Alcohol in gas affects mixture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bonnewagon

Rocket Powered Basset Hound
Supporting Member
Sep 18, 2009
10,536
14,217
113
Queens, NY
1983 Pontiac Bonnewagon, 1979 Pontiac 301, 4 speed Saginaw, 1980 TA 301 Q-jet set to 1979 TA w/301 specs: #70 jets, #44 rods. I was getting some detonation on takeoff, as well as in high gear, for no good reason, driving me bonkers for several years now. Ignition timing was conservative, EGR working. I decided to rebuild the Q-jet and when I opened it, the gas was gone from just yesterday, evaporated away overnight,the bowl was just damp. I found nothing wrong but on a hunch I decided to richen up the primary jets by 3 numbers, to #73 jets, same rods. The change was dramatic. NO detonation, pulls like it grew 2 cylinders, idles better, runs cooler. Now, this set up is even richer than a Pontiac 400 would have normally needed , yet this little 301 eats it up. All I can deduce is that the alcohol in the gas has changed the density of the fuel, requiring a richer mixture for the same power as before. The rate of evaporation is increased, so yeah, after a couple of days, the bowl is dry, answering all those "hard to start" posts. I am amazed.
 

pontiacgp

blank
Mar 31, 2006
29,270
20,391
113
Kitchener, Ontario
Alcohol in fuel raises the octane so I don't think that was the cause of the detonation. I wonder if it could be a carbon buildup that raise the combustion temps.
 

Chris Van

G-Body Guru
Nov 8, 2009
515
4
16
Middle Ga.
Alcohol raising the octane is not necessarily a good thing. Ethanol in fuel will cause nothing but problems in the long run unless your car is set up for it. Try some ethanol free gas one time and let us know. I have tried straight pump 93 octane (with 10% ethanol) and tried everything from that to about a 50-50 mixture and I can tell ya that my car ran the best on ethanol free 93 octane. Even better than 110 racing fuel.
 

Bonnewagon

Rocket Powered Basset Hound
Supporting Member
Sep 18, 2009
10,536
14,217
113
Queens, NY
While alcohol may raise the octane, it has about one half the thermal energy of gasoline. I remember reading that alcohol racers needed to re-jet their carbs to double the volume of what they ran for gas. This motor has no carbon build up at all. It was rebuilt to stock specs and has less than 10K on it and always has had synthetic oil in it. Plugs burn a nice tan color. There is NO alcohol free gas available here in NYC, so that's all it has seen. I should add that the secondary rods remain the stock CH models, as I have found that the stock 301 can only flow so much at WOT and the stock CH rods all 301's are equipped with are perfect. Any slight variation up or down results in crummy performance. I think the added richness in the primary circuit overlaps into the overall mixture so even with the same the secondary side I get no pinging at WOT with a load. Steve I too was reluctant to believe such a jet change could be so dramatic and expected it to be an over-rich dog. But it immediately went from annoying pinging to smooth strong power. I even try to force it to ping by lugging the motor, like starting out in second gear. None. I got OK mileage before and I am currently logging my odometer to see if it goes to better or worse.
 

jrm81bu

Comic Book Super Hero
Jul 9, 2008
3,000
63
48
Antwerp, OH
Bonnewagon said:
While alcohol may raise the octane, it has about one half the thermal energy of gasoline. I remember reading that alcohol racers needed to re-jet their carbs to double the volume of what they ran for gas. This motor has no carbon build up at all. It was rebuilt to stock specs and has less than 10K on it and always has had synthetic oil in it. Plugs burn a nice tan color. There is NO alcohol free gas available here in NYC, so that's all it has seen. I should add that the secondary rods remain the stock CH models, as I have found that the stock 301 can only flow so much at WOT and the stock CH rods all 301's are equipped with are perfect. Any slight variation up or down results in crummy performance. I think the added richness in the primary circuit overlaps into the overall mixture so even with the same the secondary side I get no pinging at WOT with a load. Steve I too was reluctant to believe such a jet change could be so dramatic and expected it to be an over-rich dog. But it immediately went from annoying pinging to smooth strong power. I even try to force it to ping by lugging the motor, like starting out in second gear. None. I got OK mileage before and I am currently logging my odometer to see if it goes to better or worse.

It only has as much as 30% less thermal energy than gas and that is e85, 85% ethanol. So 10% ethanol would have a very minimal reduction in thermal energy. Yes for e85 you need more fuel to make the same power, e10 not so much. And it definetly wouldn't cause detonation. Just for reference I need to run 92 pump gas with my blower, I just filled up with a 60/40 mix of 89 pump and e85. I made no changes, didn't have any detonation, and it makes just as much power.
 

Chris Van

G-Body Guru
Nov 8, 2009
515
4
16
Middle Ga.
Well my car ran worse with a mixture of 93 and E85. I have no scientific formula for coming to this conclusion but what I do have are the time slips to prove it.
And to me these scientific formulas that some of the smart guys are quick to throw around are like comparing dyno numbers to real on track ET's. If said engine/fuel type makes more power on the dyno than racer Joe's engine/fuel combination, that doesn't mean that dyno man can outrun racer Joe. When it comes down to it, real world scenerios do not always match up with engineer Bob's outcome on paper.
 

