Why you should not use E-15 in your engine.....

LouC · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:14 pm

Read and learn.....
Not opinion but test results from Mercury Marine...

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52909.pdf

298VISTA2000 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:56 am

Thanks for the link LouC and I guess this is why the gov't declared that E15 is illegal to use in marine engines. E10 may not have the same initial detrimental effects on a marine engine like E15 does but I am sure it does long-term. Another failed government mandated program that has brought nothing but misery and extra expense to the tax-payer.

ric · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:39 am

Worst test in the whole world.

They did not adjust the fuel mixtures for any of those engines. They ran the factory mixture settings that were designed for E0 (some up to maybe E10). Of course damage resulted. What do you think happens when you run an engine lean? They didn't need to break a handful of engines to tell you those results.

If they simply added more fuel in the carb/injector settings, there would be ZERO damage to any of those engines.

Cap'n Morgan · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:48 am

Best test I have ever seen. Thanks for posting Lou !!!

Graham R · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:22 am

I thought thee knock sensors were meant to detect when the mixture was too lean; and don't modern engines use the data from those sensors to adjust the fuel quantity and timing accordingly to eliminate lean running/ knock?

Bliss36 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:23 am

Quote:

If they simply added more fuel in the carb/injector settings, there would be ZERO damage to any of those engines.

Ric,
I'm confused with your position on this. The ethanol producers get huge tax subsidies to produce crap that damages your engine unless you dump more of this garbage into your engine to run richer. So if you jet your carb to run 10-15% richer to prevent damage...where's the benefit? Your now running 110-115% more fuel than you normally would thru your carb to prevent damage, so you have already paid for the ethanol thru taxes and now you have to burn more fuel at an expense to you...makes a ton of sense. Ric...this is a serious question...Are you an ethanol lobbyist?

Bliss36 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:30 am

Graham R wrote:

I thought thee knock sensors were meant to detect when the mixture was too lean; and don't modern engines use the data from those sensors to adjust the fuel quantity and timing accordingly to eliminate lean running/ knock?

Yes. Modern engines can adjust the fuel trim and ignition timing to run on higher(leaner) amounts of ethanol to a point but you are still burning more fuel to make up the difference...benefit=0 Carbs have to be re jetted to correct for lean condition.

ric · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:58 am

Bliss36 wrote:

Quote:

If they simply added more fuel in the carb/injector settings, there would be ZERO damage to any of those engines.

Ric,
I'm confused with your position on this. The ethanol producers get huge tax subsidies to produce crap that damages your engine unless you dump more of this garbage into your engine to run richer. So if you jet your carb to run 10-15% richer to prevent damage...where's the benefit? Your now running 110-115% more fuel than you normally would thru your carb to prevent damage, so you have already paid for the ethanol thru taxes and now you have to burn more fuel at an expense to you...makes a ton of sense. Ric...this is a serious question...Are you an ethanol lobbyist?

Nobody said running ethanol was fuel efficient. Ethanol is not garbage. It's renewable, less dangerous, and can make more power. Why do you think Indy/F1 cars run it?

I'm a car guy. I grew up racing gokarts on methanol. I know what the stuff does, I know it's effects on engines. I know how to retune engines from gasoline to E100. We were manually blending fuels before "E" anything ever existed to cheat and get better fuel economy in long races.

My stand on Ethanol is that... it's fuel to run my engine that doesn't pollute our waters here in Florida (thanks BP). Oh, let's not forget the Valdez or the Gulf oil fires. If we want to progress as a species, we need to get away from the dino juice. I'll happily get less MPG's and run ethanol to save my planet.

Oh and to add:
A properly running engine running E85 (better if it was pure ethanol) produces virtually zero carbon monoxide. The only product of combustion is carbon dioxide and water. In the marine world, could you imagine how much safer that would make boating?!?!??! Do you know how many people get hurt/die every year from carbon monoxide poisoning?? That would disappear!

Ccmblack · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:01 am

Either way, I am an idiot when it comes to this stuff....my opinion is:
Up until the government got involved, Marine engines ran pretty good on 0%E ----and I didnt have to learn anything...rejet anything, etc!

