I've done some reading and the material offers conflicting opinion on which is better. There are some stations in my areao that sell pure gasoline, albeit at a higher price.
Does it matter whether E10 vs pure gasoline?
- Thread starter teddyboy
- Start date
- Status
Are they putting anything else in the gas if there is no alcohol? MTBE use to be used. Normally there is something that acts as an oxygenate. At least in the winter.
Some states do not require stations to post if its E10 or not.
Some states do not require stations to post if its E10 or not.
I carefully measured mileage last year on a cross-country trip and achieved at least a 10% improvement in mileage with 100% gasoline, never mind the arguments about gasket life.
No big deal, IMHO. CT has been using ethanol as an oxygenate long before it crashed onto the alternate fuels stage.
Too many people put too much emotional energy into disliking it.
Too many people put too much emotional energy into disliking it.
Last edited:
Carefully read the regulations for your state or region. The station does not need to distinguish E10 if it meets standards. E10 may be advertised as "100% gasoline" with no risk.
The major effect of E10 is to act as "filler" for the gasoline. This results in much lower hydrocarbon emissions for non-closed-loop engines (e.g. carburetor engine) that are set to run slightly rich.
Today the vast majority of cars have closed-loop engine control and just compensate for the lower energy fuel by increasing the injected quantity. And the few carburetor engines have long been re-tuned to run slightly rich with E10. So there is no beneficial effect.
But that doesn't matter. The formulas for estimating pollution reduction were set in stone years ago. Changing them to reflect today's reality would make all of the past measurements and improvement metrics irrelevant. It would also raise questions about the massive expense involved with switching to E10.
The major effect of E10 is to act as "filler" for the gasoline. This results in much lower hydrocarbon emissions for non-closed-loop engines (e.g. carburetor engine) that are set to run slightly rich.
Today the vast majority of cars have closed-loop engine control and just compensate for the lower energy fuel by increasing the injected quantity. And the few carburetor engines have long been re-tuned to run slightly rich with E10. So there is no beneficial effect.
But that doesn't matter. The formulas for estimating pollution reduction were set in stone years ago. Changing them to reflect today's reality would make all of the past measurements and improvement metrics irrelevant. It would also raise questions about the massive expense involved with switching to E10.
Originally Posted By: djb
Carefully read the regulations for your state or region. The station does not need to distinguish E10 if it meets standards. E10 may be advertised as "100% gasoline" with no risk.
The major effect of E10 is to act as "filler" for the gasoline. This results in much lower hydrocarbon emissions for non-closed-loop engines (e.g. carburetor engine) that are set to run slightly rich.
Today the vast majority of cars have closed-loop engine control and just compensate for the lower energy fuel by increasing the injected quantity. And the few carburetor engines have long been re-tuned to run slightly rich with E10. So there is no beneficial effect.
But that doesn't matter. The formulas for estimating pollution reduction were set in stone years ago. Changing them to reflect today's reality would make all of the past measurements and improvement metrics irrelevant. It would also raise questions about the massive expense involved with switching to E10.
That about sums it up.
Carefully read the regulations for your state or region. The station does not need to distinguish E10 if it meets standards. E10 may be advertised as "100% gasoline" with no risk.
The major effect of E10 is to act as "filler" for the gasoline. This results in much lower hydrocarbon emissions for non-closed-loop engines (e.g. carburetor engine) that are set to run slightly rich.
Today the vast majority of cars have closed-loop engine control and just compensate for the lower energy fuel by increasing the injected quantity. And the few carburetor engines have long been re-tuned to run slightly rich with E10. So there is no beneficial effect.
But that doesn't matter. The formulas for estimating pollution reduction were set in stone years ago. Changing them to reflect today's reality would make all of the past measurements and improvement metrics irrelevant. It would also raise questions about the massive expense involved with switching to E10.
That about sums it up.
Originally Posted By: djb
Carefully read the regulations for your state or region. The station does not need to distinguish E10 if it meets standards. E10 may be advertised as "100% gasoline" with no risk.
The major effect of E10 is to act as "filler" for the gasoline. This results in much lower hydrocarbon emissions for non-closed-loop engines (e.g. carburetor engine) that are set to run slightly rich.
Today the vast majority of cars have closed-loop engine control and just compensate for the lower energy fuel by increasing the injected quantity. And the few carburetor engines have long been re-tuned to run slightly rich with E10. So there is no beneficial effect.
But that doesn't matter. The formulas for estimating pollution reduction were set in stone years ago. Changing them to reflect today's reality would make all of the past measurements and improvement metrics irrelevant. It would also raise questions about the massive expense involved with switching to E10.
The overwhelming majority of statisons in NC have labels on the pumps indicating that the gasoline contains up to 10 ethanol. The stations that are claiming pure gasoline have stickers indicating that the gasoline is ethanol free. I would guess that the stations advertising this really are ethanol free. Moreover, the stations in question are listed on pure-gas.org.
Carefully read the regulations for your state or region. The station does not need to distinguish E10 if it meets standards. E10 may be advertised as "100% gasoline" with no risk.
The major effect of E10 is to act as "filler" for the gasoline. This results in much lower hydrocarbon emissions for non-closed-loop engines (e.g. carburetor engine) that are set to run slightly rich.
Today the vast majority of cars have closed-loop engine control and just compensate for the lower energy fuel by increasing the injected quantity. And the few carburetor engines have long been re-tuned to run slightly rich with E10. So there is no beneficial effect.
