Converting to E85/Ethanol or any mixture of Ethanol/gasoline

[sad-lumina-owner]

It turns out GM was lying about the supposed 'damage' that ethanol does to your vehicle. It actually does less damage than the gasoline they're selling us now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuOs1yap8mU

It may not pay for itself right away in any fuel cost savings, but apparently almost any fairly new car can be converted to gas/alcohol mixtures for only $500. The computer that is already onboard handles the fuel mixture adjustments automatically.

http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/StoreFront

These guys also sell a mpg improving sparkplug.
http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/Detail?no=167


The question is, I guess if you had your own source of ethanol, or could make your own at home, you'd be nearly independant of gasoline price piracy.

[Blue Bowtie]

Ethanol can be corrosive in a fuel system. It gets worst when it is allowed to interact with water, forming acids, and ethanol has a real affinity for water (hygroscopic), so you need to make sure the fuel system is well sealed. Further, without increasing static or dynamic compression (or both) ethanol burns colder, and liberates water without carrying as much out the exhaust stream when it burns, potentially contaminating the engine oil if the engine isn't driven long enough per cycle to heat the oil thoroughly and drive out moisture.

That isn't speculation, but comes from using 85% ethanol fuel for nearly three years (regularly since August, 2005). If you decide to do this, I'd strongly recommend using only PAO synthetic engine oil since it is more tolerant of acid formation and moisture, and provides better lubrication during those periods when there may be more moisture in the oil.

Also, plan on using either a lower alcohol percentage in cold weather, or using a supplementary gasoline enrichment system for cold starts if you live somewhere where the temperatures drop below 30ºF. I've had numerous cool mornings at anywhere from 25º to -10ºF when the engine would not start without excessive cranking and ridiculous enrichment until the compression heating got the cylinders warm enough to vaporize the ethanol and allow it to fire (just like cold cranking a diesel without glow plugs). Increasing the gasoline percentage to about 60% has proven sufficient to provide reasonable cold starts.

You may also need to either reprogram the PCM or change to injectors with a higher flow rating so the stock programming can satisfy the O² sensors within the maximum allowable (programmed) injector pulse width. I found that changing from 16.8 PPH to 19 PPH injectors was more than sufficient to end the constant P0171 (lean exhaust) error codes I would generate at almost every run cycle. Similar results can be achieved through increasing fuel pressure by altering the fuel pressure regulator. So long as the O² sensors do not achieve too high a signal and produce sufficient crosscounts while the PCM does not have to pulse them longer than the allowable maximum, the PCM should not set any error lean codes.

If you drive a lot of short trips, it might not work out well for you in cooler weather. I drive about 40 highway miles daily, and over three years have averaged 22.4 MPG on "regular" gasoline (10% ethanol) compared to 19.3 MPG on 85% ethanol. Even though the mileage is lower, the cost differential of $1.00/gallon makes driving on E-85 a lot less expensive in cost/mile. My current running average is 17.2¢/mile on gasoline, 14.8¢/mile in E-85.

From last week:

[sad-lumina-owner]

Thank you for a wonderful post.

I'm glad that somebody here is not only friendly toward this idea, but has actually had some serious experience making it work.

You may not have noticed, but one of the links I posted offers a box that comes between the controllers and the injectors, and seems to either fool the ECM or reprogram the injectors to turn on longer. Thats what the $500 bucks is essentially for, and the claim is that this box allows you to use ANY mixture of gas/alcohol. (E5-E85).

Now I am very curious about your alternate suggestion, because I want to know if its even cheaper to just replace the injectors:

You said:

You may also need to either reprogram the PCM or change to injectors with a higher flow rating so the stock programming can satisfy the O² sensors within the maximum allowable (programmed) injector pulse width.

I found that changing from 16.8 PPH to 19 PPH injectors was more than sufficient to end the constant P0171 (lean exhaust) error codes I would generate at almost every run cycle.

This seems to suggest that I can skip the 'magic box' entirely with better (bigger) injectors.

Now I have two important questions:

(1) on my /94 3.4L DOHC v6, I think I have 3 (or 6) injectors... Are these what you replaced? or are the injectors on my engine actually big enough already? How can I find out what they can do?

(2) Where did you buy your replacement injectors, and what was the cost? Was it a kit? What else had to be changed in switching over? Can you give me a guesstimate for the total cost?

Similar results can be achieved through increasing fuel pressure by altering the fuel pressure regulator. So long as the O² sensors do not achieve too high a signal and produce sufficient crosscounts while the PCM does not have to pulse them longer than the allowable maximum, the PCM should not set any error lean codes.

Here you suggest another approach: a bigger or better (or differently adjusted) fuel pressure regulator. This I assume would push the gas through the injectors faster, although I don't see how they would then perform optimally...

Can you suggest any dangers or drawbacks for this approach? And again, how would I source a more powerful fuel pump / higher pressure, or intelligently adjust the fuel pressure regulator? Would this increase its failure rate/ duty cycle?

Thank you for your time and experience!

[sad-lumina-owner]

I'm posting this quote from a Dodge website because it seems to have a lot to say about Miles Per Gallon and v6 engines comparable to those on the Lumina.

