10% Ethanol

[fatherlarry]

10% Ethanol

Has anyone used E10 in their Z's yet, and if so, have you had any problems? Do you see any benefits? I know Sunoco here on the eastcoast discontined 94 octane and now is offering 93 Octane with E10. Hess is still pure. I am worried about storage over the winter if I use the E10, as they say ethanol can corrode gas lines and destroy fuel injectors if the car isn't being used for a long period. I know ethanol increases octane and therefore may increase performance, however, there are too many "ifs". Also, gas economy is reduced by 28%. So if you're paying $3 a gal for premium mixed with E10, its really like paying about $3.99 a gal for reduced gas mileage.

This administration seems to be pushing it, but I don't see the benefit, only to large energy corporations.

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]__________________[/FONT]

 

[DRTH VTR]

fatherlarry
I deleted some duplicate threads.

The local Stinker stations have used 10% ethanol in their gas for years. I have used it with no problems. Does it make sense from an energy point of view? Probably not. I have not noticed any difference in mileage. While it is true that alcohol contains less energy per unit volume, I just cannot believe 28%. Perhaps that is the difference between 100% gasoline and 100% alcohol?

 

[fatherlarry]

I haven't seen any good news on the subject except what the government spews out. I'm not sure about it increasing octane but I am sure it doesn't increase performance, it's actually less efficient than gasoline so you have to burn more of it. Here's a little info just to give you an idea of what the government is not telling you...

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning". "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded." "The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace." Any attempt to reinvent another fossil fuel burning engine or hybrid only prolongs our dependence on petroleum. It will ultimately cost far more by investing in all these middle of the road fixes. Until you go solar or hydrogen you'll keep ending up at the same dead end. Personally, I don't think the problem is inventing or perfecting another source of power, it's what to do with all the unemployed workers once you find a cheap source of fuel.

 

[Mr. Lucky]

It's good that educated individuals like Mr. Pimental question and probe, and do not automatically accept conventional wisdom as "fact." However, his conclusions are far from universally accepted... and it's not just big-brother gov'mint disputing his calculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States

Ethanol (and methanol) do in fact have higher octane than straight gasoline (using the same RON method), and you are correct that it is less efficient than gasoline. Carrying things to the extreme, if it were possible to switch a car from running on straight gasoline to straight ethanol, the engine running on ethanol would need a richer air/fuel mixture to compensate for the lower BTU output. To a certain extent, all higher octane fuels have a lower BTU output (as compared for example, to pump gas). However, the BTU reduction in ethanol cannot be accounted for by octane alone. It is an inferior fuel. That said, ethanol does have one thing going for it - it burns cooler than gasoline. This is of little to no consequence in retrofitting an existing engine to run on ethanol. However, if engines were designed from scratch to run on ethanol, they could be made lighter and smaller (not requiring such extensive active and passive cooling). I'm not an expert on the subject, but it seems within the realm of possibility that lighter cars with less mass could potentially overcome the energy output disadvantage of ethanol, thus making it a viable fuel in the future.

 

[Tom]

That's all you can find here in Houston. It puts a hurt on your gas mileage. Other than that, I haven't had any problems using it.

 

[Patman]

I consistently see a 10% drop in MPG when I use fuel with 10% ethanol in it compared to the other premium fuels here. But unfortunately I need to use 94 octane in the summer to avoid detonation (I had more timing advance put in at lower rpms in my last dyno tune) so my only choice is Sunoco 94 with ethanol. All other stations up here sell only up to 91 octane.

When running Sunoco I see 18-19 MPG in my daily commute. With other fuels I see 20-21 MPG.