# Ethanol Free Gas!



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 9, 2013)

For giggles I checked the ethanol free gas stations in the area and found a new one about a quarter mile from my house!   

Woohoo! 

I don't know the price, but for the little I run through the chainsaw, weedwaker and outboard I can spring for the extra cash.  

Matt


----------



## dougand3 (Oct 9, 2013)

Good score! Around here, 87 Oct 100% gas is a quarter more/gal. 93 Oct 100% gas is a dollar more/gal. I run 87 in 5hp - 18hp mowers. Run 93 in 2 strokes.


----------



## Spikem (Oct 14, 2013)

I checked out a gas station somewhat near me in Mass and it's $70 a 5 gallon container.

Is it just me or is that price high?


----------



## BrotherBart (Oct 14, 2013)

Too expensive and won't be around much longer anyway.

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Ethanol-free-gasoline-disappearing-fast/1715-547391-1934.aspx


----------



## TreePointer (Oct 14, 2013)

I wonder if it will disappear around marinas.  Boaters seem to despise the stuff more than the rest of us.

It's time to write a some pointed letters to my Congress-critters.


----------



## velvetfoot (Oct 14, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> EatenByLimestone Minister of Fire Joined:Jul 12, 2006Messages:4,208NewFor giggles I checked the ethanol free gas stations in the area and found a new one about a quarter mile from my house!



May I ask if you could post the link?


----------



## dougand3 (Oct 14, 2013)

Here's one. http://pure-gas.org/


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 14, 2013)

That was the site.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 14, 2013)

TreePointer said:


> I wonder if it will disappear around marinas.  Boaters seem to despise the stuff more than the rest of us.
> 
> It's time to write a some pointed letters to my Congress-critters.



Only because it really sucks when it absorbs water and leaves you in the middle of a lake.  It happened to me once with my outboard.  Lucky for me I always have oars in the boat.  Unfortunately I was about 4 miles up the lake and there were lots of biting flies out that day.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 14, 2013)

I've also heard of it dissolving some fiberglass gas tanks.  I haven't seen or known anybody this has happened to though.


----------



## velvetfoot (Oct 15, 2013)

Thanks.  
I had to disassemble and clean carb (a first) on a leaf blower over the weekend.


----------



## DanCorcoran (Oct 15, 2013)

The only ethanol-free I've found is 87 octane and my Stihl takes 89 octane, so I went with the ethanol.  Figured that was better than 87 octane without ethanol.  Thoughts?


----------



## dougand3 (Oct 15, 2013)

DanCorcoran said:


> The only ethanol-free I've found is 87 octane and my Stihl takes 89 octane, so I went with the ethanol.  Figured that was better than 87 octane without ethanol.  Thoughts?


The few old tiny carbs I've cleaned have been varnished and gummed badly. I think this is more ethanol than old gas. Your Stihl should run better with the 89 oct that it calls for. And you may do well with E-10 ethanol gas for years. I really dislike ethanol in these tiny carbs, tho. One option is 87 pure gas and octane booster from AZ, Advance, Oreillys or online-Lucas and Amsoil have it. They raise octane # 1-2 points.


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 15, 2013)

But those octane boasts are alcohol as well and can increase cylinder temps. Use at your own risk!


----------



## dougand3 (Oct 15, 2013)

The kind called Oxygenates are alcohol and ether - avoid those. The more suitable kinds are Aromatics or Organo-metallics. Read the label carefully. And check your saw manual to see if they discourage octane boosters.


----------



## Bad Wolf (Oct 15, 2013)

dougand3 said:


> Here's one. http://pure-gas.org/


 
I like the way Connecticut is a lone island awash in a sea of ethanol-free gas stations. I'll sleep better knowing I'm protected from the ravages of this insidious substance.


----------



## DanCorcoran (Oct 15, 2013)

Just remember, ethanol has nothing to do with the environment or climate change, it has to do with agribusiness that finds growing corn to be quite lucrative, and with farm state legislators who like campaign contributions from agribusiness.  YMMV....


----------



## velvetfoot (Oct 15, 2013)

Yeah, ymmv, with ethanol?


----------



## mikey517 (Oct 17, 2013)

Well, that pure has site got my hopes up, then had them dashed!! I believe that New Jersey is a TOTALLY E10 state, so imaging my joy when I saw one station listed - a BP where I happen to gas up 90% of the time. So, off I go, buy a new 5 gallon container and fill it with regular. Nothing added.

