Archives

EDIT : I totally support altenative fuels, and don't want to come off wrong. I just don't want to be the duped into supporting something which is really a political ploy to sell more oil.

I recently began filling up with gasoline with a 10% mixture of Ethonol ( or so it says at the pump. )

My mileage has dropped from around 35- 38 MPG, to somewhere around the mid to high twenties.

I had thought something was wrong with the car and gave it a tune up to no avail.

Then I remembered the label at the gas pump that stated " This gas contains a 10% Ethonol mix "
I knew that my mileage would take a hit from having ethonol in the gas, but not something as drastic as this.

My question is this : Since I now travel less miles on a tank of gas, I am also burning more toxic gasoline per mile traveled.
So ..... isn't this really defeating the purpose of the emissions argument ?

I just had my emissions tested and the car is cleaner - but at what point will this outweigh the fact that more fuel is used ( thereby creating ]more [/B]of those cleaner emissions ! )


By the way : Consumer Reports has a magazine out now with the headlines reading " The Ethonol Myth "
Previously, I had noticed reviews in CR of hybrids not getting the touted MPG figures and bad reviews of hybrids due to the fact that the few thousand dollar premium that is paid for a hybrid is not made up in fuel savings for years to come.
Nowhere in the CR article were emissions reductions an issue.
I therefore thought that the ethonol article in the current issue was yet another write up which counts pennies instead of emissions.
As I read the article, this was indeed an issue which was brought up ( Your mileage drops so you use more gas ...paying more pennies per gallon traveled. ) ... BUT, I was also glad to see that CR had shown how that todays auto manufacturers and politicians are bedfellows when it comes to ethonol and pulling the wool over the publics eyes.
What CR basically said, was that , as I have seen, more fuel used means more pollution - even if it is 'cleaner' pollution. Add to this the fact that most flex-fuel vehicles made today are gas hogs anyways and the emissions problem gets even worse ... and certain people get rich off of it while getting a 'clean' image to boot .
A good read.

E10 shouldn't make that much of a difference. Are you also experiencing much colder weather? The difference between 100% gas and E10 has hardly been noticable in my experience.

A gallon of ethanol releases less CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. Although it does require more ethanol (E85) to drive the same distance, the net effect is less CO2 per mile driven.

At what point does the reduction in certain emissions make up for the excess gasoline pollution ?

I am guessing that my mileage drop is largely due in part to the ethonol, due to the fact that my emissions are actually cleaner, while getting half as many miles per gallon as before ( A high of 48 MPG )

If I have mechanical problems with the car wouldn't this cause an increase in emissions ?

Don't get me wrong, I could care less if I get 15 or 150 MPG. I just want a valid decrease in emissions and I'd like to know if I am actually burning more gasoline as well while using E10.


I live near Houston Texas ... so no real temperature drop.

I do see your point - and totally agree - I have had a huge mileage drop for just using E10 .
I just can't explain the cleaner emissions .

Do you think the emissions test was botched ?

Hi Wannabeclean:

___The E10 you are using will usually cause a 2 - 3% mileage hit but your TLEV emissions are still intact while using winter blend RFG with E10. If I had the choice of not using E10 in the Chicagoland area, I would not but if we (the entire US population) lose 2 - 3% in FE, our emissions spec’s are still intact while using E10 laced fuels, we have reduced our total imports by ~ 7% for every gallon of E10 consumed, and maybe a 5% reduction in total GHG emissions for every gallon of E10 consumed (my own guesstimate here), I have to believe it is a worthwhile endeavor for all of us.

___When I mentioned the E10 hit above, I know some FEH drivers (Gary G for one) say they have seen upwards of a 15 + % hit themselves. I drove a recently fueled with RFG based E10 FEH to some stupidly high numbers so the hit you take is usually so small you will never be able to distinguish it from the colder temperature FE hit we always take in most cases. Remember some of the FEH drivers own experiences using E10 however. There may be a larger hit for some in a specific area of the country while using it or at least transitioning to E10 and then from E10 on the next refuel.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I don't have access to anything but E10 fuels in my state and in the summer I haven't noticed a whole lot of difference on the rare occasion that I'm out of state and get a tank without ethanol. That said, something is obviously up if your FE dropped suddenly by 25-30%.

I have been scratching my head over a sudden 15-20% loss, which is at least partially due to the much colder temps. The rest, I think, has more to do with the winterized properties of the fuel than the ethanol content. (Higher vapor pressure, possibly some anticoagulants?) Gary suggested that the long term fuel trim may have been affected by the fuel, causing the car to run richer than it had been.

There must be alot of factors at play here. Compression ratio is one thing that comes to mind because higher compression require the need to adjust timing for pre-ignition. My guess is ethanol adds in preventing pre-ignition and reduces the need to adjust timing in the higher compression engine. I was a little shocked at the Civic higher compression rating without the required use of 91 - 93 octane. My guess is that the Civic would have less of an effect with ethanol for this reason.

The other factor is fuel trim adjustments if you don't get ethanol mixed fuel normally. This is my problem and I think this is why I take such a big hit. The combination of a low compression engine and the ratio of weight to engine size in the FEH takes away more FE. In addition, the FEH has a larger generator to turn than the Honda or Prius Hybrid. Because I depend on EV more than the average FEH owner, the constant use of the generator may be another reason I take a big hit. I view ethanol as a serious problem with FE in my FEH with my conditions. It may not effect other FEH owners already getting ~30mpg on average and don't care to drive EV 60 - 70% of the time in city driving.

