Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts!

Go Back   Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts! > >
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Welcome to Ford Ranger Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

  #1  
Old 06-04-2010, 07:50 AM
paholskila paholskila is offline
Ford Ranger Owner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 68
Default E85 for 2005 2.3?

Other than somewhat lower mileage, any reason not to use E85 in my 2005 Ranger XLT with 2.3 and automatic? (I'm in Arizona, if that makes any difference.)
__________________
LarryP
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-04-2010, 07:27 PM
Scottg Scottg is offline
Ford Motor Co
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 170
Send a message via AIM to Scottg
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

straight from Wikipedia, if you can understand it
Quote:
Problems

Operating fuel-injected non-FFVs on more than 50% ethanol will generally cause the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) to illuminate, indicating that the electronic control unit (ECU) believes that it can no longer maintain closed-loop control of the internal combustion process not due to the presence of more oxygen in E85, but rather the fact that E85 has less carbon per volume, thus requiring more than the injectors can deliver, than gasoline. Once the MIL illuminates, adding more ethanol to the fuel tank becomes rather inefficient. For example, running 90% ethanol in a non-FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicle) will reduce fuel economy by 33% or more relative to what would be achieved running 100% gasoline. Even more importantly, continuing to operate the non-FFV with the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) illuminated may also cause damage to the catalytic converter as well as to the engine pistons if allowed to persist. To run a non-FFV with amounts of ethanol high enough to cause the MIL to illuminate risks severe damage to the vehicle, that may outweigh any economic benefit of E85.

Under stoichiometric combustion conditions, ideal combustion occurs for burning pure gasoline as well as for various mixes of gasoline and ethanol (at least until the MIL illuminates in the non-FFV) such that there is no significant amount of uncombined oxygen or unburned fuel being emitted in the exhaust. This means that no change in the exhaust manifold oxygen sensor is required for either FFVs or non-FFVs when burning higher percentages of ethanol. This also means that the catalytic converter on the non-FFV burning ethanol mixed with gasoline is not being stressed by the presence of too much oxygen in the exhaust, which would otherwise reduce catalytic converter operating life.

Nonetheless, even when the MIL does not illuminate on the non-FFV burning an ethanol-gasoline mixture, proper catalytic operation of the catalytic converter for a non-FFV burning higher percentages of ethanol may not be achieved as soon as necessary to prevent the emission of some pollution products resulting from burning the gasoline contained in the mixture, especially upon initial cold engine start. This is because the catalytic converter needs to rise to an internal temperature of approximately 300 C before it can 'fire off' and commence its intended catalytic function operation. When burning large concentrations of ethanol in a non-FFV, the cooler burning characteristics of ethanol fuel than gasoline fuel may delay reaching the 'fire-off' temperature in a non-FFV as quickly as when burning gasoline. Any additional pollution, however, is only going to be emitted for a very short distance when burning E85 in a non-FFV, as the catalytic converter will nonetheless still 'fire off' quite quickly and commence catalytic operation shortly. It is not known whether the small amount of pollution emitted prior to catalytic converter 'fire off' may actually be reduced even during the cold startup phase, as well as once catalytic operation commences, when burning E85 in a non-FFV. Likewise, even once the catalytic converter 'fires off', operation with the MIL illuminated will still result in excess amounts of nitrogen oxides being released, greater than when operating the engine on gasoline. The solution is simply to add gasoline, and extinguish the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL), at which time exhaust pollutants will return to within normal limits.

