straight gas vs. 10% ethanol blend - Page 4 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:49 PM   #31
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
You're right at the break even point, and when you consider your time for pulling over sooner and buying fuel again... not worth it.
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 07:36 PM   #32
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
Unless it is a station you go past anyway, and/or they just top off once a week not matter what.

It comes down to priorities. Such as, is buying a domestic made fuel more important than having to fill up a day sooner.
__________________

trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 07:53 AM   #33
JBW
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 20
Country: United States
Location: Ohio
i get 1.5 more mpg using non-ethanol blend fuel.
JBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 08:36 AM   #34
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
What type of vehicle?
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 10:17 PM   #35
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 120
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollbait View Post
is buying a domestic made fuel more important than having to fill up a day sooner.
The "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil than it saves. Ethanol needs high compression (16:1) ratio engines to extract its energy efficiently. Ethanol used, but not burned properly, in low compression(9:1 to 11:1) ratio gasoline engines, inefficiently releases energy. Along with poor burning quality in gasoline engines, ethanol doesn't lower emissions, as when ethanol is used in high compression ratio ethanol engines. Gasoline vehicles, having as many as 100,000 miles, while burning modern refined 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline, have received commendations for low emissions.
litesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 10:29 PM   #36
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 120
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBW View Post
.....non-ethanol blend fuel.
All ratios of ethanol blended into gasoline ARE blends. 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline is by definition, NOT an ethanol blend fuel.

PLUS, ethanol used(but not burned properly) in gasoline, can NOT be considered a FUEL, due to its inefficiency.
litesong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 07:07 AM   #37
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by litesong View Post
The "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil than it saves. Ethanol needs high compression (16:1) ratio engines to extract its energy efficiently. Ethanol used, but not burned properly, in low compression(9:1 to 11:1) ratio gasoline engines, inefficiently releases energy. Along with poor burning quality in gasoline engines, ethanol doesn't lower emissions, as when ethanol is used in high compression ratio ethanol engines. Gasoline vehicles, having as many as 100,000 miles, while burning modern refined 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline, have received commendations for low emissions.
The 'oil'/energy used for ethanol production varies by the accounting method and the feedstock. Some are negative and some are positive. The balance is getting better. Not using corn for the feedstock would be a positive step. Growing less corn in general would be a positive. It is a resource intensive crop that is mostly used to fatten up factory farmed livestock that we all should be eating less of anyway.

Gasoline production is becoming a more energy intensive process. Canadian tar sands, which is supply gasoline to a large portion of the US, takes about 3 times as much energy as Texan light, sweet crude to get out of the ground and refine. That will only get worse as time goes by.

Flex-fuel engines should have been based on premium gas fueled ones, or, better yet, designed for E85 and adjust down for gasoline. The ethanol in E10 only raises the octane of the blend by around 2. Not enough to run the engine at a higher compression ratio to benefit much. Considering Americans are pennywise and pound foolish when it comes to gas octanes, using a higher compression ratio would be a tough sell. People decry cars with premium 'recommended'.

Ethanol has many flaws as a fuel, and methanol from natural gas or bio-butanol would make a better fuel. Ethanol does have some pros. It is a far better choice than MTBE. Though we only need about 5% for that. Compared to gasoline, methanol, and butanol, it is non-toxic and quickly breaks down in the environment in the event of a spill. Domestic made fuels are better for the economy. Going back to 100% gasoline means more money to terrorist supporting nations.

Ethanol isn't my first choice. It has flaws, and was chosen more by politics. lobbyists in general suck.
trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 10:42 PM   #38
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
Country: United States
Smile Ethanol Free Gains MPG

When I did get pure gasoline a few times in my Elantra, I saw a strong 10% increase in fuel economy PLUS the responsiveness was better overall.

Ethanol is a taker, not a giver!
driver57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2014, 10:44 AM   #39
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3
Country: United States
Location: Worthsville, IN
Well, now, this really sheds a different light on the whole E-10 versus pure gasoline (ethanol free) business. Seems that a lot of the CountryMark stations are now selling the pure gasoline in their stations. I guess the best idea would be to run a tank of E-10 until gone, then run a tank of ethanol free. And if it is really high priced, I can't see the return on investment.
Janstheman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2014, 01:21 PM   #40
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janstheman View Post
Well, now, this really sheds a different light on the whole E-10 versus pure gasoline (ethanol free) business. Seems that a lot of the CountryMark stations are now selling the pure gasoline in their stations. I guess the best idea would be to run a tank of E-10 until gone, then run a tank of ethanol free. And if it is really high priced, I can't see the return on investment.
The station I usually buy my fuel from only charges $0.10/gal more for ethanol free, and under that circumstance, its actually cheaper to run E0 than E10 because of the increased mileage I get on E0.
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Matching EPA Type to My Car DastardlyDan Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 10-26-2009 07:16 AM
Florida announces first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant theholycow Automotive News, Articles and Products 3 03-01-2009 02:01 PM
searching? blind monkey General Discussion (Off-Topic) 7 01-09-2009 07:16 PM
Why did it take me so long to find this place? Baranfin Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 6 05-31-2008 05:17 PM
Hello, tracking my '96 Saturn for MPG! Project84 Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 7 12-27-2007 10:00 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.