10% ethanol in your gasoline

[mmmikkke]

If you've been following the news, our politicians in Washington are spinning the ethanol debate. Some on one side of the debate claim that they can just add ethanol to gasoline, and stretch our existing supplies, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and somehow magically that ethanol can be produced with no other costs to our economy.

 

To launch the debate here in this forum, consider this: The energy content per gallon of ethanol is only about 70% of the energy content of conventional gasoline, as supported by these EPA fuel economy figures:

 

Dodge Stratus four-door, 2.7 liter v-6 and automatic transmission: E85, 15 mpg city, 20 mpg highway; Gasoline, 21 mpg city, 28 mpg highway.

 

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2 Wd; auto transmission 5.3 liter v-8: E85, 11 mpg city, 14 mpg highway; Gasoline, 15 mpg city, 19 highway.

 

Ford Explorer 2 WD 4.0 liter v-6 and automatic transmission: E85, 12 mpg city, 16 mpg highway. Gasoline: 16 mpg city, 21 mpg highway.

 

So if the ethanol lobby wins, and suddenly we have no choice but to have 10% ethanol in our gasoline, our fuel economy has to drop, because the energy content per gallon will drop by a few percentage points. And the total torque and horsepower available from our gasoline-powered trucks will drop as well...

 

Any thoughts?

[jalanzrr]

Factory superchargers or turbos!!!

[gave20]

I would imagine if Ethanol becomes a mainstay manufacturer's will be able to teak engines for max performance on E85. In reguards to the fuel economy decreasing, the air emissions won't increase because E85 is cleaner than 87 and oil consumption won't increase because it's a blend of ethanol and gas. On a side note, I work for USDA and congress mandated that so many percent of the gov. fleet be energy efficient, E85 engines, the problem is the nearest place to obtain E85 fuel is in Columbus, A.K.A the CORN BELT, I work in Pittsburgh doesn't make much sense, but at least it looks good on paper. All so some shummuck congressman can run on the enviro ticket to get reelected.

[ctfan]

Here is Iowa, our 89 octance has ethonal in it. It is actually 10 cents cheaper than 87 octance. I have always ran it in my trucks since I started driving 4 years ago. I have never had any problems with it in either my 01HD or my 80K-10. In the 80, I noticed slgihtly beter gas milage running it on 87, but that was about it. The engines run fine on it in all of our vehicles.

 

William

[Jpshostr]

All for it.

[MCourson]

 

and remember that E85 you are comparing the gasoline to is 85% ethanol, so when only using 10% the mileage hit wont be nearly as bad.

[mmmikkke]

One mind-numbing reporter reports that fuel costs can be expected to drop by 8 cents per gallon once 10% ethanol has been added. But they abborogated their journalistic responsibility by implying that either gallon--the 100% gasoline gallon, and the 90% gasoline gallon--will take you the same distance.

 

That's what the average reader will assume.

 

And it's incorrect.

 

Fuel economy can be expected to drop by about the same 4% that they're claiming in reduced price.

 

Burns cleaner?? I suspect this is another misrepresentation. Burns cleaner in neglected and incompetently maintained vehicles, probably. But who needs *that* detail, it doesn't fit the spin. Probably no difference in properly maintained modern computer controlled engines.

 

Anybody know from first-hand lab experience?

[MCourson]

Burns cleaner??  I suspect this is another misrepresentation.  Burns cleaner in neglected and incompetently maintained vehicles, probably.  But who needs *that* detail, it doesn't fit the spin.  Probably no difference in properly maintained modern computer controlled engines.

 

Anybody know from first-hand lab experience?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I dont have proof of how it burns, but do you have any proof for that claim you just made?

[mmmikkke]

Burns cleaner??  I suspect this is another misrepresentation.  Burns cleaner in neglected and incompetently maintained vehicles, probably.  But who needs *that* detail, it doesn't fit the spin.  Probably no difference in properly maintained modern computer controlled engines.

 

Anybody know from first-hand lab experience?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I dont have proof of how it burns, but do you have any proof for that claim you just made?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I think you need to reread my post. I made no claim. I dared to offer a conflicting premise and asked for corroboration from a lab technician who might actually know.

 

Spread your cynicism evenly, not just as the news media suggests. They've proven their incompetence.

[MCourson]

I made no claim.

 

 

I suspect this is another misrepresentation.  Burns cleaner in neglected and incompetently maintained vehicles, probably.  But who needs *that* detail, it doesn't fit the spin.  Probably no difference in properly maintained modern computer controlled engines.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Im confused...

[mmmikkke]

I made no claim.

 

 

I suspect this is another misrepresentation.  Burns cleaner in neglected and incompetently maintained vehicles, probably.  But who needs *that* detail, it doesn't fit the spin.  Probably no difference in properly maintained modern computer controlled engines.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Im confused...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

But you're good at spinning. That's why you left out my "Anybody know who works in a lab?"

 

Are you in the news media?

[MCourson]

Just trying to counter-act your spin....

 

If you are so concerned about "Anybody know who works in a lab", where is your scientific proof ethanol is the devil?

[mmmikkke]

If I remember correctly, about 100 posts back, I asked if an engineer or lab technician could provide first-hand information about this so-called cleaner-burning ethanol's emissions performance in modern computer-controlled engines. I'm still hoping for a response.

[OnBelay]

Let me give you a clear perspective:

 

The figures given for decreased efficiency are for E85. This is NOT the same as the 10 ethanol gasoline the post purports to discuss in the title. E85 is 85% methanol, and the legislation is for 10% ethanol.

 

I drive an average of 1800 miles per week in my job as a sales rep with a large territory to cover. I burn the 10% ethanol for all of this, as well as my personal vehicle use on the weekends and evenings. The 10% ethanol at 89 octane is generally 5-10 cents less per gallon than the 85 octane, not ethanol. This 10% ethanol fuel increases my mileage by approximately 2 mpg, allows me to go longer between plug changes (yes-it burns cleaner) , and helps the economy of the midwest where I live, and the corn for the ethanol is grown.

 

Since I work in the automotive industry, I am in mechanical repair shops all day every day. The only vehicles that have problems with burning ethanol are also vehicles which do not have hardened valve seals, generally those built before 1982. The leaded gasoline burners (built before 1982) have problems because the ethanol cleans the lacquer-like buildup out of the tank and the crap from the tank will gum up the carburetors, something else newer vehicles don't have.

 

None of this information comes from a "lab", but comes from the real world-my life, where I am talking with mechanics for most of the work day, every day.

 

Additionally, it is all my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions and a$$holes-everybody's got one, and they all stink.

[MCourson]

If I remember correctly, about 100 posts back, I asked if an engineer or lab technician could provide first-hand information about this so-called cleaner-burning ethanol's emissions performance in modern computer-controlled engines.  I'm still hoping for a response.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_envir.html

 

Google is your friend.

 

But since on this simple truck forum there probably is not a scientist with expertise in this exact field I doubt you will accept this.