Removing Ethanol from Gasoline

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Coyote X

... 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.

Thanks for the input Rick. I'm struggling to understand what is different about the 6.5 liter that it should not suffer as badly on e10 however. I think it is hard to avoid e10 and if there is a solution for older cars then that would be most beneficial.

here's some info on converting an engine to straight ethanol, wonder if any of these apply
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id32.html

mostly having to do with adding more fuel, but some discussion about advancing timing and using 10:1 compression, hotter thermostat, fuel warming, etc.

[Nerys]

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

Blah blah blah. Are you just going to parrot the same thing over and over again? all you have to do is stop by ANY car lot and loos at the prices for the small 4cyl sedans and look at the prices for the V8 sedans and older SUV's. Speaks volumes.

Then when you consider USAGE of a family vehicle and the propaganda that our society puts out (bigger safer smaller coffin etc..) well its pretty obvious why people drive what they drive.

"I" did not have a problem finding a small fuel efficient vehicle. its why I bought the cherokee. It was a great small light long lasting (496k miles) easy to maintain GOOD fuel economy vehicle (24mpg was NOT unusual for me) that did everything including TOW anything I wanted it to even my 6000 pound camper.

A lot of people are not so fortunate to have family that can assist with driving till they FIND "just" the right car. a lot of people would not have afforded the $1500 down payment on the car and the $100 a week I paid to pay it off without finance charges. A lot of people don't own a local family business 1.5 miles from the used car lot so they were trusted enough to be allowed to make such payment arrangements.

I consider myself one of the more fortunate people. NOW what is hard was finding a TRULY fuel efficient vehicle in decent shape OR developing the skills and or having ALTERNATE transportation to be able to deal with a less than decent shape truly fuel efficient vehicle.

Again I consider myself lucky. I always have at least 2 cars opearable optimally and insured so I could AFFORD to buy a $600 metro and then spend 1.5 months "fixing it up" to put it on the road.

Again I consider myself very lucky and in a minority to have to means to do this.

Have you CHECKED craigslist for the prices on good decent shape metro's? even the 4cyl's go for $1800 to $2500 Only rusty needs lots of TLC beaters tend to go for under $1000


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

Really? I guess you have reading problems or simply decided to make assumptions. I did not even have the word Ethanol in my VOCABULARY when my van's FE tanked from 19mpg to 13mpg (I was putting a new motor in the Jeep and the Minivan's tranny puked so I was driving the Clubwagon for a few months daily)

In fact since historically I NEVER had "fuel problems" I never even suspected the fuel until a few tanks later and after replacing many not needed parts on the van TRYING to find the problem that I noticed the Ethanol sticker on the pump and was like Huh what the heck is that all about.

it found me. Not the other way around.

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

No. I did as mwebb would say. TEST DO NOT GUESS. I tested it. Once I had a suspicion that the Ethanol was the issue I did exactly what any logical sensible person would do.

I STOPPED USING IT.

and wow what do you know the problem vanished. I was getting 19mpg again. Who would have thunk. its a miracle I guess.

the mechanical problem in my engine just magically fixed itself when I stopped using the suspect fuel.

AND HEY when I went BACK to E10 the problem RETURNED immediately. I guess tinkerbell died while sprinkling her pixie dust on my engine at just the moment I switched back to E10 right?

but you keep IGNORING that I did very logical sensible testing and just keep "DECREE'ing" that its me looking for a problem where none exists.

Keep telling yourself that.


"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. "

What do you want me to do? LIE and pretend that E10 does not cost me an extra $1842 a year in extra fuel (if I were driving the Minivan)

Even in the GEO I current spend $2104 a year in fuel.

With E0 assuming I ONLY got 8mpg of my FE back (and I already know I should get more) but lets use 8 since that would bring me equal to my original EPA highway to be conservative.

it would be $1800 a year in fuel. SO Ethanol is costing me an extra $300 a year in fuel and thats in a freaking 50+mpg Metro !!

Now if it was ACTUALLY cleaner. if it was ACTUALLY greener and if it ACTUALLY reduced out usage of oil (it does not do any of the above) I could ALMOST say ok I can live with paying an extra $300 a year for those benefits.

but from my perspective every one of those things are a lie.