The other thing is, I don't have the cold weather and the need to run a richer fuel mixture much at all throughout the year.

GaryG

At MIT, they have rigged an engine that gets 30% better fuel economy (http://news.com.com/MIT+engine+boosts+mileage+by+30+percent/2100-11389_3-6129501.html?tag=cd.top), injecting ethanol and gasoline separtely. In other words, this vehicle would need two gas tanks, but it would cost only $1000 more than a conventional engine and get hybrid FE.

Basically, the engine is designed to slow the detonation.

I'm just puzzled by the emissions drop.

Hmm....I didn't even think to consider the possibility that the engine is running poorly, but yet the E10 emissions are so clean that even with a bad engine the emissions still outdo an non ethonol gasoline mixture.

I really doubt this ... but I'm really hoping it to be true !

There is a very slight decrease, so nothing drastic, but a decrease never the less.

The numbers are as follows - the first numbers being last years, when the car was getting an average of 42 MPG - the second being the current figures - and getting less than 30 MPG.
High Speed Test :
HC ( PPM ) 26 last year vs. 19 now
CO (%) 0.16 vs 0.06 now
CO2 (%) 14.3 vs. 14.6 now
Nox(ppm) 139 vs. 118 now
DILUTION 14.46 vs. 14.7

Low Speed Test :

HC(PPM) 40 vs. 27 now
CO ( %) 0.11 vs. 0.08 now
CO2( %) 14.3 vs. 14.6 now
O2 (%) 0.8 vs 0.7now
Nox (ppm) 142 vs.104 now
DILLUTION 14.41 vs. 14.7 now


I'm ashamed of these numbers and try my best to drive as little as possible with the car.
I wish that there were a way to decrease the emissions to current standards.

I called a couple of places to see if there were any emissions parts that I could have installed on the car from a newer model Civic.
What I was told is that the engine is completely different er than the block.
Have the engine really changed all that much ?
I'd love to upgrade to a ULEV emissions standard.

Back to the ethonol topic.

I know back in the early 80's we had ethanol blended fuels around here and it was awful stuff in standard cars with lower compression ratios. They would drink the stuff like water. At that time I also owned a old Hemi Mopar. It like the fuel. With the hemis higher compression ratio.

I also think my Current Civic would work well with ethanol blend fuel. With its 9.5:1 ratio.

wannabeclean:

No parts from a new civic will go on a old one under the hood. Totaly diff. engine. There are alot of high compression piston kits and such out there for older Civics. One could raise it to high compression and go to straight ethanol I would think. It would run alot!!!! cleaner. But would drink fuel something awful.

A Hemi Mopar eh ? Bet you wish you still had it with Hemi Mopars going for hundreds of thousands now.
What kind was it ?
I never had a Hemi, but at one time owned a '72 RoadRunner with a 400-4
The car had more Bondo than sheetmetal !
I love the stle of the old Mopars, but the gas mileage was horrendous !

I guess part of me is trying to attone for all of the pollution that I put into the air with that car.

Hi Wannabeclean:

___Try not to look back for atonement or even worry about the past, look to the future as that is where you can make a difference today, tomorrow, and far into the future.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

A Hemi Mopar eh ? Bet you wish you still had it with Hemi Mopars going for hundreds of thousands now.
What kind was it ?
I never had a Hemi, but at one time owned a '72 RoadRunner with a 400-4
The car had more Bondo than sheetmetal !
I love the stle of the old Mopars, but the gas mileage was horrendous !

I guess part of me is trying to attone for all of the pollution that I put into the air with that car.


Dont worry about making up for the past. And dont go to hard into the future. You will get burned out. Nice and easy.

As for the old Mopars. Mine was a 64 Satilite. I also had a 383 newport I really liked. It got great mpg for a huge sled. Wasnt hard to get 28 mpg on the hwy at all, once you got it moving and loafing along.

I'm rather skeptical about ethanol as fuel. Of course I don't know the statistics, but I figure that intensive agriculture (to produce the corn) uses excessive amounts of oil. Together with the energy loss during the corn->ethanol conversion this could lead to increased total emissions.

I know if I tried to make up for my past wastefulness I'd be spending the rest of my life walking. Its not about trying to make up for past mistakes, its about seeing the err in our ways and making changes in our lives for not only our future, but our children and grandchildren.

As for ethanol, the more reading on the subject I do, the more I'm ok with using it... IF we come up with some other way of producing it. Right now its so grossly inefficent it doesn't make sense sadly :(

I just don't see the point in finding those way, when we would be better served with more EV and hybrids, even if they run on dino fuel, and get their electricity from coal fired plants.

While I tend to agree with you on a personal vehicle scale. It will be sometime before we completely replace the use of liquid fuels all together. There are still many things that need liquid fuel to run on (Trains, Planes, Semi's)

Now we can covert Trains to run solely on electricity but Planes and Semi's will always need some sort of liquid/gas fuel unless they come up with a big leap in electricity storage/production (for Semi's)

I have no issues with cellousitic ethanol and some of the other idea's getting test sound very intresting. Some are even taking genetically modified bacteria that "eat" CO2 out of the atmosphere and make hydrogen or gasoline as a "waste" product.

The only thing is these things will take research to develop. While I don't think ethanol is a good choice for the everyday consumer (BEV's will suit 99% of everyday users) I think it could play a role in eliminating our use of non-renewable resources.

