If you had a choice between these two fuels...

[GT Mike]

Which would you run in your car (assuming it's 87 octane friendly)?

87 octane regular unleaded without ethanol

or

89 octane mid-grade with 10% ethanol

By me they're the same price, and I get nearly equal performance, MPG, and the same amount of knock (Knock Retard when I'm scanning) no matter which one I choose.

Ethanol seems to be a very poor booster of real world anti-knock ability, since the amount of KR I see on the scanner on 91 octane with ethanol is only slightly lower than on 87 non-ethanol. 89 non-ethanol is a better KR fighter than the 91 with ethanol.

Since there's really nothing different about either one, what's there really to gain other than a (possible) reduction in emissions, and support of local farmers?

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Mike:

Since there's really nothing different about either one, what's there really to gain other than a (possible) reduction in emissions, and support of local farmers?

---

You are also indirectly supporting a bunch of Congress Critters that the agri-corps bribe...er, lobby. Makes you feel downright patriotic, doesn't it?

If alcohol is a viable cost effective fuel, then it should be burned as afuel in stationary power plants that could easily be adapted to it. But that won't happen, because it isn't. It's easier to foist it off onto the motoring public.

 

[T-Keith]

I'd take the non ethanol, even at the same price. The fact is that your paying to subsidize the ethanol, so in reality you'd be paying less if no one bought it.

-T

 

[MAJA]

First thing I would do is make sure that ethanol is compatible with my vehicles' seals and gaskets. Then, knowing that, I would still not go with the ethanol. I try not to support subsidation, even when it helps a fellow farmer. The input to produce one gallon of ethanol is too close to the output, currently. When it becomes more cost effective, with no compatibility problems, then I would use it.

 

[Whimsey]

I'm in NJ so there isn't much ethanol gasoline here yet. However since they are phasing out MTBE it's only a matter of time. But the times I have used it I notice a lack of performance and my gas mileage is less. I'd stick with the non-ethanol gas myself. The best performance and gas mileage I get is when I'm traveling away from the areas that have the reformulated gas. Reformulated gasoline with today's computer controlled fuel injected engines makes no sense. With carburetor vehicles it was beneficial. And the use of ethanol is just us subsidizing the large scale corn producers, such as ADM. Look at is as a tax. Instead of the government taxing us and giving ADM the money we just give ADM the money directly

.

Whimsey

 

[shortyb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whimsey:
And the use of ethanol is just us subsidizing the large scale corn producers, such as ADM. Look at is as a tax. Instead of the government taxing us and giving ADM the money we just give ADM the money directly

.

Whimsey

---

BINGO! I'd use the non-ethanol formulation, still not convinced of all the "benefits" and have heard too much about the system compatibility problems.

 

[T-Keith]

Buy the non-ethanol gas while you still can, some of us don't have a choice.


-T

 

[tmorris1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAJA:
First thing I would do is make sure that ethanol is compatible with my vehicles' seals and gaskets. Then, knowing that, I would still not go with the ethanol. I try not to support subsidation, even when it helps a fellow farmer. The input to produce one gallon of ethanol is too close to the output, currently. When it becomes more cost effective, with no compatibility problems, then I would use it.

---

I agree with the subsidation stuff, but any vehicle made in the last 10-15 years is compatible with ethanol. We have had only ethanol in MN for approx. the last 10 years and I don't see cars with lots of fuel problems around here.

 

[crashz]

After seeing what MBTE does to groundwater, I'm glad to see the use of ethanol. Unfortunately environmental concerns are the only strength it has. Its really a lousey additive. Anything that decreases fuel mileage and performance is contradicting its benefits of reduced emissions.

 

[n8wvi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz:
Unfortunately environmental concerns are the only strength it has.

---

I'm not even sure that's true, if I understand correctly, it takes more energy to make the ethanol than it creates. I know, "but the corn grows in the fields from 'free' solar energy!" Yeah, but how much energy did the farmer use to care for and harvest it. To 'retrieve' it, transport it? Now how much energy did the processor use in the corn -> ethanol process. Add all that up and it's more than the amount of energy in the ethanol that you just made.

Besides all the political stuff, there is less energy per unit volume in alcohol than in 'real' gasoline. Period.

Dave