# Ethanol free gas



## grandview (Oct 9, 2005)

There is a station that sells it near me. Costs about .30 more a gallon. Think if I use it I'll get more power and mileage from it?


----------



## 1olddogtwo (Aug 6, 2007)

If you buy diesel for it you'll get the performance of a


----------



## crazyboy (Feb 3, 2009)

Use it in small engines!


----------



## peteo1 (Jul 4, 2011)

Shouldn't ethanol free gas be cheaper, at least in theory anyway? I remember gas was a hell of a lot cheaper before they started mixing ethanol into it.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

Gas in our state comes with the ethanol blended right in, no extra charge.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

grandview;1525161 said:


> There is a station that sells it near me. Costs about .30 more a gallon. Think if I use it I'll get more power and mileage from it?


Power in a Ford gasser? hmmmm...

Seriously.....have you been tracking your economy so far on the blended? If you have a few tanks of solid consistent data try a few tanks of the non ethanol flavor. Ten percent improvement is better than breaking even at todays prices.


----------



## basher (Nov 13, 2004)

crazyboy;1525312 said:


> Use it in small engines!


airplanes and older boat motorsThumbs Up


----------



## South Seneca (Oct 22, 2010)

Our Fastrac convenience store has ethanol free premium. I use it in all my lawn and garden engines, chain saws, and the boat.
I don't know if it really makes any difference in the truck, and at 12 mpg, I'm not interested in paying the higher price without some noticeable benefit.


----------



## grandview (Oct 9, 2005)

2COR517;1525320 said:


> Gas in our state comes with the ethanol blended right in, no extra charge.


Same here. But they it sell for boats and stuff. Just wondering if it worth it. To fill up my truck the difference would be 9.00 more.


----------



## blueline38 (Dec 22, 2007)

I started running 91 Octane a while ago (ethanol free). I found that my gas mileage increased,on average, 1.5mpg. I also noticed a difference in power off the line. My wife even mentioned the difference! With the added cost you might break even but that's fine with me. As long as I'm not using the government subsidized ethanol that has been shoved down our throats (or tanks)! Without tax payer help, ethanol gas would cost more than diesel and therefore would more than likely not exist!


----------



## jasonv (Nov 2, 2012)

grandview;1525161 said:


> There is a station that sells it near me. Costs about .30 more a gallon. Think if I use it I'll get more power and mileage from it?


Ethyl alcohol stores approximately 90% as much energy as pure gasoline. At a 10% blend, your blended fuel will store 99% as much energy as pure gasoline. At best, it will give you a fuel consumption loss of 1%. Power will be unaffected because the fuel injectors will provide marginally more fuel to compensate.

There are a lot of people misreporting that ethyl alcohol blended fuels will cause up to a 10% loss in fuel economy, but it is only true that WINTER gas will have this effect. There is a lot more to winter gas than just the ethyl alcohol, and it has been this way for a lot longer than fuels have been supplied with alcohol.

Specifically, because the winter is cold, the fuels are mixed in a way to increase the vapor pressure (make cold starts easier). Cold = low pressure, so the objective is to raise the vapor pressure of COLD winter gas to be equal to warm summer gas. This is achieved by reducing the average length of the hydrocarbon chains used in the fuel. There will be, for example, more butane added. The shorter the hydrocarbon chain, the more volatile the fluid is, and the less ENERGY it stores.

Regardless of mixed in alcohol, winter gas will cause a fairly significant hit in fuel consumption.


----------



## jasonv (Nov 2, 2012)

blueline38;1525623 said:


> I started running 91 Octane a while ago (ethanol free). I found that my gas mileage increased,on average, 1.5mpg. I also noticed a difference in power off the line. My wife even mentioned the difference! With the added cost you might break even but that's fine with me. As long as I'm not using the government subsidized ethanol that has been shoved down our throats (or tanks)! Without tax payer help, ethanol gas would cost more than diesel and therefore would more than likely not exist!


I don't know much about your engine, but some engines will alter their timing to compensate or low octane fuels. If your engine was designed to run 91 octane fuel, then it could be going into delayed ignition mode when you run it on 87. This would cause an increase in fuel consumption.


----------



## blueline38 (Dec 22, 2007)

jasonv;1525642 said:


> Ethyl alcohol stores approximately 90% as much energy as pure gasoline. At a 10% blend, your blended fuel will store 99% as much energy as pure gasoline. At best, it will give you a fuel consumption loss of 1%. Power will be unaffected because the fuel injectors will provide marginally more fuel to compensate.
> 
> There are a lot of people misreporting that ethyl alcohol blended fuels will cause up to a 10% loss in fuel economy, but it is only true that WINTER gas will have this effect. There is a lot more to winter gas than just the ethyl alcohol, and it has been this way for a lot longer than fuels have been supplied with alcohol.
> 
> ...


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml

I'm not looking to start an argument but I can provide numerous links that cite ethanol lowers mpg's! Gallon for gallon, you will get less mileage with even a 10% blend!