I perform the simple water test by filling a water bottle and marking with a Sharpie, then adding gas at about a 10:1 ratio. Then shake. I knew before even letting it sit that there was ethanol in the gas as it clouded up real fast.
So, how do I correct that site before others flock there thinking they've found Nirvana??

Pic below (I hope)









The gas on top has a green tint? I don't know why, but the clear bottom is the water +


----------



## TreePointer (Oct 17, 2013)

Bummer.  

There is no _good _reason for having ethanol in gasoline.


----------



## MofoG23 (Oct 18, 2013)

TreePointer - FYI.  There is a place in Mars PA (right off 228) that sells ethanol free gas. 



Confirmation from Purvis....they recently found another supplier.

"We are still selling our "EZer0 89" ethanol free gasoline. We carry it all year long. If you have any questions feel free to call us at 724-625-6770"


----------



## TreePointer (Oct 18, 2013)

MofoG23 said:


> TreePointer - FYI.  There is a place in Mars PA (right off 228) that sells ethanol free gas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm, that is getting much closer to where I am.  Thanks!


----------



## Corey (Oct 18, 2013)

Silly me, I've been getting 10% ethanol gas, or ADDING it if the gas doesn't have it.  Consider:

1)  You're running the 'water bottle' test the wrong way.  Fill the bottle with gas and add a teaspoon of water.  This simulates what happens as your saw cycles hot/cold/hot (or sits unused for a while) and moisture from the air gets in the tank.  If the gas has alcohol, the water is held in suspension where it can be burned harmlessly in the engine.  If the gas has no alcohol, the water goes straight to the bottom of the bottle and sits there.  This equals a rusty gas tank or a dead engine depending on when the slug of water gets sucked into the carb.  

2)  Ethanol destroys varnish.  If you don't believe me, pour some alcohol on a nice piece of finished woodwork!  A little ethanol helps keep varnish from building up in the carb...especially in tools which sit for a while.  This past winter we had a slug of 'real gas' in a generator at work.  After several months sitting I tried to start it, but no luck...it wouldn't run.  Tore down the carb and it was loaded with varnish.  I decided to try the much talked about 'Chevron Techron', but it wouldn't touch the stuff even after soaking a couple of hours.  I grabbed a bottle of ethanol out of the chemical cabinet and it literally dissolved the varnish as I was pouring it on the parts.

3)  If the fuel is breaking down in storage, it's the gasoline not the ethanol.  I have a few bottles of whiskey on the shelf well into their second _decade_ of life and they are as good or better than when they started out.  I'd like to see anyone burn 20 year old gasoline!

3)  Likewise, I have some cheap booze on the shelf for when friends come over and I just want to get rid of them.  It's in clear plastic bottles which are perfectly fine even after years of contact with 40+% ethanol.  If a low end / rot-gut booze manufacturer can make a disposable plastic bottle which is fine in 40% ethanol, surely any company worth 2 cents can make a saw and engine parts to withstand 10%.

4) "There is no _good _reason for having ethanol in gasoline" - I certainly agree with that!  With ethanol being well over 100 octane, they shouldn't blend it with 87, 89 or even 91 'premium' crapolene.   It should be saved for uses where high power is needed in a light weight package and/or people want a clean burning high performance fuel tolerant of a wide range of heat/moisture conditions.


----------



## DanCorcoran (Oct 18, 2013)

Corey said:


> Silly me, I've been getting 10% ethanol gas, or ADDING it if the gas doesn't have it.  Consider:
> 
> 1)  You're running the 'water bottle' test the wrong way.  Fill the bottle with gas and add a teaspoon of water.  This simulates what happens as your saw cycles hot/cold/hot (or sits unused for a while) and moisture from the air gets in the tank.  If the gas has alcohol, the water is held in suspension where it can be burned harmlessly in the engine.  If the gas has no alcohol, the water goes straight to the bottom of the bottle and sits there.  This equals a rusty gas tank or a dead engine depending on when the slug of water gets sucked into the carb.
> 
> ...




Loc: Midwest

A corn-producing farm state, perhaps?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 18, 2013)

That or he doesn't have a fiberglass fuel tank in his boat.  

To each their own I guess.  I'd rather be without ethanol.


----------



## oldspark (Oct 18, 2013)

I live in Iowa in the country with corn all around me and I think it sucks, a guy I know (married into my family) who's dad in on the ethanol board loves it when I say its crap.
All sorts of non ethanol gas here, 87, 91 and 93.


