Your Thoughts on Ethanol vs. Premium Fuels in General?

"Klaus Schmoll" (klausschmoll) 09/11/2013 at 18:48 • Filed to: Question

0

40

In Germany, the cheapest petrol you can get is E10, which is 95 octane laced with 10 % ethanol. That's what I get because, well I said it already, it's the cheapest! I've read enough on that matter to know that the more expensive options won't give me magic increases in horsepower or mpgs. I'm far from being a hypermiler, every chance I get to do so (safely and responsibly of course!) I drive like my pants are on fire. If I have to spend €5-10 more on a 300 km trip for going into full on beserk mode on an empty autobahn, that is well worth it in my books.

But I don't spend more on fuel than I have to! I watch the prices rises and fall, and try to only fill up when they are low. I also top up a 2/3's full tank, when the time is right.

So I was quite shocked to see that a few of my best friends waste money on more expensive non-ethanol fuels. And their explanations were even worse.

- "Yeah, well, I sometimes get E10 when I feel like it. But ahhh, it's not such a big difference anyway." (Guy drives a Fiat Panda and writes for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany's finest newspapers. Going E10 would pay for half a pack of his smokes.)

- "Oh, you are filling up on E10? Interesting!" (Guy drives a brand new Skoda and teaches 5th-10th grade. Again, half a pack.)

So what do you fill up on?

(Just so that you get an idea what this weirdo is ranting about: on a cheap day E10 is at €1.50/liter = $7.55/gallon; Non-laced 95 is over €1.55/liter = $7.80, Other stuff with higher octanes is even more.)

GhostZ > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 18:54

0

I used to fill up on 87 or 89 (whichever was available). The cheap gas is 85 (or, god forbid, 83 if I ever see it) and my car was rated for a minimum of 85. Being a 12 year old car, 87 was good. Plus, you can never know when a sleezy gas station (if you don't use a regular one) will water down their gas just to bring prices down, so I find it safe to go one level up.

If I wanted to save money on gas, I'd just drive less. I burn gas as recreation to calm me down and make me feel good, and it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper than drugs.

But I would preferably like to use E85 or E90 on high boost. It will cost a lot more, but for getting more power for cheap, it's still a great way to improve a car's performance, provided you've built and tuned for it.

In an ideal world, I'd run nitromethane all of the time.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that where I used to live, anything under 90 octane came with a "may contain up to 10% ethanol" or so sticker, so we had no real choice between pure gas and E10.

dieselwagon > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 18:58

0

Diesel. £1.49/L, yesterday. 300-330miles, half full to empty (£45 worth). I used premium diesel, (what ever that) is the other week, by accident, £1.50/L and it gave me worse economy and no improvement in performance as far as I could tell.

For Sweden > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 18:59

0

I fill up on Premium, as its what Volvo recommends.

HammerheadFistpunch > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:00

4

In the US there is a Federal mandate that Gasoline be blended with 10% ethanol. And I promise you there isn't a single person here that doesn't think this is the worst idea ever. e85 makes some sense because it has a higher octane rating (we do r+m/2 btw, not RON like you do, so your 95 is really our 90). E10 has the following against it:

Lower mileage (between 5-15% worse)

higher water content

more corrosive

food being made to fuel (higher food prices)

because of ethanols higher octane many fuels are blended with a lower octane stock with the ethanol theoretically knocking it up to where it should be

Ethanol need to be used in a month or it will absorb enough water to be a problem

older vehicles are proven to run worse on e10 and have higher wear on their parts.

It doesn't reduce our dependance of foreign (Canada) oil because you burn more fuel that the ethanol replaces in the cycle (actually increasing fuel gasoline demand)

Its subsidized and still raises the fuel price

pros - a small percentage of corn farmers get big subsidies...so good if you are a farmer or a congressman of a corn farmer.

Klaus Schmoll > HammerheadFistpunch 09/11/2013 at 19:10

0

All the facts that you mentioned are right. I just didn't want to include them, as I didn't want write a book/and/or talk about the political issues of blowing food through our exhaust pipes. Lacing fuel with what is basically food isn't the greatest of all ideas PERIOD

My question was going more along the lines of "what are you putting into your tank?".

HammerheadFistpunch > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:11

0

sadly, the answer is, like the majority of Americans, e10. Lowest octane required. We don't have a choice but when we did it was more expensive than pure gas, not less. Now that expense is just reflected in the cost of the fuel.