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

South Seneca;1525365 said:


> Our Fastrac convenience store has ethanol free premium. I use it in all my lawn and garden engines, chain saws, and the boat.
> I don't know if it really makes any difference in the truck, and at 12 mpg, I'm not interested in paying the higher price without some noticeable benefit.


10% is ten percent. Doesn't matter if your baseline is 6 mpg or 60 km/liter


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

jasonv;1525642 said:


> Ethyl alcohol stores approximately 90% as much energy as pure gasoline. At a 10% blend, your blended fuel will store 99% as much energy as pure gasoline. At best, it will give you a fuel consumption loss of 1%. Power will be unaffected because the fuel injectors will provide marginally more fuel to compensate.
> 
> There are a lot of people misreporting that ethyl alcohol blended fuels will cause up to a 10% loss in fuel economy, but it is only true that WINTER gas will have this effect. There is a lot more to winter gas than just the ethyl alcohol, and it has been this way for a lot longer than fuels have been supplied with alcohol.
> 
> ...





jasonv;1525645 said:


> I don't know much about your engine, but some engines will alter their timing to compensate or low octane fuels. If your engine was designed to run 91 octane fuel, then it could be going into delayed ignition mode when you run it on 87. This would cause an increase in fuel consumption.


Conner/Tatra?


----------



## grandview (Oct 9, 2005)

All I wanted to know was yes,or no.


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

In ny you can buy that gas at an pump? In ct it's not legal to do so. you can only buy it in pails it runs around $73 per 5 gallon pail. I wish you could buy it that way in ct the new gas is very hard on smalll engines.

to answer your question if the truck is pre 07 yes you will get better MPG on the ethonal free the new trucks engine were designed to run on it per the EPA. As for the studies you can find them that will read both way's it all depends on who funded the study and there interests on the subject!!!


----------



## South Seneca (Oct 22, 2010)

Ethanol free 91 octane is 40 cents a gallon more than blended 87 here at Fastrac. $4.25 a gallon.


----------



## basher (Nov 13, 2004)

One US gallon of gasoline contains 114,000 BTU of energy; depending on the time of year, and depending on what is in the gasoline. It is getting harder to find gasoline's that does not contain 5 to 10% of Ethanol. Ethanol is ethyl alcohol; the kind of alcohol in beverages; beer, whiskey, bourbon, vodka, cocktails, etc.. It takes one and a half US gallons of ethanol to equal the energy in one US gallon of gasoline; the reason... because ethanol only has 76,100 BTU's of energy per gallon. Less energy means less miles per gallon. It is the BTUs that allows us to get the best fuel economy. Adding alcohol, of any kind, to gasoline, dilutes the fuel and lowers the heat energy.


----------



## camp61 (Nov 20, 2011)

grandview;1525843 said:


> All I wanted to know was yes,or no.


Grandview, did you really think you'd get a "yes or no" here! LOL ussmileyflag


----------



## blueline38 (Dec 22, 2007)

You will not get a yes or no answer. I also agree that studies are biased toward whoever is paying for the study. Throughout history, however, when the government tells you something is good for you.............question it and their motives. Additionally, if ethanol was so great, why can't it stand on it's own two feet without government money (our money)? It cost more to produce, yet is cheaper than regular fuel. Same as diesel which is the most expensive fuel, but is the cheapest to produce. WHY? Because it's the way for the government to push their agenda on you. They are ruining diesel trucks and jacking the price of diesel because they don't want you using it. E85 is cheaper because they want you to use it, even though it is an inferior product!

I only offer you my real life experience. I have a 2011 with the 6.2l v8. I have been using 91 octane (zero ethanol) since probably July. The power difference was noticable and i went from an average of 12.6mpg to at least an average of 14mpg. Now that they have switched to the winter blend I am back down to 12.6 but it would be even lower with 10% ethanol.

My advice, run your tank down and fill it with zero ethanol fuel. YOU calculate mileage, compare power and YOU come to a conclusion! Good luck!


----------



## tuney443 (Jun 25, 2006)

peteo1;1525318 said:


> Shouldn't ethanol free gas be cheaper, at least in theory anyway? I remember gas was a hell of a lot cheaper before they started mixing ethanol into it.


That's akin to my and everyone's else argument that shouldn't ULSD be cheaper than LSD[ or how about that ancient dinosaur---high sulfur diesel] since the refinery took most of the sulfur out of it?????? NOOOOOOO,it certainly is not cheaper.

Just had to replace a Stihl fuel filter in the chainsaw's fuel tank from that ethanol crap--only 2 years old.

An old timer at Wisconsin Engine strongly advised me to run 91+ octane in my old Wisconsin air cooled 4 banger that powers my Royer topsoil screener.Said because of the ethanol in today's gas,an older engine needs more pop to run more efficiently.Seems to be working OK.


----------



## BucklesIX (Sep 19, 2012)

I switched to all non ethanol for all my Small and older gas job engines like classic cars and tractors, or anything that sits for any length of time period!. 