Bonnewagon

Rocket Powered Basset Hound
Supporting Member
Sep 18, 2009
10,536
14,217
113
Queens, NY
OK well I'm no genius nor an engineer nor a chemist. I'm just a guy who likes to play with Q-jets. So someone tell me why a bone stock motor with a stock 1980 TA 301 Q-jet set up to a much richer 1979 TA 301 specs detonated all the time and then richening up the jets by 3 more numbers cured it. No other changes were made to anything and there were no vacuum leaks. I was tempted to fool with the vacuum advance first, but to prove a point to myself, I didn't. And how stock is this 33 year old carb? It still has rivets on the choke housing. I'm pretty sure I didn't accidentally "fix" something else during the rebuild.
 

79wagonator

Greasemonkey
Apr 21, 2011
182
17
18
Long Island, NY
Well.. being the gas alcohol mixture has less thermal energy even by just a small amount
Being jetted the same as for running pure gas it would run slightly lean thereby causing more heat
which in turn = Detonation!
Makes perfect sense to me..
Good call Bonnewagon..
Everybody knows your gas mileage sucks with E10 as compared to straight gas..
Not a problem with newer injected motors as fuel, air and timing is automatically adjusted to compensate.
Sucks for older cars like ours..
E10 is even worse for boats with constant loads on motor and fuel sitting for longer periods evaporating and absorbing moisture from the air with vented fuel systems. :?
Now there pushing for e15 in some states... F&*k That!!
Is it really helping in any way? I don't think so..
 

jrm81bu

Comic Book Super Hero
Jul 9, 2008
3,000
63
48
Antwerp, OH
Chris Van said:
Well my car ran worse with a mixture of 93 and E85. I have no scientific formula for coming to this conclusion but what I do have are the time slips to prove it.

What did you do to your set up to take advantage of the change? If you're not pushing detonation with you're set-up there isn't a lot to gain.

Bonnewagon said:
OK well I'm no genius nor an engineer nor a chemist. I'm just a guy who likes to play with Q-jets. So someone tell me why a bone stock motor with a stock 1980 TA 301 Q-jet set up to a much richer 1979 TA 301 specs detonated all the time and then richening up the jets by 3 more numbers cured it. No other changes were made to anything and there were no vacuum leaks. I was tempted to fool with the vacuum advance first, but to prove a point to myself, I didn't. And how stock is this 33 year old carb? It still has rivets on the choke housing. I'm pretty sure I didn't accidentally "fix" something else during the rebuild.

I have every bit of faith that you know what your doing. I have no reason why anything you did fixed anything you had a problem with, but i'm guessing you are inlcined to believe you think your need for running pig rich is because of a tiny % of thermal output? Your comparison of the alcohol(methanol) drag racers needing to double up has nothing to do with the alcohol(ethanol) in your pump gas. They are two very different creatures.

79wagonator said:
Well.. being the gas alcohol mixture has less thermal energy even by just a small amount
Being jetted the same as for running pure gas it would run slightly lean thereby causing more heat
which in turn = Detonation!
Makes perfect sense to me..
Good call Bonnewagon..
Everybody knows your gas mileage sucks with E10 as compared to straight gas..
Not a problem with newer injected motors as fuel, air and timing is automatically adjusted to compensate.
Sucks for older cars like ours..
E10 is even worse for boats with constant loads on motor and fuel sitting for longer periods evaporating and absorbing moisture from the air with vented fuel systems. :?
Now there pushing for e15 in some states... F&*k That!!
Is it really helping in any way? I don't think so..

You need to do more research. On e10 not changing your jetting would have almost no effect on you mixture let alone enough to go lean enough to cause a pinging issue. Your mileage shouldn't see any more of change than any other naturally occurring events would make it vary(wind, other drivers, your mood). Why would the "newer injected motors" not see a drop in mileage? They are programmed to target a certain mixture ratio, and if by your reasoning it would take more gas with ethanol in it to make that same ratio then they would lose the same mileage that any other vehicle would. Why would it be worse for an engine that sees constant loads? Yes ethanol absorbs moisture, it also hols it in suspension. The only time that causes a problem is when it gets more moisture than it can hold then it drops out. However the more alcohol, the more moisture it can actually hold, so a higher level is actually better in that respect.
And yes if it's handled correctly it can definitely help, however there is way too much politics involved in that for discussion here.
 

gp02a0083

Master Mechanic
May 17, 2011
308
3
16
I did a thesis on effects of ethanol blends with gasoline for my chemistry degree. Ethanol now is used among other components blended in our gasoline as we know to help reduce pre-detonation or knock. MTBE used to be used to help with this, but has been deemed a hazardous material and has long been phased out of gasoline. I tested various blends from pure gasoline (0% Ethanol) to 20-25%. When you start going past 10% ethanol, the energy per unit due to the combustion starts to decrease rapidly to about 30% when you have 20% ethanol. It does not really make the combustion favorable, the only benefit of the ethanol at this point is the fact it burns colder. IIRC it will allow you to run more timing. If you look at a balanced combustion reaction, you will need a bit more ethanol and emissions would yield more water vapor. The comparison between ethanol and methanol is not correct. They both have different related enthalpies, basically even though they are alcohol's they are that much different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Please support GBodyForum Sponsors

Classic Truck Consoles Dixie Restoration Depot UMI Performance

Contact [email protected] for info on becoming a sponsor