Pure Gas vs. 10% E

Status
Not open for further replies.
Turtlevette ethanol actually on a performance basis makes E10 more costly. How much energy is used in this process for such little gain. Putting all this land under till is not good for the environment. The fact it would disappear without the mandate must tell you something. Land needs to be used for food and we need to explore other alternatives. Natural gas by far would have been a better alternative and still today cost about 2/3 the cost of gasoline. This administration has really put this country behind by supporting programs like this.
 
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette ethanol actually on a performance basis makes E10 more costly. How much energy is used in this process for such little gain. Putting all this land under till is not good for the environment. The fact it would disappear without the mandate must tell you something. Land needs to be used for food and we need to explore other alternatives. Natural gas by far would have been a better alternative and still today cost about 2/3 the cost of gasoline. This administration has really put this country behind by supporting programs like this.


President Bush, President Obama, their research staffs, the EPA, and Congress obviously disagree with you. Oh and the majority of scientists and engineers not on the oil company payroll.
 
Just to be clear I've got no issues with ethanol as a fuel. Build be a car that runs on e-85,make it cost effective at the pumps and I'm all for it.
My problem is trying to mix it with gasoline.
For example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.
Now in my world that is significant and I'm not going for it. It costs me the same for both fuels but my net mileage drops significantly so I have to burn more fuel to achieve the same miles that pure gas gets me.
Please tell me how that benefits the environment. I've gotta burn significantly more fuel to achieve the same results. Even IF the ethanol treated fuel polluted less because I burn more to achieve the same result where is the trade off point where the ethanol fuel pollutes more because I need to burn more.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Just to be clear I've got no issues with ethanol as a fuel. Build be a car that runs on e-85,make it cost effective at the pumps and I'm all for it.
My problem is trying to mix it with gasoline.
For example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.
Now in my world that is significant and I'm not going for it. It costs me the same for both fuels but my net mileage drops significantly so I have to burn more fuel to achieve the same miles that pure gas gets me.
Please tell me how that benefits the environment. I've gotta burn significantly more fuel to achieve the same results. Even IF the ethanol treated fuel polluted less because I burn more to achieve the same result where is the trade off point where the ethanol fuel pollutes more because I need to burn more.


You've got some sort of placebo effect going on. Most people do not see a 5mpg difference. Or it could be you're getting something a little extra in the 91 or the metering on the pump is off.

But you're the same guy claiming a moly additive gets you 5 mpg too. Right?

Placebo. Wishful thinking.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Just to be clear I've got no issues with ethanol as a fuel. Build be a car that runs on e-85,make it cost effective at the pumps and I'm all for it.
My problem is trying to mix it with gasoline.
For example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.
Now in my world that is significant and I'm not going for it. It costs me the same for both fuels but my net mileage drops significantly so I have to burn more fuel to achieve the same miles that pure gas gets me.
Please tell me how that benefits the environment. I've gotta burn significantly more fuel to achieve the same results. Even IF the ethanol treated fuel polluted less because I burn more to achieve the same result where is the trade off point where the ethanol fuel pollutes more because I need to burn more.


You've got some sort of placebo effect going on. Most people do not see a 5mpg difference. Or it could be you're getting something a little extra in the 91 or the metering on the pump is off.

But you're the same guy claiming a moly additive gets you 5 mpg too. Right?

Placebo. Wishful thinking.



It's no placebo.
And I proved mos2 worked over 12000 miles of tracking mileage. I live in my cars. I know every tick,creak and sound they make.
I know oil temp and pressure at any given speed and ambient temp. Whether you choose to believe me I really couldn't care less. I've got absolutely no reason to lie considering I don't care what the results are.
I'm not selling anything nor pushing anything,merely posting my observations based on driving in excess of 100 miles per day in my vehicle.
See I used to use Mohawk high test exclusively til about 4 years ago when I really started keeping track of my fuel consumption. Around the same time I began playing with acetone and tc-w3.
When I discovered just how much harder my vehicles were on fuel using ethanol high test vs premium.
And do tell how this placebo works when I push reset on the computer and instantly it tells me mpg. I guess the cars computer is placebo too.
Because my repeatable results don't fit with your tripe you've gotta try and deflect and bring up something else.
Well by all means bring it up. I've got a thread where I posted every single fuel fill up when I bought my charger. So I didn't even know what consumption was. I posted every single tank for 3000 miles before mos2 and I quit at over 6000 miles after mos2.
If you had read it it wasn't 5mpg. The average was 3. And it was repeatable.
So push your absurd views and bogus opinions on people without the mental capacity to question you because no one here is dumb enough to put the slightest bit of faith in any trash you write.
I collected and posted data. What have you got. Some copy and paste from lobbyist sites and propaganda. Why not try doing something actual instead of re-posting someone else's work.
Those who can do do. Those who can't teach.
Which are you,since I haven't seen much doing outta you I think the answer is clear.
 