Brazil is invalid because they use a MUCH MUCH MUCH better source of ethanol than we do (sugar cane) and have FAR fewer cars than we do (so its VIABLE their)

How about you stop digging your hole frank and pretending its ME in the hole as you look up.

[ShadeTreeMech]

Originally Posted by 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.

Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto you.

OR

Don't seek, and ye will not find, don't knock, and the door will not be opened unto you.

Your choice.

[ShadeTreeMech]

Wow let's change the subject to why is taking ethanol out of gas helpful?

[Nerys]

"We tried but you refuse to accept our advice.
Reread this long thread and see what you missed, or chose to ignore."

You know everything you point out I counter with correct info. You say carbon. My engine is clean. You say low compression my compression is perfect. You say vac leak I test and find No leak No flutter perfect vac.

Or do you simply ignore my results because they do not concur with your preconcieved results?

JUST IN CASE I will in fact rereard this entire thread from post #1 just in case I did in fact mis something else I could test or try. I am far from above saying I missed nothing its a big thread.


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

?? so what? they run flex fuel and they use sugar cane a far far more efficient source of ethanol than corn.

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

Why do people ignore points I state and then bring up irrelevant minutia?

I will explain this once and then ignore further comments on it not to be mean but to simple let this post stand on its own.

Half the cars in that 10 ARE NOT MY CARS. I was pretty clear this was family and coworkers cars. I love how people ignore that so they can divert the conversation to some sort of insult.

I like cars. Call it a hobby. My first car was a 88 Cherokee. Its my daily driver/ toy / hauler do anything vehicle.

Today I could not get $500 for it. The tires alone cost me $700 so I am never going to sell it. I keep it because I like it. You will notice I have been saying 496k miles for a while now. thats because I don't drive it very much.

Skipping vehicles I got rid of over the years next up is my Thing. Its my classic hobby car. I just love the car. I have not driven it in years (frakked the tranny) finally got a new tranny I hope to have my Thing running again in the spring. I have considered selling it a few times (I could probable get $4k for it with the tranny installed) but I just love the thing so much.

I got a minivan. 96 Voyager. Scored it for $2500 and was able to make payments. I LOVED IT. 4 door (2 sliders) lots of room and SO comfortable to drive (one of the few minivans with enough HEAD ROOM for my 6.3" frame) and it got amazing fuel economy. I was getting 28mpg from day one.

It however was limited by its 4 speed tranny so 28mpg was all I ever got out of it (I have NO doubt with a proper tranny this thing could get 32+ mpg) that little 3.0 V6 is a nice little engine.

Alas it dumped to 19mpg with E10. 20mpg if I drove carefully (previously I did not have to "drive special" to get 28mpg.

Then I fraked the tranny in that one too. It still drives fine still gets 19-20mpg but I have to play with the acc to get it to shift through the gears so I stopped driving it till I can get a tranny for it OR convert it to diesel (yeah in my dreams) I don't want it to die alltogether and become immobile. PLUS at 19mpg I just don't want to fuel it.

Later I got the 92 Clubwagon. MAN you want to talk about a score. CHERRY van not a scratch on it (boy does it have scratches now long story for another thread) it only got 19mpg but the PURPOSE of this van was for vacations and trips. it was never intended to be a daily driver.

This was my baby for my trips. Seat up nice and high with over a FIST of space between my head and the ceiling and my legs sat at a natural 90/90 in this van. When your big and tall this is critical for long distance driving. I COULD NEVER tolerate a 1700 mile trip in the metro. in the Clubwagon its a pleasure.

I could also put 7 people AND all their cargo in the van plus tow 10,000 pounds if I want.

If I could afford to make this van my daily driver I would say SCREW FE and drive the van JUST because of how insanely comfortable it is to drive the van. Its like a Rolls Royce inside a VAN shell.

It only gets driven when I need tow something heavy or go on vacation/long trip.

I tend to buy cars in PAIRS. when you buy old cars its nice to have backup. I bought another 88 cherokee to be a "donor" to my first cherokee. at 485,000 miles I took the virgin engine out of the second 88 cherokee with only 119k on the clock and did a mild rebuild and install this engine into my original 88. So the new 88 is no longer driven (no engine) I am keeping it to eventually cut it in half and make a "cherokee trailer" for my cherokee.