LouC · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:19 am

Point 1
Ethanol is not a no-impact product, obviously the price of food has gone up due to the use of corn to make ethanol. There has also been discussion of pollution in the production process of ethanol.
Point 2
This is the part you are missing ric, ethanol is so corrosive, that the oil companies will not allow it to be blended at the refinery and shipped through their pipelines. It gets blended when the gas is put into the tanker truck and that is where mistakes get made. That's why what is supposed to be E-10 winds up being E-15, E-20, E-30. This has been documented by independent tests here in NY.
Point 3 you make an issue of them not adjusting the fuel mixture to the more rich side. Well no matter how you adjust it, the fuel still has extra oxygen in it chemically. And you can only go so far, before you will then wind up with higher pollution test results to the point where you have lost any advantage of using it. The supposed advantage of the ethanol was the extra oxygen, to promote complete burning but that is based on the assumption that all engines can tolerate the extra combustion temperatures. Apparently all engines cannot.
Point 4 As far as durability, in that you want your $25,000 300 hp outboard to last a long time, there is a big difference between running a 500 mile race in Indy cars or drag racing with nitro methane powered drag cars, and building an engine that will last for 2000-3000 hrs. The engine builders for racing can build for one race longevity. Marine engine builders have other parameters they must adhere to or they will go out of business. Look what happened to OMC because of mistakes they made with the first Fichts.

Cap'n Morgan · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:28 am

I can see him feverishly googling "Fichts" behind his big computer screen to find out what it is. :lol:

LouC · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:36 am

Graham R wrote:

I thought thee knock sensors were meant to detect when the mixture was too lean; and don't modern engines use the data from those sensors to adjust the fuel quantity and timing accordingly to eliminate lean running/ knock?

As far as I know, a knock sensor has the ability to retard the timing if it 'hears' knocking, they don't actually adjust fuel mixture. Knock can be the result of other factors such as low octane fuel usually or excessive carbon deposits that causes the 'octane appetite' of the engine to increase. I think they COULD be set up to enrich the mixture, but since that could cause the engines to run afoul of EPA regs, I don't think it is done that way, other than when the engine is warming up and the mixture is allowed to be more rich.

I know that with our Subaru, when the knock sensor failed, it set a check engine light and the timing was retarded back to a base level that caused it to have no power. So they allow a certain amount of advance when they are working correctly but if it fails to provide input to the ECU, the ECU then retards the timing to protect the engine. As far as I know, nothing is done with changing fuel mixture ratios, it's all spark advance.

Bliss36 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:44 am

Ric,

You make some good points buts those points are mostly related to the automotive industry which is better suited to handle ethanol. Marine engine control systems are very primitive when compared to any entry level car today. Look how long it took just to get narrow band o2 sensors on marine engines. The marine industry has to stay a few decades behind on their engine control technology just to keep boats some what affordable.

Alcohol is a highly hygroscopic and corrosive fuel that absorbs moisture like a sponge and just doesn't belong in a marine enviroment. I'm all for finding alternative fuels and cleaner burning engines but the marine industry just is not ready for ethanol.

Bliss36 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:51 am

LouC wrote:

Graham R wrote:

I thought thee knock sensors were meant to detect when the mixture was too lean; and don't modern engines use the data from those sensors to adjust the fuel quantity and timing accordingly to eliminate lean running/ knock?

As far as I know, a knock sensor has the ability to retard the timing if it 'hears' knocking, they don't actually adjust fuel mixture. Knock can be the result of other factors such as low octane fuel usually or excessive carbon deposits that causes the 'octane appetite' of the engine to increase. I think they COULD be set up to enrich the mixture, but since that could cause the engines to run afoul of EPA regs, I don't think it is done that way, other than when the engine is warming up and the mixture is allowed to be more rich.

I know that with our Subaru, when the knock sensor failed, it set a check engine light and the timing was retarded back to a base level that caused it to have no power. So they allow a certain amount of advance when they are working correctly but if it fails to provide input to the ECU, the ECU then retards the timing to protect the engine. As far as I know, nothing is done with changing fuel mixture ratios, it's all spark advance.

Lou,
You are correct! The engine needs a post combustion air/fuel sensor (O2 and/or AFS) to properly adjust the fuel trim. The knock sensor is only used for detonation prevention purposes as you mentioned.

Graham R · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:17 am

I stand corrected about the knock sensors and what they control !

It seems a pretty stupid thing to do to put a hygroscopic material into any fuel that's in an environment where there's plenty of water around ( humidity etc). With diesel you can use a fuel/ water separator as they don't mix ( but bugs live in the fuel tank at the diesel/ water interface, forming a nice black sludge which sinks to the bottom of the tank. It can block filters up very effectively; this usually happens in rough water as the fuel gets churned up, usually a very inconvenient time for it to happen ! !).

With the ethanol dissolving in the petrol, presumably the whole fuel becomes a source of water for rusting etc. The ethanol itself isn't corrosive as such, is it ? Apart from the degreasing action, I'd quite happily put my hand in a bucket of pure ethanol. I wouldn't do the same with hydrochloric acid!

www.iFourWinns.com

Why you should not use E-15 in your engine.....

Who is online