----------



## TreePointer (Oct 18, 2013)

Corey said:


> Silly me, I've been getting 10% ethanol gas, or ADDING it if the gas doesn't have it.  Consider:
> 
> 1)  You're running the 'water bottle' test the wrong way.  Fill the bottle with gas and add a teaspoon of water.  This simulates what happens as your saw cycles hot/cold/hot (or sits unused for a while) and moisture from the air gets in the tank. * If the gas has alcohol, the water is held in suspension where it can be burned harmlessly in the engine.*  If the gas has no alcohol, the water goes straight to the bottom of the bottle and sits there.  This equals a rusty gas tank or a dead engine depending on when the slug of water gets sucked into the carb.



One enemy of organic/aqueous suspensions is time.  Allow it to sit long enough and it often will separate into organic and aqueous layers.  Once separation occurs, all sorts of issues may appear.  Another enemy that is particularly relevant to this discussion is temperature fluctuation.  Since we don't control atmospheric water in gasoline storage tanks, temperature fluctuations will cause condensation, which in turn will get into the fuel.  Get enough water in the fuel and saturation occurs; saturation leads to separation.



> 2)  Ethanol destroys varnish.  If you don't believe me, pour some alcohol on a nice piece of finished woodwork!  A little ethanol helps keep varnish from building up in the carb...especially in tools which sit for a while.  This past winter we had a slug of 'real gas' in a generator at work.  After several months sitting I tried to start it, but no luck...it wouldn't run.  Tore down the carb and it was loaded with varnish.  I decided to try the much talked about 'Chevron Techron', but it wouldn't touch the stuff even after soaking a couple of hours.  I grabbed a bottle of ethanol out of the chemical cabinet and it literally dissolved the varnish as I was pouring it on the parts.



You would have been better served using Seafoam.  Remember the rule that "like dissolves like."  The naphthenic hydrocarbons and other cycloalkanes can conform to be much more like varnish molecules than the tiny and very polar (in relative terms) ethanol molecules.  Heck, rubbing alcohol would have been better than ethanol.  The isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) is also found in Seafoam and Sta-Bil ethanol treatment.  These are much better alternatives to ethanol.



> 3)  If the fuel is breaking down in storage, it's the gasoline not the ethanol.  I have a few bottles of whiskey on the shelf well into their second _decade_ of life and they are as good or better than when they started out.  I'd like to see anyone burn 20 year old gasoline!



Here you are comparing apples and oranges.  Your booze is primarily ethanol and water (plus a little flavoring).  CH3CH2-OH (ethanol) and H-OH (water) are very similar in size and polarity and are 100% miscible.  The long chain hydrocarbons and isooctanes in gasoiline are much bigger than CH3CH2-OH and are far less polar than either ethanol or water.  The gasoline hydrocarbons are more "unlike" ethanol and water so there is a greater tendency for separation into organic and aqueous layers.



> 3)  Likewise, I have some cheap booze on the shelf for when friends come over and I just want to get rid of them.  It's in clear plastic bottles which are perfectly fine even after years of contact with 40+% ethanol.  If a low end / rot-gut booze manufacturer can make a disposable plastic bottle which is fine in 40% ethanol, surely any company worth 2 cents can make a saw and engine parts to withstand 10%.



Here you need to realize that carburetor diaphragms are made of flexible rubber-like polymers.  The glass and plastic that holds your booze, whether top shelf or rot-gut, is not used in carburetors because they don't have the physical properties needed in a carb.



> 4) "There is no _good _reason for having ethanol in gasoline" - I certainly agree with that!  With ethanol being well over 100 octane, they shouldn't blend it with 87, 89 or even 91 'premium' crapolene.   It should be saved for uses where high power is needed in a light weight package and/or people want a clean burning high performance fuel tolerant of a wide range of heat/moisture conditions.



High octane rating is not the the only characteristic of gasoline formulas that makes it desirable.  What about total energy per gallon of fuel and mileage?  Ethanol loses there.


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 18, 2013)

Also when in say a boat that may sit all winter,  yes it absorbs that water and can burn it but now that saturated ethonol molecules are attached the the heavier water molecules. This leaves an area on the bottom of the tank that is mostly E and water. It will burn yea bit what's the octane??  This is where the out board guys,  me included hate it.  This is where pistons are burned etc.

Also not sure where you hot your has that turned bad in a few months??  Only fuel in last 10 yrs I've had do that has been some E10 that turned to a bad smell in fuel in 6 weeks!!  The pure gas I buy in my boat is sometimes 9-18 months old and no trouble with starting.


