Recent Topics
1995 Lexus LS400 filled with 10W-40...
by gregoron
8 minutes 10 seconds ago
Milestar Patagonia compared to other at's
by Black_Thunder
37 minutes 50 seconds ago
2009 Subaru STI Oil Recommendation
by after5hock
Today at 12:10 AM
soft varnish/sludge on oil fill baffle Toy 2GR-FE
by friendly_jacek
Yesterday at 11:06 PM
F1 - 2014 United States Grand Prix
by gofast182
Yesterday at 10:48 PM
Humor: Walmart Product Review
by Apollo14
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Mobil Delvac 5w-40 OK for 2009 Audi Q7 TDI?
by teedoff00
Yesterday at 10:02 PM
Honda S2000 Pennzoil Ultra 5,000 miles
by Bror Jace
Yesterday at 09:52 PM
Time for hot vs cold old to drain into pan
by Apollo14
Yesterday at 09:19 PM
Noco Genius Boost - my video test - battery @ 9.9v
by 901Memphis
Yesterday at 09:13 PM
Bought my first firearm today
by Nick R
Yesterday at 09:01 PM
Built a few AR-15 A3's this weekend...
by 2010_FX4
Yesterday at 08:57 PM
Newest Members
after5hock, Rxman01, 1969monark, flstang65, PhxAZ
51699 Registered Users
Who's Online
21 registered (e55amgbenz007, bdcardinal, david_ES2, Duke, DNVDMAX, 4 invisible), 525 Guests and 201 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51699 Members
64 Forums
221217 Topics
3497617 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 2 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 >
Topic Options
#3048171 - 06/28/13 10:14 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: A_Harman]
HerrStig Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 3009
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
It's not an issue of octane. It's an issue of energy content.
Ethanol has an energy content of 26.8 MJ/kg.
Gasoline has an energy content of 43 MJ/kg.
So if you put ethanol in gasoline, the mixture will contain less energy than pure gasoline.
In the case of E10, the energy content would be 41.4 MJ/kg, or about 4% less than pure gasoline. Maybe you wouldn't notice a difference in fuel economy with this relatively small decrease in energy. But in a car that gets 25 mpg on pure gasoline, you would get 24 mpg on E10.
In the case of E85, the energy content would be 29.2 MJ/kg, or about 32% less than gasoline. You would definitely notice a decrease in fuel economy with this mix. This is why I say people shouldn't pay more than 70% of the price of gas to buy E85. In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.
And just think of the money we spend on fuel stabilization...helps the economy, too! smile

Top
#3049038 - 06/29/13 05:03 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
markum Offline


Registered: 02/02/09
Posts: 52
Loc: seattle,wa
Thanks for everyones insight. Since there is a pretty widespread difference in price, I think I'm sticking with Chevron 10% for now. I do track mileage religiously and will monitor for changes.

Thanks again all.
_________________________
2008 Dodge Charger SRT-8
2010 Dodge Ram 2500 6.7
1997 Toyota Camry 2.2 (totaled @ 366k)
2012 Hyundai Veracruz AWD
2000 Toyota Corolla

Top
#3049068 - 06/29/13 06:37 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: A_Harman]
Hermann Offline


Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 2356
Loc: Kansas City
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.


That is why ethanol is the biggest farce ever unleashed upon America. Food for fuel, stupid. Plus it is wasting billions of gallons of water.
_________________________
2008 Tacoma SR-5 Access Cab I-4 5-speed manual - 5w-30 Quaker State GB - Purolator PL10241 YCOD
1991 BMW R100GS 20w-50 Maxlife & Mahle OX36D filter

Top
#3049125 - 06/29/13 08:03 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: HerrStig]
SteveSRT8 Online   content


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 15151
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: dparm
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
What's a "modern" car?


That's a great question! I assume he means any OBDII vehicle...?

In our fleet the ethanol cost us more than the math would indicate. My car also took a bigger than expected hit, but I have a handheld tuner and adjusted my mixture and timing values to work properly with liquor added.

The Farm Lobby must be proud. I read here where it only cost them 33 million to push it through, and the returns have been HUGE for them. Just another example of how big money gets the perks.
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3056916 - 07/07/13 12:29 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Hermann]
TiredTrucker Offline


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 1016
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: Hermann
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.


That is why ethanol is the biggest farce ever unleashed upon America. Food for fuel, stupid. Plus it is wasting billions of gallons of water.


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3056972 - 07/07/13 05:26 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1111
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3057177 - 07/07/13 11:24 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: HerrStig]
JANDSZIRKLE Offline


Registered: 06/08/13
Posts: 237
Loc: Shenandoah Valley
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: dparm
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
What's a "modern" car?


would like too know this too,not meaning too have a heated debate, just curious what the experts consider a modern vehicle.

i do know our two beaters, a 94 and 98 get slightly better mileage with the non ethanol gas and sound quieter too. 100% gas is same price as premium where i live.