I'm rather skeptical about ethanol as fuel. Of course I don't know the statistics, but I figure that intensive agriculture (to produce the corn) uses excessive amounts of oil. Together with the energy loss during the corn->ethanol conversion this could lead to increased total emissions.

I think well-to-wheels emissions of the *current* state of ethanol production are no worse than gasoline. The problem is that corn ethanol isn't very sustainable (not enough farmland), and it's driving up prices of lots of food.

I've said before that sustainable ethanol (waste wood, switchgrass, etc.) used very sparingly can be part of the solution. It is most certainly not the great panacea that many people would like to believe it is, especially since only giant vehicles are E85 compatible.

I think well-to-wheels emissions of the *current* state of ethanol production are no worse than gasoline. The problem is that corn ethanol isn't very sustainable (not enough farmland), and it's driving up prices of lots of food.

I've said before that sustainable ethanol (waste wood, switchgrass, etc.) used very sparingly can be part of the solution. It is most certainly not the great panacea that many people would like to believe it is, especially since only giant vehicles are E85 compatible.

Exactly! Infact, currect research says that E20 or E30 is more efficent of a blend than E85 to begin with. There is some people trying to get E20 certified for use in normal cars, but obviously they will not benifit from it like cars designed to run solely on E20/E30.

But for someone to think that ethanol could be used to power the entire auto fleet in america is being blinded by misinformation. There needs to be improvements made before it can even be considered for serious use.

@pdk

When you throw in the other types of pollution caused by ethanol production, (pesticides, furtilizer run off etc) it is worse in its current form.

I would much rather see biodiesel than ethanol. Especially when talking about designing cars for a fuel.

Yeah, putting food in our tanks is a quite silly idea. The energy required by a 50mpg car to drive but one mile (0,076l gas ->2426kj) can feed an adult male for about 8 hours.

Hi muhkuh, interesting statistic you have there. Where did you get those numbers from? I'd really love to see your source as I'm sure there is probably several other interesting facts from the same site.

Honestly I think the number would be MUCH higher than 8 hours when you throw in the amount of energy it takes to grow, produce, and transport that ethanol for use.

Simple maths and Wikipedia (indeed a site with lots of interesting facts ;)).

See Gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content) to calculate the energy used for traveling one mile, and Grundumsatz (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundumsatz) (sorry, German) to learn that a 70kg male needs about 7100kJ/24h when at rest.

Ahh, the great Ethanol debate once again. I seem to remember this exact thread about three months ago. My 2 cents: The sooner we get get away from burning anything as a fuel for transportation the better.

Having run an Ethanol powered car for a while now, it makes a great summer fuel and compared to gasoline you take about a 30% hit in mileage simply due to the fact that you have to spray in 30% more or the stuff to get the same work done. As a winter fuel, Ethanol is aweful, even in a professionally converted car.

Once auto manufacturers stop making ICE powered cars (yeah, one day...) I think Ethanol will be handy to keep vintage cars alive, but thats it..... The sooner we get away from the buring of fuels for transportation the better.

Ethride posted;
“The sooner we get get away from burning anything as a fuel for transportation the better.”

Big Dave asks:
What do you suggest as a replacement?

Biofuels make sense if you can grow the feedstock on non-arable land with nonpotable water. Best chance I see is biodiesel and ethanol made from algae.

Ahh, the great Ethanol debate once again. I seem to remember this exact thread about three months ago. My 2 cents: The sooner we get get away from burning anything as a fuel for transportation the better.

No, I don't support ethanol in my car. It's less efficient as a fuel, and cost more at the pump when I fill it up. For years, Kentucky used to be 10 cents or so cheaper than Ohio because of lower taxes...but then some genius down in Frankfort decided to mandate that E10 be put in all of Northern Kentucky's gas stations, and suddenly it's 8-10 cents more expensive on this side of the river. And then I get reduced MPG's. Double loss. And it's not worth going to Ohio to get the 100% gas because of what I'd burn in getting there and back.

Hypermiling to save my wallet is a bit higher than hypermiling to save the environment on my priority list, especially with enormous SUV's such as Ford Excursions doing 85+ mph have much more of a problem with pollution than I do, anyway.

Lamebums, be careful about the "other guy is much worse so what difference can I make?" argument. Yes, others are more of a problem than you are, but no your impact is not worthless. Excursion drivers are the slowly shrinking majority -- the idea is to transition to the situation we want, even if it is slow progress. If everyone simply threw up their hands, where would we be? Certainly not at 113,486.96g saved by this membership!

We definitely won't hold it against you if your primary motivation for hypermiling is cost, but don't underestimate the effects of your pollution reduction, okay?

Ethride posted;
“The sooner we get get away from burning anything as a fuel for transportation the better.”

Big Dave asks:
What do you suggest as a replacement?

Biofuels make sense if you can grow the feedstock on non-arable land with nonpotable water. Best chance I see is biodiesel and ethanol made from algae.

Big Dave,
I have pondered this question for a while, and IMHO, I am leaning towards pure electric cars as being the future, and Ethanol as a liquid fuel for a limited number of deserving vehicles.

Lamebums, be careful about the "other guy is much worse so what difference can I make?" argument. Yes, others are more of a problem than you are, but no your impact is not worthless. Excursion drivers are the slowly shrinking majority -- the idea is to transition to the situation we want, even if it is slow progress. If everyone simply threw up their hands, where would we be? Certainly not at 113,486.96g saved by this membership!