Regular ethanol is fine for modern cars that you drive all the time, and burn the stuff quick before the ethanol can settle at the bottom of the tank. But older cars and tractors it will eat the tanks and carbs pretty quick, especially if they sit for a while, as the ethanol is cohesive to water, and therefore sucks moister out of the air in the tank, water is heavier than fuel and gas, so it sinks the ethanol to the bottom of the tank and settles more concentratedly in the bottom of the tanks, lines and carbs, next thing you know the inside of your carb will erode, or lines will rot out, and the inside of your older not made for ethanol tanks will rust like the Titanic does right now, and take dump all over your driveway. Most the time right before your inspection is up


----------



## BucklesIX (Sep 19, 2012)

As for the Politics of it, Ethonal was a bought and paid for regulation buy the investment banks that own stocks in every facet of the market. Agribusinesses are now planting record acreage to meet the supply requirements, because ethanol consumes about 30% of the corn yield and at higher corn prices than anyone thought possible, given the amount of acreage they are laying waste to with burnt up corn plowed fields. Then because 30% of the corn yield must go to ethanol it is leaving a corn shortage in all the livestock, manufactured foods and commodities that Corn goes into, which is almost everything in the world anymore, is now inflated because, the government artificially created a corn market where there does not need to to be. AND IT WAS NOT A COINCIDENCE!


----------



## jasonv (Nov 2, 2012)

blueline38;1525674 said:


> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
> 
> I'm not looking to start an argument but I can provide numerous links that cite ethanol lowers mpg's! Gallon for gallon, you will get less mileage with even a 10% blend!


I'm sure you can provide LOTS of links to unrealistic claims.
Fact is that most commonly, the fuel consumption loss ATTRIBUTED to ethyl alcohol is 10%, and that this is for mixes of UP TO 10%, which is the limit for non-flex-fuel vehicles. The simple matter of fact is that for a 10% loss in fuel economy, that ethyl alcohol would have to be TOTALLY INERT.

As a simple matter of FACT, ethyl alcohol stores 90% as much energy as straight gasoline, so for a 10% dilution, PHYSICS says that you experience a 1% (*ONE* percent) loss.

As I stated very clearly, those who associate a 10% blend with ethyl alcohol to result in a 10% loss in fuel economy are actually measuring the fuel economy of WINTER GAS.

You can't change 5 variables and associate the different output exclusively to ONE of those variables. If you want to measure the result of changing one variable, all others MUST REMAIN STATIC.

1 variable requires 1 equation to solve.
2 variables requires 2 equations to solve.
...
n variables requires n equations to solve.

You cannot solve 5 variables with only 1 equation!!!!


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

jasonv;1527850 said:


> I'm sure you can provide LOTS of links to unrealistic claims.
> Fact is that most commonly, the fuel consumption loss ATTRIBUTED to ethyl alcohol is 10%, and that this is for mixes of UP TO 10%, which is the limit for non-flex-fuel vehicles. The simple matter of fact is that for a 10% loss in fuel economy, that ethyl alcohol would have to be TOTALLY INERT.
> 
> As a simple matter of FACT, ethyl alcohol stores 90% as much energy as straight gasoline, so for a 10% dilution, PHYSICS says that you experience a 1% (*ONE* percent) loss.
> ...


You ever dream of owning a Tatra?

Or a 'Mog?

Ever crossed Siberia?

Lived in New York?


----------



## basher (Nov 13, 2004)

One way to counteract the effects of ethanol in small engines is Sparkle or a similar additive. We had HORRIBLE issues with filters in gas drive welders from ethanol and the use of an additive has helped control it.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

I add Seafoam and the blue Marine Sta-bil for the small engines. Maybe a little ATF if the mood strikes.....


----------



## jasonv (Nov 2, 2012)

dfd9;1527856 said:


> You ever dream of owning a Tatra?
> 
> Or a 'Mog?
> 
> ...


?????


----------



## blueline38 (Dec 22, 2007)

This is from the link I provided which is from the U.S. Department of Energy. The very same people shoving this **** down our tanks. Even they attribute a loss of 3-4%mpg to the use of ethanol! :

"E10 (also called “gasohol”) is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline sold in many parts of the country. All auto manufacturers approve the use of blends of 10% ethanol or less in their gasoline vehicles. However, vehicles will typically go 3–4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 than on straight gasoline."

Additionally, the "American Coalition for Ethanol" even reports a loss anywhere from 1.5% to 5% which they attribute to wind resistance on the day of that test. Regardless, a 5% loss is a 5% loss. 

So, in short, I'm not citing "unrealistic claims", I'm citing the EPA, the ACE and the Department of Energy! You can do all the math you want but there are other variables that effect mileage. The reality is, was and will be, ethanol cost more in the long run and lowers efficiency!