I had TWO VW things a 73 and a 74 alas when I had a mechanic take the tranny out of the 73 to put in the 74 the moron CUT the damned frame to do it instead of calling me at which point I would said screw it an ordered the $130 fraking tranny online. *******. I hate that guys guys will never have him do work on my cars again. I sold the 73 shell later down the road still have the 74.

Thats it.

The 94 APV and the 98 Windstar and 96 Towncar belong to my father

The other 94 APV belongs to my mother.

The 99 Kia belongs to a co worker

The 98 F-150 belongs to my brother (he no longer has it)

last November I got the 94 metro because I had been SEEKING a 50mpg car and it was in my price range and I could make payments.

I HAD 2 300D's the year before. a 75 300D and a 76 300D got the 76 for $1200 ready to run got the 75 300D for $400 (lots of body rust needed brakes and glow plugs but otherwise very nice mechanically) (again I tend to buy PAIRS of cars)

Eventually I got rid of those as they maxed out at 35mpg which was not enough for my wants. traded the 76 for a 82 goldwing and traded the 75 for a working running boat with trailer and all titles.

Why? because I can. Out family business gives me the storage space to allow me to do this. So I can drive the specific vehicle best suited for the demands I will place on it.

I do not insure them all that would be nuts. I keep 2 insured. The metro The Van in case I need to tow or move something OR the metro breaks down etc..

The rest I keep in "winter storage" insurance for $30 a year that I can "activate" with a simple phone call if I need to drive them.

I pay $461 a YEAR for insurance. plus $78 for the motorcycle.

Does that more clearly explain my "many cars" situation?


"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."

granted I am by no means an expert at this but it sounds to me like that is NOT very efficient. blowing energy heating up the exhaust?? but then again I guess he is going for PE not FE so it does not matter.

"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."

I did not insist on driving cars not designed for ethanol.

My lovely GOVERNMENT insisted on shoving ethanol down my throat against my will. all my cars existed BEFORE the ethanol.

How dare you to expect me to go "buy a new car" just to run on ethanol? your kidding right? even if I was stupid enough to spend the money on the "newer car" that runs better on ethanol it will still get WORSE FE than my Metro does ON ETHANOL.

so again WHY would I bother?

"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."

oh hell no they did not do that here. they just started pumping it. I do not recall one single station shutting down for any reason during the switchover (which took over 4 months I might add)

"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."

Not here. in fact I could tell when a gas station "switched" long before they "got around" to putting the stickers on the pump. My FE tanked.

I even asked the guy HEY when did you switch to E10? he said how did you know that? I said cause I am getting 13mpg again. I said please get the stickers on the pump (this was before I found out ALL were going to E10 no matter what)


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

new epa or old epa? I bet your getting no where near OLD epa.

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

I only got caustic when people got caustic to me. It tends to work that way. When your (not you specifically) nasty to someone they TEND to get nasty in return. Its a human nature thing. I am trying to find a solution but you guys either tell me its my engine and then won't tell me how to fix it or say I did it wrong or call me a liar.

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

I will re read the thread again. I do not recall seeing anything that I did not already remove as a possibility but I could have missed something.

Here is what I can say with 100% certainty.

Compression is perfectly fine HIGH and EVEN across all cylinders.
I get 185 across all cylinders. Rated "brand new" engine compression is max 205 IIRC)
Even the manufacturer will not touch one unless its below 155.

Vac is perfect 19/20" with No Flutter

EGR is clear clean and working properly

The engine receives a complete quality tune up yearly. I change the oil every 3-4k and use 5w30 quality oil (not synthetic yet)

The computer throws no codes

The fact that I AM getting 50mpg attests to the proper running condition of the engine. It never gets hot it never does anything "hinky"

What else do you want me to check/replace/test/alter?

[Nerys]

"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."

Oh I don't think they are lying. I just find it an interesting coincidence that my DROP in fuel economy just happens to "jive" with the "drop" in EPA ratings even though my driving has NOT changed.

I am doing the same commute now that I was doing 15+ years ago.

I just don't believe in coincidences.