Decay buys too many beaters > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:14

1

Sadly, the highest I can get in my state is 92 octane E10 (unless I pay around $15/gallon for race gas), but my car is designed to run on 93 octane. I'd gladly pay more for the right fuel.

Dakotacowboy > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:18

0

I've always run E10 whenever I possible. I grew up in a small town surrounded on all sides by miles of corn, soybean, and wheat fields. There is an ethanol plant 15 miles from my hometown. It made me feel good to be sending even a small amount of money back home. Also, my little Neon loved the stuff. It ran better on E10 than normal gas even when they had the same octane rating. Now in my state E10 is basically mandatory for anything below 91 octane. When Missouri mandated E10, some people were claiming how bad it was for your vehicle. I always responded to these allegations by telling them how many fuel system components had needed replaced in 10 years on E10, none.

Klaus Schmoll > GhostZ 09/11/2013 at 19:19

0

But ARE you really getting more power on the cheap? Or would getting rid of a little junk in your car get you the same 0-60 time? As far as read up on it, most engines will give a power increase in the 0.1% range with higher octane stuff.

davedave1111 > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:24

1

In general, burning food to power your car is fucking evil. That the US enforces it leaves US drivers no option, but if you have an alternative, take it. You're effectively burning dead Africans if you use ethanol as fuel.

GhostZ > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:29

0

Oh, you don't get any power normally that's what I'm saying. I get a little over not for the increase, but because a high-milage old engine designed for 85 does not want to be running on potentially-watered-down 85, and I'd be safer with potentially-watered-down 87.

In terms of performance gains, Ethanol (E85) will keep the charge very cool, so you can either run more boost or higher compression before the engine starts to knock. The power gains are somewhere around 15% for a conventional engine, while it about doubles your fuel consumption. The reason E85 is cheap for the power is that a new set of pistons and rods can gain you 20% more power, but make it impossible to run normal gasoline. Alternatively, if you have a turbo engine, you can bump boost up a few psi (or more). Alcohol or water injection does essentially the same thing, so serious builds will run E85 and have a methanol injector system that will provide methanol when the boost spikes to prevent knock.

If you have a flex fuel vehicle, it may sense the ethanol in the fuel lines and use that to change the spark timing since it knows it doesn't need to worry about knock. I think the Crown Vic's 4.6 engine would run about 10% lower on power on E85 than on another fuel.

But on a stock engine or one without a sensor, it would do nothing. You do need some modification (even if its changing the wastegate/boost controller's cut off point) to make any use of ethanol. Putting it in an old car can cause it to wear down components, as it does damage rubber and expose some metals to rust easier, as well as break up sediment that may develop in the tank (which can fry a fuel pump or clog a line when it gets in there) and injectors made of certain materials can't be used.

Klaus Schmoll > davedave1111 09/11/2013 at 19:35

1

That's like your opinion, man!

Burning food for transportation is bad, but so is eating beef! You know, somebody found out that these cows fart and that this is a bad thing, and that growing cattle is producing more farts than vegetarians eating the hay themselves instead, or something.

Casper > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:46

1

Ethanol is generally bad in my opinion. It damages fuel systems, reduces mileage, etc. I hunt for stations that still sell ethanol free fuel... which is getting harder and harder to find.

Klaus Schmoll > Casper 09/11/2013 at 19:49

0

But are you willing to pay more for it?

davedave1111 > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 19:52

1

As good a point as that is - and a well-made one, at that - for once I'm actually being serious. Ethanol from corn is the worst idea we've had in a very long time.

Ethanol from inedible seaweeds seems to be in the pipeline, and that would be a good thing. There is a quantifiable effect on food prices in Africa as a result of making ethanol from corn, though, and that's a very, very bad thing indeed.

Klaus Schmoll > davedave1111 09/11/2013 at 19:59

0

I'm aware of all that. You don't have to preach to the choir. The question was more like "Do you pay more to ease your social conscience and /or do something good to your engine?"

Casper > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 20:00

0

For non-ethanol fuel? Yes. I already am by driving half way across the county to get it. It's a no brainer to fill my cars and bikes with the best fuel I can get them that will do the least damage to them over time.

delete-me-please123 > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 20:05

0

It's not a waste, it is better for your car. And burning a sustainable vegetable is better than burning fossil fuels (even though I prefer it not be in my gas). Also, the US produces the majority of the oil it uses.

