An easy 13.6%

[CFECO]

I don't know how an engine can detect Ethanol or not, other than the Oxygen content in the exhaust. I don't know what Ethanol does to that O2 content. I DO know, that a 2011 Avalon, increases 3+ miles per gallon, on non-ethanol fuel.

[CFECO]

IF...an Engine was purpose built to run on E-85, the compression could be increased Greatly, which would increase Power and Efficiency. Where there was no E-85, water injection could make up for the lack of Alcohol...to a point. I have run a heavily loaded ( 10,000 lbs.) pick-up truck engine with a 12.3 to 1 compression, on standard pump gas using a Water injection system, and a high overlap cam to kill low rpm compression. It worked Great until the water reservoir ran dry, going up a long hill pulling a boat. That was an UGLY noise. Engine survived , water refill and on our way.

[foytix]

I think I'm going to try out some ethanol free fuel on my next tank. I need to see if the cost savings will outweigh the cost difference, since stations charge more for it.

[user removed]

At 50+ more cents a gallon it is not worth the trip in my 2011 Fiesta. Check out my fuel log. The first 5 tanks were E0 and the rest are E10. It's not worth the additional cost. Old Tele Man has it right as far as the newer cars being capable of running more advanced timing with E10.

Not trying to argue the point. If you car gets 10% better mileage with E0 and it does not cost a lot more than E10 then you should use E0 as long as you can get it. The difference in BTU content per gallon is about 4%, but that can be offset by more advanced timing in newer cars designed to run on E10.

Bottom line, use what you find works better in your own vehicle, whichever gives you a lower cost per mile. E10 also dilutes any water in your fuel which eliminates another possible problem.

Most of the trips I made to get the E10 were just about the perfect dive for economy and it still did not make a significant difference in my mileage.

regards
Mech

[dwarfnebula]

CFECO, flex fuel cars have an ethanol content sensor in the fuel line, that's how they tell.

[RobertISaar]

Originally Posted by dwarfnebula

CFECO, flex fuel cars have an ethanol content sensor in the fuel line, that's how they tell.

some/most do. some/most others do not.

from what i've seen, the sensors used to analyze ethanol content in fuel are VERY expensive, to the point of where a lot of manufacturers are doing without them and guessing fuel composition based on O2 sensor and some other inputs. when the O2 signals return expected results, then an ethanol content value is generated and other items controlled by the PCM are adjusted as such.

[CFECO]

dwarfnebula..I see you have a 94 Cherokee, my 97 Cherokee with the 4.0 ran fine on E-85, though the mileage did suffer. We had a local station which started to carry it and it was cheap, so one day I said what the heck. No melted parts or problems, but I won't run it in the Tundra.

[serialk11r]

I blended my last tank of gas up to about 35% last time just as an experiment, I have a lowly 10:1 compression 1ZZ. Gas mileage dropped some amount approximately in line with BTU content as far as I could tell. In theory I should have seen a power increase, but my butt dyno isn't well calibrated.

What it did do though was make my engine run noticably smoother at low rpm. Engine made less noise on cold starts. On an engine with raised compression, blending E85 with 87 is a cost effective way to get higher octane fuel since E85 even in California is about the same price as 91 fuel per BTU but you need a whole lot less E85 to raise the effective octane of a tank.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by owly

I am 100% dyed in the wool anti ethanol <snip>
... the fact is that the figures quoted by the pro-ethanol crowd are completely false. They are figures designed to promote their agenda. With agriculture....... with which I am heavily involved, the energy costs of production can easily be manipulated to make things look better than they in fact are. The pro-ethanol folks look at only the most obvious first tier energy costs. There are studies that look more deeply into the total energy picture, and those invariably come up with negative or close to negative figures. It makes no sense whatsoever to burn / consume fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol. <snip>
They present an entirely false and bogus "feel good" picture of the energy efficiency. Looking at it honestly, you must look at all of these things........ and more, as they all are energy costs that wouldn't be there without ethanol production. Is the energy cost of production of piece of iron that is worn out in tilling the soil NOT a energy cost of production of ethanol? Is the energy cost of operating a service truck to work on a center pivot to irrigate an ethanol crop NOT an energy cost of production? Even the energy cost of running a school bus to farms out of town must be assigned to whatever is being produced on that land. A share of EVERY energy cost associated in any way with farming that land, be it maintenance of roads & utilities, school bus, fuel and electricity to light the homes of the farmers, etc........belongs on the debit side of the equation. It's easy to gloss all this over and say....... "but they'd be growing something else........", but the fact is that they are NOT growing something else........ somebody else somewhere else is growing that "something else", and accruing that energy cost. Honesty is NOT popular where people have an agenda, but to be truly honest one has to look at the larger picture.

Howard

I wanted to snip more for the sake of brevity but what I left in is relevant. Sorry for the long quote, folks!

Bias goes both ways of course, and I won't dwell on it. We each have our own, and that's that.

Dragging fossil fuel out of the ground also requires the consumption of energy as you obviously are aware, but unlike ethanol, eventually those resources must run out or become too expensive to deliver.

You make good points and it would probably be an interesting evening hashing this back and forth over beers and pizza. I will address one statement you made: "'But they'd be growing something else,' but the fact is they're NOT..." This country grows more food than it can consume. That's an incontrovertible fact. Pockets of hunger here and there are due to poverty, not a shortage of food. You can make the argument that growing fuel instead of food drives up the price of food for the consumer and again that's a topic for Pizza Night. It doesn't deny the fact that we have more than enough food. Even with the thousands upon thousands of acres dedicated to growing corn for ethanol, we still have more than enough food.

Knowing that, and knowing that the energy balance is positive (how positive is another Pizza Night line-item), why not grow fuel? It builds domestic jobs, keeps farmers working, reduces foreign dependence etc etc.

I don't see a downside here. The only real question is exactly how positive is the upside.

[Miller88]

I can readily get 91 ethanol free here. I tried it last summer in my Cherokee and got very bad results. I understand this engine can not take ANY advantage of 91, but thought non ethanol would provide good results. I was incorrect in that assumption.

Maybe I will try ethanol free 91 again this summer. For the amount of miles I drive the Cherokee, the extra $.40 / gallon won't make much of a difference.