But that doesn't matter. The formulas for estimating pollution reduction were set in stone years ago. Changing them to reflect today's reality would make all of the past measurements and improvement metrics irrelevant. It would also raise questions about the massive expense involved with switching to E10.
The overwhelming majority of statisons in NC have labels on the pumps indicating that the gasoline contains up to 10 ethanol. The stations that are claiming pure gasoline have stickers indicating that the gasoline is ethanol free. I would guess that the stations advertising this really are ethanol free. Moreover, the stations in question are listed on pure-gas.org.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
No big deal, IMHO. CT has been using ethanol as an oxygenate long before it crashed onto the alternate fuels stage.
Too many people put too much emotional energy into disliking it.
My problem is that we are using corn to make it. There are other products that can be used. Because we use so much corn to make the alcohol, we export less. Some other countries have cut down sections of the rain forest to make fields to grow corn.
MTBE is still being used in Europe (I think) and it may not have been as bad as was thought. MTBE was made from natural gas.
Al Gore now says he was duped on E10. It takes more energy to make the alcohol than you get out of it.
No big deal, IMHO. CT has been using ethanol as an oxygenate long before it crashed onto the alternate fuels stage.
Too many people put too much emotional energy into disliking it.
My problem is that we are using corn to make it. There are other products that can be used. Because we use so much corn to make the alcohol, we export less. Some other countries have cut down sections of the rain forest to make fields to grow corn.
MTBE is still being used in Europe (I think) and it may not have been as bad as was thought. MTBE was made from natural gas.
Al Gore now says he was duped on E10. It takes more energy to make the alcohol than you get out of it.
Pure gas gets you more MPGs, so do the math if its saving you money or not to spend more.
Beyond that its all heresay. A lot of people here will shout how evil ethanol is and tout a ton of rediculous political reasons against it and make you feel stupid for using it, but whatever, if it is cheaper go for it.
Beyond that its all heresay. A lot of people here will shout how evil ethanol is and tout a ton of rediculous political reasons against it and make you feel stupid for using it, but whatever, if it is cheaper go for it.
Originally Posted By: ag_ghost
I carefully measured mileage last year on a cross-country trip and achieved at least a 10% improvement in mileage with 100% gasoline, never mind the arguments about gasket life.
So the 10% ethanol in E10 has no energy content at all? You'd get as far with 9 gallons of gasoline as with 9 gallons of gas + 1 gallon of ethanol? In a car engineered for E10?
I carefully measured mileage last year on a cross-country trip and achieved at least a 10% improvement in mileage with 100% gasoline, never mind the arguments about gasket life.
So the 10% ethanol in E10 has no energy content at all? You'd get as far with 9 gallons of gasoline as with 9 gallons of gas + 1 gallon of ethanol? In a car engineered for E10?
Originally Posted By: beast3300
I would prefer pure gasoline.
I'd prefer a fission powered car, but that's only slightly less likely than pure gas across the board, at least right now, with the climate on nuclear energy and E10.
I would prefer pure gasoline.
I'd prefer a fission powered car, but that's only slightly less likely than pure gas across the board, at least right now, with the climate on nuclear energy and E10.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: beast3300
I would prefer pure gasoline.
I'd prefer a fission powered car, but that's only slightly less likely than pure gas across the board, at least right now, with the climate on nuclear energy and E10.
As long as Sun power came with a supercharger to whine then I would be good with that too.
Originally Posted By: beast3300
I would prefer pure gasoline.
I'd prefer a fission powered car, but that's only slightly less likely than pure gas across the board, at least right now, with the climate on nuclear energy and E10.
As long as Sun power came with a supercharger to whine then I would be good with that too.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
No big deal, IMHO. CT has been using ethanol as an oxygenate long before it crashed onto the alternate fuels stage.
Too many people put too much emotional energy into disliking it.
I agree. If you ask enough people there will be someone that dislikes PEA.
No big deal, IMHO. CT has been using ethanol as an oxygenate long before it crashed onto the alternate fuels stage.
Too many people put too much emotional energy into disliking it.
I agree. If you ask enough people there will be someone that dislikes PEA.
With solar power, one could use a speaker to have any engine note one wanted. We all win!
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: ag_ghost
I carefully measured mileage last year on a cross-country trip and achieved at least a 10% improvement in mileage with 100% gasoline, never mind the arguments about gasket life.
So the 10% ethanol in E10 has no energy content at all? You'd get as far with 9 gallons of gasoline as with 9 gallons of gas + 1 gallon of ethanol? In a car engineered for E10?
+1
Love seeing 10% or more fuel economy changes from regular to E10 as if the ethanol has no energy content...
Originally Posted By: ag_ghost
I carefully measured mileage last year on a cross-country trip and achieved at least a 10% improvement in mileage with 100% gasoline, never mind the arguments about gasket life.
So the 10% ethanol in E10 has no energy content at all? You'd get as far with 9 gallons of gasoline as with 9 gallons of gas + 1 gallon of ethanol? In a car engineered for E10?
+1
Love seeing 10% or more fuel economy changes from regular to E10 as if the ethanol has no energy content...
You will expect a reduction of 4.3% in fuel mileage when using E10 vs pure gas. This is calculated mathematically. Ed
No one ever mentions that O2 sensors and computers are made for the stoichiometric 14.7/1 ratio for GASOLINE, which is NOT what alcohol burns at.
Never thought of that one, did you?
Never thought of that one, did you?
- Status
Similar threads
