E-15 gas.

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news
> Not true.
>
> You don't pay more because
> the gasoline blended with alcohol is lower octane fuel
> which is cheaper to refine. And the alcohol is cheaper than
> the gasoline.

The US produced alcohol is not cheaper than gasoline. It is however
subsidized with US tax payer dollars.The lower octane gasoline blended with
the ethanol is not so much cheaper to produce that it makes up for the
higher cost of the ethanol. I suppose you could argue that using US produced
alcohol to replace imported oil it is agood thing from a National Security
prespective, but I think it is a hard arguement to make. The biggest winners
in the ethanol scam are some corn farmers, ADS, and the politicians they
have bought. If you truly believe ethanol laced gasoline is cheaper than the
good old straight gasoline, then you should demand that Congress eliminate
all ethanol subsidies immeadiately. No need to pay oil companies to do
something they would do without the subsidy.

> And some vehicles get better mileage with alcohol blends.

Name one. I suppose if you blended ethanol with true 89 octane regular
gasoline, you could make the arguement that the resulting mixture would have
a higher octane rating and thereby allow some engines to run more efficienty
and get higher fuel mileage. But, in fact, the gasoline / ethanol blends
sold at stations only have the same octane ratings as regular straight
gasoline, so there won't be any benefit there. And since ethanol has
considerably less energy per gallon, I can't see any way that an engine
could provide more miles per gallon on the blend (assuming the octane rating
is the same as the straight gasoline you are using as a comparison).

Ed

"Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
...

> No your a idiot. I have tested it in my own vehicles and all but one gets
> BETTER milage with a 20% blend. and it is quite a bit cheeper to purchase
> also. Besides the supposed subsidy is going away in dec. KB

Where do you get a 20% blend?

Around here I have only two choices - gasoline that may contain up to 10%
ethanol (and almost certainly does) and E85 (85% alcohol). The nearest
station that sells E85 has it priced about 6% lower than regular (E10),
however, you can go two miles down the road and buy regular (E10) for the
same price as the E85, so I figure the price is a wash. And for sure E85 has
a much lower energy content than even E10. I can't imagine anyone would
claim they get better mileage on E85 than on E10. As for E20 - never seen
it, but I cannot beleive it would be better than true regualr gasoline with
the same octane rating, or even the E10 crap they force us to buy. I'd have
to see accurate records collected over a significant period before I'd be
convinced that you got better mileage using a 20% ethanol blend (assuming
you are comparing it to regualr gasoline with the same octane rating). It is
just not reasonable to expect this. In Energy department tests, vehicle
using E20 got,on average, 7% worse fuel mileage than when running E10 (which
is already giving on average around 3% lower fuel economy than true regular
gasoline). Becasue of the way ethanol enhanced gasoline affects the feedback
system of modern cars, I think you need to monitor fule usage over a number
of tankfuls to get accurate fuel mileage results. I think a one tank switch
can give erroneous results.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in
:

>
> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> No your a idiot. I have tested it in my own vehicles and all but one
>> gets BETTER milage with a 20% blend. and it is quite a bit cheeper to
>> purchase also. Besides the supposed subsidy is going away in dec.
>> KB
>
> Where do you get a 20% blend?
>
> Around here I have only two choices - gasoline that may contain up to
> 10% ethanol (and almost certainly does) and E85 (85% alcohol). The
> nearest station that sells E85 has it priced about 6% lower than
> regular (E10), however, you can go two miles down the road and buy
> regular (E10) for the same price as the E85, so I figure the price is
> a wash. And for sure E85 has a much lower energy content than even
> E10. I can't imagine anyone would claim they get better mileage on E85
> than on E10. As for E20 - never seen it, but I cannot beleive it would
> be better than true regualr gasoline with the same octane rating, or
> even the E10 crap they force us to buy. I'd have to see accurate
> records collected over a significant period before I'd be convinced
> that you got better mileage using a 20% ethanol blend (assuming you
> are comparing it to regualr gasoline with the same octane rating). It
> is just not reasonable to expect this. In Energy department tests,
> vehicle using E20 got,on average, 7% worse fuel mileage than when
> running E10 (which is already giving on average around 3% lower fuel
> economy than true regular gasoline). Becasue of the way ethanol
> enhanced gasoline affects the feedback system of modern cars, I think
> you need to monitor fule usage over a number of tankfuls to get
> accurate fuel mileage results. I think a one tank switch can give
> erroneous results.
>
> Ed
>
>
>