For non-FFVs burning E85 once the MIL illuminates, it is the lessened amount of fuel injection than what is needed that causes the air fuel mixture to become too lean; that is, there is not enough fuel being injected into the combustion process, with the result that the oxygen content in the exhaust rises out of limits, and perfect (i.e., stoichiometric) combustion is lost if the percentage of ethanol in the fuel tank becomes too high. It is the loss of near-stoichiometric combustion that causes the excessive loss of fuel economy in non-FFVs burning too high a percentage of ethanol versus gasoline in their fuel mix
__________________
2004 Explorer Sport Trac XLT premium 4.0L auto 4wd
1995 Ranger XLT ext cab 3.0L auto 2wd
2005 Jeep Liberty Limited 3.7L auto 4wd
2001 Ranger XLT reg cab 2.3L auto 2wd--SOLD
1999 Ranger XLT reg cab 2.5L manual 2wd--SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-04-2010, 07:29 PM
Scottg Scottg is offline
Ford Motor Co
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 170
Send a message via AIM to Scottg
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

also this
Quote:
Corrosion

E85 can cause damage, since prolonged exposure to high concentrations of ethanol may corrode metal and rubber parts in older engines (pre-1985) designed primarily for gasoline. The hydroxyl group on the ethanol molecule is an extremely weak acid, but it can enhance corrosion for some natural materials. For post-1985 fuel-injected engines, all the components are already designed to accommodate E10 (10% ethanol) blends through the elimination of exposed magnesium and aluminum metals and natural rubber and cork gasketed parts. Hence, there is a greater degree of flexibility in just how much more ethanol may be added without causing ethanol-induced damage, varying by automobile manufacturer. Anhydrous ethanol in the absence of direct exposure to alkali metals and bases is non-corrosive; it is only when water is mixed with the ethanol that the mixture becomes corrosive to some metals. Hence, there is no appreciable difference in the corrosive properties between E10 and a 50:50 blend of E10 gasoline and E85 (47.5% ethanol), provided there is no water present, and the engine was designed to accommodate E10. Nonetheless, operation with more than 10% ethanol has never been recommended by car manufacturers in non-FFVs. Operation on up to 20% ethanol is generally considered safe for all post-1988 cars and trucks.
[edit] Water contamination

Although water phase separation can be a significant problem in ethanol-blended gasoline fuels such as E10[4], contamination by small amounts of water does not lead to phase separation in E85 fuel. The fraction of water required to induce phase separation is higher than 20% (by weight).[5]
[edit] Air/Fuel mixture problems

Running a non-FFV with a high percentage of ethanol will cause the air fuel mixture to be leaner than normal in carbureted or open loop fuel injection engines, and cause closed loop fuel injection systems to adjust for the increase in oxygen content of the fuel mixture. A lean mixture, when leaner than stoichiometric, could cause heat related engine damage because combustion chamber temperatures can increase with a surplus of air during the combustion event. Some aftermarket E85 conversion kits for modern fuel injected vehicles operate by altering the duty cycles of electronic injectors to help offset air/fuel mixture issues. The effects of surplus oxygen on the catalytic converter may be undesirable, and if too lean the engine will display roughness in operation. If the percentage of ethanol used results in sustained operation in the range between stoichiometric and best power mixture, problems may develop. In this range, between peak exhaust gas temperature and approximately 50 degrees rich of peak, combustion temperatures are at the highest possible, and may exceed the design temperatures for the engine. Detonation margins are reduced, and if operation at elevated temperatures is allowed to persist over considerable periods of time, heat related damage to valves and pistons can occur.

Without in-depth knowledge of the engine's mixture control system and instrumentation to monitor exhaust gas temperature, cylinder head temperature, cylinder pressure, and/or exhaust oxygen content, it is difficult to know whether the engine is operating in the "red" zone, or an acceptable mixture zone. Closed loop fuel injection systems eliminate much of the risk. This is also why the check engine light will illuminate if you mix more than around 50% to 60% E85 by volume with your gasoline in a non-FFV. If this happens, just add more gasoline as soon as possible to correct the problem. (Keep in mind that retail stations dispensing E85 are likley dispening gasoline with 10% ethanol.) These fuel/air mixture related problems will not happen in a properly-converted vehicle.
__________________
2004 Explorer Sport Trac XLT premium 4.0L auto 4wd
1995 Ranger XLT ext cab 3.0L auto 2wd
2005 Jeep Liberty Limited 3.7L auto 4wd
2001 Ranger XLT reg cab 2.3L auto 2wd--SOLD
1999 Ranger XLT reg cab 2.5L manual 2wd--SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-04-2010, 07:31 PM
Scottg Scottg is offline
Ford Motor Co
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 170
Send a message via AIM to Scottg
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