Personally, I really don't look at the price or care. I fill up at quality stations with the highest grade available.

Klaus Schmoll > delete-me-please123 09/11/2013 at 20:09

0

What do you consider to be a "quality station"? One of the big chains? Just curious! I've heard people not recommending the independent stations, but I never had problems with that.

Klaus Schmoll > dieselwagon 09/11/2013 at 20:13

0

These "special" fuels are a rip off. Pretty much every credible auto-club (ADAC, AAA, etc.) tested them, and they all came to the same conclusion.

delete-me-please123 > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 20:16

0

Shell is pretty solid. Their high grade gas has more detergents.

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > Klaus Schmoll 09/11/2013 at 20:25

0

I spent a while testing this.

for my car, I found that cost per km was cheapest with 98 octane premium unleaded.

at the time, E10 was around 70c more expensive per 100 km.

Benzed92 > HammerheadFistpunch 09/11/2013 at 20:29

1

I currently run a 3gal mix of e85 in my Mazda, but other than that I agree that the E10-E15 is a crock of shit. Less power, lower mileage, and more corrosive is a big no-no in my book. If it isn't being used for more power, it should not be allowed.

Dakotacowboy > Benzed92 09/11/2013 at 20:56

0

I know that it's just a few vehicles, but my mom's old car, 1980 Chrysler coupe 318 V8 auto, dad's truck, 1979 Chevy 1/2 ton 454 V8 auto, and my 1996 Dodge Neon with a lightly modified 2.0L I4 manual, all made more power on E10. The Neon in particular would lose power and mileage when I put standard gas in it. I've read all of the statistics that contradict everything that I've just typed, and I cannot explain why these vehicles liked E10. There are some cars do run better on it. As far as being more corrosive, the Neon ran 13 years primarily on E10 and still had the entire factory fuel system except the fuel pump when I parked the car. I swapped the fuel pump out as part of maintenance at about 120k miles. I do not feel however that E10 should be mandatory since very few people seem to have my kind of luck with it.

Benzed92 > Dakotacowboy 09/11/2013 at 21:02

1

Hmm that could just be lucky for you! I mean 10% e isn't that huge of a number and I haven't really been able to compare true 93 with the E10 stuff, but I don't notice much a drop in performance or mileage. However, with an E85 mix, it's a huge difference. There's loads more power and the mileage is a relatively significant 1mpg lower on average. The hp increases greatly outweigh the loss in mpg though, I wish I could find some 104-105 octane to run sometime, that would be loads of fun with a proper tune.

Mattbob > davedave1111 09/11/2013 at 22:03

0

whoa whoa whoa, cry me a river. Just because we can't give them enough aid to appease the warlords and feed all their people doesn't mean that us burning ethanol is a bad thing. You gotta let Africa stand on its own legs a bit, or at least hobble around on its warlord chopped stumps, so it can at least try to be self sufficient. We have no obligation to these people. Also, that's like, your opinion, man.

JasonStern911 > delete-me-please123 09/11/2013 at 22:57

0

Maybe it's better for a modern fuel injected car, but it's shit for carbureted vehicles. This is especially true for motorcycles that aren't ridden extensively, as the ethanol pulls water into the gas contaminating it. And, naturally, that contaminated ethanol/gas/water sinks to the bottom of the tank, meaning it is the first fuel pulled into the carburetor.

Plus ethanol is corrosive, and older carbureted vehicles were not designed to run corrosive material through them. Luckily, carburetors aren't made from something like aluminum, and the fuel lines aren't made from rubber... DAMN IT!

And don't get me started on the reduced energy density requiring more fuel to be consumed...

But at least it's sustainable, as long as you don't factor in the energy it took to harvest the crops to create the ethanol in the first place. But at least the farmers are being subsidized by the same government mandating that ethanol fuels be used. But whatever. It's not like we would have done anything altruistic with the subsidized crops like give them to the hungry, because f*** the poor.

JasonStern911 > Benzed92 09/11/2013 at 23:02

0

1MPG less on E85? You are just making those numbers up. It is physically impossible to generate ~95% of the harnessed energy using the same exact combustion engine when the fuel source only contains 2/3 of the total theoretical energy.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_de…

JasonStern911 > Decay buys too many beaters 09/11/2013 at 23:05

0

Same here, except we only get 91 octane on the west coast. :'(

JasonStern911 > Dakotacowboy 09/11/2013 at 23:13

0

I always responded to these allegations by telling them how many fuel system components had needed replaced in 10 years on E10, none.

