87 vs 89 E10
- Thread starter Mach1Owner
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The problem with it attracting water is once it has absorbed so much then it separates from the gasoline and just sits there at the low spot. No amount of extra alcohol will make it mix up again.
There are other types of water removers. Red Line has one that doesn't use alcohols. They claim that it can neutralize the effects of water equivalent to the volume of the additive, and it also contains a lubricant. Once I found it for $1.95 a bottle.
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=81&pcid=12
I remember Red Line used to claim that SI-1 would also help remove a certain amount of water.
The problem with it attracting water is once it has absorbed so much then it separates from the gasoline and just sits there at the low spot. No amount of extra alcohol will make it mix up again.
There are other types of water removers. Red Line has one that doesn't use alcohols. They claim that it can neutralize the effects of water equivalent to the volume of the additive, and it also contains a lubricant. Once I found it for $1.95 a bottle.
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=81&pcid=12
I remember Red Line used to claim that SI-1 would also help remove a certain amount of water.
Originally Posted By: Mach1Owner
Hi guys.
Looking around online I have been seeing many people saying that when they run 89 in their 87 recommended car they are noticing 1.5-2 MPG better. Is there any basis for this? The only thing that I can think of would be that the knock sensor has to work less often.
I have also heard (may not be true) that 87 E10 is really 84 E0 with 10% E added, and that 89 E10 is 87 E0 with 10% E added, so the 89 E10 really has a better base fuel.
Any opinions? I do a LOT of driving for work, so even 1.5-2MPG would be enough for me to want to change, depending on the fuel costs at the time.
There isn't a benefit to running a higher octane of gasoline than specified in your owner's manual unless you are experiencing fuel-related pinging. This issue is often alleviated by using higher grade gas but means there is an underlying fuel system issue that needs to be addressed.
Hi guys.
Looking around online I have been seeing many people saying that when they run 89 in their 87 recommended car they are noticing 1.5-2 MPG better. Is there any basis for this? The only thing that I can think of would be that the knock sensor has to work less often.
I have also heard (may not be true) that 87 E10 is really 84 E0 with 10% E added, and that 89 E10 is 87 E0 with 10% E added, so the 89 E10 really has a better base fuel.
Any opinions? I do a LOT of driving for work, so even 1.5-2MPG would be enough for me to want to change, depending on the fuel costs at the time.
There isn't a benefit to running a higher octane of gasoline than specified in your owner's manual unless you are experiencing fuel-related pinging. This issue is often alleviated by using higher grade gas but means there is an underlying fuel system issue that needs to be addressed.
Originally Posted By: volk06
The first part, you will not notice much difference in gas mileage from 87 to 89. You will notice a difference if one of those is E0.
You are correct about 87 with ethanol actually being 84 octane plus ethanol to make 87 and the same with 89. The base fuel will have more energy content but not enough to make much of a noticeable difference on most vehicles.
Now depending on the vehicle, you will see 1.5-2mpg gain when going from E10 to E0
Agreed.
Here the premium is not ethanol polluted but the regular is. To get mid-grade its blended at the pump which make the ethanol content 5%.
I have proven repeatably that my charger gets better mileage using premium with a noticeable bump in bottom end torque which means I'm lighter on the pedal which affects fuel consumption as well.
I will get 3-5mpg better using premium. I think the combination of pure gas and the power bump keeps me lighter on the throttle which also contributes to the improvement.
Originally Posted By: Mach1Owner
My car was dyno tuned on 94, so I get it when I find it. The fuel economy on 91/92 is noticeably worse than 93 is and 94 was just fine.
If you've got an 03/04 Mach the engine is 10-1 compression and has knock sensors. I just installed a 4v into my 2000 gt.
So as far as how the car runs there shouldn't be a perceptible difference unless your tuner disabled your knock sensors,which makes him an idiot.
If you want more octane use either acetone,toluene or xylene. Any of those are 120 octane and a gallon should help out. I've used them to get over 100 octane for the track spraying a 175 shot. Works great to boost octane.
The first part, you will not notice much difference in gas mileage from 87 to 89. You will notice a difference if one of those is E0.
You are correct about 87 with ethanol actually being 84 octane plus ethanol to make 87 and the same with 89. The base fuel will have more energy content but not enough to make much of a noticeable difference on most vehicles.
Now depending on the vehicle, you will see 1.5-2mpg gain when going from E10 to E0
Agreed.
Here the premium is not ethanol polluted but the regular is. To get mid-grade its blended at the pump which make the ethanol content 5%.
I have proven repeatably that my charger gets better mileage using premium with a noticeable bump in bottom end torque which means I'm lighter on the pedal which affects fuel consumption as well.
I will get 3-5mpg better using premium. I think the combination of pure gas and the power bump keeps me lighter on the throttle which also contributes to the improvement.
Originally Posted By: Mach1Owner
My car was dyno tuned on 94, so I get it when I find it. The fuel economy on 91/92 is noticeably worse than 93 is and 94 was just fine.
If you've got an 03/04 Mach the engine is 10-1 compression and has knock sensors. I just installed a 4v into my 2000 gt.