----------



## Corey (Oct 19, 2013)

TreePointer said:


> One enemy of organic/aqueous suspensions is time.  Allow it to sit long enough and it often will separate into organic and aqueous layers.  Once separation occurs, all sorts of issues may appear.  Another enemy that is particularly relevant to this discussion is temperature fluctuation.  Since we don't control atmospheric water in gasoline storage tanks, temperature fluctuations will cause condensation, which in turn will get into the fuel.  Get enough water in the fuel and saturation occurs; saturation leads to separation.



Exactly – with gasoline the separation happens almost immediately.  Well, I even hate to use the word ‘separation’ – usually there is hardly any mixing – the water just falls to the bottom.  When alcohol is the ‘organic’ the water stays in suspension indefinitely.  At the low % water we’re talking about from moisture in the air, and general atmospheric conditions, the gasoline/water/alcohol is stable as well.



> You would have been better served using Seafoam. Remember the rule that "like dissolves like." The naphthenic hydrocarbons and other cycloalkanes can conform to be much more like varnish molecules than the tiny and very polar (in relative terms) ethanol molecules. Heck, rubbing alcohol would have been better than ethanol. The isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) is also found in Seafoam and Sta-Bil ethanol treatment. These are much better alternatives to ethanol.



I’m sure many other chemicals may have been better to remove the varnish,  Heck, I guess I could have just used ‘paint and varnish stripper’.  But don’t miss the point…ethanol was available, it was cheap, and it worked essentially instantly.  When it’s present in the gas, it helps keep the varnish solubilized before it can even form.



> Here you are comparing apples and oranges. Your booze is primarily ethanol and water (plus a little flavoring). CH3CH2-OH (ethanol) and H-OH (water) are very similar in size and polarity and are 100% miscible. The long chain hydrocarbons and isooctanes in gasoiline are much bigger than CH3CH2-OH and are far less polar than either ethanol or water. The gasoline hydrocarbons are more "unlike" ethanol and water so there is a greater tendency for separation into organic and aqueous layers.



Not sure where we wound up back on organic and aqueous layers, but yes, the point is to show the difference * is* apples and oranges.  Long chain hydrocarbons are always breaking down into something else, getting kinked up with one another, turning into tar, sludge, varnish and generally doing strange things.  Ethanol is basically ethanol unless something pretty extreme happens to it.



> Here you need to realize that carburetor diaphragms are made of flexible rubber-like polymers. The glass and plastic that holds your booze, whether top shelf or rot-gut, is not used in carburetors because they don't have the physical properties needed in a carb.



I wasn’t trying to say they use the actual plastic bottle in the carburetor... though I think I did see that in an episode of MacGyver once.  I was trying to emphasize that if a cheap, disposable bottle can withstand ethanol, surely the highly engineered polymers in a carb can withstand it.



> High octane rating is not the the only characteristic of gasoline formulas that makes it desirable. What about total energy per gallon of fuel and mileage? Ethanol loses there.



Again, I think this is missing the point of this thread.  People are talking about driving all over the county to track down ‘real gas’ and/or paying exorbitant prices per gallon …or even per quart for ‘race fuel’, ‘av gas’ or whatever.  If you look at it on a BTU basis, E10 has what… 3% less BTU than ‘real gas’?  Even if the BTUs converted directly to engine power, I would cut for 60 minutes on a tank of E10, you cut 3% longer or 61 minutes and 48 seconds on ‘real gas’.  To me, its not worth much of a drive, or paying even a few cents more for that 1:48 … after an hour, I’m usually ready for a break anyway!


----------



## Corey (Oct 19, 2013)

DanCorcoran said:


> Loc: Midwest
> 
> A corn-producing farm state, perhaps?



Loc: Midwest

Fellow American.

Though I have known some folks out VA way to get after some ethanol as well.  Pretty dang good 'shine... have no idea where they got the corn, but it was good drinkin' once it was in the bottle.


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 19, 2013)

If E has 3% less power why when I put E85 in my truck u went from 15-16 MPG to 9-10 on the 2 totally desperate tanks I used it in?


----------



## Corey (Oct 19, 2013)

clemsonfor said:


> If E has 3% less power why when I put E85 in my truck u went from 15-16 MPG to 9-10 on the 2 totally desperate tanks I used it in?



I think we're talking two different things.  I mentioned 'E10' which is 90% gasoline / 10% ethanol.  You are talking 'E85' which is 15% gasoline / 85% ethanol.  The E10 is about 3% less btu compared to straight gas, the E85 is about 33% less.

The 3% is virtually unnoticeable and is sometimes actually made up because the ethanol burns more efficiently, so more of it's energy can be converted to work in the engine.  Most reports have E85 at about 20-25% loss in mileage - again, some of the btu loss is made up due to more efficient combustion. 

