Removing Ethanol from Gasoline

[Frank Lee]

You (and all these poor people) "couldn't find" any econo cars because y'all weren't looking for them.

You found all these "ethanol problems" because you were looking for them.

Basically, you find "supporting evidence" for what you are looking for, and are prone to disregard what you are not looking for.

I spose we are all susceptible to that to some degree.

I just find it odd that our experiences are pretty much 180 degrees off on... well, just about everything.

[Chuck.]

Frank,

"confirmation bias" is the word you are looking for - when people are looking for evidence (sometimes dubious) to support pre-conceived opinions.

[Coyote X]

Well I might as well throw my 2 cents into the ring. Here is what I have been messing with this fall on my 300 mile a week work commute.

My 94 Astro all stock would get 21mpg with easy driving and not going over 60 with E0. Easy meaning actually staying with the flow of traffic and not passing everyone all the time.

With a few mods I was regularly getting 23mpg. I can't remember what ones were done at the time but now this is my current list.

Electric fan, underdrive pullies, load range D LRR tires @65psi, tunerpro rt 5 with an apu1 emulator to do realtime tuning/monitoring of the engine, replace all sensors and hoses that were even remotely suspect, 1200 stall diesel converter(stock is 16-1800), Adjusted shift points and lockup to maximize mpg, and a front air dam.

The van blew it's transmission and I more or less parked it for a while since I had a horrible junkyard trans in it. While it was sitting last local station ended up going to E10. I was 90% riding my bike and it's mileage is all over the place and I really don't bother checking it anymore so I didn't notice.

When I put the new transmission/converter in after the van had been sitting for a few months and filled it up and got no better mileage. Actually over a few tanks it was worse. I think I ended up at 21.5mpg for 3 tank average. So with E10 that is what it has been consistently getting. The engine is also tuned as carefully as you could possibly get it. I have probably 50 hours of datalogging and very carefully setting up the computer to run as good as possible with E10. The best I can get is 23mpg without changing my driving style.

2 weeks ago I acquired a small supply of E0 and got the front air dam tore off during that trip. I stuck the stock tune back on the engine but kept the improved shift points and lockup settings and went at it. I had 1 gallon of mixed E10/E0 left so I figure it is all good. The first tank was 25mpg. The second will be empty this week if I drive that van every day. I have enough gas left in the barrel for one more tank after this one hopefully.

I can say that on my cars and most older cars I have messed with, it seems like 20-25% mileage drop with E10 is pretty consistent. I have no idea why Frank wants to be so blind to the obvious, but whatever. Maybe he has family in the corn farming business or something. But I figure a lot of it is that some people have been using ethanol mixed gas since the 80s without knowing and and now that the stickers are on the pump they see no difference and conclude it must not be any different than straight gas. Anyone who doubts it should get a pre 96 car and do some tests with known pure gas and E10 and it will be pretty obvious. It would be really helpful if the doubters would do some ABA testing to go along with everyone else instead of just ranting.

I will run through at least 3 more tanks of gas in that van before I rip the engine out of it and solve the ethanol problem for good by going to a 6.5L engine this coming spring. I might be able to get some useful results before then if all goes well and I don't modify it anymore.

[123]

I will quot my self here.

"Weird that you have had so many problems my old Subaru with 240k ran better on E50 then E0 or even E10 and i did not need to replace my fuel pump after using it. Also I have not seen the same results as you when it comes to mileage I got 27 Hwy with the Subaru under normal driving conditions on E10 that's the original EPA rating."

So like I said before no eco driving or hypermiling was used and I saw no change in fuel economy with E10.


"I notice the "new" epa ratings the give for cars just happen to perfectly match up with the "e10" results people are seeing. HENCE why my cars original rating is 53/58 but its "new" rating is 46/51 or something like that.

Intentional? or maybe they are just using E10 in their cars and forgot to mention that in their results (bad science)"


As for your comment on the "new" epa ratings I am quoting fueleconomy.gov here.

"In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published new test methods for calculating fuel economy estimates that are posted on window stickers of new cars and trucks and on the website, fueleconomy.gov. These new methods, which took effect with model year 2008 vehicles, brought the miles per gallon (mpg) estimates closer to consumers' actual fuel economy by including factors such as high speeds, quicker accelerations, air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures."

So unless the EPA is lying or just so happened to forget to say their figures are based on E10 the new rating are based on driving conditions and not the fuel used.


