An easy 13.6%
 

I've been anti ethanol since the very beginning...........It's a dead loss. Not only does nobody count the full energy cost of growing the grain and processing it into fuel, but the loss in horsepower and economy exceeds the percentage in the fuel. And in addition there is the vast though widely distributed cost of the damage it causes. And of course there is the top soil loss, chemicals & fertilizers, and the cost of shipping ($ & energy) in the products that would otherwise be grown on the ground no taken up in growing ethanol crops.

Here in Montana, ethanol was virtually non existent in our fuel until this last summer...... or at least minimal. Last summer I watched gas mileage plummet, and nothing I could do would bring it back............. Until the local Cenex station started advertising NO ETHANOL IN ANY OF OUR GAS. I immediately began filling both my vehicles up there. My Subaru immediately picked up 3mpg........ which exceeds 10% based on the 28 mpg it had been making on E10. My full size Chevy extended cab pickup also jumped approximately 3 mpg.... an impressive 13.6%.

As E10 has 10% ethanol, and the cost in mileage exceeds 10%, ethanol is beyond a dead loss. If I could remove that 1 gallon of ethanol per 10 gallons of gasoline, I could drive further on the remaining 9 gallons than on the 10 gallons of E10!!!

Write your congressman! The ethanol boondoggle / fiasco needs to go away....... Gasahol is an idea with no redeeming value!!

My "by-the-numbers" response:

1) I totally agree, ethanol is for sipping (whiskey), not diluting gasoline.

2) Older engines cannot detect and adjust A/F-ratio to accommodate E10 fuel so almost universally loose MPG with E10 fuel.

3) Newer engines CAN detect and adjust A/F-ratio so CAN accommodate E10 fuel such that they often do NOT loose any MPG burning E10.

4) Power-hungary drivers LOVE E85 fuel because it UPs their engine's HP output (but simultaneously DROPS their MPG numbers drastically).

5) E10+ fuels (gasohol), IMHO, should only be used during "emergencies" such as OIL embargos and natural disasters, where "something" is better than "nothing."

Everytime I drive to Lousiana for work I put just enough gas to get me to the first ethanol free station and make sure and fill up there on my way back. Living in the Houston area, there is only on ethanol free station "near" and it is too far out the way to go to.

Have you heard of or used the puregas.org app and or website? It is an amazing tool to avoid this government forced fiasco.

According to at least one resource I've read, gasoline is only moderately better at well-to-tank efficiency than alcohol - 80% vs 60%. Interestingly, both of these are better than grid electricity.

I think an engine that was idealized for alcohol consumption from the outset would deliver much better fuel economy than the flex-fuel models. Let's ask Cripple Rooster, Brazil has a long history of domestic alcohol fuel production.

Two and three are backwards; The older engines will run leaner if they cannot adjust a/f ratios, and possibly better mpg at the risk of engine damage. Newer cars that can adjust, will add more fuel because of the alcohol, lowering mpg.

80% efficiency is "is only moderately better" than 60% efficiency?

I love ethanol. We sold a boatload of fuel pumps when NH started requiring it because it sucked up all the water that had been in the stations' tanks.

Sorry, but the ECM in almost ALL of the newer engines, especially those using turbochargers, actually "test" the octane levels of the gasoline by periodically "advancing & retarding" the spark ignition, using the principle that E10 (and higher) mixtures have higher octane levels due to ethanols higher octane number (100+) than 'straight' gasoline. Typically, this process is done upon each tank refill, and then more often as the car is driven.

How do I know this? Because that's exactly how our 2011 1.4LT Cruze works, and because I can SEE it occuring with my ScangaugeII™ when different mixtures of E10 and E0 are used. I see advanced timing consistently with E10+ fuel, but timing retard consistently with E0 fuel.

Similar process happens with Ford and Fiat-Co (pronounced fiasco) cars with turbos.

Yes, moderately
 

As opposed to my original and clearly wrong choice of words, "only slightly." This 60% vs 80% is considerably better than the numbers fronted by the anti-alcohol faithful.

