Ethanol free gas

[gatorfast]

If a no-name ethanol free gas station is available, would most say that it is better than "top-tier" name-brand gas (shell, chevron, etc) containing ethanol?

[Edward]

Probably. Only the detergents and additives differentiate the gas at all the gas stations anyway. Do I still only go to Shell? Yes.

Ethanol sucks though. Less power and bad for your engine. Stupid corn subsidies.

[tacoman]

Is there a preferred brand for our cars? Bp, chevron , shell etc

Thx

[325rider]

Originally Posted by Edward

Probably. Only the detergents and additives differentiate the gas at all the gas stations anyway. Do I still only go to Shell? Yes.

Ethanol sucks though. Less power and bad for your engine. Stupid corn subsidies.

Source?

[Edward]

Originally Posted by 325rider

Source?

Well, this is kind of one of those hotly debated topics with extremely biased sides and lobbyists on both sides and somewhat bipartisan support for increasing ethanol production to support crop farmers and ag companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

If you google you will find a plethora of articles citing that ethanol is a net pollutant. It costs more energy to convert to usable energy than the liquid ethanol can produce in a combustion engine. Adding ethanol supposedly decreases MPG because it's such a sh*tty form of fuel (much like corn is a nutritionally useless food and even worse as a substitute for sugar). So you're polluting more, artificially increasing the price of food, subsidized not only by the govt/taxpayer but also the end food consumer, you, in order to support our ag industry to keep pumping out corn.

They are currently dumping some 6b+ gallons into our fuel annually and in less than ten years trying to bump that to over 35b gallons

It's also to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. Hopefully the fracking boom and these massive shale discoveries will continue to push this country up the map on being a net oil exporter.

I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist or anything but if there's anything I hate, it's unions and corn subsidies. Give me 93 octane, hold the liquified corn on the cob bro.

[Eau Rouge]

It is a fact that ethanol is a corrosive to both metal and rubber. It contains water which allows it to degrade on its own thereby opening up possibilities for rust to makes its entrance. I'll drive a little farther to avoid bringing that time bomb onboard. Do as you wish.

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by 325rider

Source?

Talk to mechanics/techs. They tend to be apolitical about POL.

[M.Hagen]

If you're interested in seeking that few % of extra mileage you get from straight gasoline, go for it. The EPA has a very small operating window for what fuel distributors and filling stations are allowed to blend in terms of additives/detergents, so any gas will be fine for your car. Some independent stations might not clean their tanks as often, so there is a higher risk of getting 'bad gas' if you fill your car shortly after their tanks are refilled, which stirs up the junk.

I am a big believer in ethanol as a race fuel. I've been running E98 for 4 years in my 800hp Supra. I've built/tuned a number of cars running E85 or other ethanol blends. Ethanol burns cooler, burns cleaner, and has a higher AKI, so from a 'performance' standpoint, there are some great benefits. Only downside to ethanol is it is much more hydroscopic than regular gasoline so the fuel system components need to be selected appropriately, and it's energy density is substantially less so you need more volume to make the same power (hence the dismal fuel efficiency).

I'll stay out of the politicized portion of the ethanol discussion. As long as I can still buy 55gal drums of E98 for $350 shipped to my driveway, I'm a happy camper

[Edward]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

It is a fact that ethanol is a corrosive to both metal and rubber. It contains water which allows it to degrade on its own thereby opening up possibilities for rust to makes its entrance. I'll drive a little farther to avoid bringing that time bomb onboard. Do as you wish.

We don't have the option in CA. I think all gasoline in CA has a mandated 10% requirement today. Thats the crappy part of being one of the heaviest car usage states in the union.

[M.Hagen]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

It is a fact that ethanol is a corrosive to both metal and rubber. It contains water which allows it to degrade on its own thereby opening up possibilities for rust to makes its entrance. I'll drive a little farther to avoid bringing that time bomb onboard. Do as you wish.

Ethanol itself is not corrosive.

