There wouldn't ba any difference in readings. The only thing placing the sensor further downstream does is delay readings.

 

so just guess

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by F20Cteg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There wouldn't ba any difference in readings. The only thing placing the sensor further downstream does is delay readings.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

because 2-5 milliseconds is really a dely

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

because 2-5 milliseconds is really a dely </TD></TR></TABLE>


Yup, it ain't zero.

 

what about running a gm o2 sensor off of the new tahoe they have the thing called "Flexfuel" and there trucks can be run off of e85 or gasoline so there sensors may hold up. just a thought

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jdm94eg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what about running a gm o2 sensor off of the new tahoe they have the thing called "Flexfuel" and there trucks can be run off of e85 or gasoline so there sensors may hold up. just a thought </TD></TR></TABLE>

i dont think its a question of the sensor holding up, more the accuracy of the sensor at hand.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dturbocivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

i dont think its a question of the sensor holding up, more the accuracy of the sensor at hand. </TD></TR></TABLE>

integrated civic wrote:
will the e85 prematurely wear out the factory 4 wire o2s?if so,are there any replacement o2s we can run?

 

CHEMICALLY speaking (long time since redox reactions lol):

Toluene, C7H8, makes up to 35% of gasoline (114 octane (R+M)/2):

C7H8 + 9 O2 --&gt; 7 CO2 + 4 H2O

Ethanol, C2H6O, makes up ~85% of E85 (~105 octane)

C2H6O + 3 O2 --&gt; 2 CO2 + 3 H2O


Obviously we don't get ideal reactions in a cylinder, but rough math gets you ~56% water vapor when E85 is burned, 36% water vapor when toluene is burned. Yes, 50% more, but: consider that you have downpipes that are ~500F on the outside, water boils at 212F, and you will only see water condense with 56% humidity when its below room temp.

The only thing that could wear out an O2 sensor is bad additives, such as tetra-ethyl <U>lead</U>. E85 doesn't contain, or need, harmful additives, not to mention the EPA would butt-rape a refinery if they found such an additive in fuel made within the last 20 years.


BTW the main reason OBD2 uses 2 o2 sensors is to make sure the exhaust after the cat is closer to stoich than the primary o2 sensor. CO and NOx sensors aren't exactly as small as o2 sensors, nor as cheap, so cars dont get them.

 

"the EPA would butt-rape a refinery if they found such an additive in fuel made within the last 20 years".

Unless, of course, Bush was president. (might get a medal or financial bonus)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eastbay92cx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I know this is off topic, and it's good for performance, but we're being taught in class that it actually takes more energy from fossil fuel in order to turn corn into ethanol for the tank. So, when they show you a 'green' fuel cap, I believe there's still a gallon of gas bring burned for every gallon of e85. a trip huh? don't mean to veer the thread off course..

bump</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would just like to state that this is some misunderstanding of the truth being spread by people who either dont know any better or have some other agenda. With advances in most modern ethanol plants, specifically ICM INC. built plants, ethanol is vastly more energy efficient to produce than gasoline. If you'd like to talk more about why, i sure love discussing it, although i dont want to hyjack the thread.