"You had problems with pinging? I don't think the ethanol is the problem. One of the reasons race car drivers use ethanol is its anti knock properties plus its a safer fuel.

I agree that the ethanol is not likely of any relation to the pinging. it however is NOT safer in fact its quite dangerous. maybe your thinking methanol?? its extremely corrosive and not safe for humans."

When you say this I have to ask do you know what ethanol really is? And I was not thinking methanol I would never get the two confused I make ethanol so I know the difference plus I WOULD NEVER USE METHANOL.

So what is ethanol it is ethyl alcohol also known as grain alcohol or drinking alcohol its the same alcohol that's in every alcoholic beverage sold.

When you say ethanol is quite dangerous I have a test for you that might make you think otherwise. Take two pans and put ethanol in one and gasoline in the other now light both on fire then use water to try and put it out. Now tell me which is safer. The other thing you will see in this test is which one burns cleaner, gasoline will have a dirty black smoke and ethanol will not.

ONE of the reasons touted for using Ethanol is that we are replacing 10% of our fuel with it so 10% less foreign oil.

This is true and that's part of why I like it. Fuel made in America by Americans. The other BIG reason for using E10 is its an oxygenated fuel and can replace the need for pollution causing additives.

"I know nothing I say nor anyone else will probably change things and you will do what you want its your choice but I for one will not use E0 even though I can buy it.

This tells me you were not looking for a discussion at all that you are quite closed minded. I hope I am wrong but that is what such a statement sends as its message."

I am sorry if you feel like I am closed minded or being closed minded that was not my intention.

"Granted if you are seeing less than a 10% drop in FE when using E10 OK from your perspective it might make sense (only if your ignore the ecological damage ethanol production causes but thats another issue)"

Like rmay635703 was saying the ecological damage from ethanol is do to poor industry practices not the fuel itself.


rmay635703 you said
"I also could never understand why e85 cars don't use a variable valve timing system"
Its really simple the auto companies don't care about producing efficient ethanol vehicles. There are really only two reasons they even make ethanol vehicles aka flex fuel, first its "green if you can fill up your suv with ethanol and secondly it improves their cafe numbers.

I understand that Billions were spent on fossil fuels before they became perfected and commonplace. I am also not against investment. I think cellulose ethanol is a good idea. I see several problems with it first the poorly managed investment. I see it kind of like hydrogen cars many companies have said we can do it just give us funding and we will do it yet lots of time passes and no hydrogen cars and this has been happening for a long time. The other problem I see is the potential for a new monopoly of our fuel supply.

What I said was not specific to coal powered electric plants but they are the worst. Even if they run about double the efficiency of a typical car is my understanding wrong that the efficiency of the electricity produced is much less then that by the time it gets to the point of use do to other inefficiencies/losses?

Also l was thinking about the whole environmental impact of coal including mining not just what the power plants do. I have heard of the micro algae pond idea and would like to see them do that.

Old Mechanic Do you know why Indy cars run E85 now and not straight alcohol? E85 is the industry standard, plus blenders get credits for mixing gas into ethanol.

[123]

Wow it took me so long to post that other people have posted in that time, too many other responsibilities keep taking me away from the computer.

[Nerys]

Well all I gave you was my years and miles of experience.

Lets get serious here. Do you think I am lying? that I am making all this up? for what reason? I have better things to do than dicker around with my fuel.

This all started with my van. One day it suddenly started getting 13mpg. We could find no mechanical reason for it.

Then it "just goes away" after a few times I notice the sticker on the pump. I research this ethanol stuff online and start avoiding those stations.

Van goes back to 19mpg

Over time There are no more E0 stations they all become E10 now it stays at 13mpg.

So tell me what I did wrong?

I have a 74 Thing. I am VERY afraid to put E10 in it. I am encourage by your running your 73 on it but still fear for any of the rubber/plastic parts.

I have an 82 Goldwing. it REALLY does not like E10. sputters and runs rough. Runs "audibly smoother" when I use E0. now the gold wing uses carburators so I should be able to adjust the jets to handle the E10 better right?

In my metro. I wash some gas. FE jumps from 46 to 51 or so. I stop using the washed gas it goes back to 46. What did I do wrong? SO I drive up and get some E0

every time I switch to E0 I get around 55mpg every time I switch back to E10 I get 46mpg

again what did I do wrong? even my BEST driving on the hottest summer days on mostly highway no trailer driving the best I can do on E10 is 54mpg.

