Regular vers Ethanol blend.
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
- Status
I have been told by many mechanics that ethanol is harder on fuel injectors and gets less gas mileage (don't know if it is true). The gas stations and oil companies like selling the blend due to the fact that they make more money on it.
Ethanol raises octane but has less energy than gasoline. My mileage always dives when I use it although its in the majority of gasoline around here.
On a volume basis, ethanol contains less energy than regular gasoline does. As a result, you will get lower fuel mileage. From regular to a 10% blend, you will see a 2-5% reduction in fuel mileage, according to most scientific sources. If you are running a reformulated gasoline with ethanol, the reduction will be greater, but a portion of that is due to the gas content, not the ethanol.
Cars since the late '80's sold in the US should be able to handle ethanol fuels without any problems. In older vehicles, the seals in the fuel delivery system were susceptable to swelling and deterioration when exposed to ethanol.
Oil companies hate ethanol - its a product that is refined outside of their world (generally by large agricultural conglomerates, namely (surprise?) ADM.) It has to be handled separately from the gasoline until mixed at the terminal rack for distribution because of the affinity for water that ethanol has (it is one of the common alcohols used in fuel de-icer). Somewhat reduces the need for crude. Requires significant reformulation of fuel in markets where ethanol has not been used before and MTBE or no oxygenate was used - and that costs money to upgrade refinerys.
Benefit of ethanol is the extra oxygen content it contains (which is why its called an oxygenate). By adding the extra oxygen to the fuel, it promotes a cleaner burn, particularly under cold start conditions. This reduces carbon monoxide emissions, the original pollutant that was targeted in many areas. Newer cars do not respond as well to this as older cars with less sophisticated emmissions systems.
Why do I know so much? Partially because I live in a state where ALL gasoline is a 10% ethanol blend by state law as a handout to the corn farmers. Its been that way since 1996. Cars aren't dropping dead from ethanol problems here, and its been a while!
Cars since the late '80's sold in the US should be able to handle ethanol fuels without any problems. In older vehicles, the seals in the fuel delivery system were susceptable to swelling and deterioration when exposed to ethanol.
Oil companies hate ethanol - its a product that is refined outside of their world (generally by large agricultural conglomerates, namely (surprise?) ADM.) It has to be handled separately from the gasoline until mixed at the terminal rack for distribution because of the affinity for water that ethanol has (it is one of the common alcohols used in fuel de-icer). Somewhat reduces the need for crude. Requires significant reformulation of fuel in markets where ethanol has not been used before and MTBE or no oxygenate was used - and that costs money to upgrade refinerys.
Benefit of ethanol is the extra oxygen content it contains (which is why its called an oxygenate). By adding the extra oxygen to the fuel, it promotes a cleaner burn, particularly under cold start conditions. This reduces carbon monoxide emissions, the original pollutant that was targeted in many areas. Newer cars do not respond as well to this as older cars with less sophisticated emmissions systems.
Why do I know so much? Partially because I live in a state where ALL gasoline is a 10% ethanol blend by state law as a handout to the corn farmers. Its been that way since 1996. Cars aren't dropping dead from ethanol problems here, and its been a while!
Here in California, all the gas is oxygenated with ethanol or MTBE. My mileage improves if I fill up in another state. That we pay more per gallon than anyone else in the country, and get less energy out of that gallon, is not a situation I enjoy.
E-85 is readily availible here at more stations than you might think. However, there aren't a whole lot of the Flexible Fuels vehicles out there to use it. I know Ford was making a bunch at one time, and they are badged with a little FFV somewhere on the car or truck.
The problem right now is that E85 will net you around a 25% fuel mileage reduction, but the price is not 25% less. Thus, you lose money if you burn it.
For folks in CA, you get the double whammy of oxygenates and reformualtion - both result in fuel economy decreases.
The problem right now is that E85 will net you around a 25% fuel mileage reduction, but the price is not 25% less. Thus, you lose money if you burn it.
For folks in CA, you get the double whammy of oxygenates and reformualtion - both result in fuel economy decreases.
That may be what's happening with my car right now. I used up a couple of Wally World gift/refund cards at their gas pumps in Longview, TX last week- together,they paid for ~8 gallons of Super, pumps marked 93 octane. That didn't quite fill up the car, after ~30 mile drive home, I squeezed another ~2.1 gal of Chevron Super in it. Well, on this tank(now ~150 miles), gas mileage has dropped through the floor. I've never used WM gas before, & I never will again!
I ran a tank of Sunoco last week and my milage dropped by about 3 MPG. My driving was about the same and the pump said "Contains Ethanol"
Here in Australia there has been some controversy regarding the use and overuse of ethanol in fuel. It has only recently been passed that station are required by law to state the level of ethanol in their fuel. The reason for the blend is that ethanol is at a lower tax rate (possibly 0%) than gasoline. Some station were using upwards of 20% plus, but no reduction in retail cost. Many cases of damaged fuel systems. Some didn't even get off the driveway. Seemed to be mainly the independent stations and more prevalent in NSW, not so much here in Victoria.
I wouldn't buy any fuel that had ethanol in it. Buy only Shell Optimax or BP Ultimate, both 98 Octane, high density fuels.
I wouldn't buy any fuel that had ethanol in it. Buy only Shell Optimax or BP Ultimate, both 98 Octane, high density fuels.
theguru, another classic case of the federal government blaiming the states on that one.
The feds run the standards system by which fuel must be sold (with respect to octane, aromatics etc). They blamed the states for not controlling the blends of ethanol. Then when they realised thay were in a no-win situation, got into the media calling for testing.
