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.


Lawrenceville, GA

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

Rick, my bet is that the mpg will be 3 less. 

Mike, located in the Siskiyou mountains, Southern, OR 292 powered 1946 Ford 1/2 ton, '62 Mercury Meteor, '55 Country Squire (parting out), '64 Falcon, '54 Ford 600 tractor.

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






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1955 F-600/272/E4OD// Disclaimer: No animals were injured while test driving my F-600 except the ones I ran over intentionally!

---------------------
This post was created using OpenSuSE Linux x64 and Firefox

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?

6 VOLTS/POS. GRD. NW INDIANA

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

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.

Mike, located in the Siskiyou mountains, Southern, OR 292 powered 1946 Ford 1/2 ton, '62 Mercury Meteor, '55 Country Squire (parting out), '64 Falcon, '54 Ford 600 tractor.

China is also one of the most polluted nations in the world. Remember, you are breathing in all that crap.

54 Victoria 312;  48 Ford Conv 302, 56 Bird 312
Forever Ford
Midland Park, NJ

[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.

6 VOLTS/POS. GRD. NW INDIANA

To be honest, I didn't vote for them

 Seppo from Järvenpää, Finland
www.hollowheads.net (just click the hole in the head to proceed)