Is 10% Ethanol a problem, can I do anything about it?

[smartguyz]

Thanks Peter,

That makes a lot of sense.

-Rob

 

[MossRoad]

Thanks Peter,

That makes a lot of sense.

Oh what did he have to go and make sense for???

 

[smartguyz]

David - feel free to inject nonsense.

-Rob

 

[thatguy]

Most of the higher octane fuels do not have ethanol - so you could use mid-grade if available.
Mike

I have not seen that around here.. BUT most of the station I have been around (for work) blend 87 and 93 octane to get their midgrade 89ish octane..

Looking at Bills of Ladings from terminals I also have not seen a 'mid grade' listed as being disbursed either.. Its unleaded regular and premium listed

Brian

 

[Skyco]

[*]Don't worry about whether it has ethanol in it.

For a frequently used engine that cycles fuel pretty quick I'd agree, for equipment that sits much of the time I'd disagree. I've also found 2 strokes really don't like ethanol gas....they run much better on pure gas/oil mix , the jetting is all wrong for anything else. Jetting is much more critical on a 2 stroke for best performance.

 

[SnowRidge]

Back to the original question: No, E10 won't hurt your engine.

When ethanol is blended at the blender to get E5.7 (CA average) or E10, or whatever, the hydrocarbon mix is altered, including the additive packages. 87 E10 is still 87 octane. It doesn't run hotter. 100% ethanol is around 105 octane, and helps the blender "stretch" the octane components of the fuel. In California, only one supplier has ethanol free gasoline, and it is not adverised.

For those of you old enough to remember the fuss over the switch from leaded to unleaded, a similar brouhaha is going on with the inclusion of ethanol in gasoline. It is a new, to many people, fuel, and lots of odd things are being attributed to the ethanol- e.g. flying cows, off the line acceleration, pink elephants, massive HP gains, decreased fuel economy, altered emissions, kangaroos in upstate NY(to my knowledge, only the latter two or three are true).

This is a plea for common sense. Look at reviews at national organizations, like Consumer Reports. Don't believe all that you read in the media, especially the internet.

Do believe that a great number of petroleum chemists spent a lot of time and money getting gasoline ethanol blends that work. Why? Because a lot of money was riding on it.

If the fuel can be demonstrated to be bad, the oil company that created the blend is liable for the damage. Given the number of cars on the road, that is not something that they would want to have happen. I'm not saying that one brand of gasoline may or may not be better, but I am saying that if someone is disparaging the fuel, they better have real, statistical data with large numbers of engines. "Ah had a buddy whoz gran pappy had this ol engine that jus plain melted..." Don't believe me- go read data at ASME, CR, EPA, CARB, etc.

Bottom line:

• worry about the brand,
• worry about how fresh the fuel is, and
• worry whether or not the stations' fuel tanks were just filled (which is bad because it stirs up debris- give it a day to settle again).
• Don't worry about whether it has ethanol in it.

Why using brand X, my first car went 287,000 miles...Oh, wait that's anecdotal...

Happy tractoring folks...

All the best,

Peter

Wow. You should be a politician. You have managed to indict those who have noticed a drop in mileage since the advent of ethanol laced gas by associating us with the outright nutcases. This despite the fact that a US gallon of 90/10 gas/ethanol mix contains approximately 4% less energy than a gallon of straight 87 octane gasoline.

So is it your theory that by reducing the energy content in the fuel, mileage will increase? Maybe those who claim you can run a car on water are on to something?

Since you are in the business of lecturing us on ethanol, perhaps you should examine some modern day ethanol politics. The reason we have ethanol fuel has virtually nothing to do with its alleged societal benefits and everything to do with pandering to agribusiness, especially Archer Daniels Midland, who owns only the finest in our politicians.

 

[Duffster]

a US gallon of 90/10 gas/ethanol mix contains approximately 4% less energy than a gallon of straight 87 octane gasoline.

How conveniant that E10 costs about 4% less than straight gasoline

Are not all alternative forms of energy subsidized to some degree?

 

[DieselPower]

Wow. You should be a politician. You have managed to indict those who have noticed a drop in mileage since the advent of ethanol laced gas by associating us with the outright nutcases. This despite the fact that a US gallon of 90/10 gas/ethanol mix contains approximately 4% less energy than a gallon of straight 87 octane gasoline.

So is it your theory that by reducing the energy content in the fuel, mileage will increase? Maybe those who claim you can run a car on water are on to something?

Since you are in the business of lecturing us on ethanol, perhaps you should examine some modern day ethanol politics. The reason we have ethanol fuel has virtually nothing to do with its alleged societal benefits and everything to do with pandering to agribusiness, especially Archer Daniels Midland, who owns only the finest in our politicians.

Amen brother! The whole agribusiness thing is a whole other bag of worms.

 

[DieselPower]

How conveniant that E10 costs about 4% less than straight gasoline

Are not all alternative forms of energy subsidized to some degree?

Around here E10 and pure real gas are the same price.

 

[Gravy]

Wow. You should be a politician. You have managed to indict those who have noticed a drop in mileage since the advent of ethanol laced gas by associating us with the outright nutcases. This despite the fact that a US gallon of 90/10 gas/ethanol mix contains approximately 4% less energy than a gallon of straight 87 octane gasoline.

So is it your theory that by reducing the energy content in the fuel, mileage will increase? Maybe those who claim you can run a car on water are on to something?

Since you are in the business of lecturing us on ethanol, perhaps you should examine some modern day ethanol politics. The reason we have ethanol fuel has virtually nothing to do with its alleged societal benefits and everything to do with pandering to agribusiness, especially Archer Daniels Midland, who owns only the finest in our politicians.

Ummm...

I don't think Peter was being political or trying to indict anybody. I got the impression he was giving his thoughts on the practicalities of running a small engine on the commonly available fuel.

BTW, I'm not crazy about the political and scientific aspects of ethanol in gasoline. I just think you misinterpreted Peter's intent.