|
By Y block Billy - 14 Years Ago
|
|
I am over in China and was at a gas station today and noticed their gas comes in 93 octane the lowest rating, the next one up is 97. Every country gets higher octane than we do, why is the US so cheap on octane?
|
|
By Philo - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Y block Billy (3/18/2011)
I am over in China and was at a gas station today and noticed their gas comes in 93 octane the lowest rating, the next one up is 97. Every country gets higher octane than we do, why is the US so cheap on octane?Probably leaded over there......no environmental protection. How much per gallon, US? Just curious.
|
|
By Glen Henderson - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Hey Billy, did you go over there to pick up some of those good parts that they produce? Seems a little extreme to me because I find all I need here local!
|
|
By Ted - 14 Years Ago
|
|
The fuel supplied at the Engine Masters competition was 91 Octane. In examining the spec sheet for that fuel, the MON (Motor Octane Number) octane was 86 and the RON (Research Octane Number) octane was 96; hence the 91 octane level which is just the average of the two. The EMC Y engine ran without issue on the 86 part of the equation but many other engines at the EMC did not. I’ve always considered the MON value the more important of the two as it’s this value that seems to have more control over actual detonation resistance than the RON value. Unfortunately, the number displayed on the front of the U.S. gas pumps is not the MON value but an average of both the MON and RON values. It’s because of this averaging that U.S. fuels of the same octane ratings can have different burn characteristics between brands or even batches (lots) of fuel depending upon the MON and RON values. That means that the 91 octane fuel available at one station may not be equal to the 91 octane fuel that’s available across the street. All we see on the front of the pump here in the U.S. is the average value. With that lead in, the octane value on the front of the pump is not a universal value throughout the world. Here’s the paragraph in Wikipedia that attempts to explain the regional differences in octane ratings which many times comes down to knowing exactly what that number on the pump represents. Generally, octane ratings are higher in Europe than they are in North America and most other parts of the world. This is especially true when comparing the lowest available octane level in each country. In many parts of Europe, 95 RON (90–91 AKI) is the minimum available standard, with 97/98 RON being higher specification (sometimes called Super Unleaded). The higher rating seen in Europe is an artifact of a different underlying measuring procedure. In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the "headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in Canada, the United States and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 8 to 10-point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in Canada and the US, would be 91–92 in Europe. However most European pumps deliver 95 (RON) as "regular", equivalent to 90–91 US AKI=(R+M)/2, and deliver 98, 99 or 100 (RON) (93-94 AKI) labeled as Super Unleaded - thus regular petrol sold in much of Europe corresponds to premium sold in the United States. In other countries "regular" unleaded gasoline, when available, is sometimes as low as 85 RON (still with the more regular fuel, 95, and premium, around 98, available).
Here’s the link which goes into much more detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
|
|
By 46yblock - 14 Years Ago
|
|
The E10 gas we are forced to use is the real junk. I just cant understand why the state legislators here bought into the lobby to force the stuff down our gas tanks. We end up giving subsidies to farmers who should be growing food, in exhchange for high food prices and bad gas. Then add the extra trucks on the crowded highways to transport the ETOH. And with the reduction in fuel mileage, it makes no sense. About 3 or 4 years ago when it was mandated, many if not most of the gas stations had to tear out their gas tanks and install alcohol friendly containers. It had to be a big expense.
|
|
By Y block Billy - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Then there was the MTBE stuff they added for a while untill they found out it was giving everybody headaches, and I thought it was the Beer!
|
|
By The Master Cylinder - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Y block Billy (3/18/2011)
Then there was the MTBE stuff they added for a while untill they found out it was giving everybody headaches, and I thought it was the Beer!
Billy, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is bad shtuff. Any unburned MTBE that come outs of your exhaust pipe contaminates the ground water, giving you more than headaches. (maybe your Beer was contaminated with MTBE?? haha). It was use to replace lead in gasoline as a anti-knock additive. It has since been replaced with other good shtuff.