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

a 5% increase in fuel consumption for using a fuel which contains 10% less gasoline results in a net reduction in gasoline consumption. this is a good thing.

even if it is an even trade, you get the benefit of cleaner emissions ... which, by the way, was the whole reason for mandating the use of oxygenating fuels. science gave us MTBE as an alternative oxygenate, but didn't work out so well environmentally, the government banned it, leaving only one viable oxygenate available on a large scale. the lower price at the pump is a plus as well.

you want to speak of subsidies. fine, i propose that you take half of the subsidies given to the oil companies and give them to ethanol, just to make the playing field level. "if gasoline is such a good idea, it would stand on its own without any government assistance" ... sound familiar? oil companies are supported $3 in government subsidies to every $1 that was given to ethanol....

tired too is the food or fuel argument. you do not have to choose, you get both. first they extract the starches to make the ethanol, then they feed the cattle with what is left. the newest ethanol plants even extract the oils used to make corn oil before it turns into cattle feed.

this had nothing to do with creating a market for corn, it had everything to do with banning MTBE.

do some research, people ... please!


----------



## blueline38 (Dec 22, 2007)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_...o-big-oil----end-them-on-big-ethanol-instead/

Well, this is just one of many links that suggest you are backwards. This reference cites that oil companies receive $2billion a year and ethanol receives $6billion. Not to mention, the government has mandated ethanol use, thus forcing us to, once again, purchase a product!

You could remove all tax breaks and oil companies would still exist, for obvious reasons. They are given incentives for the purpose of keeping prices down but that theory is debatable. You end ethanol tax breaks, and mandates, manufacturing get's shut down. That is the difference. We are being forced to buy a product that we do not want, is damaging to our equipment and ultimately causes us to spend more on fuel.

As far as food vs. fuel, you are looking at the small picture. Farmers are being paid to plant corn instead of other crops. Therefore other crops are being planted in less acreage. This results in the prices of other crops going up due to their availability. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT CORN!


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

How about this. Little bit of hypothetical here. 

If there were no subsidies, what would the oil companies be selling us?


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

take your pick of which poll supports your position ... no lack of conflicting information.

your position on ethanol going away without a subsidy is not accurate at all. I've been driving for nearly 16 years and have always had the option of ethanol fuel. I have also only chosen to not use e10 a few times in my life. i've said this before, but the ONLY time i have EVER had a fuel problem was when i was NOT using ethanol fuel. I had a fuel line freeze up in my loader tractor because there was no ethanol in the tank to emulsify the condensation that had been collecting.

every try to find fuel line gaskets for a 195x Massy-Harris? what a PITA! ... switched back to ethanol and have never had that issue again. sure, condensation forms, but the alcohol can absorb so it stays in suspension, rather than pooling at the bottom for the carb to suck down in one big gulp, or freeze and ruin fuel line fittings.

i use it in everything without a care or concern. it sits in my fuel tanks for months or even years in the vehicles that don't get driven. I do use stabilizer, but it is not for the concern of the alcohol. People are largely over-concerned with the effects of letting ethanol blended fuel sit in the tank. Before my plow truck had a plow, it just sat in the shed.... filled with e10. and yes, the tank did rust out and had to be replaced. but it rusted from the OUTSIDE, not from within. the rest of the tank looked like brand new, except for the pinhole where the strap sat.

bottom line, it has been around for ever, and will be around forever. as for farmers planting crops ... around here there are only two .. corn and beans .. the same as it has been for decades. if it aint corn, it is beans ... and if it is neither, then it is pasture or hayground .. that's it. they're going to plant it anyway, so there might as well be a market for it. if they raise it and there is no market, the government (everyone) buys it anyway ... might as well use it for fuel.

your higher food prices means more income for farmers. complain if you like, but i can tell you that you REALLY don't want a bunch of poor farmers. you think there is a "food shortage" now .. wait till there is NO market for their crops and they all just decide to sit on their land and plant nothing.... either way, you're going to pay for it.

just cauz it is new in your town don't mean it is new. if you want to use it and never have, run a bottle of seafoam through your tank first. one thing ethanol is really good at is cleaning out the garbage left by the gasoline.... but i stand firm, if the gas was so good, there would be nothing for the ethanol to clean. that's not an ethanol problem, that's a gas problem.

if you want it to go away, you need to elect representatives and senators who do not support the use of oxygenated fuels. but beware, there are emission side affects to using non-oxygenated fuels.... and i doubt anyone will get elected running on a platform of lower emission standards.

if you REALLY want it to go away, invent an oxygenate that don't cause cancer.... sounds to me like most of the people on this forum would jump at the opportunity to invest and purchase it.

I will say this ... i would whole-heatedly support a nation wide bill that would give people a choice of whether to use it or not .... but we kinda already do .. elections


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

meborder;1529472 said:


> take your pick of which poll supports your position ... no lack of conflicting information.
> 
> your position on ethanol going away without a subsidy is not accurate at all. I've been driving for nearly 16 years and have always had the option of ethanol fuel. I have also only chosen to not use e10 a few times in my life. * i've said this before, but the ONLY time i have EVER had a fuel problem was when i was NOT using ethanol fuel. I had a fuel line freeze up in my loader tractor because there was no ethanol in the tank to emulsify the condensation that had been collecting.*
> 
> ...


I find this highly suspect. Since all I have heard and experienced is totally opposite. We had nothing BUT problems with separation and water in the fuel causing runnability issues when we were FORCED to go to e10. For almost 2 years I put up with non-running hand held equipment because of that crap. Switched back to regular gas back in May and my problems disappeared.