Top
#3057358 - 07/07/13 03:55 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Offline


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 1016
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link


I take it you ACTUALLY read the abstract portion of the article? Seems from that alone that starch absorbtion is a problem. The Abstract promote the idea the corn must be processed in one of many ways, including fermentation, to increase digestion. The abstract also mentions how starches are not absorbed in the small intestine tract. Unprocessed corn can cause digestional distress, like the abstract stated. That is why DDG is in such demand. It is a high lysine product that REDUCES the problems of digestion in livestock. Seems like the article did not support much of your contention. Here is an excerpt from page 118 of the article you reference that support my contention....

Grinding grain to a very fine particle size will increase starch digestibility. However, benefits in starch digestion from fine grinding are CONSIDERABLY LESS than those obtained from FERMENTATION or heat processing. (emphasis mine)

As for what starches are used by livestock, are better supplied and digested thru roughage such as silage and legume crops such as alfalfa and clover. The NATURAL sources of starches for ruminants. It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.

_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3057435 - 07/07/13 05:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11646
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.

Yep. As I've mentioned before, up here, our ethanol production is based upon feed grade grain (non-food wheat) that's used for fermentation and then diverted to silage for cattle.

I prefer and tend to use pure gas, but, as I've also mentioned before, ethanol blended fuels can and have stood on their own legs before. Regulations made things worse, not better.

A company called Husky/Mohawk up here has sold E-10 for at least twenty years, long before any regulations came about. Regular 87 was pure gas. Midgrade 89 was ethanol blended (E-10 or less) and at the same price as regular. I assure you that their model worked very well for them. When the government mandated ethanol minimums, the midgrade got its own higher price tier.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3058650 - 07/08/13 07:08 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
JOD Offline


Registered: 09/10/09
Posts: 3145
Loc: PNW/WA
The Grange in Issaquah has 100% gas. I like to support them, and I get my dog food there--so I always fill up when I'm there. I've tried like crazy to discern a difference in fuel economy. While I know it *should* be better, the difference must be so small that I can't tell. Maybe it's different with older cars.

I still fill up there when I get dog food, but I wouldn't go out of my way unless you like supporting your local Cenex guy for some particular reason.

Top
#3065310 - 07/14/13 05:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
OriginHacker21 Offline


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 2132
Loc: High Desert, California
I had the opportunity to test Ethanol vs no-Ethanol recently. I live in California (Victorville/Los Angeles) and all our gas is E-10 if I'm not mistaken. I drove to Iowa a few weeks ago and they have 87 normal gas and 89 Ethanol (E10) gas which is usually 20 cents cheaper than 87 normal gas.

My 2013 Honda Civic got noticeably less mpg on the 89 E10 gas than the 87 gas - almost 5mpg worse. And I drove the same route every day (2 hours/day) so it was a pretty good comparison.

So $2/tank ($.20/gal cheaper) for 50 miles less? The difference wasn't enough to make me stop using 89 E10. So I spent my time trying to feel (butt dyno) if 89 E10 felt better than 87 but... I could not tell the difference in my engine. So I just ran 89 E10 most of my 1.5 weeks in Iowa.

Saw a lot more stations selling 85 Octane than I remembered (Utah, Colorado, Nebraska) last time I drove to Iowa (9 years ago).

Edit: I'll readily admit that the mpg difference could have been caused by other factors (wind, deer jumping in front of me, etc...).


Edited by OriginHacker21 (07/14/13 05:31 PM)
_________________________
--
2013 Honda Civic

Top
#3066451 - 07/15/13 07:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: OriginHacker21]
JOD Offline


Registered: 09/10/09
Posts: 3145
Loc: PNW/WA
5mpg is a pretty massive difference. I have to wonder if the "E10" you got didn't have a significantly higher ethanol content than advertised.

Top
#3066479 - 07/15/13 07:52 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Panzerman Offline


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 2501
Loc: Daytona, Florida
First of all, I would never believe anyone from Iowa about Ethanol. I bought the E85 in Gainesville for my company truck which is approved. Has the little Green leaf, doo hickey on the tailgate. A 2011 Ford f-150. I lost 3 mpg and it never came back, I was getting 17 to 18, before the E85. I am getting 15.3 mile to the gallon with just regular gas. Not to mention, the truck ran awful. But hey, if I didn't do it, I couldn't complain. Our fine Governor just repealed the E10 in our state and its no longer required at the pumps in Florida. I am hoping to see regular gas return.

Top
#3066677 - 07/15/13 11:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Panzerman]
OriginHacker21 Offline


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 2132
Loc: High Desert, California
Originally Posted By: JOD
5mpg is a pretty massive difference. I have to wonder if the "E10" you got didn't have a significantly higher ethanol content than advertised.


Was thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
First of all, I would never believe anyone from Iowa about Ethanol.


Agreed 100% especially if they are a corn farmer - which most of them are.
_________________________
--
2013 Honda Civic

Top
#3068543 - 07/17/13 08:23 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
oldhp Offline


Registered: 06/28/12
Posts: 832
Loc: Southern Illinois
If ethanol is so good, why is it "still" government subsidized???
At the tune of about 43 cents per gallon of ethanol. That's yours and my tax dollars going to ethanol plants. I wonder who owns the most stock???
_________________________
2014 RAM Express 3.6/8 speed work truck.
2012 Equinox 2.4-Wife's Ride


Top
Page 2 of 14 < 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 >