Tier 1 Gasoline

[typ181r90]

It would take a long time to do this topic justice.. but I'm at work, so a quick and fast will have to do:

ANDYVH- ethanol blended fuels' exhaust is much cleaner than un-oxygenated fuels. Much cleaner. Even if you consider the drop in fuel economy, it's still not even close.

For example, I was involved in some automotive emissions testing where we were testing alcohols mixed into gas, in 2- and 4-stroke motorcycles, we saw a 96% decrease in carbon monoxide.. yes, 96%. Unburned hydrocarbons were lowered between 30-60% depending on the machine... There were massive reductions in air pollution across the board.

Regarding the decrease in mileage- ethanol has 76K btu/gal and gasoline has 113K btu/gal- so on a strictly energy basis, ethanol blended gasoline (@10%) will have around 109K btu/gallon-- just under a 4% loss. But in lots of the testing we did (using motorcycles) at a 10% blend we were able to increase gas mileage.

The reason (we surmised) is that while gas has more btu's, not ALL the gas combusts- but by adding an oxygenate we increased the combustion efficiency and were able raise fuel economy while using a lower-powered fuel.... after about 10% we saw drops in fuel economy that would correspond linearly with the btu levels of the fuel...

So.. long story short, ethanol is a good fuel. While making it from corn is not the best way to make it... (not even close, for about 100 reasons...) But ethanol is a good fuel.

Okay... flame on

I haven't heard any arguments that ethanol in itself is a bad fuel, in fact the Brazilians are doing a hell of a nice job with it using a sugar cane base. I have noticed a decrease in fuel economy as noted, more so with the motorcycle than the cars, but doing the math as far as cost it doesn't really bother me too much.

My problem with blended gasoline is the blending process itself (which I've discussed at length in this thread already). Reformulated gasoline relies on ethanol for alot of things, but one in particular is reaching a desired octane. The 87 octane fuel is really an 83 octane pre-blend and relies on the ethanol to boost the octane. That compounded with ethanol's cleaning properties and water retention (even from the atmosphere, like brake fluid) while being stored and transported really turn me off. I'm sure there's a better way of doing it, but this is probably the cheapest.

[Ken F]

Did anyone ever see piles of corn 75 feet tall??Laying right on the ground.I think this has somethink to do with this crap they screw-up our gas with.This gives farmers a way to sell there crop when its booming.A lot of this corn IS NOT good for FOOD .So there is MANY reasons for using corn this way.

And now the rest of the story....? True that not all corn is good to eat. However the subsidies paid to farmers have caused them to virtually quit growing food corn.

[Ken F]

For example, I was involved in some automotive emissions testing where we were testing alcohols mixed into gas, in 2- and 4-stroke motorcycles, we saw a 96% decrease in carbon monoxide.. yes, 96%. Unburned hydrocarbons were lowered between 30-60% depending on the machine... There were massive reductions in air pollution across the board.

Interesting....I was not aware of this. Further research in my future! lol

Regarding the decrease in mileage- ethanol has 76K btu/gal and gasoline has 113K btu/gal- so on a strictly energy basis, ethanol blended gasoline (@10%) will have around 109K btu/gallon-- just under a 4% loss. But in lots of the testing we did (using motorcycles) at a 10% blend we were able to increase gas mileage.

The reason (we surmised) is that while gas has more btu's, not ALL the gas combusts- but by adding an oxygenate we increased the combustion efficiency and were able raise fuel economy while using a lower-powered fuel.... after about 10% we saw drops in fuel economy that would correspond linearly with the btu levels of the fuel...

So.. long story short, ethanol is a good fuel. While making it from corn is not the best way to make it... (not even close, for about 100 reasons...) But ethanol is a good fuel.

Okay... flame on

[COLOR="darkred"]Now there you go again......lol So how were you tuning the engines differently? Between my father and I we have tested 3 R1100's, three Audi's, and a ford F150. The average drop in all of these vehicles when using ethanol was 10%. The R1100's will go from 42-43 to 52-54 on the hiway. The F150 goes from 15-16mpg to 18-21. What is the secret to getting better mileage using ethanol?

Thanks, Ken[COLOR]

[ANDYVH]

I could agree that ethanol is good fuel if:
1. it produced the same amount of energy per gallon as does gasoline. It's close, but it does not contain as much thermal energy capability as does gasoline. So more of it is needed to achieve the same miles per tank as gasoline.
2. it didn't inherently attract more moisture than does gasoline.
3. if it could be made for less per barrel/gallon than it takes to make gasoline. So far every report I have seen says it cost more to make ethanol than gasoline. It is made economical by government subsidy.

I don't argue that ethanol blended fuels themselves are not cleaner burning fuels. That is an established fact by testing. But, its the overall result/cost of getting MORE ethanol blended fuel to the end user that should be made known to the public. It takes more E10 per mile than does non-E10, so that means more of it has to transported to the end user. That means more tanker truck loads. More truck loads means more oil used to make more diesel fuel.

Its like the tweaked rationale saying current electric cars save the environment and use less carbon based fuels. That would be true, IF the extra electrical demand didn't come down the grid via burning more coal, which is the case right now. To make more electricity, we use more coal. Until that changes, electric cars DO reduce the demand for gasoline, but would increase the demand for coal if a large percentage of the populace drove them.

[SeabeckS]

The F-150 notes above are EXACTLY what my results have been with our F-150.