We definitely won't hold it against you if your primary motivation for hypermiling is cost, but don't underestimate the effects of your pollution reduction, okay?

I hope I didn't come off the wrong way here, which I may have... Let me just clarify a bit. I'm all for reducing emissions, but not when it hurts my own wallet like thus (which is probably the problem that a lot of people have, and what oil companies and economists use to attack ideas to save the environment...). I hypermile to save money, and then I'm having it torpedoed by ethanol killing my mileage, and then ethanol costs more, so I lose both times.

The solution is electric cars, with an upgraded energy network, produced by renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro), and wherever it isn't enough, support it with nuclear energy. It's the best alternative we got (until fusion technology improves), and besides, we're a lot safer in our nuclear plants than Chernobyl would have ever been.

Ethanol actually costs less. At least it does here... E85 is around a dollar less than normal gas and it has MUCH less emissions than gasoline.

Ethanol definitely has its good sides... but I'm not a proponet of it. I just like full disclosure of all the facts ;)

As for fusion plants. I'm not for them in the long run, just like I'm not for nuclear plants in the long run. They are the answer right now... but anything that has an emission to me is not the ideal solution.

Ethride posted:
“…I am leaning towards pure electric cars as being the future…”

Big dave sez:
I concur, at least in the long term. Pure electric offers the promise of kissing OPEC goodbye once and for all. Once the problem of energy storage is solved this seems like a no-brainer. Do keep in mind: If somebody started selling usable electric cars tomorrow, the electric utilities simply could not keep up wit the demand. The system is stretched so tight now that the smaller perturbations cause big outages. The US would have to go on a massive crash program of building new coal or nuclear power plants. Nuclear is far superior from an environmental standpoint, but there are still a lot of people ruled more by emotion than logic.

Back in the 70s, the product now called E10 was called gasohol and it was roundly hated.

E85 has about 60% the heating value of unleaded gasoline. It has some disadvantages for the consumer such as hard starting. It should cost about half what unleaded costs. But if you want to utilize it fully, E85 has an excellent octane rating. To take advantage of that octane yopu'd need to increase compression (or boost) and advance the spark. Both measures increase engine efficiency.

Yeah, putting food in our tanks is a quite silly idea. The energy required by a 50mpg car to drive but one mile (0,076l gas ->2426kj) can feed an adult male for about 8 hours.

I think the car burns far more energy than that ... but let's run the numbers.

50 mpg / 50 miles = 1 Gallon

Gasoline has about 34.8 MJ per Liter and about 44.4 MJ per Kg
10% Ethanol has about 33.7 MJ per Liter and about 31.1 MJ per Kg

1 Gallon = 3.785411784 Liters

1 Gallon of Gasoline = 3.785411784 Liters of Gasoline * 34.8 = ~131.73MJ
1 Gallon of 10% Ethanol Gasoline has = 3.785411784 Liters of 10% Ethanol Gasoline
3.785411784 * 33.7 = ~127.56MJ

1 Dietary Calorie = 1,000 scientific calories = 4.184 kJ

1,000 kJ = 1 MJ

~131.73MJ = ~131,730kJ / 4.184 kJ = ~31,484 Dietary Calories.

on a 2,000 Calorie a day diet you burn ~83 Dietary Calories per hour.

the ~31,484 Dietary Calories you get from the 1 gallon of Gasoline would fuel a normal human for ~379 Hours / 24 = ~15 Days.

But people don't eat gasoline ... so we have to make do with French fries.

-----------------------------

As for When Ethanol Breaks Even with Gasoline...

Between the 131.7MJ and the 127.5MJ there is a ~3% Loss of energy....

While 10% of your fuel by volume becomes "Carbon Neutral"

Any Distance you drive on Ethanol even 10% is less polluting than 100% Gasoline.

Any Change in MPG Beyond ~5% is far more likely due to driver skill / choices... and the weather / route.

-----------------------------

Cold Weather MPG is always dominated by Rolling resistance losses and Aerodynamic losses...

Between -10 C and +30 C the aerodynamic drag at the same speed for the same object will increase by about ~13.2% ... so 13.2% more power from the engine would be needed to go the same speed in the same car at the colder temperatures... just from Aerodynamic losses.. just because the cold air is denser.

It has been said, "the published Bayer Rubber curve shows tan delta going up by a factor of 4.7 from 30 C to -10 C" .... any increase in the coefficient of rolling friction will directly increase the Rolling resistance... 50% increase = 50% increase.... with over 4x the rolling resistance from dropping the temperature from 30C to -10C that is over a 4x increase to rolling resistance in the tires.

This means in the winter the friction slowing down your car requires more than 20% more energy to go the same speed.... you want to drive the same speed to work so you push the gas pedal down more.... and you don't coast as well and accelerate slower ...etc...

While at the same time lubricants don't work as well for more losses creep in....

Winter Fuel has very very very little to do with it... Gasoline of any chemistry combusts as a vapor... the colder it is the less the gasoline will vaporise ... and thus you get less energy from it for work..... Winter mix or not winter mix.... you get less work out of burning cold gasoline than you do warm or hot gasoline due to the changes in vaporization.... but this does not change as fast as the other resistive forces.

Hi Iamian:

___That was a fun post :)

___The following may help on the RRc vs. Temperature discussion. And it is downright ugly too :(

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/522/RRc_vs_Temperature.gif

___Good Luck

___Wayne

nice graph :)

it shows the massive increase in rolling resistance coefficient as the temperature goes down.

on that graph it looks like from 40C to 0C the rolling resistance coefficient doubles.

which would mean a doubling ( +100% ) in the total force needed to over come rolling resistance.