I'm certain there are better efficiencies to be had, perhaps better enough to neutralize gasoline's delivered BTU advantage. That will be interesting to see.

bogus numbers
 

I am 100% dyed in the wool anti ethanol............ So I am hyper aware of the bogus figures used by the pro-ethanol crowd. Bias aside....... and I am obviously heavily biased.... 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. It is very easy for example to gloss over or completely ignore energy used in replacing equipment and consumables, and there are many consumables in agriculture, or to ignore things like the energy that goes into producing fertilizer, or the energy used in irrigation, or the replacement and maintenance costs in energy of that equipment. It's easy to say "they don't have to irrigate their cornfields"...... while ignoring the fact that crops that were grown on those fields are now displaced to other locations where irrigation is necessary....... that for example is a second or third tier energy cost, as is transporting replacement crops from overseas. 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

We used pure gas from one station in 2013, But I think the pure gas we bought was not as efficient as the E10 they sold at the same time because I tried running a lawnmower on it (Which was in poor running order) and it barely ran, But when I filled it back up with their E10 it ran well enough to cut grass!

I'm not saying pure gas can't run better, I'm just reciting memory.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 4.0 Jeep 6 certainly can't take advantage of the ethanol because it has no knock sensor. Mine pings badly on the 85 octane they have around here, it needs mid grade. My Hyundai cares not, I've never heard it ping.

I remember hearing premium gas, even ethanol free, has fewer btus than low grade; can anyone corroborate this?

Don't knock it 'til you try it MUWAHAHAHA.

That's odd, my friend's Gr. Cherokee straight six loves E85.

Pretty sure e85 should only be run in flex fuel vehicles as it's 85% ethanol. Aside from any running issues positive or negative, the fuel systems in non flex fuel vehicles are not built to stand up to that much ethanol. I know an engineer that works for Volvo (trucking division) and he explained that the main reason you don't see ethanol content higher than 85% is the extreme expense building tankers that the fuel won't destroy. That and you'll never see 100% because people would be willing to drink it LOL. I DO KNOW ethanol destroys the fuel systems in small engines and powersports engines and could go on for hours on the negative effects there.

Oh for gawd's sake, look around here, I've been posting about running E85 in non flex fuel vehicles for about a decade.

We still don't have any e85 stations around here, unless you have access to a military base. Guess it's never taken off that well, at least here on the east coast anyways. Curious, what do you see as a benefit to running e85 other than increased power?

Ethanol is everywhere in the midwest and has been in one concentration or another since the '70s.

It's oxygenated, it's renewable, and the last time I bought some it was $2.15/gallon.

Experience trumps theory and heresay.

I was hoping the lack of ethanol would help. Wasn't expecting a power / mileage increase from the higher octane. Wasn't expecting it to go down!

What year is your 4.0? Mine is a 2000 with coil on plug ignition and does have a knock sensor. I don't believe the older ones (or any 4.0 with distributor) has a knock sensor. I have been able to run non ethanol 85 (from a local indian reservation) in the summer and no knocking.

Higher octane gas has less energy and is slightly more resistant to igniting. Less energy means less heat expelled and less resistant to igniting means it won't light off based on heat in the cylinder like a lower grade gas would.

My focus *may* be able to see a slight improvement from higher grade gas. While it isn't higher compression, the ECU will try to advance the timing as far as possible until it knocks.

While I don't believe it can "sense" the octane of the gasoline, it is able to get an idea of the octane by how little/much it can advance/retard the timing.

Glad I am not the only one that thinks taking 50 some pounds of corn and turning it into 2 gallons alcohol a horribly inefficient process at least when trying to power a car with it.

The only vehicle that I tested and didn't see enough difference with E0 versus E10 was that Lincoln town car we had for a while and its 4.6L gas hog engine.
The only vehicle I cant do the test on test is the bug. It needs mid grade and I cant find any E0 mid grade gas.

