What is the TRUTH regarding ethanol free gasoline?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
And I haven't heard of methanol being used in fuel in ages, except as a gas-line antifreeze.

Don't get me started on methanol. I checked my calendar and didn't think there would be methanol in gasoline. After all, even most convenience stores don't stock methyl hydrate in the winter anymore. Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong, but the lesson was more of a nuisance than an expensive one.

Run a few tanks of gasoline with methanol in a record breaking winter. You'll be on your hands and knees begging for E10 after that.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
And I haven't heard of methanol being used in fuel in ages, except as a gas-line antifreeze.

Don't get me started on methanol. I checked my calendar and didn't think there would be methanol in gasoline. After all, even most convenience stores don't stock methyl hydrate in the winter anymore. Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong, but the lesson was more of a nuisance than an expensive one.

Run a few tanks of gasoline with methanol in a record breaking winter. You'll be on your hands and knees begging for E10 after that.

I remember the owner's manual for the '89 Integra I used to drive. It noted a max 10% ethanol, 15% MTBE, or 5% methanol (plus corrosion inhibitors).

As for gas line antifreeze, the HEET brand from Gold Eagle is still the biggest selling one in the US. Here's their FAQ:

Quote:
http://www.goldeagle.com/brands/heet-faqs

HOW DOES HEET® BRAND WORK?

HEET® brand contains a special additive and methanol. When HEET®brand is added to the gas tank, it sinks to the bottom and mixes with any water. Since both HEET® brand and water are heavier than gasoline, they go to the bottom of the gas tank. HEET® brand absorbs water and keeps it from freezing, and blocking the flow of gasoline through the gas line and fuel pump. When the vehicle is started, the additives, methanol, water, and gasoline are consumed during combustion inside the engine.


i'm not to keen on using this stuff. If I ever needed anything, I'd probably use ISO-HEET. However, I'm not sure how useful that would be since there's already ethanol in fuel, which pretty much serves the same function of dispersing the water rather than having the water in separate pools that can freeze or lead to corrosion.
 
ISO-HEET is more commonly found on the shelves up here now than any methanol stuff. The latter is usually just some off brand that found its way to the shelf at a really cheap price.
 
Truth about ethanol:
Its bad for mileage, your engine and fuel system (in many cases.)
Its great for special interest groups.
 
Originally Posted By: KevGuy
Ethanol is an octane booster as it has an octane number of about 113. The issue with octane people have is it's ability to ruin engine hoses and gaskets relating to the fuel system as ethanol is hydrophilic (water liking). I have heard some controversy wrt this and I am unsure if it is true or not. I know a small engine guy that says with ethanol in gas and small engines not being built like they used too (made in China) things are just rotting away.


^this. My string trimmer and leaf blower (Stihl and Echo) start easier and run better using a 91 octane no ethanol fuel sold locally by Countrymark. No doubt. I believe the ethanol destroyed the rubber seal in the bottom of the fuel tank of my Gravely walk behind mower.
 
Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
Truth about ethanol:
Its bad for mileage, your engine and fuel system (in many cases.)
Its great for special interest groups.


The second part maybe, but the first part not so much. It does hurt mpg, but that is only because engines in current vehicles have not been designed primarily around the fuel. Some of the newer E85 engines in R&D from GM and Cummins will knock the socks off, in mpg, most engines out in the market now, and even generate more power than traditional gas engines twice their displacement. The recent 2.8L E85 inline 4 cylinder that Cummins is testing. 450lb of torque at 2800 rpm and over 30 mpg in a Sprinter sized van. That sure beats a lot of V8's in most pickups nowadays.

Damaging to engines and fuel systems? Depends on whether the OEM is using substandard components in the engine and fuel system. Some OEM's will build things "on the cheap" and not spec components that are ethanol friendly. Most auto engines have been fine with ethanol for decades. I have owned a lot of vehicles since the early 70's, and I have given all of them at least E10 on a regular basis since it became readily available in the late 70's. I have had not one fuel related problem with E10 in my autos/pickups and everything including my riding lawn mowers, pressure washers, generators, etc. Carbed, TBI or port injected. My current pickup runs great with no issues and it has been fed E10, E30, and E85 at various times in it's life, and it will continue.

One does have to be a little proactive in using ethanol fuels in older equipment, for sure. It is not the greatest thing since sliced bread by any means, but ethanol is as good of fuel as most anything else.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

The second part maybe, but the first part not so much. It does hurt mpg, but that is only because engines in current vehicles have not been designed primarily around the fuel. Some of the newer E85 engines in R&D from GM and Cummins will knock the socks off, in mpg, most engines out in the market now, and even generate more power than traditional gas engines twice their displacement. The recent 2.8L E85 inline 4 cylinder that Cummins is testing. 450lb of torque at 2800 rpm and over 30 mpg in a Sprinter sized van. That sure beats a lot of V8's in most pickups nowadays.