You report about a 40% loss with those numbers, so obviously your truck is not a good candidate for E85 unless there is a large price difference between it and gasoline.  If it was the '80 Chevy or 90 Ford mentioned in your signature, then either of those should really have a conversion to properly use E85 which would probably bring the mileage back in line with the averages.

Conversely, I did build the engine in my car *for* E85 ...high compression and a well matched cam, etc ... it actually gets 1-2mpg _better_ than it did on gasoline, and E85 is generally 10-15% cheaper.  Depending on the price difference between E85 and gas, it's anywhere between a $5 and $15 savings with every fill-up.


----------



## DanCorcoran (Oct 19, 2013)

"Depending on the price difference between E85 and gas, it's anywhere between a $5 and $15 savings with every fill-up."

Does that include the federal subsidy to ethanol producers, paid from federal tax revenues, and the cost to the general consumer of paying to have their engine modified?


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 19, 2013)

Yep your correct it was E85 just did not use right terms. And it was my work truck which at time was an 07 dodge Dakota v8


----------



## oldspark (Oct 19, 2013)

The 10% can drop your mileage a noticeable amount, friend of mine lost 4 mpg in his car, mine loses at least 2 or 3 mpg.
Its not that good of product, its all over the net plus many people I have talked including one guy from Maine who the state made them run in in their work vehicles, he hated it.


----------



## Corey (Oct 19, 2013)

DanCorcoran said:


> "Depending on the price difference between E85 and gas, it's anywhere between a $5 and $15 savings with every fill-up."
> 
> Does that include the federal subsidy to ethanol producers, paid from federal tax revenues, and the cost to the general consumer of paying to have their engine modified?



I suppose it might, but also consider what is spent on the defense budget... maintaining a standing army, navy, air force, etc which is generally needed for protecting foreign oil fields, making sure shipping lanes stay open and general deterrence for anyone thinking of mucking around in the mid-east oil fields. I see one source which shows $14 billion spent on ethanol and $730 billion spent on defense - which would include a substantial amount for protection of foreign oil fields.  

How much have wars in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc cost ...not only money, but lives as well?  How many terrorist acts have farmers carried out?


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Oct 20, 2013)

DanCorcoran said:


> "Depending on the price difference between E85 and gas, it's anywhere between a $5 and $15 savings with every fill-up."
> 
> Does that include the federal subsidy to ethanol producers, paid from federal tax revenues, and the cost to the general consumer of paying to have their engine modified?






Corey said:


> I suppose it might, but also consider what is spent on the defense budget... maintaining a standing army, navy, air force, etc which is generally needed for protecting foreign oil fields, making sure shipping lanes stay open and general deterrence for anyone thinking of mucking around in the mid-east oil fields. I see one source which shows $14 billion spent on ethanol and $730 billion spent on defense - which would include a substantial amount for protection of foreign oil fields.
> 
> How much have wars in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc cost ...not only money, but lives as well?  *How many terrorist acts have farmers carried out?*



Sticking a gun in someone's face while they point to a 3rd party and insist that you pay isn't, strictly speaking, "terrorism," I suppose.  If I do it here in Washington State it's called "Robbery in the 1st Degree."   When the Fed does it it's called "farm subsidies."


----------



## Gunny (Oct 21, 2013)

OK, we should not make this a conversation about defense spending.  I agree Corey, that the price each American spends for defense is out of control or this country would not be in the financial state that it is in.  Just remember to that Solder/Marine outside the wire that gets ambushed by 50 insurgents does not care about the cost of calling in a fire order to the rear.  The fire order that costs $300,000 per HIMAR missile, and they send them out in 3's, that gets his rear end and his buddies back with him.  I think all members and vets alike can agree the cost of war is huge, whether the lives or the $, it does not matter.  All members of the service that have served in extreme danger all want the same thing, to come home! We just do what is ordered.  Not exactly a great job but if not us then who?  Everyone wants to be an American, not everyone can be!


----------



## Gunny (Oct 21, 2013)

Let me rephrase that!  All service members want to come home, and gather wood.  They just may not know it!


----------



## Corey (Oct 21, 2013)

Gunny - yes, I agree.  I did not mean my post to sound like we should send our brave service members out with a couple of wal-mart BB guns for defense.  By all means, if our troops are in the line of fire, they deserve the best support we can give - I have several family members in, or retired from the services.