It would be great if anyone knew enough about the 3.4L v6 DOHC and how it compares to the engine they are discussing here, so that some guesses could be made about similar mods done to the Lumina (with either engine, 3.1 or 3.4L).

The Mopar/Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 Database

This page is just covering 3.0's as installed by Chrysler.

From 1987 Chrysler new model highlights book:
For improved performance and added load carrying capacity on Mopar minivans, Chrysler offers an all new 3.0 V6 engine. Bore and stroke are 91.1 mm (3.59 in.) and 76 mm (2.99 in.), respectively which give a nominal displacement of 2972 cm (181.4 cid). Compression ratio is 8.85 to 1 and the engine develops 140 hp at 5000 rpm and 170 ft/lbs. of torque at 2800 rpm. At comparable loads it offers a 20% increase in acceleration and EPA fuel economy improvements of approximately 1 mpg and 2 mpg highway compared to the 2.6L engine which was the largest engine previously available in these vehicles. The engine was developed cooperatively by Chrysler and Mitsubishi. It is built by Mitsubishi.


There is two intake manifolds that I know of for the 3.0

Left: 87-88 with 52 mm throttle body. Right: 89 to present? with 48 mm throttle body.
The newer intake appears to make more power; a popular mod is to install the earlier 52 mm throttle body on the newer intake. It's worth 6 hp on the dyno.
Another popular mod is the K&N air filter; the panel filter appears to make no difference but a large cone filter looks to make 6-7 hp. The only problem with this setup is you must install a fan on your engine computer or it will overheat and burn up!


In 1989 the exhaust manifold outlets were increased to 2.5" from 2.25"

Some 3.0's doesn't seem to respond well to exhaust changes, The PCM doesn't have enough extra fuel in its programming to take advantage of the extra exhaust flow.

Mods that work:

Underdrive pulley .............................. 6-7 hp (dyno tested, A. Taylor)
52 mm throttle body ......................... 6-7 hp (dyno tested, A. Taylor)
K&N Cone filter ................................. 6-8 hp (dyno tested)
8-9 mm spark plug wires ................. .1-.2 tenths in quarter mile.
180F degree thermostat ................... 4-5 hp (dyno tested)
Bumping timing 2-3 degrees ............ .1-.2 tenths in quarter mile.
Mobil 1 motor oil ................................ 3 hp (dyno tested, A. Taylor)
2.5" exhaust system with no cat...... .3-.4 in quarter mile (Cliff Sebring)
Nitrous Oxide ..................................... 50-150 hp (Cliff Sebring)
(A larger fuel pump is needed at higher hp levels)

Mods that sometimes work:
Muffler replacement.
(Mixed results; some cars slow down others pick up .1-.2 tenths)

Ported heads.
(More airflow than computer can compensate for, works well with nitrous motors though)


Mods that don't work:
Stock replacement K&N ............. (No hp increase)
Hi-po coil ....................................... (No hp increase)

The problem with modifying the 3.0 is that the computer has almost NO extra fuel to play with. Anything increasing airflow to an engine is generally good; but if you don't have the fuel to match the airflow increases you will never make any more power. There is also a problem with the ignition timing being backed off after 5-6 seconds, these ECU's are very emissions orientated. No performance computers are available for the 3.0 powered cars.
Speaking of fuel.... Roger Lister has been a busy guy on his Caravan.
Thought I might update you on the Turbo I (84-88 2.2 non-intercooled application) 27 PPH injectors on the 3.0... One word, GREAT!!!! Beats the 19 PPH stockers hands down. I believe the computer now has a better range to work with for later upgrades, even turbocharging. Long term, if I could keep my foot out of the throttle, I wouldn't be sitting 2MPG less than normal!!! This is with the 87 3.0 minivan, 27 PSI fuel pressure, stock FPR (so far...).
Computer seems to be happy, nice smooth idle. FAT midrange pull. I do get an occasional off throttle stumble, but as I only notice it when slowing, this may just be the speed distance sensor acting up...
As I don't drag race, I can't give quantitative numbers for you. But seat of the pants seems to be worth the time and trouble of swapping the injectors (not too tough on the 3.0, but not as easy as the 2.2/2.5...).

I've had them in about 3 months or so now, and am really happy... So far, I think I'm the only 3.0 doing this, but others will likely be following soon. I'm hoping so...
Check out Rogers site.
He has some great 3.0 information!

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/30v6.html

this is the link to the site. It looks like these guys see MPG gains with increased exhaust and air filter too, under the right circumstances...

[sad-lumina-owner]

found that changing from 16.8 PPH to 19 PPH injectors was more than sufficient to end the constant P0171 (lean exhaust) error codes I would generate at almost every run cycle.

Update: I did a search for fuel injectors that deliver 19 PPH, and found this:

http://www.tunerschoice.com/xq/aspx/...qx/product.htm

My question is, are these the fuel injectors you used? are they compatible with my 3.4L v6 DOHC?

Apparently they are meant for a "Victor X" or "Performer X" manifold with secondary fuel rail setups. Is that what I have?



I also learned that PPH means "Pounds Per Hour" (lb/hr).

19 PPH is apparently some kind of 'stock' injector for racing cars.

My question is, was your engine a 3.1 or a 3.4L, and so is it possible that my car already has a 19 PPH injector set?