E0 91 octane versus E10 87 octane

[roosterk0031]

Originally Posted by DOFZO

Corn is not the answer.



ZO.

So what is your answer?


Is corn Ethanol perfect, no, but what's better, cellulostic is better and is coming, but corn still has it advantages.

1: We are good at growing it.

2: We have the equipment to grow it.

3: It stores really well.

4. We already have storage capacity.

5. Cows love the leftovers, most of us like beef.

Corn ethanal is(maybe) a stepping stone to the next source of ethanol feed stock. You can't expect farmer or any industry to swap gears from growing (manufacturing) one product to another overnight or even 10 years.

Until the next feed stock makes more BTU's per acre of ethanol and meat protien combined corn's the winner.

[roosterk0031]

There is 2 ways to play this "game", run E0 and go for MPG, at today's prices where I live with E85 over 30% cheaper, run all of it you can and go for $/mile and my dollars stay home as the ethanol is made local, and the 15% petrol is Natural Gasoline from natural gas wells.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Lets start with tire wear...... did you test E10 or E0 first year.....variations in winter, variations in driving, I don't drive the same today as last year, how about that maybe that right front caliper that was draging(sic).....MAF that's dirty this year, or O2 sensor that maybe be is better this year than last..... your MAP sensor, or a fuel injector that's failing now and leaking extra fuel.
Disclaimer, I like ethanol because it's cheaper per mile and why ship corn out of country to only buy oil or any other product, a properly tuned E85 engine emmits 1/2 the CO2 (green house gasses as a gasoline

E85 ain't 85% ethanol. It can be as low as 52% ethanol & defined NOT to be over 83%, but mostly in the 60% to 70+% range. No wonder your wife gets within 18% of E10 mpg.... which E10 mpg is miserable compared to E0.

Rooster doesn't maintain its cars, so it talks of "variables". It didn't read that mpg on my 3 cars was same whether new or at 100,000 miles, only varying due to many years of E10 usage(not burned efficiently) or many years of E0 burning(burned efficiently). Yeah, rooster tried to take potshots at my many years of accurate mpg data for both E10 & E0.

Ethanol pusher propagandists always talk about "tuning" for ethanol. What they mean is changing from the gasoline engine factory settings meant to burn ethanol-free gasoline, & jury-rigging the engine so ethanol btu production is increased.... at the sacrifice of gasoline btu production. What a way to bias "variables" to lessen the blow of ethanol in gasoline engine btu production because it needs a high 114 octane, high compression ratio ethanol ENGINE, but does NOT perform in a low 87 octane, low compression ratio (9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engine. As for me, my cars are as they came from the factory, maintained to those same from the factory settings.

Rooster says E10 is cheaper than E0. Yes, E10 is quite a bit cheaper because EPA & "ethanol in gasoline industry" has forced E0 to rarity (impossible to obtain for most drivers), thus rarity economics drives E0 prices up. However, knowledgeable drivers support the 9227 E0 sources(one week later, 9251 E0 sources) that now number 3 to 4 times MORE than the EPA & "ethanol in gasoline industry" supported E85 sources, which languish.

Rooster's patriotism flops, since the "ethanol in gasoline industry" burns far more oil than it ever saves(very little). Yes, burning E0 reduces oil imports. Using (not burning effectively) 10% ethanol blends lower mpg in low 87 octane, low compression ratio gasoline engines by 8%, 8%, 7%, & 5%. Yeah, the ethanol isn't burned effectively, at all. Only burning ethanol in 114 octane high compression ratio ethanol engines works.....WHAT A SURPRISE........ NOT!!!

[roosterk0031]

All E85 pumps are labeled 70% ethanol minimum here, never tested it myself, just takes a calibrated cylinder and a some water but I don't care to. I'll trust the pump label.

My cars are maintained just fine, but I never have the same exact tires on them and at the same tread depth so mileage will vary year to year.

Unless you never wear tires out how can you test over years running one fuel this year, and a different fuel next year and expect accurate results.

Are your cars fuel injected or carbed? I could see carbs showing your losses in power mpg etc... more than a fuel injected ones.

I can run into the E40 range with my non-FFV cars and only symptom is reduced MPG/range. Actually think the Cobalt XFE picks up some HP, but the butt dyno isn't very accurate.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

All E85 pumps are labeled 70% ethanol minimum here, never tested it myself, just takes a calibrated cylinder and a some water but I don't care to. I'll trust the pump label.