Ethanol is hydroscopic, so it absorbs water from the atmosphere if exposed for long periods of time. As the ethanol blended fuel travels through the fuel system, it deposits the absorbed water on the surface of the fuel components (hard lines, soft lines, injectors, etc). As long as the fuel system components don't contain natural rubber or low-chromium steel (non-stainless), there are no corrosive worries.

Most cars since the 80's use PTFE internals in their soft fuel lines and aluminum or stainless hard lines, negating the effect of any water absorption on those components.

Injectors are the biggest concern, as the standard is to use low-carbon steel (mild steel) internals. If your car sits for long periods of time (ie: it is a weekend toy), after the ethanol blended fuel evaporates from inside the injector, it leaves behind the water, which will cause surface corrosion (rust) and can clog the injector. Not good.

While that sounds bad, the actual amount of water needed to be absorbed into an ethanol blended fuel is quite large for there to be this situation. The ethanol blended fuel will have needed to be stored in a non-sealed storage container in a high humidity environment for many months for the absorption to be that severe.

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by M.Hagen

Ethanol itself is not corrosive.

Ethanol is hydroscopic, so it absorbs water from the atmosphere if exposed for long periods of time. As the ethanol blended fuel travels through the fuel system, it deposits the absorbed water on the surface of the fuel components (hard lines, soft lines, injectors, etc). As long as the fuel system components don't contain natural rubber or low-chromium steel (non-stainless), there are no corrosive worries.

Most cars since the 80's use PTFE internals in their soft fuel lines and aluminum or stainless hard lines, negating the effect of any water absorption on those components.

Injectors are the biggest concern, as the standard is to use low-carbon steel (mild steel) internals. If your car sits for long periods of time (ie: it is a weekend toy), after the ethanol blended fuel evaporates from inside the injector, it leaves behind the water, which will cause surface corrosion (rust) and can clog the injector. Not good.

While that sounds bad, the actual amount of water needed to be absorbed into an ethanol blended fuel is quite large for there to be this situation. The ethanol blended fuel will have needed to be stored in a non-sealed storage container in a high humidity environment for many months for the absorption to be that severe.

Did you miss my second sentence?

To each his own. Around here, the risk analysis with boat owner et al goes like this. The fuel least likely to cause problems down the road is avoided like the plague because everyone knows a boat that won't go just isn't much of a boat.

[F9T]

Originally Posted by Edward

Well, this is kind of one of those hotly debated topics with extremely biased sides and lobbyists on both sides and somewhat bipartisan support for increasing ethanol production to support crop farmers and ag companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

If you google you will find a plethora of articles citing that ethanol is a net pollutant. It costs more energy to convert to usable energy than the liquid ethanol can produce in a combustion engine. Adding ethanol supposedly decreases MPG because it's such a sh*tty form of fuel (much like corn is a nutritionally useless food and even worse as a substitute for sugar). So you're polluting more, artificially increasing the price of food, subsidized not only by the govt/taxpayer but also the end food consumer, you, in order to support our ag industry to keep pumping out corn.

They are currently dumping some 6b+ gallons into our fuel annually and in less than ten years trying to bump that to over 35b gallons

It's also to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. Hopefully the fracking boom and these massive shale discoveries will continue to push this country up the map on being a net oil exporter.

I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist or anything but if there's anything I hate, it's unions and corn subsidies. Give me 93 octane, hold the liquified corn on the cob bro.

Could not agree more.

[M.Hagen]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Did you miss my second sentence?

To each his own. Around here, the risk analysis with boat owner et al goes like this. The fuel least likely to cause problems down the road is avoided like the plague because everyone knows a boat that won't go just isn't much of a boat.

I read your post as a 'fact' that ethanol is corrosive. If that wasn't your intent, my mistake.

Without a doubt, boats should not run ethanol blended fuels. Most boat fuel systems that I've seen use natural rubber hose. That natural rubber will swell and crack faster than Oprah at home after Fat Camp.

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by M.Hagen

I read your post as a 'fact' that ethanol is corrosive. If that wasn't your intent, my mistake.

Without a doubt, boats should not run ethanol blended fuels. Most boat fuel systems that I've seen use natural rubber hose. That natural rubber will swell and crack faster than Oprah at home after Fat Camp.