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
|
46yblock (3/18/2011)
The E10 gas we are forced to use is the real junk. I just cant understand why the state legislators here bought into the lobby to force the stuff down our gas tanks. We end up giving subsidies to farmers who should be growing food, in exhchange for high food prices and bad gas. Then add the extra trucks on the crowded highways to transport the ETOH. And withthe reduction in fuel mileage, itmakes no sense.
About 3 or 4 years ago when it was mandated, many if not most of the gas stations had to tear out their gas tanks and install alcohol friendly containers. It had to be a big expense.
Hey Mike,
You ought to be able to find one of the (ethanol free) stations in the following list near you.....
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=OR
|
|
By Pete 55Tbird - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Speaking of octane ratings on gasoline in 1960 in the southeast of the US you could get unleaded AMACO hightest 104 octane gas for 35 cents a gallon. That was the only gas my 1958 Tbird convertible. with 11 to 1 compression would run on and not knock like crazy. My god how things have changed. As for ethanol in gasoline ask the lobbyist how much they paid your elected representatives for that. Pete
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Y block Billy (3/18/2011)
I am over in China and was at a gas station today and noticed their gas comes in 93 octane the lowest rating, the next one up is 97. Every country gets higher octane than we do, why is the US so cheap on octane?
Probably not. There is only 1 manufacturer of Tetra Ethyl Lead (in the world) and that TEL is only used in AVGAS and racing gas.
|
|
By crenwelge - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Concerning the website that posts stores still selling clear gas, there are two things that I question. First, many of the postings are out of date. I sold clear gas until late last summer when it no longer was available in San Antonio or Austin. I now have only E10. Posting E10 is a requirement. However, it is unclear who enforces this requirement. Registering underground tanks became a requirement in 1988. I registered my storage facilities in a timely manner and renewed my registration yearly and paid all of the fees. I had my first on site audit on the first of March of this year. I was in full compliance, but the auditor said they had found 50 year old steel tanks registered as being fiberglass. Anyone who would deliberately register tanks as being in compliance that are not would probably not think twice about failing to post E10. For over a year, I was the only marketer in this area who had clear gas, and it really helped business. I'm sure once I put on the E10 stickers some of my customers went back to trading at places that were more convenient for them. I posted the E10 stickers because I am marketing in the town where I was born 67 years ago, and my father had been marketing gasoline for about 10 years before I was born. Leaving town and starting up under a new name is really not an option for me.
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
For those of you that want to buy Alcohol free gasoline, when you do buy it you'll want to test it to determine it is in fact Alcohol free.
Use a simple tester from EAA or others. http://www.eaa.org/autofuel/autogas/test_kit.asp ......
Or you can make your own.
I have been running E10 in all of my gasoline (boat, cars, truck, tractors, etc) engines (except my airplane) since it's inception I have never had a problem with it.
ymmv
Rick
|
|
By Hollow Head - 14 Years Ago
|
|
95E10 today here in Finland is 1,553 for a litre average so it makes 5,9014 euros for a gallon. 98 octane is 1,600 euros for a litre and it makes 6.08 euros for a gallon. And when you know that one euro is worth 1,35 dollars, that makes 8,208 dollars for a gallon of 98 and 7.96689 dollars for 95E10. Think about that  . Stop whining and buy some more...
|
|
By 'GB'ird - 14 Years Ago
|
Hollow Head (3/19/2011)
95E10 today here in Finland is 1,553 for a litre average so it makes 5,9014 euros for a gallon. 98 octane is 1,600 euros for a litre and it makes 6.08 euros for a gallon. And when you know that one euro is worth 1,35 dollars, that makes 8,208 dollars for a gallon of 98 and 7.96689 dollars for 95E10. Think about that . Stop whining and buy some more... Whoa! We're paying around £1.40 per litre here in the UK. That's well over $10/gal!! Richard
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
'GB'ird (3/19/2011)
Hollow Head (3/19/2011)
95E10 today here in Finland is 1,553 for a litre average so it makes 5,9014 eurosfor agallon. 98 octane is 1,600 eurosfor alitre and it makes 6.08 euros for a gallon. And when you know that one euro is worth 1,35 dollars, that makes 8,208 dollars for a gallonof98 and 7.96689 dollars for 95E10. Think about that . Stop whining and buy some more... Whoa! We're paying around £1.40 per litrehere in the UK. That's well over $10/gal!! Richard
Yeah, but to be fair, you're paying essentially the same price as us, PLUS your "Voter Approved" taxes  ............(you did elect those people that enacted those taxes didn't you?)