So as far as how the car runs there shouldn't be a perceptible difference unless your tuner disabled your knock sensors,which makes him an idiot.
If you want more octane use either acetone,toluene or xylene. Any of those are 120 octane and a gallon should help out. I've used them to get over 100 octane for the track spraying a 175 shot. Works great to boost octane.
Originally Posted By: mclasser
Originally Posted By: Mach1Owner
Hi guys.
Looking around online I have been seeing many people saying that when they run 89 in their 87 recommended car they are noticing 1.5-2 MPG better. Is there any basis for this? The only thing that I can think of would be that the knock sensor has to work less often.
I have also heard (may not be true) that 87 E10 is really 84 E0 with 10% E added, and that 89 E10 is 87 E0 with 10% E added, so the 89 E10 really has a better base fuel.
Any opinions? I do a LOT of driving for work, so even 1.5-2MPG would be enough for me to want to change, depending on the fuel costs at the time.
There isn't a benefit to running a higher octane of gasoline than specified in your owner's manual unless you are experiencing fuel-related pinging. This issue is often alleviated by using higher grade gas but means there is an underlying fuel system issue that needs to be addressed.
There are some allegations that even some stock engines might say a certain rating is recommended, but that they can take advantage of even higher than that by advancing the timing. I think the highest that might be recommended is 93 AKI, but it is possible to get even higher octane such as 94 or something blending in 100 octane race fuel.
My parents have a 2001 Camry V6. That's an interesting case. Most people driving that kind of car would probably expect to use regular and do. However, the owners manual says that 91 is recommend for better performance, but that 87 is OK. Now my cars sold as performance models say to please use 91, but that 87 in a pinch won't destroy the engine.
Originally Posted By: Mach1Owner
Hi guys.
Looking around online I have been seeing many people saying that when they run 89 in their 87 recommended car they are noticing 1.5-2 MPG better. Is there any basis for this? The only thing that I can think of would be that the knock sensor has to work less often.
I have also heard (may not be true) that 87 E10 is really 84 E0 with 10% E added, and that 89 E10 is 87 E0 with 10% E added, so the 89 E10 really has a better base fuel.
Any opinions? I do a LOT of driving for work, so even 1.5-2MPG would be enough for me to want to change, depending on the fuel costs at the time.
There isn't a benefit to running a higher octane of gasoline than specified in your owner's manual unless you are experiencing fuel-related pinging. This issue is often alleviated by using higher grade gas but means there is an underlying fuel system issue that needs to be addressed.
There are some allegations that even some stock engines might say a certain rating is recommended, but that they can take advantage of even higher than that by advancing the timing. I think the highest that might be recommended is 93 AKI, but it is possible to get even higher octane such as 94 or something blending in 100 octane race fuel.
My parents have a 2001 Camry V6. That's an interesting case. Most people driving that kind of car would probably expect to use regular and do. However, the owners manual says that 91 is recommend for better performance, but that 87 is OK. Now my cars sold as performance models say to please use 91, but that 87 in a pinch won't destroy the engine.
After owning our Sonata for 70k miles and keeping track of MPG's per tank, the car does a little better on 89. Not quite 1MPG, but it's close.
That certainly doesn't justify paying $.20 - $.25 more a gallon, so I don't normally go up.
That certainly doesn't justify paying $.20 - $.25 more a gallon, so I don't normally go up.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The problem with it attracting water is once it has absorbed so much then it separates from the gasoline and just sits there at the low spot. No amount of extra alcohol will make it mix up again.
Well even if that happened, it is going to get sucked up the pipe eventually. Either way, this all is a non issue. I have used E10 and E85 well in double digit below zero weather with nary an issue. And it has been that way every winter since I started using E10 in the late 70's. I have had not one fuel system related issue in all those years, with carb, throttle body injection, port injection, and direct injection engines. If that water absorption thing was such an issue, you would think it would have shown up sometime in the last 35 years of me using the stuff.
And it will sure mix up in my pickup, if what you say about separation is true. Going thru cornfields and pastures will mix up everything in that fuel tank, so it is going to get drawn up the pipe.
The problem with it attracting water is once it has absorbed so much then it separates from the gasoline and just sits there at the low spot. No amount of extra alcohol will make it mix up again.
Well even if that happened, it is going to get sucked up the pipe eventually. Either way, this all is a non issue. I have used E10 and E85 well in double digit below zero weather with nary an issue. And it has been that way every winter since I started using E10 in the late 70's. I have had not one fuel system related issue in all those years, with carb, throttle body injection, port injection, and direct injection engines. If that water absorption thing was such an issue, you would think it would have shown up sometime in the last 35 years of me using the stuff.
And it will sure mix up in my pickup, if what you say about separation is true. Going thru cornfields and pastures will mix up everything in that fuel tank, so it is going to get drawn up the pipe.
My problem is in small engines that are seldom used. Especially B&S with the small fuel well on top of the fuel tank. The water separates and no amount of whatever will fix it so the thing will run. I've even tried straight denatured ethanol. You have to take the whole linkage and tank apart to clean it out. Major PITA.
