;7861474]Ethanol burns significantly hotter than standard gasoline
Quote:
With that statement, sir, you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to ethanol.
For the curious, difference of about 8000BTU the other way round.
02-03-2015 04:33 PM
cessna1 [QUOTE]Ethanol burns significantly hotter than standard gasoline[QUOTE]
With that statement, sir, you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to ethanol.
02-03-2015 03:58 PM
chemistkremer
Quote:
Originally Posted by cessna1 View Post
Could you explain that a little more? I know of a 2005 Taurus that an ethanol plant in WI used to check the fuel stations that direct marketed their ethanol and it had over 200,000 miles and and still going. It used just about all E85.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavsine View Post
Small engine manufacturer Briggs & Stratton specifically tells you not to use it:

""Ethanol has inherent properties that can cause corrosion of metal parts, including carburetors, degradation of plastic and rubber components, harder starting, and reduced engine life," says Marv Klowak, global vice president of research and development for Briggs & Stratton, the largest manufacturer of small engines. "The higher the ethanol content, the more acute the effects." Servicing dealers are reporting similar problems, even with E10, according to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, the industry's trade group."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...fail/index.htm
Additionally, though critical components are designed to accommodate it (fuel pump, fuel lines, etc.) it is still categorized by all auto manufacturers under "severe operating conditions" and requires the most frequent maintenance intervals, especially oil changes.

Ethanol burns significantly hotter than standard gasoline so even components which may never be touched by it can experience premature heat wear when used over an extended period of time.

Of course, proper preventative maintenance will help to keep any problems at bay (as in most cases) and most FFV engines would be able to go 200,000+ miles without issue, but when you look at the average American auto owner, you can almost certainly expect they will treat the car no different than if it were running all the time on regular gas. For this reason, along with its corrosive properties and the havoc it can in rare instances cause on your fuel system, FFVs run exclusively on E85 are prone to early failure.


All this being said, a robust engine capable of running on Ethanol which requires simple maintenance and is generally easy to operate theoretically could run for a long time with no issues on Ethanol -- Quiz: what was the first FFV to be put into mass production? (No peeking)
02-03-2015 02:30 PM
wavsine
Quote:
Originally Posted by cessna1 View Post
Could you explain that a little more? I know of a 2005 Taurus that an ethanol plant in WI used to check the fuel stations that direct marketed their ethanol and it had over 200,000 miles and and still going. It used just about all E85.
Small engine manufacturer Briggs & Stratton specifically tells you not to use it:

""Ethanol has inherent properties that can cause corrosion of metal parts, including carburetors, degradation of plastic and rubber components, harder starting, and reduced engine life," says Marv Klowak, global vice president of research and development for Briggs & Stratton, the largest manufacturer of small engines. "The higher the ethanol content, the more acute the effects." Servicing dealers are reporting similar problems, even with E10, according to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, the industry's trade group."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...fail/index.htm
02-03-2015 01:45 PM
cessna1
Quote:
You can expect the lifespan of a FFV engine to be shortened drastically if it is only ever run on E85
Could you explain that a little more? I know of a 2005 Taurus that an ethanol plant in WI used to check the fuel stations that direct marketed their ethanol and it had over 200,000 miles and and still going. It used just about all E85.
02-03-2015 08:13 AM
chemistkremer I think it's safe to say this thread is straying off topic.

That being said, perhaps this argument can find a middle ground: purely from the standpoint of a fuel source, Ethanol is a viable alternative to the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels. One way or another, all the useful oil in this world will be consumed so for the sake of posterity, it is prudent to be in constant search of the replacement for our old friend, crude.

However, when Ethanol was introduced as a possible alternative, modern engines were by no means designed to handle it and to this day (yes, even with flex fuel capable vehicles), it is not an ideal alternative to standard fuel. You can expect the lifespan of a FFV engine to be shortened drastically if it is only ever run on E85. Auto manufacturers have never made vehicles truly ready (I'm not counting Brazil, here) for 150,000+ miles running on E85, it doesn't make good business sense when Ethanol accounts for less than 5% of the total fuel consumed in cars in this country. In fact, chemically, statistically, economically, environmentally, Ethanol is only a marginal improvement over fossil fuels; it's more of a placeholder for things to come (electric cars, hydrogen cars, flying cars, no cars?).