The point was, people go crazy with 'ethanol subsidy' without realizing 'oil subsidy' is built into everything from defense to transportation taxes, etc.  If we spent less time meddling in other government affairs to keep oil supply lines open, we could probably cut a large chunk out of defense and provide as good, or better support.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 21, 2013)

Gotcha Corey, I guess when that nerve gets rubbed against/wind blows there is some defense.  OR we just open up OUR oil reserve that we will never use and start being independent.  Let all of the idiots kill each other and just go on our merry way.  Definitely don't need to put more young men in harms way.  They got wood to cut!


----------



## DanCorcoran (Oct 21, 2013)

Corey said:


> The point was, people go crazy with 'ethanol subsidy' without realizing 'oil subsidy' is built into everything from defense to transportation taxes, etc.



Okay, because we have an oil subsidy, which is bad, we should have an ethanol subsidy too?  I suggest we get rid of both and let the fuels compete in the marketplace.


----------



## DAKSY (Oct 21, 2013)

I made a Sturgis run in early August & hit a couple of ethanol-free gas stations out in the land of nothing BUT corn. The only fuel available was E-FREE 87 octane & in a fully loaded, 950 lb Geezer Glide designed to run on 91+ octane I went from 42 mpg to OVER 50 mpg. There was no appreciable increase in the price per gallon. I will take E-free at whatever octane you can get me without batting an eye.


----------



## Pdesjr (Oct 21, 2013)

Bad Wolf said:


> I like the way Connecticut is a lone island awash in a sea of ethanol-free gas stations. I'll sleep better knowing I'm protected from the ravages of this insidious substance.


All Conn gas  has ethanol in it.Has for a while


----------



## DanCorcoran (Oct 22, 2013)

Pdesjr said:


> All Conn gas  has ethanol in it.Has for a while



I think Bad Wolf meant that the state of Conn. is a state which has no ethanol-free gasoline available, yet is surrounded by (in a sea of) states that do.


----------



## Pdesjr (Oct 22, 2013)

Yea your right Dan. Misread it My bad


----------



## Corey (Oct 22, 2013)

DAKSY said:


> I made a Sturgis run in early August & hit a couple of ethanol-free gas stations out in the land of nothing BUT corn. The only fuel available was E-FREE 87 octane & in a fully loaded, 950 lb Geezer Glide designed to run on 91+ octane I went from 42 mpg to OVER 50 mpg. There was no appreciable increase in the price per gallon. I will take E-free at whatever octane you can get me without batting an eye.



This mileage difference may very well be, but to attribute that to a 3% difference in fuel might be a bit of a stretch.  I've seen our Honda Insight get anywhere from 42 mpg to 92mpg on the SAME fuel, just depending on wind, weather, driving style, road conditions, etc.  My bike is generally somewhere between 43 and 52.  Also, at those mpg levels measuring fuel volume becomes critical too.  At your 50mpg, just a 0.1 gallon, or one extra 'click' of the nozzle is equal to 1mpg difference.


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 22, 2013)

Yea but your figuring MPG based on pump displayed gallons and miles on the odometer.  So that "extra click" shows on the screen as fuel in the tank???


----------



## oldspark (Oct 23, 2013)

You can nit pick the numbers but the fact is the mileage does go down and in some cases you are money ahead by buying non ethanol gas.
They really need to make it out of something other then corn.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 23, 2013)

I tested it a couple years ago and got a 3% change in mpg in my truck.  Unfortunately I paid 10% more for the E free gas.  I figured it was worthwhile to buy it for the chainsaw, weedwacker, blower, snowblower, and such because he extra umph would be noticed there (and I don't burn much gas in them), but not so much with the truck.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 23, 2013)

Corey said:


> he 3% is virtually unnoticeable and is sometimes actually made up because the ethanol burns more efficiently, so more of it's energy can be converted to work in the engine. Most reports have E85 at about 20-25% loss in mileage - again, some of the btu loss is made up due to more efficient combustion.



This is a new one to me. In what way does the engine "burn ethanol more efficiently" ?


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 23, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I tested it a couple years ago and got a 3% change in mpg in my truck.  Unfortunately I paid 10% more for the E free gas.  I figured it was worthwhile to buy it for the chainsaw, weedwacker, blower, snowblower, and such because he extra umph would be noticed there (and I don't burn much gas in them), but not so much with the truck.


This is what I do as well. I see a bit of drop in vehicles but not enough to matter and they run it fine. You also get a cleaning effect with it.  

In my saws weed eater and boat motor if it will sit in the latter case I buy real gas.


----------



## Corey (Oct 23, 2013)

clemsonfor said:


> Yea but your figuring MPG based on pump displayed gallons and miles on the odometer.  So that "extra click" shows on the screen as fuel in the tank???



Yes, I think that is the way most people measure mpg... they have a 'full' tank then travel some distance and re-fill the tank.  On the re-fill, they record the distance traveled and fuel it took to fill the tank, then divide to get mpg.  

Where you start to run into problems - if traveling cross country, you most likely aren't at the exact same pump, so  maybe one or the other is more sensitive to exactly when it shuts off.  Maybe one gas station has a slight slope so the fuel in the tank seems fuller or emptier, the terrain or weather is rarely the same, (I always get better mpg heading south out of Minnesota in the winter with a load of E10, than I do driving up there on a tank of E0 ... I wonder if it's the 30mph north wind practically pushing me down the highway ...or acting as a barrier when headed north). Maybe the first tank was slightly fuller or emptier than you thought, etc.

The 'fuel measuring' problem is worse with higher mpg readings because it is even more critical to measure fuel volume:  Consider:

Motorcycle at 50 mpg with a 5 gallon tank:  In a perfect world that would get you 250 miles down the road when the tank goes bone dry. Suppose you start with the tank overfull by just 0.2 gallons...you now go 260 miles when the tank runs out.  On the refill, you under fill by just 0.2 gallons because the pump kicks off a bit early.  So you 'think' you went 260 miles and put 4.8 gallons went in the tank.  So 260mi / 4.8 gal = 54+ mpg.  Now you have 'gained' over 4mpg from two tiny errors in measurement of less than a quart.


----------



## Corey (Oct 23, 2013)

jharkin said:


> This is a new one to me. In what what does the engine "burn ethanol more efficiently" ?



I could cite papers and go on for days, but the two main effects are:

1) Ethanol has a higher 'latent heat of vaporization' - fancy way to say it absorbs more heat from the intake air and gives you a cooler / denser intake charge.  This means more power for the same reason racers ice their intakes/fuel lines, or in a street car, it allows you to go the same speed with slightly less throttle and/or the computer can introduce higher levels of exhaust gas recirculation and/or more advanced ignition timing - further increasing mileage

2) Ethanol burns faster than gasoline.  This means once the spark plug fires, cylinder pressure rises faster, generates more torque and the piston has a longer time to extract energy from the combustion mix.

At higher ethanol levels, compression can be increased substantially which is a further benefit to efficiency.  There was one outfit a few years ago, 'Ricardo' I believe, who developed a turbocharged engine specifically for E85.  I believe it had about the same torque, power and mileage compared to it's diesel counterpart, but the E85 was about $1.50 cheaper per gallon compared to diesel.


----------



## clemsonfor (Oct 23, 2013)

I see your point makes total sense. No pumps shut off identical,  I agree.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 23, 2013)

Corey said:


> I could cite papers and go on for days, but the two main effects are:
> 
> 1) Ethanol has a higher 'latent heat of vaporization' - fancy way to say it absorbs more heat from the intake air and gives you a cooler / denser intake charge.  This means more power for the same reason racers ice their intakes/fuel lines, or in a street car, it allows you to go the same speed with slightly less throttle and/or the computer can introduce higher levels of exhaust gas recirculation and/or more advanced ignition timing - further increasing mileage



Im aware of that of that but what I'm not seeing is how exactly it relates to efficiency.  

What you are describing, combined with the lower stoichiometric A/F ratio for ethanol (9:1) vs. gas (14.7:1)  is why you can cram more fuel into the same volume of air and make more power from the same displacement on alcohol than you can with gas.  But you are burning a lot more fuel to do it.

I think of _efficiency_ as the % of energy in the fuel that turns into energy driving the crank - i.e. BSFC.  Your alcohol engine is burning more fuel and making more HP, sure -  but it isnt turning a larger % of the energy in the fuel into energy turning the crank. What Ive read is that in tests the difference in BSFC between E0 and E10 is within the noise but as you go up from there BSFC steadily drops for higher ethanol blends.


----------



## DAKSY (Oct 23, 2013)

I fill the gas tank on the bike until it won't take any more. I get as much in there as I can. Travelling across the country in states & on roads that I'm unfamiliar with, I may need as much as possible. I know that I don't go to the same pump at each fill up, but I don't rely on the pump to stop automatically, either...Cite your chemical engineering skills all you want. I know what I know. My eyes tell me when I can't put more in the tank... I'm saying I got way better mileage with the E-Free stuff. Period. I wasn't alone. Everybody else on the trip (7 bikes) had nearly identical results. On pure gasoline, our Harleys get better mileage. YMMV


----------



## Corey (Oct 23, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Im aware of that of that but what I'm not seeing is how exactly it relates to efficiency.
> 
> What you are describing, combined with the lower stoichiometric A/F ratio for ethanol (9:1) vs. gas (14.7:1)  is why you can cram more fuel into the same volume of air and make more power from the same displacement on alcohol than you can with gas.  But you are burning a lot more fuel to do it.
> 
> I think of _efficiency_ as the % of energy in the fuel that turns into energy driving the crank - i.e. BSFC.  Your alcohol engine is burning more fuel and making more HP, sure -  but it isnt turning a larger % of the energy in the fuel into energy turning the crank. What Ive read is that in tests the difference in BSFC between E0 and E10 is within the noise but as you go up from there BSFC steadily drops for higher ethanol blends.



Yes, I think you have it, the difference is the AFR is related to the fuel by chemical composition.  It's the same for a given fuel regardless of what engine the fuel is in.  The BSFC can and does change even though you are on the same fuel.  ie - consider a low compression ratio engine and a high compression ratio engine - both on the same fuel.  The high CR engine extracts energy more efficiently so has a lower BSFC.  Really, BSFC even changes as you drive down the road...open the throttle, that removes intake restrictions, lets more air into the cylinder and raises the compression pressure at which the fuel burns...suddenly you get a better BSFC.  At closed throttle, the engine may be operating at 22" vacuum, very little air in the cylinders and bad BSFC.

The same can be true if the fuel changes and the engine stays the same.  This is very similar to the way a stove will burn hotter and put out more heat on dry wood compared to wet. (and similar to ethanol, the same way you will never convince some old timers burning dry wood is the way to go when they can smoulder a load of wet wood for 3 days straight). Both logs may have the same energy, but the dry wood burns in a way where the stove can extract more usable heat into the room. 

Overall, I'm not saying you use less fuel, instead - of the volume of fuel you do use, more ethanol is converted to usable energy compared to gasoline.  As you say, the E0/E10 is generally 'down in the noise'.  It's 3% less btu 'on paper', but 1% or so is offset by added efficiency of combustion, 'straight gasoline' probably varies 5% in btu depending on seasons and location,  and you need pretty top notch laboratory equipment to get repeatability of fuel efficiency measurements of 1-2%...there is just so much to measure...fuel density and temperature, fuel flow, fuel BTU content, engine power output, engine temperature, atmospheric pressure, temperature and humidity...all of these and probably 1/2 dozen more all work to change fuel efficiency - and that is just for steady state running!


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 27, 2013)

just like running your engine on propain will work, ethanol works but is less dense per pound/gal, it gives less energy in the same engine. 
an engine designed to run at higher compression specifically for ethanol will work fine, look at all the race cars that run on ethanol based race fuels (methane). you would ruin them with regular gasoline. 

if you want ethanol free gas, your local airport sells it, 100LL. It does have lead in it though, it will ruin your catalytic converter (plug it up solid) and electronic emissions sensors on a car, but in small engines, boats snomobiles, motorcycles, etc. racers love it. I run it in my chainsaws, mowers, generator. 
it is stable and doesn't gum up.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 27, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> just like running your engine on propain will work, ethanol works but is less dense per pound/gal, it gives less energy in the same engine.
> an engine designed to run at higher compression specifically for ethanol will work fine, look at all the race cars that run on ethanol based race fuels (methane). you would ruin them with regular gasoline.
> 
> if you want ethanol free gas, your local airport sells it, 100LL. It does have lead in it though, it will ruin your catalytic converter (plug it up solid) and electronic emissions sensors on a car, but in small engines, boats snomobiles, motorcycles, etc. racers love it. I run it in my chainsaws, mowers, generator.
> it is stable and doesn't gum up.




The methane derived fuel used in racing (drag racing and Indy cars pre 2006, etc) is methanol, not ethanol. Methanol has even less energy density than ethanol but runs richer Even than ethanol so is at least if not more prowerful, at the expense of fuel economy.  Methanol is also the primary ingredient of model engine fuel if you have ever flown an rc plane or 'gas' rc car or had one of those little Cox engines you know its distinctive smell.


----------



## oldspark (Oct 27, 2013)

jharkin said:


> The methane derived fuel used in racing (drag racing and Indy cars per 2006, etc) is methanol, not ethanol. Methanol has even less energy density than ethanol but runs richer Even than ethanol so is at least if not more prowerful, at the expense of fuel economy.  Methanol is also the primary ingredient of model engine fuel if you have ever flown an rc plane or 'gas' rc car or had one of those little Cox engines you know its distinctive smell.


 http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/4449/indy's-super-fuel


----------