Are your cars fuel injected or carbed? I could see carbs showing your losses in power mpg etc... more than a fuel injected ones.

I can run into the E40 range with my non-FFV cars and only symptom is reduced MPG/range.......the butt dyno isn't very accurate.

"ethanol in gasoline industry" has been taken to court several times, for numerous ethanol percentage "errors", "double blendings" to 20% & sold as "no more than 10%", & other ethanol dumpings to 64%. Since they pay court directed penalties, the "errors" are found to be intentional. So much for trusting the pump label.

My fuel injected cars show just as much loss as carbed cars. They have to. You intentionally don't understand my previous posts. Ethanol only gives up its maximum usable btus in high 114 octane, high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines tuned to ethanol(Indy cars). 10% ethanol blends, as used(not burned efficiently) in low 87 octane, low compression ratio (9:1 to 12:1) gasoline tuned for 100% gasoline, lose 8%, 8%, 7% & 5% mpg.

The reason for the wide price gap between E10/E0 is because EPA & "ethanol in gasoline industry" has forced E0 to rarity, automatically driving E0 prices up. If the mandate to add ethanol into our nation's fuel stocks is ended, pure-gas.org shows that E0 will readily lose its rarity & price between E10 & E0 will become closer. Already E0 source listings have increased from under 2000 to 9230 & will be 10,000 by late 2015/early 2016.

[roosterk0031]

http://cumminsengines.com/uploads/do...nal-report.pdf

Cummins decided to use 12:1 with a turbo.

[roosterk0031]

Did a little digging and found your car's fuel log on fuelly.

E0 you 53 total fills with 25 during October to April, 28 fills March to August with a 38.7 average, 57/43 split advantage summer.

E10 you 20 total fills with 16 during October to April, only 4 March to August with a 35.6 average, a 80/20 split advantage winter.

I loss around 10% in the winter, just glancing at some 3-tank averages December was 38 mpg, and June 42. (different tires)

[ever_green]

I get best results (both power and mileage) with more alcohol in the tank up to 15%, but any more E and mileage starts going downhill for me. With winter E15 I can really crank up ignition timing and actually lean out mixture and make more torque, specially at low RPMs where my engine knocks with regular straight summer gas. As a general rule and from dyno observations BSFC improves dramatically with higher ignition timing at 14-14.7 AFR and i have my engine tuned to this fuel mixture ratio below 3000 RPM with over 7* timing advance compared to stock. I try to use E10-15 gas rated at 89 octanes. I understand E10-15 can actually harm your mileage if your car is not tuned for it though.

Also part of the reason why your E10 mileage is worst than your E0 is because you are comparing winter time temperatures with summer time. Intake temperatures have a lot more effect on your mileage than having or not having 10% of ethanol. Another reason could be high mixtures of cold start aids in winter gas that evaporate in your tank such as butane.

[roosterk0031]

To be honest I've never looked at my 2002 Suburan data (see fuelly for an E85 and an E10 log but E10 has some huge advanages with early ownership long trips) to see if I happened to have a seasonal favorite. My XFE quotes above had all 4 tire changes per seasons. Probably worth a good portion of the 10% "seasonal" swing.

The best data I've collected is probably with the Stratus back when it was my primary car, cruise control, auto, only eco driving was a little bit of neutral coasting. It followed the energy curve almost perfectly. My newer FFV cars don't, they do better.

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

The problem with data collected over years is the variable of changes to the car, wear and tear, brakes dragging, changes in tires, driving style, commute etc...

A better collection of data would be to 3 tanks E10 and then 3 tanks E0 and repeat. That would help cancel out all other variables. My years of data with my wifes 02 FFV suburban showed a 18% drop in mileage from E10 to E85, mostly her driving. Her Impala shows the same 18-20% loss. I've never run enough E0 in either to see a difference.

E0 nets higher MPG with my Cobalt and higher cost per mile.

I have been checking into this thread here and there for some time now. I dig the discussion y'all are having! Even though I can't add anything to it, I would like to offer my car as an experimental platform!

There are several places nearby me with 87, 90, & 93 E0 gasoline. I can do a three tank trial run with 87 E0 if y'all would like. I have been running 89 E10 for the past 5 tanks at least.

The price would jump from 2.699 to 2.999 for me. However, an 11 gallon fill driven for 500 miles per tank equals only a 0.66 cent increase per mile. 5.94 cent/mile versus 6.6 cent/mile. I can handle that.

So yeah, I will gladly be a guinea pig