|
|
By stuey - 14 Years Ago
|
yeah but..... our gallons are b- b i g- g- g e r  stuey:
|
|
By Hollow Head - 14 Years Ago
|
To be honest, I didn't vote for them 
|
|
By DANIEL TINDER - 14 Years Ago
|
[quote]46yblock (3/18/2011)
The E10 gas we are forced to use is the real junk. I just cant understand why the state legislators here bought into the lobby to force the stuff down our gas tanks. We end up giving subsidies to farmers who should be growing food, in exhchange for high food prices and bad gas. Then add the extra trucks on the crowded highways to transport the ETOH. And withthe reduction in fuel mileage, itmakes no sense.
Been reading lately about how the ethanol lobby has been trying to push through an E15 mandate, but the manufacturers are really against it. I assume then, that % would require essentially the same equipment mods. needed to run E85? Would likely also be the break-through death knell for vintage original fuel systems.
|
|
By paul2748 - 14 Years Ago
|
|
China is also one of the most polluted nations in the world. Remember, you are breathing in all that crap.
|
|
By 46yblock - 14 Years Ago
|
|
DANIEL TINDER (3/20/2011)
[quote]46yblock (3/18/2011)
The E10 gas we are forced to use is the real junk. I just cant understand why the state legislators here bought into the lobby to force the stuff down our gas tanks. We end up giving subsidies to farmers who should be growing food, in exhchange for high food prices and bad gas. Then add the extra trucks on the crowded highways to transport the ETOH. And withthe reduction in fuel mileage, itmakes no sense.
Been reading lately about how the ethanol lobby has been trying to push through an E15 mandate, but the manufacturers are really against it. I assume then, that % would require essentially the same equipment mods. needed to run E85? Would likely also be the break-through death knell for vintage original fuel systems.Well now isnt that some good news  . It probably wont do any good but I am going to be writing some letters this week. In 1987 I had a little Suzuki made Chevy Sprint with 1.0 L engine. The daily commute to work was 73 miles so I kept records of mileaage with each tank full. Each week it was a rock solid 49 mpg on clear gas. Tried E10 to keep less dollars going to camel jocks and mileage was 45 mpg, same drive, same everything.
|
|
By Richard - 14 Years Ago
|
First and formost I think the whole thing behind E10 E85 and the overuse of corn crops to produce this stuff is deplorable and worse yet we are forced to use it. Mater of fact the government is subsidizing the production of this stuff. In addition gas milage is affected as is rubber and certain plastic components. I also do not see the sense in having so many types of fuel country wide, nor do I understand the change in fuels winter to summer. Frankly I am for clean air but I consider the environmentalist have overreacted big time and the California Air Resource Board { CARB } has become an over-blooted bureaucracy looking for minuscule improvements to justify their careers. Same thing at the National level.
Second: When comparing fuel pricing in Europe what is left out of the high price per liter is the percentage of taxation that goes with it. I saw a chart last year that showed the base price of fuel in various European countries ranging from 2-9 percent higher than base price of fuel in the USA. It was the tax that bumped the price up to levels you see at the pump. The taxation of course goes to pay for a socialistic government which is fine as long as everyone is happy with this.
I encourage anyone to contact there representatives and spue what ever ails you on this issue. I have many times, not sure it does any good.
Oh and while I am at it, the current administration's halt on oil exploration is pure criminal. I could go on but need to spin my wrench.