Turtlevette after 35 years groups such as Environmental Working Group and Sierra Club oppose support for this program on the basis of a recent report from the National Research Council. The report states: "Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce (carbon dioxide) emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite." The current administrations people they have appointed to these staffs such as EPA or what ever are more or less yes men to the administration and in many cases are linked to campaign donations. With Obama wanting to be ahead of the curve on climate change you have to wonder how he can support this program. I think it has a lot to due with the promises he made campaigning in Iowa. One of the head lobbyist when given a speech recently made the comment that Obama needed to keep his promise. The amount of oil repaced by this program considering the amount of land used doesn't seem like enough to make it worth all the issues involved. The fact that it needs to be mandated to exist tells you what the consumer thinks of the product.
 
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
The fact that it needs to be mandated to exist tells you what the consumer thinks of the product.


There are a lot of mandates and laws for really good reasons. A mandate doesn't bother me at all. I don't know how old your are but when I was a kid PPG was putting so much yellow crud in the air it stunk within 10 miles of the place. I wish I could find pictures.
 
Turtlevette did you ever question why California gets their ethanol from Brazil. It's all about the environment and yes we should worry about PPG. Wouldn't you agree if there is solid proof this program is bad for the environment it should be ended. All you have to do is look at cellulosic ethanol that is mandated in this program to know how well thought out it was. 5 million acres of set aside for conservation have vanished on Obama's watch - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite national parks combined. Most of this land was deemed ecologically fragile farmland and was set aside from regular crop planting. The environmental issues do exist and yes they are real just like PPG. Did corn ethanol producers ever challenge California's decision? That's a large amount of ethanol.
 
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
. The environmental issues do exist and yes they are real just like PPG.


Farming is like pumping poison into the atmosphere?

Where do you guy get your info?
 
Turtlevette I follow ethanol news as often as I can. I grew up on a farm and have relatives who farm. I am always looking for a good reason for ethanol. This decision by Bush rivals his search for weapons of mass destruction. For Obama he was looking for political votes. It's unbelievable the claims the corn lobby makes. Yes farming can be like pumping poison into the atmosphere when the gain is not enough to make it worth while. Nobody has an answer for California and yet the answer is obvious. California basically tells us that if it's not from a clean program they will not use. Nobody should be forced to use it. We as a government need to come up with good programs for farmers and put the land that was in set aside back.
 
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette I follow ethanol news as often as I can.


I just have to wonder about your motivations. All of your posts here are to campaign against ethanol. You don't want to talk motor oil?
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

In my experience, using the same Mohawk fuel in my old Audi, I had reduced fuel economy. I wouldn't call it 20%, but I would definitely get fewer miles out of every tank of Mohawk than when I used Esso pure gas 91, and that was with some repeatable driving. Of course, whether or not it was actually statistically significant or if I missed other factors is another matter. Closer to 10% would be my guess, but that's getting into the background noise, really.

In any event, I haven't used it often enough in my G (they clobbered the Mohawk CAA rewards program) as I did in my Audi to see if it makes as much of an apparent difference in the G as it seemed to in the Audi.

Maybe I'll run a few tanks and see if I can notice anything. As for your suggestions about the higher octane or a different quality gas, that's certainly possible, too. Not that it matters much, but it's not a Top Tier station up here.

Perhaps Mohawk's 94 octane degrades quickly. Clevy has noticed other problems with it before, and I got one terrible tank in the Audi. It was to the point the car would barely idle. When I had my Lightning, though, I never had an issue nor had any noticeable difference in fuel economy.
 
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy. Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.

In my experimentation I was able to drive my vette from Boston to Albany on a tank of regular E10. It was real close to empty when I got there. I filled with E85 and drove back and made it.

How do you explain that?

My theory is that it can be run very lean without detonation or piston overheating. It burns much cooler than gas. I had a lean condition. A carb calibrated for gas running ethanol.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy. Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.

In my experimentation I was able to drive my vette from Boston to Albany on a tank of regular E10. It was real close to empty when I got there. I filled with E85 and drove back and made it.

How do you explain that?

My theory is that it can be run very lean without detonation or piston overheating. It burns much cooler than gas. I had a lean condition. A carb calibrated for gas running ethanol.




Chevette?
Because we've proven your credibility is lacking nothing you write carries any weight.
Take your ball and go home.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.


I drive the same all the time. Set cruise at 70mph and go. If rive less than 10% of my miles in the city. I get to work,coming off the highway and park.
I used the 94 octane for 3 tanks and averaged them out so I could rule out any anomalies in the fuel and driving habits.
I don't care one way or the other if ethanol is in my fuel,I care about miles per tank and cost per mile. Due to the fact ethanol high test is the same price as pure gas 91 octane I use 91.
I ran my tank dry never getting more than 310 miles with Mohawk 94 octane. I routinely get 380 with 91 octane shell fuel.
I will say this though my Harley doesn't even have a hint of pinging with Mohawk 94.
 
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


Not just this thread.
He's entertaining though,like a 30 car pile up.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.
 
See, that's actually the problem. I do have a BSME with a minor in chemistry. I also worked for the chairman of the chemistry department for all four years as a lab tech doing assorted grunt work, including teaching a lab on fuels and lubricants.

That's why when I see statements like this it's like a red cape to a bull. I can't help but charge.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top