Ethanol vs Octane
"For your money you get less mileage, and lower octane. "
As I remember, in the past, Indy cars rans on pure ethanol. They could run high compression without "pinging" and the engine ran cooler. I think that that indicates higher octane rating. Here in the GWN Sunoco 260 contains lots of ethanol. It doesn't knock and gives wonderful results on an e-test.
The need to fill the tank came frequently at Indy in the day.
Waaay back when- the first gas shortage- ethanol was new to gasoline. Gas tanks that had only ever seen all petrol fuel, had a little water mixed with rust in the bottom. The first tank of ethanol mix then incorporated that water and rust into the fuel. Carb rebuilds were frequent.
It's a spring thing!
[QUOTE=Sanders;206109]I can't speak for the vintage bikes, but the newer ones built in the last 20 years of so, are not going to have a problem with Ethanol blended fuel.
If you record your gas mileage you will notice a loss of MPG. Other than that I wouldn't worry about it needlessly.
What galls me about the debate is the subsidies paid at both ends here in Mn. Cargill, and ADM are reaping a lot of $$$ riding this wave.
For instance, last summer Ethanol hit $4.50 a gallon and was driving the price of gasoline, which was around $2.60 a gal.
Up she go's and where she stops, nobody knows...
I wish people paid more attention to this stuff. The politicians by way of the lobbyists have shoved this Blended fuels crap up our arses because we're complacent...
Agggh sorry for the rant!
The funny thing I can never quite figure out is this: You make ethanol from corn, lobby every municipality to take on a ethenol plant the pollution, the road expense, the expansion of water services, etc, with the promise that it will make jobs, and sell excess corn.
So then the Farmer plants back way more corn than normal (upsets soy bean market) takes out loans on new equipment based on increased corn revenue. The ethanol owners (did someone say Bushy croonies?) don't tell ANYONE it takes more energy to produce it than energy it produces, AND that it has diddly squat to do with saving the enviornment, to the contrary, they promote the stuff based on envirnmental gains!
Then what do we do when it all goes south? When the public wakes up? the Farmer now has no excess corn income to pay for the new equipment and land GOES BROKE Beans are now being grown elswhere, and the farmer has no cash crop market to farm! (Baby Boomers think Sugar Beet Factories here!)
The consumer now feels the rub of the boot stuck way up his ass and knows he's been lied to AGAIN! And drives a way in his lead ass battery hybrid with baldy tires fronm the weight of those lead batteries!
The small towns who bought into ethanol plants are holding the debt of local ethanol bankruptcies, lots of lost jobs, and debt from the overexpansion of the utilities to service the plant! ECONOMY SUFFERS!
And the Ethanol owners (BUCHYS) walk away from another short term, high profit venture of the Rich and Famous at the expense and demise of the American Farmer, The American public, the American small town!
Huh! what is it good for? Absolutely Nothin! Huh!
Sorry about Reds Rant, but it's been on my mind.
However, corn removes CO2 from the atmosphere when it is grown and that is where the reduction in carbon footprint comes from. With that said, the new Minnesota ethanol requirement is essentially an agriculture bill not an energy bill. It's also not renewable in the sense that the amount of water that will be used in the ethanol plants now being constructed is going to deplete the aquifers in western Minnesota faster than they will recharge. I can see two major conflicts coming in the next decade or so, corn for food vs corn for fuel, and water for corn and ethanol vs water for everything else in western Minnesota.
Originally Posted by bullit7801
The Minnesota street rod association has a list of stations that supply ethanol free gas for those who are concerned about it, they don't say what the octane ratings are.