Thankfully the tire warms up some during use so you don't have 100% increase in rolling resistance on trips long enough to see the tire warm up.


for those that want to know:

-----------------------------

Rolling Resistance Force :

F = Cr * m * g
P = F * V

P = Cr * m * g * V (rolling resistance)

F = Force of rolling resistance ( Newton )
P = Power of rolling resistance ( Watts per unit time )
Cr = Coefficient of rolling resistance ( See Chart Bellow )
m * g = Total Weight ( Insight + Driver + Fuel + Etc )
V = velocity ( meters per unit time )

Cr___________Description
0.006-0.01_____low rolling resistance car tire on a smooth road
0.010-0.015_____Ordinary car tires on concrete

---------------------------------

Aerodynamic Drag Force :

F = -1/2 * p * v * v * A * Cd

Power of Drag = Force Of Drag Times Velocity

P = F * v

P = -1/2 * p * v * v * v * A * Cd

where :
P = Power of Drag ( Watts per unit time )
F is the force of drag ( Newton )
p is the density of the Air ( kg/m³ )
v is the velocity of the car ( meters per unit time )
A is the frontal Area ( Insight = 1.9 Square Meters )
Cd is the drag coefficient ( Insight = 0.25 )

The air density will also change with humidity… but on average :

At -10 degrees C the Density of the air is about 1.341 kg/m³
At +10 degrees C the Density of the air is about 1.247 kg/m³
At +30 degrees C the Density of the air is about 1.164 kg/m³

that is where I got the previously mentioned, Between -10 C and +30 C the aerodynamic drag at the same speed for the same object will increase the by about ~13.2% ... so 13.2% more power from the engine would be needed to go the same speed in the same car at the colder temperatures... just from Aerodynamic losses..

^I'm impressed with all the facts/graphs/numbers/equations you all came up with...

An number of years back, all gasoline in my 4-county area changed to 10% ethanol.

It was supposed to help with air pollution.

I was driving a 1989 Chevy Spectrum with 5 speed manual and 1.5L 4 cylinder engine.
On regular gas, it got 47 MPG. When we got the E10 gasoline, mileage dropped to 30 MPG.

It stayed there for several months and then eventually went back up to 35 MPG.

I am all for Bio-fuels, but there are some disadvantages to them to.

Lets make ethanol from things other than food.

-----------------------------

As for When Ethanol Breaks Even with Gasoline...

Between the 131.7MJ and the 127.5MJ there is a ~3% Loss of energy....

While 10% of your fuel by volume becomes "Carbon Neutral"

Any Distance you drive on Ethanol even 10% is less polluting than 100% Gasoline.

Any Change in MPG Beyond ~5% is far more likely due to driver skill / choices... and the weather / route.

-----------------------------



Does this take into account that it will take more fuel to go the same distance. I would bet that the pollution is closer to 5% less polluting than 100% gasoline?

Does this take into account that it will take more fuel to go the same distance. I would bet that the pollution is closer to 5% less polluting than 100% gasoline?

"generally" it doesn't matter if it takes more fuel to go the same distance.

If a fuel produces zero ( or close to it ) pollution it doesn't matter if it takes you 100x as much gas or money per mile it is still cleaner... just maybe not cheaper.

10% of E10 is "Carbon Neutral" and produces no net carbon and is a cleaner running fuel.

so you are getting the additional energy from burning that 10% without the additional pollution you would have got from the 10% if it were gasoline... as if for 1 gallon of gasoline you got more than 1 gallon of gasoline worth of energy out of it...

the only way ethanol could cause a increase in pollution is if it's different combustion characteristics grossly reduced the ICE efficiency... which it usually improves not reduces ....

the vast majority of mpg hits to a driver is the driver themselves ... but people are defensive and resist even the idea of it being their fault... so they blame the fuel instead.

just my 2 bits.

I read somewhere that if your vehichle is new, like 2006 or 2007, depending on the manufacturer, it's most likely E10 compatible, but I have heard of some horror stories as well. If I can find a station around here that does not have E10 or a pump that is not E10 I may try it and see what happens, just to see if my mileage goes up.

No. Ethanol is never worth the mileage loss.

I'm doing a study on the mileage loss with Ethanol (E10) (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11342). With E10 in the tank I actually end up burning MORE gas than if it were 100% regular gas. The mileage lost with the initial test was 15.55%. That's decreased to 14.3% with additional tanks of E10 but that's still far, far more than the 3% loss that the scammers claim ethanol will cause.

I wouldn't be surprised if E10 is even more polluting than regular gas considering 1) I end up burning more gas anyway and 2) the enormous waste of energy gone into corn ethanol.

cure for RR decrease with heat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqRJ9GfIJtI

I have a very, very hard time believing that anyone's getting the huge mileage drops some have reported on here simply from switching to E10. I've used it off and on since 1976 (when it was a limited availability novelty called "gasohol") in a wide variety of vehicles from early 1970s 7L carbureted American V8s to an old 1963 Panhead Harley-Davidson motorcycle to current fuel injected, computer controlled cars. I've never seen any driveability issues, noticeable fuel mileage decrease or fuel system damage in any of them. Point's moot here as all gas at the pumps now is E10, but I see no reason to bemoan that fact.