What you have stated is 100% opposite of what anyone else has said about ethanol. Apparently you're 1 in a million.


----------



## grandview (Oct 9, 2005)

Never mine. I'll keep going to my local gas station ,they give 5 cents off on Mondays.


----------



## blueline38 (Dec 22, 2007)

grandview;1529506 said:


> Never mine. I'll keep going to my local gas station ,they give 5 cents off on Mondays.


:laughing:

Like I said before. Fill up a couple of times with zero ethanol and make your own opinion. I don't care what any study says. I gained mileage and power and that is from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. No math, no physics and no studies, just miles on the pavement!

GOOD LUCK!!


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

dfd9;1529500 said:


> I find this highly suspect. Since all I have heard and experienced is totally opposite. We had nothing BUT problems with separation and water in the fuel causing runnability issues when we were FORCED to go to e10. For almost 2 years I put up with non-running hand held equipment because of that crap. Switched back to regular gas back in May and my problems disappeared.
> 
> What you have stated is 100% opposite of what anyone else has said about ethanol. Apparently you're 1 in a million.


now you know my frustration. I'm not one in a million, i'm one of millions. We've been using the stuff for 30 years around here ... no one thinks twice about it.

I think alot of the problems assoicated with ethanol fuel stem from not using it. The ethanol is an excelent solvent and it tends to pick up all the crap that regular gas leaves behind (varnish, mostly).

if you use it all the time, you wont have problems. if you use it sporatically, you will.

as i said ... chainsaw, mowers, massy-harris, cars trucks ...everything but the boat, but that's because i have it tuned for 91 octane. our premium around here does not have ethanol.


----------



## BigDBoots (Dec 24, 2008)

If you fellas did not know they can now produce gas with up to 15% ethanol..... http://opei.org/epa-decision-to-per...-risk-says-outdoor-power-equipment-institute/


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

there is a station here locally that sells e10, e15, e30 and e85 (they use a blender pump), but the e15 is labeled "legal for use in MY 2001 and new vehicles, only" .... the e20,30,85 is always labled "for FFV vehicles only"

that being said, i've know people at work who have used e30 in their non FFV vehicles with no ill effects. Generally speaking, there is not much of a mileage drop between e10 and e30, and the price at the pump is considerably lower, so e30 can offer some fuel savings when compared to e10 or e85.

e85 will usually reduce your fuel mileage by about 30 percent. so from an economics stand point at the pump, the price would have to be 30 percent lower to make it a push, and sometimes it is not. There are a few, like me, who think that a 30 percent reduction in fuel economy in trade for an 85 percent reduction in gasoline consumption is a trade worth not overlooking completely.

just a different way of looking at it.


----------



## Laszlo Almasi (Feb 11, 2006)

jasonv;1525642 said:


> Ethyl alcohol stores approximately 90% as much energy as pure gasoline. At a 10% blend, your blended fuel will store 99% as much energy as pure gasoline. At best, it will give you a fuel consumption loss of 1%. Power will be unaffected because the fuel injectors will provide marginally more fuel to compensate.
> 
> There are a lot of people misreporting that ethyl alcohol blended fuels will cause up to a 10% loss in fuel economy, but it is only true that WINTER gas will have this effect.


I say BFS!! From the research I did before, it takes approx 1.5 gallons of "ethanol enhanced" fuel (up to 10% ethanol) to give you the same power potential of straight gas.

BTU one gallon gas: 114,000
BTU one gallon ethanol: 76,100

Less BTUs...less power/heat output period.

By my own repeated tracking of fuel consumption (every tankful) I have seen an increase of 20% in my mpg since I started running ethanol free fuel. I run premium since I run a Superchip programmer as well. And the benefits of the absence of ethanol (since it a solvent) on your entire fuel system is all great! Cleaner fuel system, no deterioration of rubber, o-rings etc.

And you will hear about all the fuel providers offering cleaners and such and how good they work. Did you ever think back to the days before ethanol when they didn't really have to include cleaners and such? I'm not saying...I'm just saying...ya know?

Ethanol is not the cure-all by any means.

Just one source: http://www.hho4free.com/gasoline_vs_ethanol.htm

Reports also by the USDA indicate it actually requires more energy to manufacture one gallon of ethanol than one gallon of ethanol actually creates. So...there is a net loss. Good for the environment? I think not.

http://greatchange.org/bb-alcohol2.html

A quick search will give you the USDA link to their PDF for your viewing pleasure.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent 
"Ethanol and Fuels Like E851.5 gallons of ethanol has the same energy content as 1.0 gallon of gasoline.

The energy content of 1.0 US gallon of ethanol is 76,100 BTU, compared to 114,100 BTU for gasoline. (see chart above)

A flex-fuel vehicle may experience as much as 25% lower MPG when using E85 (85% ethanol) products. This is in part because the engine's compression ratio is fixed mechanically and electronic sensors can only modify the timing of the spark and/or instruct the fuel injection system to provide more of the reduced energy-content fuel.[citation needed]

A 2006 University of California Berkley study, after analyzing six separate studies, concluded that producing ethanol from corn uses much less petroleum than producing gasoline."