That's completely unfounded. Relatively modern fuel systems run fine on 15% ethanol, but older fuel systems don't. As an experiment, find some pure ethanol. Place a piece of rubber in it - not a modern fuel line, but a piece of rubber like old fuel lines were made of. I bet you a beer it doesn't last ten years without deterioration to a point that the line is unsafe to a point it should not be used to transport a flammable material like gasoline and ethanol.

Decay buys too many beaters > JasonStern911 09/11/2013 at 23:16

0

Yep, here in Oregon they claim it's 92 but I'm pretty sure its the same pisswater they get in CA.

Benzed92 > JasonStern911 09/11/2013 at 23:20

0

I'm only using a 3 gallon mix in a 15.9 gallon tank. and because of the higher octane and lower combustion temps with e85, my injectors spray less fuel than straight 93. Additionally my air/fuel ratio has been tuned for the different amount of energy in the blend I use. My car is custom tuned with a Cobb AccessPort as well, so with all of those factors, I lose about 1mpg. Otherwise, untuned, and with 100% E85, the loss in mpg would be significantly higher.

JasonStern911 > Benzed92 09/11/2013 at 23:27

1

Okay, so you have a turbocharged vehicle explicitly tuned to run a bit leaner while on a mixture of it. That makes sense.

Dakotacowboy > JasonStern911 09/11/2013 at 23:28

0

Most of the people that were making the claims were driving newer cars than me. I know alcohol can tear up rubber. I was simply speaking from experience. My experience was I bought a '96 Neon in '98 with 36k miles on it. I then put 120k miles on it over the course of 13 years. During that time I ran most of the time on E10. The only fuel system components I replaced the entire time were the fuel filter a few times and the fuel pump at 120k miles. I replaced those filters and the pump as part of maintenance, not because they were clogged or failed.

JasonStern911 > Decay buys too many beaters 09/11/2013 at 23:29

1

At least you have 55MPH speed limits on the highways in Oregon so you could get away with running 37 octane. :)

Just kidding, I was born and went to college in Oregon. Go Ducks!

JasonStern911 > Dakotacowboy 09/11/2013 at 23:34

0

Honestly, my biggest gripe is just not having the ability to buy ethanol free fuels. They could easily just tax it more so people are more inclined to run ethanol laced fuels. Hell, I'd still run ethanol laced gasoline in my Xterra. But with the older vehicles, especially the ones I don't go through a tank of gas a month on, I'm forced to spend money on Seafoam, dump what should be perfectly good fossil fuels due to water contamination, etc.

I'm sure people were just as cranky as me when leaded fuel was banned. Except, at least then, the emissions difference was very evident.

Dakotacowboy > JasonStern911 09/11/2013 at 23:42

0

Even though I and my vehicles like the stuff, I do not like the fact that it is mandated. Many people and many vehicles do not like E10. They should not be forced to use it. I freely admit that I have been very lucky in owning or driving vehicles that respond well to it. I'm sorry that some of your vehicles have problems with it.

Decay buys too many beaters > JasonStern911 09/11/2013 at 23:45

0

Driving an FR-S on Oregon highways is the most soul crushingly boring activity I've ever engaged in. I just turn off the highway, look for some good twisties, and let my GPS sort out the rest. It honestly takes me twice as long to go anywhere now. :)

JasonStern911 > Dakotacowboy 09/11/2013 at 23:47

0

Some of mine do. There's no noticeable difference in my Xterra. My 911 will retard the timing a bit, but it's not really causing issues. But my motorcycles... I don't know. I'm a bit of a collector as I like having options. But having an older, stock bike start to miss when revving a motor to 10k because water is getting into the fuel and the stock fuel system is set to run lean for emissions reasons is, for lack of a better word, concerning.

JasonStern911 > Decay buys too many beaters 09/12/2013 at 23:34

0

I luck out in that respect. I live in Reno and visit family in southern Oregon, so most of my driving is in California (don't let the signs fool you. speed limits aren't enforced by aircraft - they're enforced by a lack of road maintenance/construction... not that I speed), thus my time in the "55 stay alive" zones are limited. It's a shame, though, as the Redwood Highway between Grants Pass and the Oregon coast is one of the more enjoyable roads I have ever driven/ridden on. Well maintained, tons of nice, long sweeping corners with a few technical parts...