As for mileage, I'm not a real hypermiler, just a reasonably sensible driver. On E10 my new Yaris 4D AT sedan got 37.5 MPG on its second tank driving mostly in town (haven't filled it since), and my big 1998 Mercury villager van consistently averages about 20. The 1995 Volvo 850 Turbo I just traded off got 19-21 MPG with my mostly around-town driving, frequently briefly getting into the turbo boost with a fairly heavy foot. (It was a blast!) None of those numbers are going to get me bragging rights on a hypermiling board, but I'm not ashamed of them either. The Volvo and Villager were around before and after the E10 changeover, and it didn't affect them. (Out on long highway trips they both average in the 28-29 MPG range, running at Interstate speed limits, heavily loaded for family vacation travel.)

If someone's dropping their mileage by a third, something's wrong with their car or their driving other than just putting E10 in the tank.

Oh yeah, I clean forgot the 1940 Ford Fordor Deluxe with stock Flathead V8 that I used to sometimes run on gasohol. It liked it just fine, too.

There was a time when premium gasoline with suitable octane for older high-compression engines wasn't readily available. The gasohol had a higher real octane number than the generally available unleaded, and some stations still had leaded regular. 1 part leaded regular to 2-3 parts gasohol used to keep the old Harley and premium gas burning 10.5:1 compression 429 Ford running knock free when the recommended fuel was unobtainable.

My 6 tanks last summer with E10:
Average MPG: 62.8
Average temp: 85F

My 6 tanks since then, with straight gas:
Avg MPG: 64.1
Avg temp: 60F

According to my records, the drop from 85 degrees to 60 is worth about 3 mpg loss. Compensating for that puts E10 down by about 4 mpg over straight gas. 4 mpg / 60 = 6.7% drop from E10.

I report, you decide.

Different cars are affected differently. Sometimes the mix may be more that 10% ethanol which have been reported though not very often this happens.

Though it may not be correct to attribute the loss entirely to ethanol, the losses can still be accounted for in some models.

It makes about a 10% difference in my car.

I see my car getting about 5% less economy with ethanol-laced gas. I'm consistently able to push 500 miles per tank on my land yacht on straight gas, while with ethanol gas I was lucky to see 450 per tank.

I'm for alternative fuel, but I can't support replacing food crops with fuel crops. We've got to export something and our food exports help feed the world. We can get more fuel efficient and get the same results in cutting our oil imports. There's so much room for improvement in fuel efficiency in this country.

I don't remember where I heard this, and can't really verify this, so take it with a grain of salt. But I had heard with older cars, like first generation of OBD-II, take a greater hit from ethanol than newer cars. The reason I've heard is the ethanol sort of "tricks" the O2 sensor into thinking the car is running lean, when it isn't, so more fuel is squirted into the cylinders to compensate, making the car run rich and reducing fuel economy.

So on older cars, it might not be worth it. From an emissions standpoint, I haven't a clue, because I've never even had a car checked. The state of Maine doesn't do emissions checking.

I think the biggest reason for the drop is that there is less total energy in ethanol so it takes more of it to do the same work.

Down here the boaters don't like it at all. says there getting seperation and water in there fuel tank when it sits too long.

I think 10% is about right since E10 has about 96% of the BTU of pure gas. Driving to Detroit last time I bought straight gas in Pennsylvania and hit just under 40 MPG, which was the best tank ever in the 06 Corolla with AT on the highway.

Not sure if there is any place in Va without E10 anymore.

In some cars the higher octane rating of E10 versus regular would allow timing advance and possibly some offset to the lower BTU content. Wish I could get some straight gas for the Insight CVT and see what the difference was compared to my local trips on E10.

regards
gary

"Straight gas" isn't anymore. It just has different "oxygenates" in it, like TAME, diisopropyl ether, isopropyl alcohol or butanol. The only difference as far as mileage is concerned is that most "oxygenates" are blended to a concentration giving a maximum of 2% oxygen in the blend, whereas ethanol has an exemption and 10% ethanol gives about 2.9% oxygen, thus a bit lower total energy than the other "oxygenate" blends.

Question- I assume the car manufactures are give a standard gas formula to when doing the EPA/CAFE mileage testing?

It seems that over the last few years corn oil enriched gas has gone from being just an option to the only thing available in may/most(?) states. It seems to me that reducing the energy content of gasoline at the same time as increasing MPG requirements makes the achievement of better FE (as measured by MPG) for a doubly difficult task. The best way to normalize things would be to measure miles driven per 000's of BTU's.

That said, while researching for this post I cam across the attached article. Apparently the manufacturers are not as far off of the 35.5mpg fleet avg as you might think. I suspect you all already know most of this but the CAFE vs EPA calc differences. I knew about the fleet vs per vehicle aspect but I wasn't aware of the CAFE formula not changing since 1975.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2009/05/cafe-vs-epa-obamas-mpg-targets-are-closer-than-you-think.html

Question- I assume the car manufactures are give a standard gas formula to when doing the EPA/CAFE mileage testing?

Yes.

Another quirk a lot of people don't know is that the fuel consumption is figured backward from the carbon emissions out of the tailpipe. Seems odd, but if you remember anything about hidden fuel supplies in NASCAR racers, you'll understand why.

[QUOTE=iamian;63817]nice graph :)

it shows the massive increase in rolling resistance coefficient as the temperature goes down.

on that graph it looks like from 40C to 0C the rolling resistance coefficient doubles.

which would mean a doubling ( +100% ) in the total force needed to over come rolling resistance.

