Ethanol Gasoline?

Yeah, well somthing else I didn't mention, Alcohol does raise the octane rating. They can turn an 85 into an 87, it goes up a couple. I think the percentage it is 3 percent.

As far as somone mentioned emissions, alcohol burns cleaner than gasoline, which is why they use it!

The only vehicles that can be effected are ones previous to 1994. They used to use MTBE until we found out it can have a negative effect on drinking water.

Then they switched the Ethynol which is corrosive, and MTBE isn't.

On older vehicles, many manufacturers used injectors that had bobbin coils exposed to fuel. The fuel is used to help cool the coils. When Ethynol was going to be introduced, manufactures isolated the bobbin coils from the fuel supply so they would not corrode. Older vehicles used to go through injectors because of this. This is why GM started testing injectors with a tool that energized the injector. Instead of checking static resistance, you now check resistance under load (voltage drop). You no longer see problems with injector coils going bogus; manufacturers have figured it out.

 

ethanol is bad. Don't like it. saw my 06" corolla go from 29mpg, to 24 mpg when they started blending it. It was supposed to make gas cheaper, but how does it do that when you need more of it? then food prices rose. there is a lot of corn byproducts in our over processed food.

 

I agree jeffrock

 

I try my best to put only the finest fluids in my truck and now im forced to use this ethanol shit!

 

I read somewhere that it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol for vehicles Some moron with a bright idea? The alcohol will absorb moisture in the tanks at the filling station. The higher octane premium may have less than the lower grades

 

Two simple reasons why alcohol is prohibited from aviation fuels:
1. alcohols are hydrophilic and can entrain water, which could cause water in fuel to freeze as temperatures rapidly decrease when climbing to cruising altitudes; and
2. alcohols have a higher vapor pressure, which increases the possibility of vapor lock during rapid changes in altitude and temperature.

Quoting from a document prepared by the Experimental Aircraft Association:
"Autogas (intended for use with autos) reacts differently in aircraft fuel systems than [in] automobiles since autos rarely experience rapid temperature and altitude changes (unless dropped out the back of a cargo plane in a TV commercial).

"Moreover, most modern autos are equipped with electronic fuel injection, in-tank fuel pumps, and higher fuel operating pressures to lessen the chances of vapor lock.

"High altitude operations, high undercowling temperatures with highly volatile fuel, and complex fuel systems all increase the likelihood of vapor lock, as do the convoluted designs of carburetor air boxes designed for avgas. Poor fuel system maintenance such as substitution of parts (90 degree elbows vs 45 degree as specified), replacement of insulated (fire sleeved) fuel hoses with plain fuel hoses, (affecting heat loss or gain) or removal of heat shields in the engine compartment, have contributed to vapor-lock problems. In some cases, avgas was the fuel being used."

 

There you go, selectively quoting from the ARPANET again. If you read a little further, you'll notice a couple of things. One is that there is a lot of experimentation being done on the use of ethanol as an aviation fuel. And the other is that a lot of this experimentation is being funded by lobbying organizations. Let me tell you two things:

I grew up surrounded by science. My father has two doctorates, and spent most of his career doing research. I can tell you with certainty that experimentation only means that someone has money and wants to prove something. It doesn't necessarily mean the hypothesis is a good idea.

The second thing I'd like to point out is that you are vigorously defending ethanol (with official looking partial-quotes) on two separate threads. This makes you look like you have an agenda.

Ethanol is massively compromised as a fuel. Nobody with any credibility disputes this. The 10% threshold is usually described as "the most an engine will tolerate" if it hasn't been prepared to handle ethanol. Beyond this, it's highly debatable from an environmental perspective, and even from a moral one (Google 'food vs fuel'). That it is even considered as a fuel alternative is politically motivated, and is an issue that has mostly extremists on both sides, and not a lot of moderate, rational support on either. That makes debate fair ball, and it makes your professorial tub thumping suspicious at best.

 

Besides all the obvious food related supply/demand games, and it being another factor that can be added to the already volitile pricing for gasoline...............how much sense does it really make to even be fucking around with something that takes more energy to produce than you'll get out of it or be mass burning a food source? The stupid ass lobbyists and government are just brainwashing and force feeding us more bullshit. OK, so it produces less emissions but you get less mpg so to go the same distances you normally travel, you burn more of it so the emission savings is lost in that bunch of hyped crap.

 

ethanol will kill your gas mileage as well as hurt your engine. You can add K100 to protect it from ethanol (i use it in my 4 wheelers and snowmobiles).. Bad news is K100 cost 10 bucks a fill

 

Calm down, Sparky. In all your frothing, you failed to notice that I supported your assertion that the FAA prohibits alcohol in aviation fuels, and it's further supported in the quotes from the EEA, which explain exactly why it's prohibited. The document goes on to say exactly how one can ensure that av fuels don't contain alcohol.

You're invited to read the article at <http://www.eea.org/autofuel/autogas/articles/1Autogas%20vs%20Avgas.pdf>. Please feel free to post anything in that article that conflicts with the information I 'selectively' quoted. Whether or not ethanol is being considered as an aviation fuel or who is supporting that consideration is entirely irrelevant to the FAA currently prohibiting alcohols in aviation fuel. Please try to stay focused.

That's nice. I'm surrounded by trees and still can't photosynthesize. But congratulations to your father on his advanced degrees. I know the effort that's required. Unfortunately but understandably, his degrees aren't heritable and are entirely irrelevant in support of your claims.

I'm afraid that your certainty is misplaced and your understanding of scientific experimentation is woefully lacking. Apparently you're unaware that hypotheses are validated or found invalid by experimentation, whether conducted in the lab, the field, or standing in front of a whiteboard, and further tested for validity by peer review of the results. That's kinda basic.

Even more basic: science as a method doesn't seek to prove anything. It can and does disprove an awful lot, but because all scientific conclusions are tentative, science doesn't involve proofs. That's for maths and liquor.

There's a limit to how many times a falsehood can be corrected? How about you post it again and we'll make it three separate threads?

Sparky, the only thing I've defended, besides your statement regarding FAA prohibition on alcohol use in aviation fuel, is the fact that E10 has only slightly less energy content than non-blended gasoline. That's it. For some weird reason, you can't acknowledge that fact. Instead, you pile one false assumption and assertion on another to conclude that I have some agenda in support of the corn industry.

Boy, have you driven your Tacoma off a cliff -- you couldn't be more wrong. But I find your frothing (as well as that of a few other ill-informed paranoids) to be highly amusing, so I'll wait a bit before giving you the punch line. Keep digging that hole. Please.

 

Personal attacks and name calling + prolix bluster = defensive troll with an axe to grind.

I think it's you who is digging and, frankly, the only reason I replied was to see what new depths I could goad you to.

Which I guess makes me a troll, too. Heh.

I would remind you that these threads are not about the energy content of E10, despite your blazing passion for the subject. They are broader discussions of the effect of ethanol-blended fuels on engines that weren't designed for them. You may call as many of us "ill-informed paranoids" as you like, but there is plenty of evidence and informed opinion to support concerns about ethanol, which to a reasonable person makes them worthy of debate at the very least.