Removing Ethanol from Gasoline

[Nerys]

DAMN rmay. hit the nail on the head. every single nail.

UFO I tend to rant so if you don't want to read my post JUST READ HIS.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Agreed 1000% These businesses are very inefficient and highly energy and chemical dependant. Fuels from materials that
1. Need no fertalizer
2. Require minimal if any tilling,cultivating (AKA use diesel fuel to produce)
would be optimal.

etc.......

Cheers
Ryan May

[Nerys]

Hmm I don't think so man. I have seen first hand how AGGRESSIVELY damaging this stuff is I really do not want to be spraying it all over my car. it eats the clear coat off the car likes it putty. (you should see the hood of my jeep where I was doing this washing and that was just small little spills here and there.

No thanks. I won't have any paint left on the car if I use it that way and its likely to dissolve the washer fluid container hosing and pumps.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...or-r-r-r-r-r, you could just use the residual stuff as windshield washer fluid!

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Nerys

Biodiesel? you call that green? not even close. for YOU sure yes for YOU as one single solitary individual its "greener" but biodiesel is a non starter we CAN NOT DO IT for everyone there is not enough restaurants using enough oil to make it work.

and define BLENDS. blends is not greener. blends of what? E10 is a BLEND and it sure as hell is not greener.

Biodiesel is green, the trouble as you state is with supply, that supply could increase massively if Coal fired power plants would have an algae field with specific deep sea micoorganisms run off their exhaust plumes. Whatever amount of coal they made could be converted by algae & micro organisms into oil and materials that could be made into alcohols.

You see the problem is with HOW we produce these fuels, not really the fuels themselves.

If ethanol based fuel was half the price of true gasoline would your tune change? E85 here used to be half the price of regular (and during that time I was burning a 50/50 mix in my buick which got the same FE on that mix as e10)

I agree there should be choice in the market but I also believe there is potential in alternative fuels, just not from corn and soy and I agree that there are many times fuel economy hits.

Also you may find other alternative fuels like butanol if blended with other heavier and lighter organics would not affect your fuel economy.

We need to be vocal against improper means and poor business models, not against the ideas or the fuels themselves.

Cheers
Ryan

[Nerys]

Well my ultimate goal is NO pumped fuels for transportation. IE Electric.

then we can concentrate our energies on PRODUCTION of said energy.

I don't really care about the lifespan of the batteries once the range 100 miles and PRICE under $14k are met since once we have a mass switch to EV I am confident INSIDE of this generation we will solve the lifespan problem of the batteries.

then we only need to solve production to solve all problems. this ALSO solves the control issue. since IT IS possible for people to make their own electricity there is a level of control that can not be taken away.

with gasoline or any pumped liquid fuel the consumer has little to ZERO control.

even at half the price E85 won't even run in my car. What is the point of half price fuel if I have to buy a $20,000 car I can not afford?

it simply will not save me money and the worse fuel economy will almost entirely eat up the "half price" price tag making it NO different that just leaving things alone.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Nerys

even at half the price E85 won't even run in my car. What is the point of half price fuel if I have to buy a $20,000 car I can not afford?

http://e85forum.com/about1074.html&highlight=jeep
E85Forum.com :: View topic - E85 Conversions
E85Forum.com :: View topic - convert jeep 304 to run on e-85
E85Forum.com :: View topic - Converting 4.0 I6 jeep to E85
E85Forum.com :: View topic - Jeep 4.0L conversion??

If it came to that point, Getting it to run aint 20k but you will only have e85 operation unless you are creative. There are plenty of 60's era cars with racer types using e85 but they probably don't care about FE either.

Cheers
Ryan

[Nerys]

but the massively increased fuel usage will mean I pay the same price anyway even if its "half off" E85. IE your question was would it matter if it was half price.

No it would not because I would require twice as much of it if not more.

[Allch Chcar]

Nerys, they did this back in the 60's/70's when they banned Lead in Gasoline. Lead was a cheap octane booster but it was shown to be more toxic than Gasoline. There were probably people mad back then.
Driving is a privilege not a right. There are laws about fuel use, which is taxed, and even vehicles' state of repair(I've gotten a fixit ticket for a tail light out before and pulled over for a headlight being out.) just like there are speed limits and seat belt laws. I'm not thrilled by it being mandatory either. It's an emissions regulation to them just like the catalytic converter and electronic fuel injection. And Corn lobbyist didn't start this, have you even looked at Corn Lobbyist's political contributions? It is peanuts next to Big Oil's political contributions. Before groups like the NEVC this was not a big corn push. If anything Bush started it when he approached ADM. And Corn Ethanol is not a cash cow like you portray it as. The Gasoline market is very competitive and the prices have to be low as supply for Ethanol easily exceeds demand at this point.

They are not making you buy a brand spanking new car. Used cars get cheaper over time. Eventually the cars designed for E10 will be affordable to you and you can get one if you so choose. If you want to keep an old carburetor car it probably needs a new fuel system anyway, 20 years of Gasoline can ruin a fuel line too. If it has any rubber in it it's probably already worn out from Ethanol exposure. Updating an old car is not unreasonable but it's probably cheaper just to get a newer one. I'm not enthusiastic about newer cars either they may be more powerful and more efficient per pound and many get better than EPA easily but manual cars are rare and the V6 was the most popular engine for the 10 years prior to the Katrina fuel crunch.