so in easier terms, there will be no gains from e85, and your truck's PCM will not be able to adjust the air-fuel mixture to make it run properly. Basically running to rich, which over time will do harm
__________________
2004 Explorer Sport Trac XLT premium 4.0L auto 4wd
1995 Ranger XLT ext cab 3.0L auto 2wd
2005 Jeep Liberty Limited 3.7L auto 4wd
2001 Ranger XLT reg cab 2.3L auto 2wd--SOLD
1999 Ranger XLT reg cab 2.5L manual 2wd--SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-04-2010, 07:31 PM
STL STL is offline
...............

 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23,398
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paholskila View Post
Other than somewhat lower mileage, any reason not to use E85 in my 2005 Ranger XLT with 2.3 and automatic? (I'm in Arizona, if that makes any difference.)
Over time it will screw your injectors, fuel pump and eat through the fuel lines and fuel tank.

You have to have different fuel lines and other fuel components to run it
__________________
2005 Edge

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-04-2010, 10:08 PM
sgtsandman sgtsandman is offline
Tank Diver
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,078
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

Unless your vehicle is designed to run on it, don't use it. Even then, E85 doesn't have as much thermal energy as gasoline, so your gas mileage will go down negating the savings you get from the cheaper price.
__________________
Sgtsandman's Work in Progress
2011 Ranger XLT, 4X4, 4 door Super Cab. 4.0L, 5 Speed M50D-R1HD, 3.73:1, 8.8" open differential, Jason Pace cap
1999 Honda CR-V EX, RT4WD, 2.0L, 5 Speed MT, 4.56:1, open differential
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:32 PM
paholskila paholskila is offline
Ford Ranger Owner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 68
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

Thanks to all. Doesn't sound saving a dime a gallon is worth it.
__________________
LarryP
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2010, 02:57 AM
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
DISABLE ADBLOCK: LOLZ
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,438
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

I run E85 in my Evo IX (which is NOT designed for it) not because it is cheaper, because of its "racing fuel" properties. It makes a tremendous difference in torque when tuned, but you do get worse mileage. My MPG went down about 8mpg or so compared to 93 octane.
__________________
Looking for a professional retrofitter to add HIDs or LEDs to your Ranger? PM me if your looking to have work done, and have cash to spend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireRanger View Post
I'm dying to see this at night. Someone go tell the sun to give up already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beef08 View Post
Your the man, you bring our dreams to a reality within the lighting spectrum
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCobe View Post
Jp7 you always do AMAZING work! Hats off to you sir
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireRanger View Post
People so often confuse "hating" with "knowing better".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2012, 12:11 PM
ISS_Voyager ISS_Voyager is offline
Danger Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3
Default

I've see e85 conversion kits out that say they make the engine able to burn e85, will that help with all the problems or is it a fluke?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-27-2012, 07:45 AM
paholskila paholskila is offline
Ford Ranger Owner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 68
Default Re: E85 for 2005 2.3?

Thanks for your post. I've pretty much abandoned the E85 notion, too many downsides.
__________________
LarryP
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E85 and codes PO171 and PO174 garo24 3.0 Vulcan Tech 18 04-29-2014 10:21 AM
Looking for my first Ranger, 2005? DucatiTorrey General Ford Ranger Discussion 14 03-23-2010 09:46 PM
2005 xlt? jgh General Ford Ranger Discussion 7 02-28-2010 08:50 AM
2005 ranger jdmco Exterior Tech 14 12-21-2009 01:25 AM
2005 Will Turn over, won't start mforster General Ford Ranger Discussion 6 08-07-2009 07:40 PM