Our Avalon has a 6 to 10% mileage loss when using the ethanol blended fuels...

I don't breathe from an exhaust pipe, so I don't doubt that there COULD be less pollution from the "oxygenated" fuels. But frankly comparing the emissions of 2008 vehicle to something built pre-air pumps, catalytic converters, etc, etc... I DON'T REALLY CARE very much. At some point there is something called diminishing returns..

What I do care about is getting less mileage (and most often at a higher cost per gallon) and supporting an insane 'ethanol from corn' industry that is responsible for a lot of unaccounted environmental impacts in an effort to be "GREEN".

Okay, flame off now!

[kantuckid]

Andy, where did you get the 4% less mileage using ethanol?

My Ford F150, two Audi's and the R1100 all got 10% less....

Just curious.

Ken

Either way on the %, we were taliking about this same thing when I went back to college almost 40 years ago! Not a hijack of your thoughts as you are on the same soap box I stay on. E-85 makes an even worse argument, does it not?

[Mr. Frank]

The 4% number comes from the reduction of energy in the fuel. In the real world many people see a greater reduction because their engines were designed to get maximum power out of gasoline. Reports of a greater than 4% reduction are common.

[mistercindy]

All gas is the same as it is refined by the same process. the difference between a name brand (top tier) and convince store gas is the additive/detergent package that is added to the refined product by each individual brand.

Yup. My Dad once worked in the laboratories at Texaco, and he insisted that it was the same gasoline that satisfied the same federal regulations which no oil company spent the money to exceed, so he went to the cheapest gas station he could find. I've personally seen the the large and unmarked gasoline trucks finish filling the underground tanks at a national brand gas station, only to go to a no-name gas station and fill their tanks out of the same truck.

It reminds me of an old Mad Magazine cartoon from my childhood (bear with me, here). The first frame of the cartoon showed three slots in the post office's wall. Above one slot was written "Airmail." Above the next was written "First Class Mail." And above the last was written "Third Class Mail." The next frame was a view of the same wall but from the other side. Under the three slots was one huge box extending from one slot to the other into which all the mail fell.

Gasoline marketing is the same way.

[lkchris]

Gasoline marketing is the same way.

And in all these years they haven't been sued!

That truck driver puts the additives in at the station.

[milo]

I'll just offer this from last summer; I was filling up at the local BP station when an unmarked tanker pulled in. After paying I saw the driver get out, connect his fill hose and start writing something in his log while off-loading the gasoline. He looked up as I asked, "do you know if there is anywhere around here where I can buy non-ethanol gas?" He replied no, around here it all comes from either Pittsburgh or St Clairsville Ohio and it all has 10% alcohol added there. He said "I thought you were going to ask me if there is any difference in the gasoline between one brand or another"? Naturally I asked "is there"? He laughed and said "no, it's all the same. I refill different brand and unbranded stations from the same truck load, save your money".
On one hand I want to believe I get my money's worth buying Chevron, BP, etc because the driver adds the correct amount of the appropriate additive at each station stop. On the other hand I seriously doubt this is the case much of the time. Most likely a minimum additive package mixture is added at the bulk plant and all stations served get the same brew.

[henzilla]

And in all these years they haven't been sued!

That truck driver puts the additives in at the station.

There isn't a small additive tank on the tankers. It is ALL done at the terminals while loading. Only difference on the trucks is the octane rating in each compartment. Regular and premium.
Remember post 's # 36 & 45 from typ181r90? An insiders view that I have witnessed as well.

But if it makes you happy to believe it's all on the up & up, good with me

[typ181r90]

And in all these years they haven't been sued!

That truck driver puts the additives in at the station.

The driver does no such thing, neither do the people running the station. Why haven't they been sued? I don't know, maybe it's the same reason we don't get 80mpg VW Polo diesels in the USA or any of the assortment of highly efficient Euro cars. Maybe because as I've said in earlier posts, the oil companies buy oil from each other and wouldn't be able to if the product couldn't be considered fungible.

There isn't a small additive tank on the tankers. It is ALL done at the terminals while loading. Only difference on the trucks is the octane rating in each compartment. Regular and premium.
Remember post 's # 36 & 45 from typ181r90? An insiders view that I have witnessed as well.

But if it makes you happy to believe it's all on the up & up, good with me

I've mentioned my experiences to other people and on other forums and the response is usually the same as it is here. People have such a strong brand loyalty to gas companies and just refuse to believe the facts. I can understand people's loyalty to auto/motorcycle manufacturers and a variety of other things, but oil companies operate like cartels and are out to give people the absolute minimal to maximize profit.

I think I'm done arguing about it, it's just like getting involved in an argument about religion or politics

[lkchris]

People have such a strong brand loyalty to gas companies and just refuse to believe the facts. I can understand people's loyalty to auto/motorcycle manufacturers and a variety of other things, but oil companies operate like cartels and are out to give people the absolute minimal to maximize profit.

Well, you should get with your Congressman and haul a bunch of Chevron exectives before Congress and have them explain how there's really no Techron in there. You'd both have jobs for life and one of you could be President.

[osbornk]

And in all these years they haven't been sued!

That truck driver puts the additives in at the station.

I would guess that the same additives are called different names by different companies.

The driver doesn't do it because he would have a problem with the proper amount.

[sloride]

I thoght this was an interesting read

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...gas-usat_N.htm