Setting fuel regulations for vehicles over 20 years old is a bit much isn't it? The average time people own a car is 5 years and the average lifespan of a new car is 17 1/2 years. The new E15 law practically guarantees two different blends at the pump. And while I don't agree that E10 should be mandatory it has been for almost ten years in some places(circa 2001 I believe). There have been studies of Gasohol in cars from the 90's and the results have been mostly positive. The only horror stories of older cars having problems from Gasohol have been for cars like cars from the Carburetor era, before 1990 or just certain models which weren't designed properly for the current fuel blend. Eg there was a Lexus recall several years ago and likewise a Volkswagen recall over E10. Ford has been building their cars to be compatible with E85 since '94 but not designing the ECU or sizing the injectors for it. Many of the Execs at the big Automakers no doubt remember Gasohol from the 70's. If anything everything post 2000 is probably designed to tolerate even higher blends of Ethanol than E10.

E85 is at least 3/4 a gallon of Gasoline, Methanol is half. The double rule of thumb is what Methanol racers use as a guideline and does not apply to E85 at all. E85 uses more like 1/3 more fuel, the EPA has MPG numbers for Flexfuel cars and it is closer to 1/3 more fuel. That is due to less energy density problem not energy efficiency. E85 can burn more efficiently than Gasoline. There is a good reason Alcohols have less energy per gallon and it is due to having oxygen in it.

And windshield washer fluid is Methanol mixed with water and it is even more corrosive than Ethanol.

[Nerys]

Lead did not effect fuel economy - lead was a poison real and serious. REMOVING the lead actually made gas cleaner and safer. Removing lead did not kill fuel economy while the government claimed it was cleaner and greener and cheaper.

There was real tangible benefits to society in eliminating lead from our fuel.

there are NO tangible benefits to adding ethanol to the fuel as a compulsory upgrade across the board.

There was "lead substitutes" available for older cars that actually did need the lead to for example help seat valves.

There is no "method" or "addition" to remove the ethanol side effects from E10 for incompatible cars. Not only that but it does the exact OPPOSITE Of what they claim. its dirtier not cleaner. its more expensive not cheaper and it increases our foreign oil usage NOT decreases it.

Apples and oranges to compare with leaded gasoline.

Does not matter if new cars get cheaper over time. not ONE of them comes close to the function of miles per gallon of my current cars. SO what was the purpose of changing the fuel? did you read my post where I compare my "old" cars (100% of my daily drivers are FUEL INJECTED btw none are carburated) to the NEW CARS and the new cars actually get WORSE fuel economy than my older cars?

My 92 E150 19mpg the NEW E150 2011 club wagon 17mpg
My 96 voyager 28mpg the 2011 Caravan (voyager caravan SAME thing) 25mpg

So explain to me what is the point of the E10 fuel? it has NO redeming qualities except to monsanto and a government pretending its greener. its the exact opposite in every aspect.

The only vehicles that might be comparable are hybrids and they have ZERO resale value past about 5 years since the battery pack become suspect at that point.

Worse it uses massive quantities of FRESH WATER a extremely at risk natural resource we are running out of all over the country.

The idea that most are positive from the 90's is something I call BS on. I think they SELECTED cars that would result in positive results. Explain how all of my cars are seeing over 20% loss in FE and thousand and thousands of others are seeing the SAME results.

how many people have NO CLUE because they don't track their FE ??

"E85 is at least 3/4 a gallon of Gasoline, Methanol is half. The double rule of thumb is what Methanol racers use as a guideline and does not apply to E85 at all. E85 uses more like 1/3 more fuel,"

I call BS on this. because on E10 I am already using nearly 1/3 more fuel.

maybe that statement is true on vehicles DESIGNED for E85 but it sure does not apply to mine.

"And windshield washer fluid is Methanol mixed with water and it is even more corrosive than Ethanol."

Hmm I trust you know what your talking about so maybe it something else I am removing from the fuel is whats being destructive to my paint but I can tell you this.

Washer fluid does not appear to harm my finish while the water ethanol I remove causes visible damage in minutes.

if its not the ethanol since you say the methanol is worse then it must be something else also coming out of solution with the ethanol.

[Nerys]

I want to point something else out that I find VERY interesting.

I don't thing the EPA changed squat of significant for Fuel Economy testing. I think in fact they just redid it to account for ethanol. Here is why I think this.

Fuel Economy for my Club Wagon PRE ETHANOL

19mpg pretty much anyway I drove it. 20-21 mpg possible in "extreme highway" driving.

My CURRENT fuel economy in the 92 E150. 13mpg around town 17mpg extreme highway.

CURRENT fuel economy for a 2011 E150

13 city 17 highway.

I am sorry that is way way way to much of a coincidence to just be a coincidence.

how much you want to get that 2011 E150 will get 19-21mpg if you filled it with E0 like my 92 E150 does?

I would bet a weeks paycheck on it. thats over 20% difference in fuel economy.

I find it fascinating that I HAPPEN to be actually getting equal to EPA mpg if I use the NEW EPA numbers on E10 even though my driving HAS NOT CHANGED and my cars HAVE NOT CHANGED.

so on E0 I get the old EPA figures and on E10 I get the NEW EPA figures.

I do not believe in coincidences.

[UFO]

"Tend to rant" is an understatement. I'd probably be able to have a discussion with you if we could keep it to one or two thoughts, but I can't get through all that.

In any case, no matter how nostalgic some are about carburetors, fuel injection can do better in every instance.

Over and out.