I don't see how the natural gas used to make the ammonium nitrate fertilizer, electrical power to water the crops, all the petro chemical based pesticides, non replenished aquifers that are depleted are renewable.

They're gonna grow it anyway.

2 gallons of E85 weighs almost 15 pounds though, and it has no water or cellulose.

There is someting funny about the effect ethanol has on octane rating.
Ethanol boosts the octane number, so you could take lower grade gasoline, mix it up with ethanol and get a higher grade E10. Right?

Well, maybe not.
According to Wikipedia the octane rating of ethanol is 108.6. Or 89.7 ... What?
First rating is RON. Second is MON. Research Octane Number versus Motor Octane number. Simplified, RON is determined at 600 RPM, MON at 900. Most engines rev higher than that.

Now what does that mean. Most fuels have a higher RON than MON, but the difference is not at large as with ethanol. It may well be that the effect on octane is less than expected, and in some conditions even nonexistent or negative.
If your E10 is cut up with low octane gas no wonder it performs badly.

My experience with ethanol blends is good. My record tank is on German E10, my second and thrird are on hE15. These fuels are officially RON 95, but that is just a legal minimum. The actual RON octane is much higher than that. hE15 is made by taking regular RON 95 and just adding 15% worth of 96% pure ethanol. No doubt the water boosts the octane number even further; there is no ignition point for water vapour, obviously.

You need to know what the properties of any specific blend of E10 is. I suspect there are big differences, ranging from quite bad to quite good.
Commenting on the quality of E10 is like commenting on beer in general. But there are beers I gladly spend a lot on, and some I would not take if they were free. Just sayin ;)

If your local blend of E10 does not work out well it may not be the fault of the 10% ethanol but rather the quality of the gas.
You can find out bij taking the pure stuff and add 10% high grade ethanol to that. If that runs good you know what is to blame.

Chances are you can boost the octane by adding 0.4% of demineralized water to E10. Ethanol is fiercely hygroscopic and will gladly draw it in the mix, unlike pure gasoline. But you need to know that nobody has added some water already, especially whether that was more than 0.4 %.

As to ethanol being oxygenated; there is no difference in emissions for a fuel injected vehicle in good tune. Really it only cuts down on CO with carbureted cars, which are like hen's teeth around here. Not too many mechanics know how to get them through emissions tests anymore, fewer still are willing to try.

Be careful if you're adding water to ethanol based fuels....too much will cause phase separation. Then you will have water sitting in your tank no longer mixed with the fuel.

Where did I say it did?

Yes it does take a bushel of corn, around 54 pounds, and some where around 40 pounds of water to make 2 gallons of pure ethanol at the distillery.

There sure is water in that E10 crap, they aren't making 200 proof alcohol to add into gasoline. Just pour a quart into a glass jar and let it sit for a week and you will see the cloudiness and separation. Leave it in a carburated motorsickle for more than about 6 weeks and you'll be pulling the carbs to clean the spooge out of the pilot jets. Yes it costs more for pure gas, but it's still cheaper than rebuilding carbs and gives better mpg.

I just did a search on E10 quality and found this site.
And it all but starts with:
That was NOT what I expected. After all, they sell hydrated ethanol blends over here and AFAICT it does not hurt fuel economy; in fact, BTU wise, my economy is better than with regular straight gas. Volume of exhaust gas versus BTU, blah. It runs colder but same volume or slightly better even.
Despite that, and its shaky math and grammar, I will not dismiss it and would like to draw your attention to it.

They sell fuel test kits and provide a wealth of information, backed with facts or not.
Might be interesting for those who want to sing praise or damnation on ethanol blend fuel.

Lets not forget all of the diesel fuel that is used by the tractors and trucks transporting this stuff around.

Show me what fuel gets shipped for free.
I worry about all the ethanol that gets burned by all those tankers that haul gas all around the country. Not.
Tell you this: Ethanol comes from Springfield, not Bahrain.

Most of our oil comes from the U.S. and Canada.