Later,
Richard
|
|
By DANIEL TINDER - 14 Years Ago
|
|
[b]46yblock
In 1987 I had a little Suzuki made Chevy Sprint with 1.0 L engine. The daily commute to work was 73 miles so I kept records of mileaage with each tank full. Each week it was a rock solid 49 mpg on clear gas. Tried E10 to keep less dollars going to camel jocks and mileage was 45 mpg, same drive, same everything.
So, 10% less petrol gas = 10% less mileage. What's the point of adding ethanol? Will engines run on 10% water? We still have plenty of THAT. Maybe the arabs would trade straight up, as they will likely run out before us?
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
DANIEL TINDER (3/21/2011)
[b]46yblock
In 1987 I had a little Suzuki made Chevy Sprint with 1.0 L engine. The daily commute to work was 73 miles so I kept records of mileaage with each tank full. Each week it was a rock solid 49 mpg on clear gas. Tried E10 to keep less dollars going to camel jocks and mileage was 45 mpg, same drive, same everything. So, 10% less petrol gas = 10% less mileage. What's the point of adding ethanol? Will engines run on 10% water? We still have plenty of THAT. Maybe the arabs would trade straight up, as they will likely run out before us?
Actually, it doesn't mean a 10% Alcohol/90% gasoline will produce a 10% reduction in mileage since the over all reduction in BTU's per gallon is much less than 10%
Ethanol will produces (about) 75,000 BTU per gallon.
Gasoline (Petrol) will produce about 115,000 BTU's per gallon.
SO if you do a simple calculation (0.90gallon of gasoline) 90% of 115,000 = 103,500 BTU
0.10 gallon of ethanol = 10% of 75,000 BTU....... or 7500 BTUs in 1/10 gallon of Ethanol.....
Mix the two together to total 1.0 gallon and you get 103500 + 7500 = 111,000 BTU energy in a (1gallon) 90/10 mix of Petrol and ethanol.
That's only a reduction of 4000 BTU in a gallon of E10............... 3.4%
A 3.4 % drop in heat energy would not result in a 10% reduction in mileage....
And a 3.4% reduction in mileage at 20 MPG would only be 0.68 MPG. .......... not even measurable for most of us.
The only real way determine the difference would be to put an engine on a dyno, run it up to a fixed power output and measure the fuel flow and then change to the test fuel and then adjust the power output if it dropped. Then measure the fuel flow increase
I have used E10 for many years in a variety of engines I have not been able to tell any difference.....
But to be fair, this summer I am going to start driving my daughters car back and forth to work. It's a 2003 Chev Cavalier with an EFI 4cyl engine and a 5 speed manual trans.
I have driven it to work in the past running E10 and consistently got around 35 MPG.
Since I have a line on alcohol free fuel locally (and after I test it for purity) I'll drive it back and forth to work for several tanks and I'll see if there's any difference.
If the E10 is giving me a 10% reduction in mileage, I should immediately see in increase of at least 3 MPG to 38 MPG. (I'll run it nearly out of fuel before I fill it up and I won't check until the next fill up after that.)
It'll be an experiment!!!!
Cheers,
Rick
|
|
By 46yblock - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Rick, my bet is that the mpg will be 3 less.
|
|
By Pete 55Tbird - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Octane and E85 another thought. Like it or not the Yblock was king when dinosaurs roamed the earth and things have changed a lot since then. All cars for the last 20 years are fuel injected and have very sophisticated computers for engine management that Henry Ford never dreamed of. The alcohol in E85 allows both higher compression and lower tailpipe emissions. Ethanol as a fuel makes sense in a place like Brazil where they can grow sugar cane at very low cost but that does not mean it makes sense here in the US. What does make sense is using natural gas. First in truck fleets and buses and then in cars. The US has a 100 year supply of natural gas and only requires an investment in the infrastructure to support it to make it happen. But until that large investment is made we will send out dollars to people who hate us in return for their oil to run our trucks, buses and cars. Thanks, now I feel better. Pete
|
|
By charliemccraney - 14 Years Ago
|
The thing with ethanol is not so much that it sucks as the fact that the engines just aren't built to make the best use of it. An engine built to run optimally on gasoline will not run optimally on alcohol. As a result, the more alcohol in the gas, the less efficient it will run.
