Ethanol Free Gas Found At Last!!!

[bowtieguy]

on a trip to napa yesterday, i saw an advertisement for ethanol free gas. the station, as it turns out, is not far from my house.

so, i'll be conducting an experiment w/ this gas to see if non-E10 does in fact yield more mpgs. my thoughts are...

it must yield enough extra to cover the difference in price(if any) and my 5% cash back(if the station will not accept my cc). but, i will continue to use it in my gas mower and edger.

my gas mower doesn't get much action anyway due to the purchase of the reel mower. but, when time gets away and weeds grow, it is there when i need it.

[theclencher]

mowers don't care if ethanol is in the fuel.

not much else does either.

[hi tech hillbilly]

If you are horribly concerned about your mileage, then you should care how much ethanol is in your fuel as it releases less energy when burned compared to pure gasoline. I dont think I have to get too damn scientific here, but less kinetic energy means less available power and more burned fuel. A friend of mine is converting his fuel injected turbocharged SBC 69 Nova outlaw 10.5 car to run on 100% Ethanol, and had to have 2 injector bungs welded into each intake runner with higher floe injectors. He says hes using twice the amount of fuel, but it burns cooler than gas and he can turn boost up much higher than on 110octane race gas.

[theclencher]

You are invited to check my gaslog; tell me if you spot any fe trends when burning ethanol.

Basically I figure up to 50/50 blend E85/E10 gives same fe; over that and it starts to drop.

[hi tech hillbilly]

Im not calling you a liar per your gaslog, conversely Im not trying to be a prick but scientific facts are just that.. Scientific testing expressed in BTU's state the following:

100% Ethanol has energy potential of 77,000 BTU's per gallon when burned.
100% Gasoline has energy potential of 125,000BTU's per gallon when burned.

The more Ethanol blended into gas means sacrificing thermal effeciency/MPG. Maybe E10-E20 wouldnt be as noticeable, but I have had 1/2 tank of E85 in my 05 Explorer and my FE dropped more than 10mpg city and 13-15mpg highway@75mph over E10-E22-100% gasoline.

[theclencher]

I'd posted a study that showed equal or even improved fe with up to 40% ethanol content. I put it up because my experience pretty much matches it.

Yes I know all about the BTU thing but there is more than that going on in the combustion chamber.

Going from ethanol free to E10 won't amount to a hill of beans, in my experience.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Marvin seems to have taken well to ethanol, I can only say seems, because it's real vague about when it goes in and in what quantities here.

The Tempo we had in the family really liked ethanol too, at least it really liked Sunoco, who is about the only place that actually boasts about having up to 10% Ethanol. Difference was as high as 10% over normal gas.

Wile-E, I can't tell, I broke him before mandated ethanol here, then I've had minor issue after minor issue since I re-capitated him. Just found a vac leak, hopefully THAT will get him running more consistant.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by theclencher

I'd posted a study that showed equal or even improved fe with up to 40% ethanol content. I put it up because my experience pretty much matches it.

Yes I know all about the BTU thing but there is more than that going on in the combustion chamber.

Going from ethanol free to E10 won't amount to a hill of beans, in my experience.

I agree that it is not as simple as counting BTUs. If for instance the presence of ethanol actually improves the burn efficiency of the gasoline component of the fuel, economy could be a wash. That's all I'm willing to suggest about that however.

What I can say with certainty is that the presence of ethanol really can matter in engines that are not tuned to run it. For example, one of my friends has a boat that started missing allot when E10 became the norm around here. It ran just fine on 87 octane before that. The manufacturer proclaimed that no higher octane was necessary and that E10 was useable. Contrary to that, straight non-ethanol fuel eliminates the miss as does running a mid-grade fuel.

What is worth noting about my example is that the motor qualifies under the classification of being a ULEV and is fully computer controlled MPFI and OBD-II. It simply was not tuned properly to deal with E10 and apparently lacks the ability to correct for it. I can't imaging the situation would be any better in many non-EFI motors that are tuned to run as cleanly as possible, but that's the rub: Most carbureted power equipment simply isn't tuned to run all that cleanly and the difference between E10 and non-E10 isn't likely to be noticed.

In a nutshell, if it misses on 87 E10, putting 89 E10 will likely take care of the problem, but if it's not missing, the differences many people think they are seeing are often imagined.

I'd love to see somebody do an experiment testing the number of feet per second a mower could handle in tall grass on one fuel vs. the other. I suspect the results would be inconclusive of any real difference.

[bowtieguy]

well, let me say that i'll stake my rep on the test results. in other words, i'd rather keep my rep than report some manipulated gains.

problem is, it will be some time before i'll be able to report. i just fueled up recently(E10) and a tank lasts me ~2 weeks. so, it will be at least 3 weeks before my first non-E10 result is logged. i will try to report some scan gauge trips as they progress.

the positive thing is that, as mentioned before, i am a perfect test candidate over the course of tank to tank testing. my driving variables most days are minimal to none.

with the exception of vacations, dental appts, and such, my miles tank to tank are very similar.

[hi tech hillbilly]

Weather ethanol is in the presence of gasoline or not doesnt change the fact that it has a lower thermal efficiency than gasoline. Again, not trying to play the devils advocate or be a dick, but in my limited testing, I only got about 400 miles out of a tank with E85/87 octane gasoline where I normally got 500 miles out of a tank in consistant driving, so I never gave it a second chance. The vehicle I WAS driving IS a flex fuel vehicle and I could take no chances in getting that bad mileage, so I went back to E10/ pure gas (27 gallons a week just aint my cup o tea at less than $30,000/yr). Before I get put in front of the firing squad, let me state that I would love for nothing more than an alternative fuel that can match gasoline mile for mile, but 27 gallons only getting only 400 miles was conclusive enough for me to see that it wasnt worth the time. I have recently gotten my Civic out o storage, so that my DD again @30-40ish mpg (depending on wind and temperature), next step is LRR tires to replace the snow tires curently on it..lol