Thankfully the tire warms up some during use so you don't have 100% increase in rolling resistance on trips long enough to see the tire warm up.[QUOTE]

That is exactly why I am hate that wheels and tires just keep getting bigger and bigger. They also add unsprung weight and ruin handling.

As far as ethanol goes, I like it, but don't know all the facts. I have read of people getting 1000 horsepower from turbocharged v8's using e85. That is a testament to the power that it can unleash, but is not even close to realized in a normal compression motor that is also designed for regular fuel. An engine has to be designed specifically for this fuel only and no manufacturer is going to do that since ethanol is not a stable fuel source yet.

In the owners Manual for my Suzuki SX4, 2.0L DOHV engine, it states that Ethanol mixed fuel is OK, if the % of ethanol does not exceed 10%.

Ethanol does burn with fewer emissions, which is why it's mandated by law here in Florida, but.... it also has less energy per unit when compared to regular gasoline.
So by burning "Gasahol" we produce less emissions but get less performance out of our cars. It's not a trade-off I'm really excited about.

I'd love to be able to get just one full tank of real 100% gasoline and just see how much better performance and MPG I could get.

On the plus side, Ethanol does function as an Anti-Knock additive and it also prevents gas line freeze in cold climates. I was glad to use it when I lived in Illinois, in the winter.

Cheers mates!
The Doctor :cool:

Here in Miami you can buy non-ethanol gas at the pump, its intended for boats and they will charge you about a buck more per gallon.. look around your town since Central Florida is the land of lakes and everybody has a bass boat :)

Actually there are a few little lakes around this part of FL, but I don't remember seeing any Boat Only gas pumps. I would probably have to go all the way to the Gulf to find a boat dock with non ethanol gas. The total cost for the effort would definitely negate any improvement in performance for my car.

Interesting thought, but not practical for my car.

Thanks for the thought.

The Doctor :cool:

for me, E10 and regular gas has been a wash. i buy gas where/when it's cheapest at the time i need it. sometimes, it's cheaper on base, sometimes not. on base is E10, Walmart is not. i've been swapping between the 2 quite a few times.... since my trips are never always the same, i can't really quantify any difference in the Elantra. now, the Minivan, THAT i can tell a difference in mileage. E10 sux bahls! i've ran road/vacation trips plenty of times on the same roads doing the same speeds and E10 hits the pocketbook in a not so nice way. in a 1700 mile trip (with a few hundred miles driving around in WI), from SD to WI and back, saving $40-50 helps.

I am a firm believer in Biofuels (& nuclear - fission, breeder, fusion - when it gets finally working well). E10 is NOT cheaper around here. it's pretty much the same price as regular gas. not worth it in my book.


also, didn't know the nuclear plants produced pollutants.... i guess if you mean nuclear waste... then someone needs to shoot the tree-huggers and start building breeder reactors. wouldn't have to worry about waste then or where to store it.

Actually there are a few little lakes around this part of FL, but I don't remember seeing any Boat Only gas pumps.

The pumps are not labeled "Boat use only", in any case I have been using gasohol since Carter was president, and would go out of my way looking for it.. I like the cheap octane boost you could get out of it. I'm sure many cars dont tolerate E10 well, probably drives the oxygen sensor crazy until they adjust by richening the mixture.

Herm . why would you need a "cheap octane boost " ? What sort of vehicle are you driving ? Mine runs fine on 87.

If your looking for straight gas, there is a list of ethanol free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada here:

http://pure-gas.org/

If you're concerned about the amount of ethanol you're getting mixed in with your gas you can buy a test kit here:

http://www.fuel-testers.com/

I recently switched from QT to Exxon fuel on three different vehicles -- two motorcycles (both carbureted) and a pickup.

Both motorcycles are running better, I can turn the choke off immediately after start and they both idle fine. Couldn't do this with QT gas, ... had to wait a minute or so for the bike to warm. Any "pinging" tendancies have gone away and the older bike (Goldwing) just feels like it has more power. MPGs appear to be up on the Goldwing, not enough miles on the other to know, the pickup has shown an improvement of at least 5% on mpg. I cannot tell that the pickup ('09 fuel injected) runs any better, other than the mpg improvement.

I used to think gas was just gas, I don't think that way any more. I suspect that the difference I'm seeing is due to the amount of ethanol in the mix but I really don't know. Both stations advertise "less than 10% ethanol".

I'll buy from said Exxon station for now. In the future I'll be quicker to suspect bad gas if I notice performance problems (pinging, rough idle, down on power, sub-par mpg) and switch stations if necessary.

Having scoured the internets on this subject for more time than I'd like to admit, I've read:

The "official" word on E10 is that you'll lose very little mpg, something like only 2% or less. But there are a LOT of people -- many with detailed records -- reporting more, in some cases even 10% or 15% loss in mpg.

My take is that there are so many variables at play there is no single answer on what effect ethanol will have. Some of the major factors are:

How much ethanol is really being mixed (are you actually buying E2, E6, E10, E12, E20 .... )?
How long has the ethanol been around.
How much moisture (humidity) has the ethanol been exposed to.
Carbureted or fuel injected
Newer tech injected (i.e. 2005+) vs. older.
What kind/how much additives are the individual refiners and distributers adding to the mix?

To me, the bottom line is you have to experiment around with different stations and see which one works best for you, and be ready to change and seek again if you think you've got a problem.

