Real Gasoline, not Ethanol

No such thing as real gasoline but if you want to know what gasoline really is check out this Chevron Motor Gasolines Technical Review. Well written for the non engineer.

Chapter 1 contents:
1 • Gasoline and Driving Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Volatility
Vapor Pressure
Distillation Profile
Vapor-Liquid Ratio
Vapor Lock Index
Driveability Index
Volatility Specifications
Antiknock Performance
Octane Number Requirement
Power
Fuel Economy
Factors Affecting Fuel Economy
Fuel Economy Road Test
Other Performance Factors

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/documents/69083_MotorGas_Tech Review.pdf

Top Tier Gasoline
"TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline is the premier standard for gasoline performance. Six of the world's top automakers, BMW, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and Audi recognize that the current EPA minimum detergent requirements do not go far enough to ensure optimal engine performance."

 

Comparing summer values, 47/52 = 90%. That means they could take 0.9 gallons of EF gas, and then add 10% air (or 10% nothing) instead of 10% ethanol, and still get the same MPG's. Doesn't make much sense, unless there are other factors coming into play. Maybe the E10 has some other factors in its blending that are inferior?

 

E-10 like round-abouts are not a political ploy to break our American spirit.

Think about it.... when we use E-10, we use ten percent less petroleum based gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign based oil by 10 percent. That's a good thing.

Brazil, for one, uses a very high percentage of ethanol and a very low percentatge of gasoline. That's a good thing. They have, in this respect at least, a good energy policy. Of course their cars are designed to use this fuel.

 

Except that it took just as much oil to produce the ethanol (from corn) as you would have burned normally without it. Add in the fuel economy loss and I believe you end up with a higher dependence on foreign oil. Corn subsidies are a joke.

 

Then think about it some more. If we are getting less mileage from the E-10, we will be using more E-10 than we would gasoline, so we aren't saving 10% anymore. Then consider that producing corn based ethanol requires gasoline (estimates vary on how much) for fertilizer, tilling, distillation, etc. Depending on whose numbers you use, we are saving very little foreign oil, or we are actually using more.

p.s. Brazil is almost certainly using sugar based ethanol, for which the numbers are significantly better, in terms of oil required.

 

Produced locally with biowaste is quite different, which is the point of advancing acceptance & support.
.

 

Do you think that is why Congress is trying to tone down corn subsidies? To give those using biowaste to create ethanol have a more even playing field?

 

This would be true if ethanol gushed forth freely from magic springs (ignoring the lower energy density of ethanol), but it doesn't. It takes energy to make ethanol, and doing it the way we do means it takes nearly as much petroleum based fuel to make the ethanol as the ethanol produced. Because of this we don't reduce our dependence on foreign oil one bit, but we do tie up a lot of land and drive up food prices. I wouldn't call that a good thing.

Tom

 

This would be true, if there were such a thing as biowaste. What there is, is fertilizer, livestock feed, building materials, mulch, and carbon sequestering materials. I maintain that 'waste' is a verb, not a noun.

That said, if you are deciding whether to burn said biomass for electricity, or distill it for liquid fuel, whichever is more needed, should be made.

 

....I agree with minor correction, growing corn actually requires more diesel fuel (for tractors etc) than gasoline

 

The one good reason for using ethanol in gasoline is as an oxygenator to reduce CO emissions (air pollution), for which E10 is plenty. Fuel ethanol made from corn doesn't do squat to reduce US dependence on petroleum. The $0.45 per gallon ethanol blending tax credit is a bad joke, a bribe paid to gasoline makers for obeying the law on oxygenation. The $0.54 per gallon tariff on fuel ethanol is a payoff to agribusiness.

Now is the time to call or write your Congressanimal to tell them to end the ethanol blending tax credit and the fuel ethanol tariff:
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

 

can't find real gas in NY we have the cornflake gas with other additives that suck the MPG's out of it. my last trip to FL I was getting 52MPG while there and once I got back and filled up again it went back to 43MPG.

 

Thanks all for the ethanol discussion, I'm learning new things here...

I wanted to update on what I mentioned in post 7 of this thread, to which Tom responded wonderfully in post number 10 a little further down.

There could be other factors, certainly, but BP's gas continues to show better numbers for me, with a very small percentage deviation on the MFD from reality.

Over the last three tanks before today's, the MFD showed 68.8 mpg over 1,529.2 miles, actual was 67.98. Today's MFD showed 70.5 mpg, tank of 511.4 miles was actually 69.18 mpg. Fill-ups were made at two different BP stations over the four tanks listed.

One station posts the "May contain up to 10% ethanol" warning, other doesn't, though doesn't seem to matter. The stuff seems to back a little more wallop than my past tanks, though may simply be summer mix. Either way I'm happy with it.

 

Richard- Years ago, prior to catalytic converters (1980's), at that time, yes ethanol reduced CO emissions. But it is no longer true for modern vehicles, to the best of my knowledge. Basically that's what your catalytic converter does now, reduces CO/NOx/HC's.

 

Oxygenated fuel is needed to further reduce CO emissions. The phaseout of MTBE left ethanol as the most popular substitute, but there are several other possibilities. See
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygenate]Oxygenate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Look for another explanation. That is more than the reduction you would get if you used 9/10ths of a gallon of gas, with no additives, instead of a regular gallon.

 

Richard- I think that Wiki article is out of date, but I am thanking you anyway because the article had an interesting note on it:

 

Ethanol sucks except for Nascar. I always get worse mileage, hybrid or legacy.

 

Was that 43 MPG in the colder months of the year?

I've seen that kind of variance without leaving my home area: With winter gas only doing around 44 but ethanol free in the summer doing around 53.

I discovered EF gas this spring so haven't been able to test it in the winter. I was buying mostly Shell or occasionally another name brand "up to 10%" ethanol gas year round and never got much above 48mpg at best.

 

With the recent drop in our cars' mpg, due to the start of winter blend fuel, I am experimenting with ethanol free gasoline in my 2007 Dodge Caliber, my old '88 Ford Festiva & trying to get my wife to use it in her 2008 Hyundai Accent. Been keeping track of my mpg on fueleconomy.gov which has a sweet line-graph that should show decisively if my mpg on the 3 cars does rise & by how much.

For the Caliber & Accent, the ethanol free gasoline seems to have interrupted the winter-blend & cold plunge in mpg by rising 1 to 2 mpg. Of course, I will continue to monitor to see if I can avoid the 'MPG Winter Canyon'.

The following is for the '88 Ford Festiva:
With the first fill of ethanol free, the Festiva turned 47+mpg on some country driving. With a winter-blend+ethanol tank, I would not have expected more than 43-45mpg. So that was a bit of encouragement. The next tank showed 58mpg, my highest ever mpg by 5mpg! I've only had 50+mpg tanks in the heat of the summer in my Washington state northern latitude. I find this astounding & wonder if my tank wasn't quite filled. But I think I topped it quite well. Anyhow, I'll keep feeding fueleconomy.gov & see if the mpg leap is true or if it might come down somewhat.