I think the government should pay us for the necessary compression increases, rubber, and fuel system upgrades to make this work. Do that, and I'm all for it. What I am not for is having things rammed down my throat as they are doing.
|
|
By Richard - 14 Years Ago
|
Hmm, when I looked the fuel milage ratings on the Cavalier I found these stats; now maybe your Cavalier is different engine wise or final drive ratios.
I have been under the impression that posted millage on stickers have leaned toward the high side.
2003 Chevrolet Cavalier
4 cyl, 2.2 L
Manual 5-spd
Regular Gasoline
EPA Fuel Economy
Miles per Gallon
Regular Gasoline
25
Combined
22
City
30
Highway
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
I cannot say what it should get. I have been getting 34+ on the freeway.
When I fill it, I stop when I see liquid in the neck.
What ever I get I should see an increase when I use non-ethanol gasoline. You guys will be the first to know when I do!
|
|
By 46yblock - 14 Years Ago
|
|
At the expense of belaboring(?) the subject, here is a quote from a commentary made by David Frum, just out: Consider this: If you were to ask a panel of Democratic and Republican economists and policy analysts to name the single most wasteful, foolish and destructive public policy of the United States, they would almost certainly identify the ethanol subsidy high on the list. The U.S. pays a huge subsidy to transform corn into motor fuel. Not only does the subsidy waste money, but it artificially drives up the price of food all over the planet. Many economic studies have cited ethanol production as the single most important driver of recent world food price increases.
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
Well,
you're not belaboring it at all.........I agree and actually think ethanol production (for mixing with gasoline) should be ended. (lets keep the drinking stuff though !!!)
I'm just saying that I haven't had a problem with the 10% (E10) stuff in any of the gaso fueled things I have since it came out.......
|
|
By John Mummert - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Maybe we should get electric cars and put windmills on the rooves. Then a car would generate its own electricity and run on smiles. I'll bet some environmentalists would go for that. Let's all hold hands have an "Imagine" moment. RIP John Lennon ist. We paid farmers not to grow corn for decades because we had too much, now we find a use for it and even with subsities we have a shortage.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 14 Years Ago
|
Here you go.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/02/german-adventurers-drive-wind-powered-electric-car-across-southern-australia.html
|
|
By 46yblock - 14 Years Ago
|
|
Rick, my last post wasnt meant to go in any particular directiion. It was the first time I know of that a media figure of significance took such direct opposition to ETOH in fuel.
|
|
By DANIEL TINDER - 14 Years Ago
|
[quote][b]HT32BSX115 (4/4/2011)
I'm just saying that I haven't had a problem with the 10% (E10) stuff in any of the gaso fueled things I have since it came out.......
The fuel injected grocery getters seem to run OK on it, except gas millage isn't what it used to be. T-Bird does alright also, unless you count all the accelerator pump cups & needle valves I've had to change. What galls me so much in the end is not the alcohol (petro supply NOT a bottomless well) but what is used to produce it. Other countries do fine with sugar cane, hemp, etc. that doesn't need so much fertilizer. The U.S. agro-chemical conglomerates have us by the balls.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 14 Years Ago
|
|
It's interesting how varied the experiences are. I have not yet experienced rubber failures or mileage decreases with the E10.
|
|
By HT32BSX115 - 14 Years Ago
|
|
46yblock (4/4/2011)
Rick, my last post wasnt meant to go in any particular directiion. It was the first time I know of that a media figure of significance took such direct opposition to ETOH in fuel.
Well, I didn't think it went in any particular direction either............
Lets hope that there IS MORE opposition to it in the future.
I'm with you. It needs to go (along with all the subsidies too!)
|