While I do not think they are lying I think just "making" new numbers without listing ALL the reason for the change in the numbers is very deceptive and I think the deception was intentional. They have an agenda they WANT to use Ethanol and they want to quiet the negatives of ethanol usage and they appear to NOT want people to see the differences at all.

by then regulating E0 OUT of existence intentionally (PA is trying to make it illegal for any gas station to sell Ethanol free gas anywhere in PA)

Why not make it optional? why FORCE it?

If the stuff is so good why do they need to use FORCE to put it into usage?

I can NOT afford to buy a new car and I WON'T buy a new car. Because I do NOT agree with the practices of our auto makers and I vote with my wallet (so of course our gov bailed out GM and put a gun to my head and FORCED me to give GM money yeah! thats another thread :-)

Especially in this economy its PREPOSTEROUS to expect a significant portion of the population to go out and buy news cars so you can use your ethanol gas (you as in gov/country not you specifically)

The RIGHT way to do it is offer BOTH fuels and if the new fuel has genuine merit it will usurp the old fuel.

alas the new fuel DOES NOT have merit so they "force" its usage.

and we suffer as a result. YOU suffer whether you admit it or not if you pay taxes.

[dcb]

lol, you all have fun now

[Nerys]

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

Wow let's change the subject to why is taking ethanol out of gas helpful?

I am not a chemist or fuel engineer I really don't know "factually".

Here is my best educated GUESS as to why it helps.

My engine is NOT designed to operate on ethanol. SO it runs very poorly on ethanol. So much so that the presence of ethanol "interferes" with the ability of the engine to extract mechanical energy from the combustion of the fuel but not enough to prevent it from running at all.

It would be like mixing a few gallons of diesel with your cars gasoline fuel. it would still run but it would run like crap.

The BTU energy of the fuel is only relevant in a PROPER operating environment.

Our engines (at least those of us having issues) are NOT in a proper operating environment with the presence of E10

The current hypothesis (NO testing this is PURELY guess work here) is that when the spark plug fires it is NOT igniting the ethanol reliably. The gasoline lights and the flame front from the gasoline then "burns" the ethanol. alas this happens "late" so you get two competing flame fronts inside the cylinder.

the REASON we "guess" this is the case from one single example we found. I have NO idea where I read this I thought it was HERE but I could not find it again. it might be on the other ethanol thread I am on but its not searchable and is many many pages long.

Someone with either a 2004 or 2006 (can't recall which) Hybrid SUV was experiencing a nearly 30% drop in FE using E10 even though his vehicle is rated for Ethanol usage.

He took it to the dealer and they "fixed" the problem. when he asked what they fixed he claims this was the response.

The Computer was programmed incorrectly and the spark was too weak to properly light the ethanol mix. The programming was corrected to use a hotter spark as is proper and now it functions properly.

He reported back that now he only see's the "expected" 4-5% drop in FE when using E10.

This is how we came up with the spark being "part" of the problem with Ethanol mixes in older engines.

No real science here just an observation and an educated guess.

SO the current assumption on our part (those of us having problems) is our cars can not properly COMBUST the ethanol mix so when we REMOVE the ethanol of course PROPER combustion resumes. IE we are NOT extracting the expected number of BTU's from the fuel as the math assumes.

IE our thought is this is NOT about the lower energy content of ethanol we all agree its only a 4% or 5% difference for our cars.

its the IMPROPER COMBUSTION of this mix that is leading to the losses we are seeing. NOT the lower BTU content.

I thought about a newer custom higher powered ignition system but WOW anything decent costs more than I paid for the car so thats not an option anytime soon so I can not TEST this "hotter spark" assumption.

[UFO]

Nerys, I don't understand why you seem to be proud of your ignorance. There is no way I can follow all that, so I will leave you with my original question.

Why does your engine or your testing seem to say ethanol reduces the energy content of your fuel when it is indisputable that ethanol has energy and works in the same SI engines that burn gasoline?

Until you can square that circle, your ranting is not credible. Your task lies before you.

[Nerys]

Post Deleted. Your just going to troll more

so I leave you with this.

E10 46mpg
E0 55mpg

either explain this. Leave the conversation or CORRECT my testing methods if you think they are wrong and I will retest.

any other answer without a valid explanation serves no purpose except to troll.