I would not let an engine sit more than 3 months (especially if it's carbureted) with e10 in it. And if you do at least put some stabil or similar in the tank.

if your car does not ping with cheap gas then by all means use it, but note that many modern cars will adjust the ignition timing if they detect any pinging at all, and that will reduce your gas mileage if the car is slow to readjust after the pinging stops, thus false economy. I prefer to buy my gas at a quality gas station, its not that much of a difference.

Having scoured the internets on this subject for more time than I'd like to admit, I've read:

The "official" word on E10 is that you'll lose very little mpg, something like only 2% or less. But there are a LOT of people -- many with detailed records -- reporting more, in some cases even 10% or 15% loss in mpg.

My take is that there are so many variables at play there is no single answer on what effect ethanol will have. Some of the major factors are:

How much ethanol is really being mixed (are you actually buying E2, E6, E10, E12, E20 .... )?
How long has the ethanol been around.
How much moisture (humidity) has the ethanol been exposed to.
Carbureted or fuel injected
Newer tech injected (i.e. 2005+) vs. older.
What kind/how much additives are the individual refiners and distributers adding to the mix?

To me, the bottom line is you have to experiment around with different stations and see which one works best for you, and be ready to change and seek again if you think you've got a problem.

I would not let an engine sit more than 3 months (especially if it's carbureted) with e10 in it. And if you do at least put some stabil or similar in the tank.

Thanks for doing the research. I can say that I've done the same thing; deep dives on the internet to research an item/problem. You can pull a single thread and end up finding another two or three to dig into!!

I suspect that I'm down 10% on my MPGs since the winter grade gas came out, maybe more. Power seems to be the same though. I have a 2000 Ranger, so I may not be able to leverage the blended fuel like the 2005 and older vehicles can. I was wondering if there was an additive that would offset the effects of ethanol, but what would be the point I suppose.

I got an Ultragauge for Christmas, so my studies are restricted to the ethanol blended fuels for the moment. That said, I can still see a significant difference in the FE when compared to my summertime data and commonality with the data from last winter's studies. I will take your advice and shop the gas (using the major providers) to see if there is a difference. It would offset the need to pay more for an additive.

Kevin

I would not let an engine sit more than 3 months (especially if it's carbureted) with e10 in it. And if you do at least put some stabil or similar in the tank.

A carburated engine will get all gummed up after a while, but a fuel injected system seems to handle sitting unused for a long time. I think carburators are not as well sealed and the good stuff evaporates after a while, .. if its gasohol then you get moisture build-up.

That stuff just claimed the (rather low quality) carburetor on my snow-blower after 4 winters of use. :( $60 to replace with a non-sealed unit so I can actually clean it next time. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, my LawnBoy has been just fine for the last 6 years.

Sean , by any chance is your LawnBoy a 2-stroke running premix ? That oil-gas mixture may be protecting your carb from ethanol damage. I'm just guessing.

Nope, it's a 4 stroke running straight fuel from the pump. It starts on the first pull every time, too.

Must be the Honda engine. ;)

True fact. I borrow a tiller for the garden each year from a friend. The thing is a big heavy beast, built when Carter was in office. Still starts on the first pull despite sitting most of the year. Honda 4-stroke engine.

does it sit with the carburator and tank drained?.. but I agree, Honda makes great small engines.

Oh, yes. He takes good care of his machines. I also sometimes borrow his 1994(?) Toyota truck with 250k miles.

I make sure I run mine dry at the end of the season every year. I didn't manage it for the snowblower last year and ended up paying for it. :p

A mechanic who worked on my 2007 Prius told me that he has detected ** 50% ** ethanol in the "gas tanks" of some vehicles he has worked on.
He made that comment in response to my query about why my mileage had dropped 10%...

is there E85 in your area?, that is probably what he saw.

Only some modern cars can tolerate E50 without lighting up the check engine light.. usually the fuel injectors cant deliver enough volume to richen up the mixture to what it needs.. the computers will not allow the engine to run so lean and will go into failsafe mode, killing your mileage or just stopping the engine, at best. E20 is not usually a problem... you can use ethanol to fine tune your mixture and timing if you know what you are doing.

That stuff just claimed the (rather low quality) carburetor on my snow-blower after 4 winters of use. :( $60 to replace with a non-sealed unit so I can actually clean it next time. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, my LawnBoy has been just fine for the last 6 years.

Yeah, and just think what will happen if the jokers that want to increase the amount of poison-aka ethanol-to 15% get their way.:rolleyes::mad:

I just filled my tank with 89 octane E0. Didn't cost any more, was actually 5c less than nearby stations E10 89 octane.

Too early to tell (only 50 miles in) but preliminary indications are an mpg gain of somewhere between 5 and 10% (?).

We'll see.

A mechanic who worked on my 2007 Prius told me that he has detected ** 50% ** ethanol in the "gas tanks" of some vehicles he has worked on.

I wonder what he used to detect and measure it.

I wonder what he used to detect and measure it.

There are kits available for measuring the amount or, you can make a simple version using a clear container with evenly spaced lines that would give you fairly accurate reading.

1/4 tank into my first E0, several SS comparisons are showing an increased mpg of around 7%. (testing under similar wind conditions and accounting for temp)
Again, I'd want to run at least a couple tanks through to verify, but that's what it's looking like right now.

This is after I've seen a 5 to 7% increase by switching brands of E10. So if the E0 boost holds up, I've increased my steady state mpg by 12% + by going from my old station's E10 to E0.