States in the Union are Jumping on the 10% Ethenol Bandwagon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
632
Location
Idaho
Idaho is the latest to move this to discussion in the Capitol. Montana and a few others are now mandating 10% ethenol mixed in ALL gas. Chevron and other gas company's are not happy with the discussions on this.

What are your thoughts?
 
But that may or may not be the case! Ethanol has less power per gallon than gasoline. It can cost less per gallon, but it takes some actual math with real numbers to figure out where the price/milage break is. That also depends on what time of year it is (winter fuel has less BTUs and milage than summer fuel!).

We've had 10% ethanol as a choice in Iowa for about 15 years. Blending 10% ethanol improves octane by 2-4 numbers. It is advertised as 2 more octane numbers, but some gear head friends of mine with forced induction cars, and computers that show timing advance have determined that it can get as high as 91 or even 93 octane at times. It literally varies from transport to transport depending on how much ethanol they dump in. 10% my butt! I also know that at times I've heard from various dealers that injectors have been eaten up and fuel tests have shown up to 50% ethanol in people's tanks at times. Some injectors don't like more than 25% ethanol. Ethanol blend was always the same cost per gallon as 87 octane unleaded, and mileage was less. The "odometers" on the gas pumps (the little mechanical counters hidden on them but visible if you look closely) always showed more gallons of non ethanol gas. Once gas went up over 1.90 or so per gallon, ethanol gas got cheaper per gallon. Currently several cents per gallon cheaper. Now the "odometers" on the gas pumps show ethanol gas selling more.

Currently in my little town in eastern Iowa, 87 octane sells for 2.23 and 89 octane (10% blend) sells for 2.15. 91 sells for 2.43

(And the 89 might be closer to 90 or 91 octane!)
 
That might explain my 10% mpg loss last summer. Perhaps the blenders were cheating, and adding more than 10%, to cover the shortages caused by hurricane damage. I do remember a complete lack of pinging from the engine.
 
When I lived out in Iowa for 6 months I didn't notice an MPG decrease. Then again... California stop and go traffic = bad MPG whereas Iowa straightaways = best MPG I've ever had
smile.gif
.

I think if California sold a 15% ethanol brand at discount price it would sell like you wouldn't believe. Especially if it is 8 cents cheaper like Iowa!
 
California has to haul in ethanol by train because they will eat away the pipeline (too corrosive). If they can get rid of the ethanol it will be cheaper.

Brazil did it right. They use genetically modified sugercane to produce ethanol and now they are cheaper than gas (literally, without subsidize). We just have to improve our process and the way we do it. In Brazil, The Driving Is Sweeter
 
quote:

Originally posted by Steve S:
ethanol loses mpg as compared to unpolluted gasoline.

More myth than truth. The variances in MPG from tank to tank are about the same as the variances in E10 vs. straight gasoline.
See for yourself:
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf

I've never seen substantial MPG loss in any vehicle I've ever owned running E10 compared to running straight gasoline. Some vehicles even picked up a tiny bit of MPG on E10!
 
The "American Coalition for Ethanol" sounds like a nice unbiased organization.

The easy way to eliminate environmental variances is to conduct lab tests.

Given two fuels in identical engines tuned for the fuels, ethanol should give fewer mpg because ethanol contains fewer btus of energy than gasoline. A gallon of 10 percent ethanol-gasoline contains about 112000 BTUs of heat energy, compared to 114000 BTUs for straight gasoline.

If you get results that don't comport with this, the reason involves tuning.

The reference to "costs" in the study is misleading. They refer to the cost at the pump. But ethanol is subsidized relative to gasoline, so the actual cost (cost at pump + costs upstream borne by the government) is higher.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Brazil and the US are as comparable as a horse and a camel.

The US is a not a major producer of sugar cane and corn, from which most American ethanol is made, is a much less efficient source of ethanol.
 
Ethanol also increases burn efficiency, and since it is an octane improver, engines with knock sensors can take advantage of this with a couple more degrees of advance which would bump any power loss from the ethanol back up to a comparable level as on straight gasoline.

Prove it to yourself...Tank up with 89 octane E10 for a couple tanks, then go back to 87 octane regular gas, and compare notes. My experience is right in line with the study linked in my previous post. The difference is insignificant, if any at all.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GT Mike:
Ethanol also increases burn efficiency, and since it is an octane improver, engines with knock sensors can take advantage of this with a couple more degrees of advance which would bump any power loss from the ethanol back up to a comparable level as on straight gasoline.

Prove it to yourself...Tank up with 89 octane E10 for a couple tanks, then go back to 87 octane regular gas, and compare notes. My experience is right in line with the study linked in my previous post. The difference is insignificant, if any at all.


Contrary to popular belief FEW if any cars can add timing to take advantage of higher octane than what the manufacturer recommends. Ethanol while it does raise octane is still a poor detonation supressant, in a boosted car though the intercooling effect might help avoid detonation more than the octane.
I actually have all the datalogging and PROGRAMMING software for my cars, the timing tables are set and the only way the pcm will play with them beyond what you program is Low Octane Retard mode where if it is sensing a lot of detonation it will begin pulling timing even before there is detonation.

It was a bad idea the EPA finally admitted it and now the states are trying to prop up an industry that never should have come to be. I am just glad the attempt to manadte that crap here FAILED and I am seeing more stations advertizing 100% gas on their signs
grin.gif
. I make sure to compliment the attandants for it too and have gotten to speak to an owner and manager or two on the subject.

If you want to see the datalogging and tuning stuff you should be able to find me at WIR a lot this season, I will be the guy with rediculously large cars going way faster than they have any right too
burnout.gif
the slow one should go 14s at over 4800lbs this season.
 
I have not run E-10 but I have run a lot of E-85 in my flex fuel ford ranger. Gas Mileage on Reg Unleaded is 24 mpg. Running E-85 my average is 19 mpg.
Last year E85 was a bargin for me to run (lower cost even with the less gas mileage and my Ranger ran great on the stuff. Right now it is not a bargin. Price shot up 3 weeks ago to $2.59. Reg Unleaded is $2.61
I was told by the local dist. that the reason was all the big name gas companies are buying the stuff for blending and they can't make enough.
I like the idea of building plants here in the U.S. and creating jobs here.
But if the states and fed goverment want people to use it it has to be the cheaper alternative fuel.
 
Another reason E85 is more expensive right now is because it's not a true 85% blend. In the colder months, the blend is cut back to avoid cold starting issues that could be experienced with that much ethanol. Once the weather gets warmer, and the blend can be increased again, expect prices to drop. This was told to me by the alternative fuels director of Utica Energy, a locally based ethanol production plant that also has several E85 stations around the area.
 
That would make sense if it were Dec or Jan.
But not April. All winter it was between $1.89 and $1.99 now today. $2.69 it went up 10 cents in 6 days! That makes it 4 cents higher than reg-unleaded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top