The above paragraph can explain why non-ethanol enhanced fuel cost more than ethanol enhanced.


----------



## Laszlo Almasi (Feb 11, 2006)

grandview;1529506 said:


> Never mine. I'll keep going to my local gas station ,they give 5 cents off on Mondays.


Hey grandview, just try it a couple of tanks and I think you will become a believer too.

I thought hard about it since non-e fuel was hard to find before but after I decided to bite the bullet and give it a try, I will run nothing but non-e since I've tried it.

And a lot of my customers on the boating end run non-e as well. It really does make that much of a difference.

Here is a link to my website with some info and a link to try and find non-e fuel providers in your area too: http://yourcooltoys.weebly.com/ethanol-101.html


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

something else i've always find funny is how people blame the lower fuel economy on the BTU content of e10. this arguement holds some weight, however, many states now using e10 were once using 10% MTBE as their oxygenate.

e10 contains about 112,000 btu/gal
gasoline with 10% MTBE contains about 112,000 btu/gal.

yet no one complained about MTBE ruining thier fuel mileage ... no one noticed because ALL the fuel in thier state contained MTBE, or so i presume.

only now, MTBE is gone, and we have e10 ... the BTU content is the same, yet people are irate at the lower fuel economy. your fuel economy is going to be the same on e10 as it was with the 10% MTBE, if we assume -- as many do -- that fuel economy is influenced heavily by BTU content.

also of note is that winter fuel contains about 112,000 BTU/gal ... 
the only gasoline fuel that contains more is un-altered regular unleaded.... which was not availble to many until they banned MTBE ... but now that we have something to compare to, "suddenly" we are losing fuel mileage to that ethanol stuff.

true too, is the fact that the less than optimal compression ratio kills economy. here's an idea, let's optimize an engine to run on e85, then cripple the timing so that it will accept regular unleaded. with a mechanical CR of about 14:1, e85 would be perfect, but to run gasoline you would have to have the ignition timing on the rear bumper. Let's compare fuel economy and see who's on top. Remember, gasoline engines now are optimized for unleaded gas at about 10:1 CR, which is BARELY acceptable for ethanol.... 

IMO, this is why e85 produces 30% less fuel economy. it is akin to running your gasoline engine on kerosene, then complaining that it gets poor economy. it has less to do with the pure BTU content of the fuel, and more to do with the adiabatic efficiency of the engine. higher CR, higher AE. increasing AE will garner more gains than pure BTU content.

Something else to keep in mind is the arguement that ethanol consumes more energy to produce than it contains is true, but only if you include the energy provided by the sun to grow the plant. while technically not "wrong" it is misleading at the very least .... why include the energy of a source with no cost unless there is a point to be made?


----------



## Laszlo Almasi (Feb 11, 2006)

I do not believe the sun's energy is calculated into the manufacturing process.

Conventional (straight gas with no ethanol) winter fuel contains 112k BTU. However, reformulated E85 (legal to sell as of 04-2012) winter fuel (aka ethanol enhanced) only has 81,800 BTU.

While you may be correct on the MTBE argument, I think that has taken the public a while to catch on to what has been going on with their economy much like it took a while for users to realize the negative impact of ethanol on their engines and fuel systems.

I also have to dispose of 5 times as much bad fuel from customers fuel systems since the introduction of ethanol.


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

Laszlo Almasi;1531750 said:


> I also have to dispose of 5 times as much bad fuel from customers fuel systems since the introduction of ethanol.


Impossible, just another case of improper usage.


----------



## Laszlo Almasi (Feb 11, 2006)

dfd9;1531753 said:


> Impossible, just another case of improper usage.


Not impossible at all. It seems the e10 starts to break down around 30 days or so. And it is not improper usage for a boat/pwc to go 30 days w/o being used.

I'll have to get 2-3 more 55 gallon drums for the expected fuel system cleanings I'll be doing in the spring. And it costs just to get rid of it too.


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

modern gas begins to break down within 30 days

this has nothing to do with the ethanol. the current formulations just don't keep as long. one should be using fuel stabilizer in anything that does not get frequent use, regardless of ethanol content.

i do ... have for years.

the only negative affect that ethanol has on automotive and small engine fuel systems is its uncanny ability to clean it. yet Seafoam and STP and BK make millions selling products to do the same.

truth in advertising, i left out marine. there are some marine fuel tanks which are reactive to ethanol, particularly those formed from certain types of fiberglass. those should be coated if ethanol is to be used.

i'm still on the fence on how much affect the hygroscopic nature of ethanol has on a marine fuel system. as i've said, the ole massy is sitting out in the snow right now, and has been sitting out with 5 gallons of e10 in the tank for the last 6 months or so (or whatever hasn't evaporated from the sun beating down on it), and i guarantee if i hit the starter it will fire without issues. I'm sure condensation has formed in the tank in the last 6 months, but with the alcohol in the fuel, the water has somewhere to go other than down the fuel line into the carb and eff stuff up in the process.

boats have water separators, which can be overcome by the water that the ethanol has been able to pull out of the air, or so i've heard anyway ... as i said, i'm still on the fence on this one.