Yet, in a dramatic push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Ethanol was quickly (too quickly) incorporated into our energy supply and its benefits drummed up while potential negatives specifically overlooked. The disconnect between the scientific community and the government and general public is very apparent when examining this policy -- in a frantic push to find anything that can replace gasoline, Ethanol was prematurely placed in a position to start the transition away from fossil fuels. Few can deny that our infrastructure was not and still is not ready for Ethanol but in the interest of "good science" we took what was available (corn) and started putting it into our fuel tanks because that was the best that could be managed. Nobody bothered to step back and consider that we may want to develop a commercially viable cellulosic source, or maybe look into sugar cane, or perhaps spend more time researching bacterial sources of ethanol. No, instead, we needed to start somewhere and it has hurt us since. While Ethanol production and education may be on the right track now, we started too soon and too quickly and took ten steps backwards while taking one step forward.

But, as in all things, shooting first and aiming later seems to be the preferred strategy.

Cessna1 -- Nobody is denying that you are a good farmer who knows how to execute your profession responsibly and who understands the benefits of being a steward of the land. I have the utmost respect for farmers so forgive me when I say this, but you cannot deny that there are a large number of farmers who think only of profits first and maybe later will they take a real look at sustainable farming. Many would easily plant whatever they wanted and used whatever chemicals they were sold to make a quick profit rather than think about the shape of their land in 20 years.



TLDR -- Ethanol is not great for engines but is better for the environment when produced responsibly. As a country we prematurely introduced Ethanol into our supply and in doing so took many steps backwards. Environmental improvement cannot come from the first draft of an idea, but as a nation (and perhaps a world) we are easily scared and will naively believe it when told that something can help save whatever needs saving or improve what needs improving, even if the improvement isn't ready to be executed.

Now this thread is really off topic...
02-02-2015 05:21 PM
cessna1
Quote:
“new” research from the World Resources Institute, where Tim Searchinger and Ralph Heimlich re-hash their already disproven theories of “food vs. fuel” and “Indirect Land Use Change.”
Quote:
In fact, Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development put this issue to bed last November, finding that ‘…the primary land use change response of the world’s farmers in the last 10 years has been to use available land resources more efficiently rather than to expand the amount of land brought into production.’”
Also, I'm enrolling about half the farm into CRP(planting native grasses for pheasants) for ten years for a pretty good rental rate and might do the rest next year if rent doesn't go down. Don't know if you know this but we had a record corn crop and the price is about half of what it was a couple of years ago. Inputs are not coming down so it's going to be a struggle for a few years to come.
02-02-2015 04:40 PM
Keenan84 More articles for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbla...ironmentalism/

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/sojka2/

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...-gasoline.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming
02-02-2015 04:35 PM
Keenan84
Quote:
Originally Posted by cessna1 View Post
Read up on tar sands and tell me about energy used to produce. I'm a farmer in NW Iowa and I can tell you that I'm way more efficient than some of the "models" that some of the experts present as fact----facts that you evidently believe because you're most likely not a farmer.
I am canadian, i know ALL about the oil sands. Yes they are incredibly dirty but they are mining a energy dense fuel that needs little refining.

here is one of the many articles on actual facts about ethanol and how useless it really is. You have been hoodwinked! dont worry, so have many other people. That was the whole point of ethanol.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...-for-lobbyists
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Copyright 2002-2014 FocusFanatics.com. All Rights Reserved : Privacy Policy : Advertise Information

Focus Fanatics Ford Focus Forum offers many fun ways for you to engage with other Ford Focus Owners from across the world. Whether it be about the aftermarket performance modifications, technical how-to's, European tuned suspension or awesome fuel economy similar to the Audi S3, Ford Fusion and Acura TLX. You can find all Ford Focus and Focus ST related information here. Join our Ford Focus discussion forums and chat with local Focus enthusiasts in your area. Challenger Hellcat - Charger Hellcat