On a product that has been used all around the world, for decades.
It's been well known for decades that 10% is as much as can normally be run without issues.
I believe that it should be mandatory to run ethanol blends, and personally will buy ethanol blends when the major oil companies start to produce them.
I think the government has "fixed" the situation now, by charging an excise on biofuels, where until the last few months, the excise was only payable on the mineral portion of the fuel. (38c per litre excise on biodiesel now.......bloody idiots)
[ July 20, 2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Shannow ]
The feds run the standards system by which fuel must be sold (with respect to octane, aromatics etc). They blamed the states for not controlling the blends of ethanol. Then when they realised thay were in a no-win situation, got into the media calling for testing.
On a product that has been used all around the world, for decades.
It's been well known for decades that 10% is as much as can normally be run without issues.
I believe that it should be mandatory to run ethanol blends, and personally will buy ethanol blends when the major oil companies start to produce them.
I think the government has "fixed" the situation now, by charging an excise on biofuels, where until the last few months, the excise was only payable on the mineral portion of the fuel. (38c per litre excise on biodiesel now.......bloody idiots)
[ July 20, 2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Shannow ]
I have been known to drive 40+ miles out of my way to get the 'good stuff'. In WI, there are only a few counties (along Lake Michigan) that are required to run reformulated and a 10% ethanol mix....I try not to run either in my good car. You can always tell the first station across the county border that has the good gas, as there are usually people filling up multiple gasoline containers to take back with them.
Paul
Paul
Disadvantage # 1 you WILL get worse gas mileage.
Disadvantage # 2 you WILL pay more even with the heavy subsidies it still cost more to produce. Thats why gas cost $2.00+ in Chicago and $1.35 in Dallas. All the corn growing states made it mandatory and it will only be a matter of time before they force this expensive stuff down the rest of the country's throat. I can't see any advantages unless your a corn farmer that is!
Disadvantage # 2 you WILL pay more even with the heavy subsidies it still cost more to produce. Thats why gas cost $2.00+ in Chicago and $1.35 in Dallas. All the corn growing states made it mandatory and it will only be a matter of time before they force this expensive stuff down the rest of the country's throat. I can't see any advantages unless your a corn farmer that is!
Gas doesn't cost $2+ in Chicago because of the ethanol - Gas in Chicago costs more because they (in conjunction with Milwaukee and St. Louis) are the only markets in the country that use RFG II gasoline with ethanol in it (as of last year). Everyone else using RFG II gasoline used MTBE in the past.
As a result, Chicago is on an island so to speak, because it uses a unique fuel that only the refiners in the immediate area of supply are set up to deliver. When the Citgo refinery had its big fire and a pipeline went down, Chicago was in big trouble, because nobody could supply additional gas easily that met the EPA specs. In that respect, Chicago is in the same boat as Calfornia is in.
Ethanol alone doesn't do it - Minnesota uses ethanol in ALL gasoline by state law, and our gas prices run 20-30 cents lower than Chicago - the only difference is we don't use RFG II gas here - just regular old gasoline with 10% ethanol.
As a result, Chicago is on an island so to speak, because it uses a unique fuel that only the refiners in the immediate area of supply are set up to deliver. When the Citgo refinery had its big fire and a pipeline went down, Chicago was in big trouble, because nobody could supply additional gas easily that met the EPA specs. In that respect, Chicago is in the same boat as Calfornia is in.
Ethanol alone doesn't do it - Minnesota uses ethanol in ALL gasoline by state law, and our gas prices run 20-30 cents lower than Chicago - the only difference is we don't use RFG II gas here - just regular old gasoline with 10% ethanol.
Theguru - Evo 98 from Trafigura Fuels is better then Optimax or Ultimate 98.
The reduced fuel economy from using these oxygenates pretty much wipes out any 'clean burn' benefit as far as emissions are concerned. (more energy consumed = more emissions)
Seems like a brain dead scenerio to me.
slider,
a 10% ethanol blend reduces CO and hydrocarbon emissions by 25%.
Fuel economy is reduced by maybe 5% (theoretically, although I've not much tested it, as it's not readily available down here).
The carbon cycle is closed on a portion of the fuel burned. There is significantly more energy in the ethanol fuel, than there is consumed in producing it.
There are more jobs created in providing the fuel. That's good for the "moneygoround".
Yep, it seems like abrain dead scenario to me too.
I hate this alcohol mixed fuel but living in Illinois we're stuck with it mostly. Gasohol is a handout to ADM from paid for polititians and nothing more. It's more costly and less efficient than real gas and from studies I've seen it takes more fossil fuel to manufacture than it saves by it's use.
There is only one local station that handles gas with no alcohol and it's only because the owner is an avid racer. I'm glad he's around. I use Belray MC-1 oil in all my 2-cycle dirt bikes and lawn equipment. It will not mix properly with fuel that contains alcohol.
[ July 23, 2003, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]
"It's more costly and less efficient than real gas and from studies I've seen it takes more fossil fuel to manufacture than it saves by it's use."
There are many studies that show ethanol production to be energy efficient (produces more energy than it requires to manufacture). I'm familiar with studies that say the opposite (mostly written by the same guy), but the most scientific studies have covinced me that ethanol as a fuel is a good use of resources.
[ July 23, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: got boost? ]
There are many studies that show ethanol production to be energy efficient (produces more energy than it requires to manufacture). I'm familiar with studies that say the opposite (mostly written by the same guy), but the most scientific studies have covinced me that ethanol as a fuel is a good use of resources.
[ July 23, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: got boost? ]
- Status