Tell me what I am doing wrong? Give me suggestions on what I could be doing wrong? Give me wild guesses on what I could be doing wrong to see such clear cut huge differences with E0 and E10.

The engines appear to be fine. I just rebuilt one. Compression is good. Sensors are good. Vac is good. Coking is good.

My Mechanic can not find a thing wrong with them.

On top of that what could possibly happen in this universe to DIRECTLY and IDENTICALLY effect 10 different engines at the exact same time besides a change in FUEL ? Especially when switching back to the "old" fuel instantly corrects the aberration?

what else do you want me to check? I am willing to check pretty much anything that is within my means to do so to get to the bottom of this.

[Nerys]

I know very little about the intricacies of ethanol or methanol. I was just recalling what I read from someone else posting about ethanol/methanol etc..

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Nerys

I am reluctant to do long term "washing" until I can figure out the ramifications to my engines.

And on the environment, as I wonder what E10 gas-washers do with their "cleaning fluid" once it's polluted with both ethanol and fuel.

I'm wondering why your quite significant changes in FE are not accepted at face value, while mods resulting in smaller changes in FE are promoted based on similar user experiences and tests.


It is widely known that Flexfuel cars have a significantly higher fuel consumption on E85 than on regular gas - despite the fact that those cars have their ECU's programmed to run on higher (and variable) ethanol content.

So why is it so absurd to state that this increase in fuel consumption also occurs at a lower ethanol content in cars that were never intended to run partly on ethanol ?
It's not absurd, it is to be expected !

With E85, the environmental benefit doesn't come from using less fuel, the gains are made by using a renewable fuel.

[user removed]

We tried but you refuse to accept our advice.

Reread this long thread and see what you missed, or chose to ignore.

Brazil went to high concentrations of ethanol after the first energy crises.

Gasoline was originally a waste byproduct of kerosene production.

Get a diesel. Got to be cheaper than paying insurance, taxes and maintenance on 10 vehicles.

My buddy used to race go-karts with highly modified B&S motors, using pure alcohol. He told me something that I remember. The engine was actually just warm to the touch after the race but the exhaust would burn you badly.

That's the different combustion characteristics you describe.

If you insist on driving cars that were not designed for ethanol, even in small percentages, then you will have to make changes in their fuel delivery systems to accommodate the ethanol.

In Virginia when the change happened (100% switch over) the gas stations had to close down and have their storage tanks flushed to remove the accumulated garbage from decades of leaded, the unleaded gasoline. Ethanol, once the transition was complete virtually eliminated fuel filter replacement here.

Maybe where you live they tried to do it the cheap way, and caused all of your fuel pump problems, flushing the garbage into the customers cars.

Bottom line, here is was totally obvious to everyone when it happened and clearly identified on every pump. We did have some problems with higher concentrations of ethanol, in one case 18% or more.

I am easily beating EPA on our mix here, in my two bikes.

I tend to work to find solutions to problems, and don't see any progress to that goal with endless caustic argumentative postings.

You have the information to make decisions to solve your problem. As they say around here "use it or lose it".

If I were you I would try both.

good bye
Mech

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by 123

So unless the EPA is lying or just so happened to forget to say their figures are based on E10 the new rating are based on driving conditions and not the fuel used.

Depends on their reporting.
If they reported X mpg on what was then the standard fuel and measuring method, and now report Y mpg on what is now the standard but different fuel and measuring method, they're not lying - they've just altered more variables than may be apparent at first.

maybe your thinking methanol?? its extremely corrosive and not safe for humans."

When you say this I have to ask do you know what ethanol really is? And I was not thinking methanol I would never get the two confused I make ethanol so I know the difference plus I WOULD NEVER USE METHANOL.

Ethanol is unsafe for humans or other organisms as well.
What people call a hangover is basically chemical poisoning.
It's not because you can drink limited amounts of it, that it's safe.

Check out the MSDS for both alcohols, they're very similar.
Ethanol is not as bad as methanol on some accounts, but it's worse on others.
Ethanol has a 170°F lower auto-ignition temperature for example.

When you say ethanol is quite dangerous I have a test for you that might make you think otherwise. Take two pans and put ethanol in one and gasoline in the other now light both on fire then use water to try and put it out. Now tell me which is safer. The other thing you will see in this test is which one burns cleaner, gasoline will have a dirty black smoke and ethanol will not.

Add a third pan with methanol.
It'll burn just as cleanly as ethanol and can be extinguished in the same way.