 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Corvette / June 2006Reports on Use of Ethanol in C5's
Anyone used Ethanol in a C5? We have 10% blend here. > Anyone used Ethanol in a C5? > We have 10% blend here. What kind of milage did you get on gas vs the 10% blend and could you tell the difference? We still have the good stuff here and nobody sells blended >> We have 10% blend here. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We still have the good stuff here and nobody sells blended Never satisfied with my limited knowledge I did a little search, changed some of my thinking and reinforced allot more. http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3b.html Seldom do I see much benefit in the urban legends and myths that circulate the internet. Dad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd > Never satisfied with my limited knowledge I did a little search, > changed some of my thinking and reinforced allot more. > > http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3b.html What thinking changed, and what was reinforced? I would love to see USA become less dependant on muslim totalitarian countries for fuel. I am excited about ethanol and about alternate power sources. Check out this site: http://www.wind-power.com  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Never satisfied with my limited knowledge I did a little search, >> changed some of my thinking and reinforced allot more. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fuel. I am excited about ethanol and about alternate power > sources. Check out this site: http://www.wind-power.com That ethanol is actually an octane boost of 3 points and the rest is what I already believed. Certainly not the 30% mileage drop of some thinking nor the filter problems of the 70s. I did have to rebuild the carburetor in my '65 Mustang to get it to run well. a.. A 10% ethanol-blended fuel is warranted for use by ALL auto manufacturers marketing vehicles in the U.S. b.. Many auto manufacturers, including General Motors and Chrysler, recommend the use of oxygenated fuels, such as ethanol, in their vehicles. c.. Ethanol guards against gas line freeze by absorbing moisture that may get in the tank during cold weather. d.. Ethanol is a proven octane enhancer and replacement for lead and other toxic compounds in gasoline. e.. The blending of 10% ethanol boosts the octane rating of gasoline by an average of three points. f.. Nationally, since 1978, ethanol has provided motorists with more than 2 trillion road miles of satisfactory performance. g.. Ethanol-blended fuels are approved for use in small engines too -- including outboard motors, snowmobiles, lawn mowers, motorcycles, and chain saws. All small-engine manufacturers that have tested a 10% ethanol blend have approved its use. -- Dad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd >>> Never satisfied with my limited knowledge I did a little search, >>> changed some of my thinking and reinforced allot more. >>> >>> http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3b.html Good link. Advisable reading to anyone having to run ethanol. >> What thinking changed, and what was reinforced? I would love to see >> USA become less dependant on muslim totalitarian countries for fuel. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > nor the filter problems of the 70s. I did have to rebuild the carburetor > in my '65 Mustang to get it to run well. Well, this is really a bit misleading. The ethanol may boost the octane 3 points, but then the gasoline manufacturers simply drop the other additives that they would put in to boost octane. Thus 87 is still 87, 93 is still 93, and so on, whether it is regular gasoline or the ethanol mix. You are not getting higher octane gas for your car. > a.. A 10% ethanol-blended fuel is warranted for use by ALL auto > manufacturers marketing vehicles in the U.S. One has to remember this is for new cars at the time of publication. There is a publication on that site in PDF about older vehicles. It is advisable reading for anyone running C4s and older. There are possibilities of issues with injectors, depending on the injector type. Vented systems like on the older C3s and back can have an issue. Cars not driven much and cars that go into long-term storage can have issues. Cars that have run continuously without rebuilds of fuel systems, although this is unlikely for two reasons - this was written about 1996 and so the 10 years of differences in gasoline should have cleared most varnish and other deposits by now, even if not using ethanol due to the higher detergent levels in all gas. Overall, nothing serious, but not recommended for someone who is bringing an old classic muscle car out of storage from 1975 or some such thing, and thinking they will fill up and drive normally. > b.. Many auto manufacturers, including General Motors and Chrysler, > recommend the use of oxygenated fuels, such as ethanol, in their vehicles. > > c.. Ethanol guards against gas line freeze by absorbing moisture that may > get in the tank during cold weather. This is an issue for older cars in long-term storage. Regular driving prevents this from being a hassle. > d.. Ethanol is a proven octane enhancer and replacement for lead and > other toxic compounds in gasoline. The talk about lead here is as an octane booster, not a lubricant/shock absorber for valves. As such, use of ethanol won't cure the no-lead issues for wear. However, as I have mentioned several times, the wear issue is overrated. Unless you are doing lots of high RPM operation, or heavy loads (towing, mountain climbing, etc.), the wear rate is only a bit above normal. The reality is you may have to do a valve job 10,000 miles sooner on a 50,000 to 80,000 mile engine, and realistically, who drives their restored to 196x standards classic that many miles? > e.. The blending of 10% ethanol boosts the octane rating of gasoline by > an average of three points. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 > 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd >> That ethanol is actually an octane boost of 3 points and the rest >> is what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You are > not getting higher octane gas for your car. Agreed, you read that correctly, but it is not a cause of lost power as was suggested, the blending is pretty equal. It is also stated in the sites noted that the older elastomembers, 60s and early 70s, would fail as I eluded to on my Mustang. It also stated that leaking injectors were prone to calcify if they leaked and leak more, that design injector is no longer made. It is a non issue as far as the driving public is concerned and a Chicken Little type of attitude by some. SignatureIMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. > Agreed, you read that correctly, but it is not a cause of lost power as > was suggested, the blending is pretty equal. It is also stated in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is a non issue as far as the driving public is concerned and a Chicken > Little type of attitude by some. I didn't mean any of this as criticism of you, just a commentary on the website statements. Many reading comments here won't go to the website. As such, they will draw wrong or incomplete conclusions. Reading the website and remembering the audience is essential. Most is for current day cars since about 1995 when this was being written. There is a section on classic cars and needs to be studied by those owners. Overall, impact is minimal to most drivers. The classic car guys may need to swap filters as varnish goes out on beginning usage, and they may have to do carb work, if it hasn't been done in the last 20 years (doubtful). People still running the older FI injector design may have problems. People with Rochester Ramjet mechanical fuel injection may have problems. One place to check is Jerry Bramlett in Alabama as he is a no-nonsense guy on FI. Other than that, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. >Anyone used Ethanol in a C5? It is hard to find anything other than 10% ethanol in the Midwest due to "corporate welfare" providing large tax subsidies. For example, in Illinois adding 10% ethanol allows the companies to deduct about 55 cents/gallon in taxes. So it is rare to find gas that doesn't have 10% ethanol. Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a decrease in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning your fuel system. If you haven't been using it regularly expect to need to replace your fuel filter within a hundred miles after your first tank. But if you use it in the winter you will never have a fuel line freeze up. And it will remove every drop of condensation in your tank. I always make sure the tank is full of ethanol when storing for the winter. Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon extra) NOT to have ethanol because my mileage suffers almost that much with it. When I'm traveling and can get a tank of "real" gas, it seems to make a noticeable difference in performance also. On the other hand, I haven't had a fuel line problem in many years because it does keep the system clean. It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get lower mileage and less performance. Just make sure you have a spare fuel filter and the tools to change one on the side of the road when you first start using it. > On or about Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:42:43 GMT, aRKay > <REMOVEarkay@qsl.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 10% > ethanol. I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would give some more facts about the tax breaks? This is just a guess but there may be that much tacked onto a gallon for kick back and dictator bribes. > Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a > decrease > in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning your fuel > system. If you haven't been using it regularly expect to need to > replace your fuel filter within a hundred miles after your first > tank. Didn't see that happen on my '78 or my '72 when I started using gasoline with ethanol. I'll sure be on guard when I fire up the '50 this next week. > But if you use it in the winter you will never have a fuel line > freeze > up. And it will remove every drop of condensation in your tank. I > always make sure the tank is full of ethanol when storing for the > winter. Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap they started using in the late '70s? > Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon extra) > NOT to have ethanol because my mileage suffers almost that much with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > system clean. Both the C5 and my C6 average 28/32 MPG and how I drive it makes more difference than the fuel with ethanol. Yet you say they should drop to 20/26 MPG? The only time I've ever seen that was at the track, although it ran about there before it was broke in. > It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get lower > mileage and less performance. Just make sure you have a spare fuel > filter and the tools to change one on the side of the road when you > first start using it. Oops there Kemosahbee, the fuel filter on the late C5s and the C6 and a number of GM cars are on the fuel pump and that's inside the gas tank. Not really a wrench job as they are stab-loc fittings prior to that and I'll not drop a fuel tank beside the road. You could wrench one on the early C5s but you need to drop the left exhaust pipe also. Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology is in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with our farmers than I do the mid-east. SignatureDad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd No problems with ethanol here in the midwest. <snip> >I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would >give some more facts about the tax breaks? Google is your friend. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html is just one admittedly biased source but I post it because it has lots of other inconvenient facts. To Google the tax breaks yourself, you might want to include ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) the largest producer of ethanol in your search criteria. Both the states and the feds give large breaks to producers of ethanol (ADM). >> Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a >> decrease in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning your fuel >> system. If you haven't been using it regularly expect to need to >> replace your fuel filter within a hundred miles after your first >> tank. >Didn't see that happen on my '78 or my '72 when I started using >gasoline with ethanol. I'll sure be on guard when I fire up the '50 >this next week. I assume your complaint is with the changing fuel filter part and not the mileage. (Your mileage concerns are addressed below.) http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/rem/rem-26.htm is a state sponsored site that is directed at station owners and not users but it contains the following statement - "The ethanol in an ethanol-blend gasoline acts as a solvent and may dissolve and/or loosen materials such as bottom sludge and some wall coatings on petroleum storage tanks. The loosened materials will be suspended in the gasoline and may cause pump filters and vehicle fuel lines to clog." Again, Google it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel. <snip> >Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel >system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap they >started using in the late '70s? Yes, when they sealed the fuel system in the 70's it did greatly reduce the breathing of the system. But it isn't prefect and air still escapes from the system to be replaced later when the tank cools. I don't know what you mean by a "moisture trap". Air is drawn in through a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed. >> Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon extra) >> NOT to have ethanol because my mileage suffers almost that much with >> it. When I'm traveling and can get a tank of "real" gas, it seems to >> make a noticeable difference in performance also. On the other hand, >> I haven't had a fuel line problem in many years because it does keep >> the system clean. >Both the C5 and my C6 average 28/32 MPG and how I drive it makes more >difference than the fuel with ethanol. Yet you say they should drop to >20/26 MPG? The only time I've ever seen that was at the track, >although it ran about there before it was broke in. I said I ALMOST lost 10% in mileage. A 10% loss would turn 28/32 into 25.2/28.8 not 20/26. I totally agree that the way the car is driven can have a much larger effect. Even with the awesome drag coefficient of a Corvette, the difference between a strong head wind and a strong tail wind can be almost this much. But your driving style and other factors are all based on the same difference in fuel. If you got 28mpg on real gas on the highway at 65 but only 25 at 90, then you might get 25.2 at 65 and 22.5 at 90. The fact that you get better mileage on ethanol at 65 than on real gas at 90mph is very misleading. There are 2 factors than make ethanol give worse mileage. First is the lower BTU/gallon (77KBTU/gal vs. 110KBTU/Gal). Next, because ethanol has a higher octane rating (it burns slower), when it is mixed with gasoline they use a lower quality gas to get back to the same total octane rating. >> It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get lower >> mileage and less performance. Just make sure you have a spare fuel >> filter and the tools to change one on the side of the road when you >> first start using it. >Oops there Kemosahbee, the fuel filter on the late C5s and the C6 and >a number of GM cars are on the fuel pump and that's inside the gas >tank. Not really a wrench job as they are stab-loc fittings prior to >that and I'll not drop a fuel tank beside the road. You could wrench >one on the early C5s but you need to drop the left exhaust pipe also. I'll grant that the newest Corvettes do not have an easily replaceable fuel filter. A C6 would also not have had enough time to have formed a significant amount of corrosion in the tank. So if you have a C6 ethanol would not significantly clean the system so it should be no problem. A '97 C5 is another story. BTW, I was being facetious when I discussed changing a filter on the side of the road. That is what towing insurance is for. >Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology is >in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with >our farmers than I do the mid-east. How about them Canadians. We buy more oil from Canada than any other country. And them evil Mexicans are right there next in line. The Saudi's come in 3rd. Then there's Venezuela, and Nigeria. If we add up all our imports down to Chad, then we import less than 25% of our crude oil from the Mid-East and more than 75% from those "unknown" countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the Arabs. Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't drive with it. > <snip> >>I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ethanol in your search criteria. Both the states and the feds give > large breaks to producers of ethanol (ADM). I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue so I'll try not to belabor the point. It is also apparent that you jumped in here from soc.culture.usa alt.politics.immigration alt.mexico alt.california to push a political inspired position and not a factual use of ethanol. First off Google is not my friend and is very much to the left. Every notice the don't change their logo on Veterans day as they do on most other holidays? You need to get used to the fact that large tax breaks are given to large companies, (money), by your elected officials as you have instructed them to do by voting for them. Second the bill that started all of the subsidies you refer to was signed into effect by Jimmy Carter in 1979. More than enough time for something to be done about it if you feel strongly against its use. >>> Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a >>> decrease in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will > quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel. The site I posted clearly states that the accumulated varnish and trash will be dislodged by ethanol. It also states that that has not happened to cars to any extent for many years. The above site is for the cleaning of bulk tanks and its transfer systems to eliminate the contamination from being pumped into an automobile. It also states that if they don't it will cause users to take action for the dirty fuel. Nothing was said about it moving varnish or trash that could have already been in the car in question. Maybe you should try to read the posted material instead of pushing a moot point. > <snip> >>Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > through > a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed. Again, had you read the posted site you would see that the moisture problem is a thing of the past because of the closed loop fuel system. Clearly stated that moisture is a rare event in the current fuel systems. Not so rare if the bulk tanks leak and that was also addressed in your site recommendation. >>> Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon >>> extra) [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > gasoline they use a lower quality gas to get back to the same total > octane rating. My bad, I did read the 30 cents a gallon as a 30% lose in mileage. I still strongly doubt that you can differentiate between driving habits, weather, different fuel suppliers, accurate calculations, formulations, traffic flow, and ethanol to determine a percentage of significant change in fuel mileage. Now if it were a controlled test as the fuel companies do, and they do report less mileage but much less than 10%, then your percentage would be believable. >>> It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get >>> lower [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ethanol would not significantly clean the system so it should be no > problem. A '97 C5 is another story. No, it would be the same story, no filter change required unless something has contaminated the fuel system like improper or dirty fuel. Maybe a '77 but not a '97 and then only if it sits for years as some Corvettes do. > BTW, I was being facetious when I discussed changing a filter on the > side of the road. That is what towing insurance is for. By the way I was poking fun at your suggestion to be prepared to change a filter by the side of the road unless you just took the car out of a five year storage. >>Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology >>is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the > Arabs. Oil is bid on, sellers don't charge anybody, it is bid off on the open market (?) which has become impossible to know where it came from in some cases after it has traveled through many brokers books. The figures you cite have many flaws and are dated but probably as close as they will every get due to all the special interest manipulation. > Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't > drive with it. That's just a little silly, I'm sure you told Patrick that, but then you can do what you like such as spread slanted information about the horror stories of ethanol fuel. We have been using it in the Midwest for years and there are few if any that I've seen suffer for its use as you suggest. It's here to stay and recommended by the automobile companies for what every that does for you. Enjoy your Corvette if you every have one, SignatureDad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd > > <snip> > >>I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue > so I'll try not to belabor the point. (snip) For information relative to ethanol as well as other alternative fuels and fuel types, there is information available at this site, which is a site called "Who Killed The Electric Car" and is sponsored by SONY: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html >I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue >so I'll try not to belabor the point. >It is also apparent that you jumped in here from soc.culture.usa >alt.politics.immigration alt.mexico alt.california to push a political >inspired position and not a factual use of ethanol. Nope. Never been there. I have read this and a couple of other groups for the past 12 years. But this one has been a daily read for many years. Read between the lines. I thought Reagan was far too liberal when he caved on the tax increase. >First off Google is not my friend and is very much to the left. Every >notice the don't change their logo on Veterans day as they do on most >other holidays? Good point. But sometimes we have to read what others write to find out how wrong they are. I found many years ago that you don't convince someone by feeding them the facts. They have to discover those facts on their own. If you don't like Google, choose another tool. >You need to get used to the fact that large tax breaks are given to >large companies, (money), by your elected officials as you have >instructed them to do by voting for them. I'd rather everyone paid their own share and a much lower rate. If ethanol is a viable product, let's see if compete fairly rather than have the government giving it an unfair advantage in the market. >Second the bill that started all of the subsidies you refer to was >signed into effect by Jimmy Carter in 1979. More than enough time for >something to be done about it if you feel strongly against its use. Yep. Ethanol might have needed a subsidy to get started 20 years ago but do we have to keep paying forever? Why do I have to pay for your gas? Why do you have to pay for someone else's food? Why don't we all just pay for our own stuff and let charities pick up the slack? >> I assume your complaint is with the changing fuel filter part and >> not the mileage. (Your mileage concerns are addressed below.) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Google it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will >> quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel. >The site I posted clearly states that the accumulated varnish and >trash will be dislodged by ethanol. If you mean the Iowa Corn site, then we are in agreement. Ethanol is a very good solvent. >It also states that that has not happened to cars to any extent for many years. Yes, it does. But why isn't it a problem. It isn't a current problem because every car in Iowa runs on ethanol and has for many years. Ethanol is a very good solvent. It only takes one tank to clean the system. That's the problem if you have an older car that has never used ethanol. >The above site is for the cleaning of bulk tanks and its transfer systems to eliminate >the contamination from being pumped into an automobile. It also states that if they >don't it will cause users to take action for the dirty fuel. Nothing was said about >it moving varnish or trash that could have already been in the car in question. You really think ethanol is smart enough to know the difference between contamination in a big storage tank and contamination in a small storage tank? >>>Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel >>>system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap >>>they started using in the late '70s? >> Yes, when they sealed the fuel system in the 70's it did greatly >> reduce the breathing of the system. But it isn't prefect and air >> still escapes from the system to be replaced later when the tank >> cools. I don't know what you mean by a "moisture trap". Air is drawn in >> through a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed. >Again, had you read the posted site you would see that the moisture >problem is a thing of the past because of the closed loop fuel system. >Clearly stated that moisture is a rare event in the current fuel >systems. Not so rare if the bulk tanks leak and that was also >addressed in your site recommendation. As in other places, it is talking about a brand new car. So you really think your tank seals are perfect? Not everyone believes that. http://www.timesrecord.com/website/autoweb.nsf/vwCarCare/CarCare So here's your chance to educate me. What year did the Corvette add the check engine warning for a loose gas cap? It still doesn't solve the problem since air is drawn into the tank whenever it cools, but it helps keep the pressure up while driving so there is less air coming in. Think about this, though. What happens between a full tank and an empty tank on a humid day in a totally closed perfectly sealed system? >I still strongly doubt that you can differentiate between driving >habits, weather, different fuel suppliers, accurate calculations, >formulations, traffic flow, and ethanol to determine a percentage of >significant change in fuel mileage. Now if it were a controlled test >as the fuel companies do, and they do report less mileage but much >less than 10%, then your percentage would be believable. Iowa (trying to sell corn and ethanol) even admits 2% lower mileage. I base my opinions on a regular 850 mile one day trip in an 85 Corvette. You can monitor average mileage on each tank very easily. When I would leave Illinois I was running ethanol which was sometimes not the freshest. As soon as I would fill up out of state the mileage increased at least 10%. That could be attributed to bad gas EXCEPT, on the return trip, if I filled up with ethanol blend, by the end of that tank the mileage would drop at least 5%. Do that several times a year in summer and winter and pretty soon you see a pattern. >>>Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology >>>is in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the >> Arabs. >Oil is bid on, sellers don't charge anybody, it is bid off on the open >market (?) which has become impossible to know where it came from in >some cases after it has traveled through many brokers books. The >figures you cite have many flaws and are dated but probably as close >as they will every get due to all the special interest manipulation. My numbers came from the Department of Energy April 2006 report. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imp orts/current/import.html >> Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't >> drive with it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >as you suggest. It's here to stay and recommended by the automobile >companies for what every that does for you. I haven't spoken to Patrick since he broke the knob off the radio. Let's see, I said "It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get lower mileage and less performance." Your Iowa Corn site said "The most current information derived from controlled environmental testing is that on fuel injected vehicles, fuel mileage may decrease by approximately 2%." which would translate into slightly poorer performance. The BTU values of both fuels would indicate that it should be more like 3.5% less for a 10% blend. My experience is that it is between 5% and 10% worse. I'm from Illinois even though for the past few years I've spent a lot of time out of state. I drive back at least 6 times a year. I've been using ethanol for years also because you can't get anything else in most of the Midwest. It's ok. It's FAR better than an MTBE mix. It just isn't as good as "real" gas. And that first step can sometimes be a big one. >Enjoy your Corvette if you every have one, You do the same. (By the way, if you want to research my previous posts, add "85 Silver" to your advanced search criteria.) Here's wavin' at ya' Dale snip > You do the same. (By the way, if you want to research my previous > posts, add "85 Silver" to your advanced search criteria.) > > Here's wavin' at ya' > Dale My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better. Actually on groups in Google it shows every post you make and it includes those you cross posted. Can you relate to the group people you know that have had problems from using ethanol and what they were? SignatureDad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd >My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better. Actually on groups in >Google it shows every post you make and it includes those you cross posted. I thought you didn't like Google. :) Yes, theoretically you can find every post. Unfortunately I don't always use the 85 Silver sig so it becomes harder. My "email" is useless without further qualification. There's some real wackos out there using me@my.computer Never thought about that. Probably need to change to something a little less common. I have never intentionally cross posted. >Can you relate to the group people you know that have had problems from using ethanol and what they >were? Everyone I know who uses ethanol gets worse mileage than they would if they used real gas. That's just physics already confirmed by the site you gave in support of your position. Although it is harder to document, physics also says that if mileage is worse, performance should also be worse. You can only get so much fuel into an engine at WOT. If it takes more fuel to get the same energy out (energy to travel 30 miles) then you are limiting the energy you can get out at WOT. But I have no data to support this. In fact I have found data to refute it. http://www.usc.edu/CSSF//Current/Projects/S0210.pdf Using a dynamometer, ethanol increased the HP output 128%. So if you want a 1200 HP firebreathing dragon, just get an '07 Z06 and fill the tank with ethanol. :) More scientifically rigorous tests indicate that ethanol can actually increase HP under proper conditions. http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/2005/Articles/556.pdf Further research gave a reasoning that ethanol being an oxygenate needs less air for proper combustion. Therefore, if the injectors can handle the larger fuel needs (up to 35% more fuel per revolution), you can get a larger charge into each cylinder and therefore more power. So, I'll drop the decreased performance claim but I still know what my butt feels. Gonna have to teach my butt to Google. :) But there is no doubt at all as to the reduced fuel economy. The last site shows that even with increased power output, the cost to operate a lawn mower engine on E85 was almost twice as much. As to the ability of ethanol to loosen crud, everyone I know went through the test many years ago. It is only a problem on the first tank or so if you continue to use ethanol. But when someone asks about the first time, it has to be a consideration. Have we beat this subject to death yet? I'll be glad to give you the last word if you want it. Still wavin' >>My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better. Actually on groups >>in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There's some real wackos out there using me@my.computer Never thought > about that. Probably need to change to something a little less common. You need to pay attention or comprehend better, I said Google is not my friend, not that I didn't use it. I don't like taxes but I still use them. If you read all of the sites I posted there is some proof that there is more power in the 10% blend as some would have you to believe. Beside I ask for any problems that people were having not the perceived minuscule seat of the pants power drop. Still a moot point and not as problematic as some would like you to believe. Now I have a fresh tank of gasoline and I'm going to drive that out and fill up with 10% and see if there is any difference, hard to find it here but need to confirm past usage. SignatureDad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd Mileage? I have not seen any particular mpg difference in Non-ethanol vs. 10% ethanol in our vehicles but perhaps in your case you should have your injectors checked/cleaned as that is likely the cause of the 10% drop. FWIW http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't > drive with it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.