----------



## Laszlo Almasi (Feb 11, 2006)

meborder;1532222 said:


> modern gas begins to break down within 30 days
> 
> this has nothing to do with the ethanol. the current formulations just don't keep as long. one should be using fuel stabilizer in anything that does not get frequent use, regardless of ethanol content.
> 
> ...


I'm starting to think that if I can get a couple of large glass jars (like the old pickle jars) and fill each with some of each fuel and see what happens over a period of time. What do you guys think?


----------



## Grassman09 (Mar 18, 2009)

meborder;1532222 said:


> .as i've said, the ole massy is sitting out in the snow right now, and has been sitting out with 5 gallons of e10 in the tank for the last 6 months or so (or whatever hasn't evaporated from the sun beating down on it), and i guarantee if i hit the starter it will fire without issues..


I'll bet it wont. I've got a sod cutter that has been sitting outside and not used in 2 month. I tried to start it yesterday and it wouldn't start. Any of my 2 cycle machines I make sure not to use Enhanced fuels. Most equipment dealers tell you not to use it also as it eats the fuel lines.


----------



## SVM1 (Sep 18, 2011)

meborder;1528720 said:


> a 5% increase in fuel consumption for using a fuel which contains 10% less gasoline results in a net reduction in gasoline consumption. this is a good thing.
> 
> You don't consider howmuch diesel and or gas is used in the production of the ethnol.
> I have heard that it takes up to 1.6 gal of diesel to produce 1 gal. of ethnol.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

SVM1;1533519 said:


> You don't consider howmuch diesel and or gas is used in the production of the ethnol.
> I have heard that it takes up to 1.6 gal of diesel to produce 1 gal. of ethnol.


Minor details, ignore them like the left. Chuck and Nancy think its good for the environment when they plug in their electric cars. Doesnt really matter where the electricity comes from.


----------



## bliz&hinikerDLR (Dec 30, 2011)

meborder ... you should spend some time in a small engine shop or at least talk to a mechanic from one. Phase separation is not a good thing, it is a real problem. The water/fuel mixture collects at the bottom of fuel cans and fuel tanks. It causes major corrosion in carburetors.
Phase separation also causes ethanol without oil to collect at the bottom of a fuel can because it is heavier than the gas/oil mixture. Similar to pouring gravy out of a separator cup, this "pure" ethanol can be poured right into a 2-cycle machine. Without the gas/oil mixture, the engine runs without lubrication and fails within minutes. *2-cycle fuel kept in a fuel can should always be shaken before pouring into a machine.* Most people are not aware of this and some do destroy their engines simply because they are naive.


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

bliz&hinikerDLR;1533773 said:


> meborder ... you should spend some time in a small engine shop or at least talk to a mechanic from one. Phase separation is not a good thing, it is a real problem. The water/fuel mixture collects at the bottom of fuel cans and fuel tanks. It causes major corrosion in carburetors.
> Phase separation also causes ethanol without oil to collect at the bottom of a fuel can because it is heavier than the gas/oil mixture. Similar to pouring gravy out of a separator cup, this "pure" ethanol can be poured right into a 2-cycle machine. Without the gas/oil mixture, the engine runs without lubrication and fails within minutes. *2-cycle fuel kept in a fuel can should always be shaken before pouring into a machine.* Most people are not aware of this and some do destroy their engines simply because they are naive.


Seems like a good idea to me. As he is the only one I have heard from that states ethanol is a good thing.


----------



## Laszlo Almasi (Feb 11, 2006)

dfd9;1534169 said:


> Seems like a good idea to me. As he is the only one I have heard from that states ethanol is a good thing.


I've been thinking he might be a corn farmer perhaps?


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

Grassman09;1532899 said:


> I'll bet it wont. I've got a sod cutter that has been sitting outside and not used in 2 month. I tried to start it yesterday and it wouldn't start. Any of my 2 cycle machines I make sure not to use Enhanced fuels. Most equipment dealers tell you not to use it also as it eats the fuel lines.


Had i been a lesser man, i would have had you put your money where your mouth is. but alas, that is not who i am.

That being said, i DO and WILL put my money where my mouth is, and as i said .... i GUARANTEE it will start. the fact that you have equipment that won't start has nothing to do with me or the rest of the world.

in what i'm sure is a nearly vain attempt to prove my point, i offer the following pictures and video.

#1: my loader tractor ... a 195x massy-harris with a du-al 225 loader. the envy of every "corn farmer" in the midwest. It's older than my dad, but it runs and moves snow and horse poop.









#2: the only way i can think of to show you that i didn't add any fuel to it before the video. and to show you the condition of the cap. trust me, it is far from being sealed. it usually stays on, but it does rattle loose once and a while, and if you get the tank too full the fuel will slosh out when you hit a bump.