The discussion is about the fuel. You're comparing future engine tech with old gas engine tech.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

The second part maybe, but the first part not so much. It does hurt mpg, but that is only because engines in current vehicles have not been designed primarily around the fuel. Some of the newer E85 engines in R&D from GM and Cummins will knock the socks off, in mpg, most engines out in the market now, and even generate more power than traditional gas engines twice their displacement. The recent 2.8L E85 inline 4 cylinder that Cummins is testing. 450lb of torque at 2800 rpm and over 30 mpg in a Sprinter sized van. That sure beats a lot of V8's in most pickups nowadays.

The discussion is about the fuel. You're comparing future engine tech with old gas engine tech.

The discussion of the fuel is useless without discussion of the current technology that uses the fuel and that will soon be on the market.
 
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: hatt

The discussion is about the fuel. You're comparing future engine tech with old gas engine tech.

The discussion of the fuel is useless without discussion of the current technology that uses the fuel and that will soon be on the market.
So tell us about upcoming gasoline engine designs. TT is comparing press releases for future engines running E85 to old engines running gas.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: hatt

The discussion is about the fuel. You're comparing future engine tech with old gas engine tech.

The discussion of the fuel is useless without discussion of the current technology that uses the fuel and that will soon be on the market.
So tell us about upcoming gasoline engine designs. TT is comparing press releases for future engines running E85 to old engines running gas.

He didn't say old engines but rather "traditional engines". I take that as meaning modern designs that run anything from E10 to non-ethanol gasoline. That's the traditional fuel - or has been for the past 30 years.

I don't know if comparisons with old engines are fair. Frankly - I remember seeing a lot of power numbers for old muscle car engines. Seemed amazing considering they didn't have engine computers or other assorted stuff. Then I remembered that they also didn't have modern emissions and I can literally smell the unburned fuel when I'm behind a muscle car that's exempt from emissions tests.
 
I want to see the link for this 30 mpg number TT mentioned. I'm looking at info on the Ethos 2.8 and see no mpg claims. Only CO2 claims. Very odd they have all these numbers but not the most important one to consumers.
 
I will try to dig out the mpg number again. I get a lot of trucking industry related news releases and such, and it was in one of them. I must have had 20-25 various releases emailed me that made some mention of the Cummins E85 testing. it is true, they really focused on the CO2 part of it.

But that all being said, GM and it's partner Ricardo, who is helping them develop the 3.2L EBDI engine that primarily is focused on E85, have made claims in a lot of releases that this engine has the equivalent power, both HP and Torque, and better fuel economy (no detailed numbers) than the Duramax Diesel in the GM 3500HD line of pickups that both engine comparisons were made. So it beats out the Duramax on fuel economy in a 3500HD pickup. And the Duramax will beat out the traditional gas engines that get placed in these pickups. So the E85 design must be killing the traditional gas engines in fuel economy comparisons.

Not bad for a V6 engine running on E85 with half the displacement of the Duramax Diesel. When the engine is designed for the fuel and not just changed to "accept" or deal with a fuel, then good things happen. So far, engines have not really done that well on E85 simply because they were never designed to take advantage of the fuel. Finally, engines are being developed in that direction, so it will be interesting to see what the R&D folks come up with.
 
If it's Ricardo, they will be using BSFC numbers, which is industry standard for engine comparisons.

Then you have to consider the BTUs in the tank to work mileage.
 
Doesn't look like Ricardo is making the claim that E85 engines will burn less fuel than gas. And this engine they're developing is a flex fuel engine.
Quote:
Consumer acceptance of ethanol has been lukewarm because vehicles using it generally suffer poorer fuel economy of about 30% in relation to gasoline.

And the price difference does not provide adequate justification: In Iowa and Minnesota, E85 currently is about 20% cheaper than gasoline, but in Michigan and much of the rest of the country, E85 is only 10% less expensive than gas.

“There's no advantage to ethanol at the moment,” Beazley admits.

The primary goal of the EBDI project is to improve the fuel efficiency of ethanol so the deficit in relation to gasoline is only 15%, rather than 30%.

Wards
 
I had a buddy who tuned and built up the motor on his MazdaSpeed3 for E85. Made some huge HP numbers. But the fuel is too inconsistent and may be anything from E50-E85. He ended up blowing the motor.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Doesn't look like Ricardo is making the claim that E85 engines will burn less fuel than gas. And this engine they're developing is a flex fuel engine.
Quote:
Consumer acceptance of ethanol has been lukewarm because vehicles using it generally suffer poorer fuel economy of about 30% in relation to gasoline.

And the price difference does not provide adequate justification: In Iowa and Minnesota, E85 currently is about 20% cheaper than gasoline, but in Michigan and much of the rest of the country, E85 is only 10% less expensive than gas.

“There's no advantage to ethanol at the moment,” Beazley admits.

The primary goal of the EBDI project is to improve the fuel efficiency of ethanol so the deficit in relation to gasoline is only 15%, rather than 30%.

Wards


Yes, the 3.2L EBDI engine will be a flex fuel, but it reaches it's full performance on E85 according to all that I have read. They show lower HP and torque ratings on it when using something like E10 or E30. Actually for there real world, I would think they would have to make it a flex fuel. But at least it would be the reverse of what engine design is now. Now we have flex fuel engines designed around gas that will use E85. Now we would have engines designed around E85 that could also use gas. Overall, efficiency across the board should improve dramatically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top