There's a waterfront pier gas station a few miles from my house and at that place one has a choice -- with ethanol or without ethanol. Some time ago I was pumping fuel into the car when a truck rolled up on the other side of the pump island. Two guys get out. Both work for Chevron. A conversation is started. The takeaway from the conversation is that as good as Chevron's reputation, those employees pass on anything ethanol. They didn't change my opinion; merely confirmed what was the best fuel option -- ethanol free whenever possible. Having said that, from time to time I find myself in states where everything is ethanol blend.

[W///]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

If a no-name ethanol free gas station is available, would most say that it is better than "top-tier" name-brand gas (shell, chevron, etc) containing ethanol?

I go with ethanol free. There's a Spinx station right across work, that gets a high turn over rate, and their 93 is ethanol free. It's a little more expensive than gas with ethanol, but not by much. I also run a bottle of Techron before every oil change.

[Semi-Poor]

Originally Posted by tacoman

Is there a preferred brand for our cars? Bp, chevron , shell etc

Thx

My owners manual says BP

[tacoman]

Originally Posted by Semi-Poor

My owners manual says BP

guess i should read my manual huh?

[MTM]

Originally Posted by M.Hagen

Ethanol burns cooler, burns cleaner, and has a higher AKI, so from a 'performance' standpoint, there are some great benefits.

That is interesting. I would have thought that the stronger molecular bonds in (almost) pure ethanol would actually have a lower energy density compared to gasoline which is predominantly double bonds. But I suppose anything with a 105 octane rating would be alright.

My political opinion: burning food for fuel is just stupid.

[M.Hagen]

Originally Posted by MTM

That is interesting. I would have thought that the stronger molecular bonds in (almost) pure ethanol would actually have a lower energy density compared to gasoline which is predominantly double bonds. But I suppose anything with a 105 octane rating would be alright.

My political opinion: burning food for fuel is just stupid.

Ethanol does have less energy density than regular gasoline. That is why there is a fuel economy penalty for running E85, as ~30% more volume per combustion event is required to get the same 'energy' as gasoline. However, 'energy density' =/= 'power potential'

Agreed on the principal that we should not tie-up AG lands for fuel needs. There are a few good alternatives to corn though. Algae can produce both diesel and sugar based fuels (like Ethanol), and has the potential to due it at a higher Barrel-Per-Acre output than corn. The conditions where Algae can flourish are sunny and arid climates, so an Algae fuel farm would not compete for the same land as AG.

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

If a no-name ethanol free gas station is available, would most say that it is better than "top-tier" name-brand gas (shell, chevron, etc) containing ethanol?

Not necessarily. Contrary to popular belief...in a lot of cases Shell gasoline is not even refined by Shell. The only thing that makes it Shell gas is the additive package. So you might be getting "cheap" Valero gas with Shell additive being sold at Shell gas stations. The Shell gas in Wisconsin ain't made by Shell. The inverse is true...you might get Valero gas refined by Shell.

But generally speaking, I would think that Shell has some pretty good quality controls. So yes, sometimes. That help?

[CHE///MIST3]

I recently found a local petroleum distributor in Columbus, TX that sells ethanol-free "93 Super". He supplies to industrial operations and has become the fuel house for car enthusiasts who stop by frequently. At just $2.85 a gallon I will be filling up there for a few tanks back to back and see how the mileage compares to Shell V Power.

I can't really say if this fuel makes the car feel stronger but it does feel a little "punchier" when you accelerate...could just be the recent cool and dry air from the cold front.

Will report back....

GM

[W12x]

Talked with an retired Exxon person who worked with bio-fuel department, according to him, most of the time E10 gas does contain about 10% of ethanol, but not ALWAYS.

However, E85 usually is no more than 60% Ethanol and often around 50%, they did some long term testing and even the flex fuel cars (talked to him in 2012, so must be a few years before that) doesn't work properly when it's real E85. He mentioned what the issue was but I don't remember anymore.

Not sure if the information still hold true today, but I do remember ASTM lowering the E85's min ethanol requirement to 51% back in 2011 or 2012.