#3: the sediment bowl. based on internet wisdom the ethanol in the fuel will have pulled so much water out of the atmostphere that there should be a large degree of phase separation. remember, the last time i put fuel in this was about 2 gallons (e10) 2 months ago when i parked as you see in the pics above. the last time before that was about 2 gallons (e10, same 5gallon can) 2 months before that.









looks homogenous to me. so, it is either all water, or all gas. if it is all water, it wont start. if it is all gas, then most of what you hear from your friends and read on the internet is subject to question (read: BS).

so .. who's right.... does it start or not. remember, its been sitting out side for at LEAST 4 months with no more than 5 gallons of gas added to it in that amount of time (e10, that's all i use).

I'll add only the following disclaimer: the tractor is 60 years old, and i parked it 2 months ago in hopes of pulling the starter to get it fixed. so the first two attempts at starting is the starter drive grinding on the flywheel. the third attempt the starter catches.

also, this has sat through about 2 rain storms and two snow storms ... internet wisdom says that i'm gonna be effed with so much water in the tank that it should float away.

click video link:

(yes, that's a cherry bomb, that's how i roll. and yes that's a lot of blue smoke. that's also why it was $1500 with the loader, less blue smoke means more money to buy)

No monkey buisness, no horseplay, no BS ... just the facts.

i only post this to make a couple points:
#1, dont believe everythign that everyone tells you or you read on the internet. lotsa people are just nay-sayers, and sometimes for no good reason. sometimes they make good points, like a few on here, but lots of times its just repeating what they heard or think they read.

#2, not everyone who supports ethanol is a farmer. my land costs me money, not makes me money. the tractor you see is the only one i have, and for farming it is WORTHLESS. if it wasnt, i wouldn't have it ... a farmer would.

#3, ethanol fuel is not a product to be scared of. it works fine in everything, even 60 year old equipment that should be using leaded fuel, and burns as much oil as gas.

#4, i probably have the $hittiest equipment on plowsite.

thanks for reading.

and for those of you who continue to have an open mind, thank you for that. 
to the rest ... whatever.


----------



## meborder (Oct 26, 2011)

bliz&hinikerDLR;1533773 said:


> meborder ... you should spend some time in a small engine shop or at least talk to a mechanic from one. Phase separation is not a good thing, it is a real problem. The water/fuel mixture collects at the bottom of fuel cans and fuel tanks. It causes major corrosion in carburetors.
> Phase separation also causes ethanol without oil to collect at the bottom of a fuel can because it is heavier than the gas/oil mixture. Similar to pouring gravy out of a separator cup, this "pure" ethanol can be poured right into a 2-cycle machine. Without the gas/oil mixture, the engine runs without lubrication and fails within minutes. *2-cycle fuel kept in a fuel can should always be shaken before pouring into a machine.* Most people are not aware of this and some do destroy their engines simply because they are naive.


i'm sorry, i was going to be done, and i hate myself just a little for posting again, but this warrents a comment, i think.

As i've said before, phase separation is bad, no doubt, but i've never had it happen under any condition what-so-ever (see above).

perhaps the ethanol makes the oil separate out of the fuel quicker? could be .. I don't know.

but are we to blame the ethanol for people not shaking their pre-mix? to me, that's a user problem. seriously ... who doesn't shake their pre-mix??!?!?

I, too, have heard that some small engine equipment have had problems with ethanol fuel, mainly fuel lines. again, i've never had it happen. my chain saw, may father-in-law's chain saws, and 20 year old augar drink the stuff with out problems. but i would ask thisthe following: 
#1 If you buy a new piece of equipment that is not safe for e10, isn't that the manufacturer's fault? 
#2 If you have old equipment and are using e10, and have a problem, is it the ethanol's fault, or the loose screw that used it without making sure it was compatable? Diesel wouldnt be the approved fuel either, is it the diesel's fault that you have problems if you use that instead?

i'm sorry, but you know you are using it, if you think there is going to be a problem, then you have some degree of responsibility to mitigate it.

in reality, if you have newer equipment, or have had any fuel system work done to your older equipment, you are not likely to have an issue with e10.


----------



## bliz&hinikerDLR (Dec 30, 2011)

> I, too, have heard that some small engine equipment have had problems with ethanol fuel, mainly fuel lines. again, i've never had it happen. my chain saw, may father-in-law's chain saws, and 20 year old augar drink the stuff with out problems. but i would ask thisthe following:
> #1 If you buy a new piece of equipment that is not safe for e10, isn't that the manufacturer's fault? I'm pretty sure it is a Federal Law that they must be safe for E10
> #2 If you have old equipment and are using e10, and have a problem, is it the ethanol's fault, or the loose screw that used it without making sure it was compatable? Diesel wouldnt be the approved fuel either, is it the diesel's fault that you have problems if you use that instead? Many of the "loose screws" you are referring to are senior citizens who are still buying gas from the same pump they did ten years ago. No one told them that the fuel from that pump has changed and the little white sign that says "May contain up to 10% ethanol" is awfully hard to notice.
> 
> ...


I appologize to grandview for being so far off subject. My 97 GM 350 gets no ethanol fuel. My '03 Dodge Flex Fuel van gets E10 (not E85). Economy/performance difference is noticeable on the GM. No difference in E10 vs. No ethanol in van.


----------