Never had a problem in my cars. Been using e10 since the 70's.
But the farmer up the road is always complaining. They buy in bulk and it is collecting water at the bottom of the tank, it's ironic as they are corn farmers.
One way to get the alcohol out of the gas is to dose it with a water over load. Then skim off the pure gas from the top of the mix.
Never had a problem in my cars. Been using e10 since the 70's.
But the farmer up the road is always complaining. They buy in bulk and it is collecting water at the bottom of the tank, it's ironic as they are corn farmers.
One way to get the alcohol out of the gas is to dose it with a water over load. Then skim off the pure gas from the top of the mix.
Well, as another corn farmer, I have never had any ethanol related issues since started using it in the 70's.
And whether his corn or mine is ever used in ethanol production is not a high probability. Of the entire corn production in the U.S. 20% goes into human food supply. Of the 80% left, only 40% goes into ethanol production, and even then, the dried distillers grain that comes out the other end is a high quality livestock feed supplement. I haul a LOT of feed supplement made from DDG.
And whether his corn or mine is ever used in ethanol production is not a high probability. Of the entire corn production in the U.S. 20% goes into human food supply. Of the 80% left, only 40% goes into ethanol production, and even then, the dried distillers grain that comes out the other end is a high quality livestock feed supplement. I haul a LOT of feed supplement made from DDG.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, as another corn farmer, I have never had any ethanol related issues since started using it in the 70's.
And whether his corn or mine is ever used in ethanol production is not a high probability. Of the entire corn production in the U.S. 20% goes into human food supply. Of the 80% left, only 40% goes into ethanol production, and even then, the dried distillers grain that comes out the other end is a high quality livestock feed supplement. I haul a LOT of feed supplement made from DDG.
Do you have a 500 gallon bulk tank you use for the E10 gasoline? It tears up the plastic fuel lines in 2 cycle motors too.
Well, as another corn farmer, I have never had any ethanol related issues since started using it in the 70's.
And whether his corn or mine is ever used in ethanol production is not a high probability. Of the entire corn production in the U.S. 20% goes into human food supply. Of the 80% left, only 40% goes into ethanol production, and even then, the dried distillers grain that comes out the other end is a high quality livestock feed supplement. I haul a LOT of feed supplement made from DDG.
Do you have a 500 gallon bulk tank you use for the E10 gasoline? It tears up the plastic fuel lines in 2 cycle motors too.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, as another corn farmer, I have never had any ethanol related issues since started using it in the 70's.
And whether his corn or mine is ever used in ethanol production is not a high probability. Of the entire corn production in the U.S. 20% goes into human food supply. Of the 80% left, only 40% goes into ethanol production, and even then, the dried distillers grain that comes out the other end is a high quality livestock feed supplement. I haul a LOT of feed supplement made from DDG.
Sugar cane in a an ideal tropical climate like Brazil is the most efficient means of making ethanol. They switched to mostly 100% ethanol vehicles years ago. Sugar cane doesn't need fertilizer or pesticides and produces considerably more ethanol per acre than Midwest corn. Of course the location of the US is what keeps it down. Even where sugar cane is grown (Florida and Louisana) it's nowhere near as productive as cane in Brazil. Hawaii is about as good a climate, but sugar cane production there is almost nonexistent these days except for a few speciality growers.
Well, as another corn farmer, I have never had any ethanol related issues since started using it in the 70's.
And whether his corn or mine is ever used in ethanol production is not a high probability. Of the entire corn production in the U.S. 20% goes into human food supply. Of the 80% left, only 40% goes into ethanol production, and even then, the dried distillers grain that comes out the other end is a high quality livestock feed supplement. I haul a LOT of feed supplement made from DDG.
Sugar cane in a an ideal tropical climate like Brazil is the most efficient means of making ethanol. They switched to mostly 100% ethanol vehicles years ago. Sugar cane doesn't need fertilizer or pesticides and produces considerably more ethanol per acre than Midwest corn. Of course the location of the US is what keeps it down. Even where sugar cane is grown (Florida and Louisana) it's nowhere near as productive as cane in Brazil. Hawaii is about as good a climate, but sugar cane production there is almost nonexistent these days except for a few speciality growers.
You left out sugar beets, which are easily grown throughout much of the U.S. This is about as equal with sugar cane as one can get.
Still have not figured out why they haven't taken the ethanol production thing a step further, and moved on to butanol. It contains more energy per volume than ethanol, almost as much as gasoline. It can be burned in ALL gasoline engines at 85% level with no modification, and it can be run thru existing pipelines unlike ethanol. It is only one step more in ethanol production to get butanol. Even then, it would not be the cure all for everything, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Still have not figured out why they haven't taken the ethanol production thing a step further, and moved on to butanol. It contains more energy per volume than ethanol, almost as much as gasoline. It can be burned in ALL gasoline engines at 85% level with no modification, and it can be run thru existing pipelines unlike ethanol. It is only one step more in ethanol production to get butanol. Even then, it would not be the cure all for everything, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked