Great mileage using 100 percent petrol

[litesong]

Dual fuel engines can't have a C.R. high enough to take advantage of the knock control of straight ethanol because the engine would be likely to detonate on normal gasoline.

E10 fuel is a blended fuel. It's combustion characteristics are that of the blend------------not two separate fuels..... At partial throttle, the cylinder is... never peak compression pressure. The reduction is 2-3% with E10.....reductions in mpg.

In all past posts of his, 427435 agrees that gasoline engines, designed to burn 100% gasoline, have lower compression ratios than ethanol engines designed to burn 100% ethanol. 427435 even agrees that partial throttle(in a gasoline engine) doesn't even reach the peak compression pressure for a gasoline engine. Thus 427435 must agree that ethanol in a gasoline engine has a "double whammy" reduced pressure effect during partial throttle, which is the overwhelming condition producing energy in an engine. Compression ratio of a fuel charge is THE premier attribute of engines to extract energy from fuels. Yet 327435, despite the "double whammy" reduced pressure effect in a gasoline engine, shills that ethanol produces the same energy/btu(mpg/bht) as if it was produced in an ethanol engine.
427435 works hard NOT to understand the 8%, 7% & 5% loss in mpg that 10% ethanol blends have vs. E0.......even tho he understands the "double whammy" ethanol pressure loss effect.

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

When I was a kid growing up in -20F and colder temps for 4-5 months of the year we used pure gasoline, and we used ethanol additive to thaw frozen gas. One of the great properties of ethanol is to absorb water so now we run "blended" E10 I just keep asking my self out of 10-15 gallons I put in my tank how many of those are water 2-3?

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

I imagine I could be wrong on this and the corn ethanol does not absorb water but unlikely.

Every tank for gasoline storage has to deal with a few problems, condensation, pulling water out of the air, or unintended seepage. I don't believe they have a way to get around that. and so a few gallons of water are always mixed into the gasoline tanks now pure gas that water would float on top and rarely be sucked up into your car, though it has been known to happen if the station does not fill often enough or a sudden rush on it caused them to. But along comes ethanol and that water is no longer floating on top now it mixes into and so it now runs through your engine how much power does water give internal combustion engines?

 

[427435]

In all past posts of his, 427435 agrees that gasoline engines, designed to burn 100% gasoline, have lower compression ratios than ethanol engines designed to burn 100% ethanol.

No I did not. I pointed out in one of my posts that you can use pure gasoline in 15:1 compression IF enough lead or other additives are added.


427435 even agrees that partial throttle(in a gasoline engine) doesn't even reach the peak compression pressure for a gasoline engine. Thus 427435 must agree that ethanol in a gasoline engine has a "double whammy" reduced pressure effect during partial throttle, which is the overwhelming condition producing energy in an engine.

More pseudo science and logic. There is no double whammy. At part throttle, regardless of CR or fuel used, peak pressures are far below what they are at WOT. The A/F ratios efficiently burn all the fuel available (E0 or E10 or E85) and produce whatever Btu's the fuel provides. Those Btu's all push the pistons down.

You continue to confuse the higher octane of ethanol with Btu's and hp available. The only reason pure ethanol engines can run at higher CR's is it has higher octane thus allowing a higher CR--------------ethanol does not require higher CR for complete combustion.

Higher CR can provide more hp and more efficiency----------but that is regardless of fuel used. A CR of 15:1 will produce more hp than an engine of 10:1 regardless of fuel used (as long as the octane # allows 15:1 compression). Or, an engine with 10:1 compression will produce the same hp or miles/Btu regardless of whether it's burning E0, E10, or E85 at stoichiometric ratios.

And you still haven't admitted that higher octane fuels don't have a slower burning rate. Actually, ethanol's burning rate is slightly faster.

http://iqlearningsystems.com/ethanol/downloads/Racing%20Fuel%20Characteristics.pdf


Compression ratio of a fuel charge is THE premier attribute of engines to extract energy from fuels.

More pseudo logic. In terms of miles traveld per Btu of fuel burned, a 10:1 engine is as efficient with E85 as it is with E0. That's exactly what the REPEATABLE EPA tests show.

Yet 327435, despite the "double whammy" reduced pressure effect in a gasoline engine, shills that ethanol produces the same energy/btu(mpg/bht) as if it was produced in an ethanol engine.

Than why don't the EPA tests show that-------------they are mostly at part throttle.


427435 works hard NOT to understand the 8%, 7% & 5% loss in mpg that 10% ethanol blends have vs. E0.......even tho he understands the "double whammy" ethanol pressure loss effect.

And you work hard at trying to make your anecdotal (and likely prejudicial) results the standard as opposed to the repeatable EPA tests.

.

 

[427435]

When I was a kid growing up in -20F and colder temps for 4-5 months of the year we used pure gasoline, and we used ethanol additive to thaw frozen gas. One of the great properties of ethanol is to absorb water so now we run "blended" E10 I just keep asking my self out of 10-15 gallons I put in my tank how many of those are water 2-3?

We weren't thawing frozen gas. We were thawing the frozen water that collected in the low spots of the fuel system and blocked fuel flow. Actually, the ethanol absorbed the inevitable water, that collected in fuel systems, and kept it flushed through the system so it couldn't collect in the low points and freeze.

 

[427435]

I imagine I could be wrong on this and the corn ethanol does not absorb water but unlikely.

Every tank for gasoline storage has to deal with a few problems, condensation, pulling water out of the air, or unintended seepage. I don't believe they have a way to get around that. and so a few gallons of water are always mixed into the gasoline tanks now pure gas that water would float on top and rarely be sucked up into your car, though it has been known to happen if the station does not fill often enough or a sudden rush on it caused them to. But along comes ethanol and that water is no longer floating on top now it mixes into and so it now runs through your engine how much power does water give internal combustion engines?

Actually, water is heavier than gasoline. It used to collect on the bottom of tanks over a period of time. Back then, you avoided buying gas in a station with a tank truck unloading because that would mix the water up and you would get a bunch of the water with your gas. Today, that doesn't happen because what little water that collects in storage tanks keeps getting absorbed by the ethanol and flushed through the storage tank and your car in a way that doesn't screw things up. And the amounts of water is well under 1%.

You could also get screwed up if you refueled a car when a station's tanks were almost empty. I had a college roommate that found that out. The station (back then, they were also service stations) had a bunch of customers with the problem. They towed the cars into their station, emptied the car's tanks and refueled with good fuel.

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

Your correct the gasoline floats on the water i knew that just a duh moment. However you provide more information on why ethanol has fewer miles per gallon. The water does not provide any additional btus however it is taking up part of the gallon of fuel

 

[DRS]

Blah blah blah... Take the federal subsidies away, and let the market decide.

 

[427435]

Blah blah blah... Take the federal subsidies away, and let the market decide.

Fine----------but do the same thing for big oil.

Actually, there haven't been any subsidies on ethanol since 2011 or 2012. Not so much for oil, however.

 

[427435]

Your correct the gasoline floats on the water i knew that just a duh moment. However you provide more information on why ethanol has fewer miles per gallon. The water does not provide any additional btus however it is taking up part of the gallon of fuel

And, as I pointed out, you used to get water with not quite so pure gasoline. The amount of water you get with E10 is miniscule as any condensation is continually flushed through the 5000+ gallon storage tanks. Even with 1 gallon of water condensing out (a lot considering the storage tanks are below ground and at a pretty constant temp), that would make for a water concentration of 0.02%. And remember those storage tanks get refilled every couple of days, so there's not much time for water to condense out.

In the good old days (pre-E10), water would collect in the storage tanks and your own tank for weeks and months. Then something would happen and a slug would get into your system and cause problems. That doesn't happen any more----------just a small side benefit of E10.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

In my experience water will not mix into the gasoline so you had 100% burnable gallons
Now your looking at 96% or about (actual may differ from these numbers just pulled out of my ass) burnable fuel.

So that right there could account for the more then 3% difference people generally see.

 

[427435]

Again it's been a few years since I went to the EPA site and compared the mpg of cars that were tested using both E0 and E85. The difference was exactly what the Btu content of the 2 fuels would predict.

Maybe someone should do the calculations again.

The difference in Btu content between E0 and E10 is about 3%. That's the reduction in mpg that you will get in repeatable tests.

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

Let me put this another way, controlled epa tests also used controlled fuel does it not?

Real world fuel will not be as pure, so people that are seeing 5% to 8% reduction in economy are likely not getting as pure E10 as the epa uses

 

[427435]

If you are buying your fuel from reputable outlets, I doubt there is much variation. I've been recording all the fuel that goes into my vehicles for over 40 years. The only variations I've noticed in mpg is completely explainable by varying driving conditions.

There are also EPA standards on gas and most states not only check retail pumps for accuracy but also take samples of the fuel for lab testing of octane and impurities.

One example:

http://agriculture.ks.gov/docs/w-m/accuracy-quality-fs.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

my experience they check every year, once a year and for the most part I imagine there is few problems, however I have also found that the only local E85 pumps are rarely E85 more like E70 at the best of times.

I have some subaru friends that have high boosted cars and they love E85 however E70 will almost blow the engine.
I also used to live in BFE North Dakota where fuel is less likey to run through the tanks fast because the demand was much lower so you could have the same fuel absorbing water for weeks, if not months.

And lets not forget that depending on your personal driving and climate where you live if you dont drive every day your gas tank could also start absorbing water.
Those same subaru guys they try to stock pile the E85 when they get it as actual E85 they can only store it for a week or so and by then it has absorbed too much water to be usable

 

[84FordMan]

And, as I pointed out, you used to get water with not quite so pure gasoline. The amount of water you get with E10 is miniscule as any condensation is continually flushed through the 5000+ gallon storage tanks. Even with 1 gallon of water condensing out (a lot considering the storage tanks are below ground and at a pretty constant temp), that would make for a water concentration of 0.02%. And remember those storage tanks get refilled every couple of days, so there's not much time for water to condense out.

In the good old days (pre-E10), water would collect in the storage tanks and your own tank for weeks and months. Then something would happen and a slug would get into your system and cause problems. That doesn't happen any more----------just a small side benefit of E10.

Which does not explain why I have had such a large increase in orders for fuel/water separator filters over the past five years and now I am adding Wix's "fuel snake", or as I like to call it, the fuel tampon, for storage tanks that collect water, to these large stock orders.

The rate at which the tanks are refilled have very little to do with water contamination, you have other external factors, as shown here:

http://wane.com/2014/04/23/woman-says-gas-station-sold-her-water-not-fuel/

And here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michi...-grossly-contaminated-water/story?id=23004467

And here:

http://consumerist.com/2014/05/15/s...damage-from-pumping-water-into-customers-car/

And here:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/water-found-in-fuel-at-some-local-gas-stations

And here:

http://www.krdo.com/news/woman-says-gas-station-who-sold-her-bad-gas-wont-pay-for-damages/22452844

And finally, here:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/chevron-634484-county-stations.html

 

[427435]

Which does not explain why I have had such a large increase in orders for fuel/water separator filters over the past five years and now I am adding Wix's "fuel snake", or as I like to call it, the fuel tampon, for storage tanks that collect water, to these large stock orders.

The rate at which the tanks are refilled have very little to do with water contamination, you have other external factors, as shown here:

http://wane.com/2014/04/23/woman-says-gas-station-sold-her-water-not-fuel/

And here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michi...-grossly-contaminated-water/story?id=23004467

And here:

http://consumerist.com/2014/05/15/s...damage-from-pumping-water-into-customers-car/

And here:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/water-found-in-fuel-at-some-local-gas-stations

And here:

http://www.krdo.com/news/woman-says-gas-station-who-sold-her-bad-gas-wont-pay-for-damages/22452844

And finally, here:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/chevron-634484-county-stations.html

Actually, it does explain why. None of the states in your links REQUIRE ethanol use in gas. Those experiences in your links are exactly what I was talking about when pure gas is used------especially in mid and high octane fuels which do not turn over as fast at stations.

We used to have similar problems in Minnesota before mandatory ethanol blending was enacted. I haven't heard of the issues in your links, here, for years.



State Ethanol Blending Status
An * after a state's name indicates that the state has a mandatory ethanol blending law, usually E10.
State

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida *
Georgia
Hawaii *
Idaho

State

Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota *
Mississippi
Missouri *

State

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon *
Pennsylvania

State

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington *
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

Actually, it does explain why. None of the states in your links REQUIRE ethanol use in gas. Those experiences in your links are exactly what I was talking about when pure gas is used------especially in mid and high octane fuels which do not turn over as fast at stations.

We used to have similar problems in Minnesota before mandatory ethanol blending was enacted. I haven't heard of the issues in your links, here, for years.



State Ethanol Blending Status
An * after a state's name indicates that the state has a mandatory ethanol blending law, usually E10.
State

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida *
Georgia
Hawaii *
Idaho

State

Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota *
Mississippi
Missouri *

State

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon *
Pennsylvania

State

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington *
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

All of this information just reinforces what I have been saying, sure there will not be problems of "water" causing fuel pump and engine damage because the ethanol has absorbed it, that does not mean it has just gone away. it translates into worse power/mileage that is all

 

[litesong]

427435 muffs:
Than why don't the EPA tests show that-------------they are mostly at part throttle.
///////
litesong wrote:

427435 works hard NOT to understand the 8%, 7% & 5% loss in mpg that 10% ethanol blends have vs. E0.......even tho he understands the "double whammy" ethanol pressure loss effect.
///////
427435 muffs:
And you work hard at trying to make your anecdotal (and likely prejudicial) results the standard as opposed to the repeatable EPA tests.
//////
litesong wrote:
427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are(altho we found out EPA ratings are poorly monitored vehicle manufacturer numbers). 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 1970's numbers were way way over-estimated. 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 1980's numbers were way over-estimated. 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 1990's numbers were way over-estimated. 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 21st century numbers were over-estimated. How surprising that vehicle manufacturers' lobbying has caused EPA numbers to be over-estimated!!

427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA comparisons between E0 & 10% ethanol blends are AND are only 3%. How surprising that "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying has caused ethanol EPA numbers to be over-estimated!!

A majority of posters on this website & its many threads agree with me. Two posters on other websites have had the same numbers that I have posted..... E0 in my 3 cars gives 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than 10% ethanol blends. All posters on this thread agree with me..... except for one poster & only one poster..... that denier being 427435.

 

[427435]

All of this information just reinforces what I have been saying, sure there will not be problems of "water" causing fuel pump and engine damage because the ethanol has absorbed it, that does not mean it has just gone away. it translates into worse power/mileage that is all

I admitt that the last time I knew of water in a gas tank was before the days of fuel injection. The problem was fixed by just emptying the gas tank with the water in it. No mechanical repairs were needed. Nor do I think a tank full of water today would necessitate changing mechanical components.

Another poster (and others) talk about 5-10% kind of mpg reductions. I'm not sure that even a fuel injected engine would run with a 10% water concentration in the fuel.

As I posted earlier, most states inspect gas stations for accuracy of their pumps and quality of their fuels. I doubt that even a 1% water concentration would pass, but a quick Google didn't find anything specific.

Bottom line, the mpg I get with E10 is as close to EPA estimates as my cars got before E10. And my measurements and driving variations have a lot more than 2-3% variability.