we have some blender pumps here. I can get 10,20,30,50, or 85. the
university of Minn. did some tests and found some cars get better milage
on e20 to30 so I have been doing some myself and found it to be true that
some do get better with e20, e30 was usually about the same and haven`t
tried higher because I don`t have flex fuel so it gets too far out of
range higher than that for the system to handle. KB

"C. E. White" > wrote in
:

>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> news >
>> Not true.
>>
>> You don't pay more because
>> the gasoline blended with alcohol is lower octane fuel
>> which is cheaper to refine. And the alcohol is cheaper than
>> the gasoline.
>
> The US produced alcohol is not cheaper than gasoline. It is however
> subsidized with US tax payer dollars.The lower octane gasoline blended
> with the ethanol is not so much cheaper to produce that it makes up
> for the higher cost of the ethanol. I suppose you could argue that
> using US produced alcohol to replace imported oil it is agood thing
> from a National Security prespective, but I think it is a hard
> arguement to make. The biggest winners in the ethanol scam are some
> corn farmers, ADS, and the politicians they have bought. If you truly
> believe ethanol laced gasoline is cheaper than the good old straight
> gasoline, then you should demand that Congress eliminate all ethanol
> subsidies immeadiately. No need to pay oil companies to do something
> they would do without the subsidy.
>
>> And some vehicles get better mileage with alcohol blends.
>
> Name one.

my 98 ranger 4.0 get 1 mpg better on e20, my 04 3.0 ranger gets the same
as e10, and my 07 fusion 4 cyl gets 1 mpg less on e20. I figure two out
of three aint bad. KB


I suppose if you blended ethanol with true 89 octane regular
> gasoline, you could make the arguement that the resulting mixture
> would have a higher octane rating and thereby allow some engines to
> run more efficienty and get higher fuel mileage. But, in fact, the
> gasoline / ethanol blends sold at stations only have the same octane
> ratings as regular straight gasoline,

where I am that is not true, it is blended with reg gas and is 89 octane.
I agree the 87 blend is crap. used it once and the car ran terrible,
pinged, got lousy milage. the problem is they use **** gas to blend so
you can not get a good quality if you start with crap to get the 87
blend. KB

so there won't be any benefit
> there. And since ethanol has considerably less energy per gallon, I
> can't see any way that an engine could provide more miles per gallon
> on the blend (assuming the octane rating is the same as the straight
> gasoline you are using as a comparison).
>
> Ed
>
>
>

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> news >
> > Not true.
> >
> > You don't pay more because
> > the gasoline blended with alcohol is lower octane fuel
> > which is cheaper to refine. And the alcohol is cheaper than
> > the gasoline.
>
> The US produced alcohol is not cheaper than gasoline.

Maybe if you are in Alaska.

Where I am ethanol is $2.89/gal and the cost
of E85 is about 50 cents cheaper than regular.

And if you think octane doesn't cost anything to oil producers then
why is high octane always more expensive?
And why are mid-east oil producers importing ethanol to
boost octane in their domestic gasoline markets?
The cost savings to refiners to produce low octane E10 base fuel
is about the same difference as the energy content difference.
So even if you don't get better mileage there is no increased cost.


Currently the EPA does not allow US car makers to test
fuel economy with ethanol blends. If they did you would see
more cars designed to run more efficiently on ethanol blends.

In Brazil they do allow cars to be tested with ethanol
and fuel efficiency with ethanol blends is a selling point
for cars made for the Brazilian market.

"Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
...
> "C. E. White" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> No your a idiot. I have tested it in my own vehicles and all but one
>>> gets BETTER milage with a 20% blend. and it is quite a bit cheeper to
>>> purchase also. Besides the supposed subsidy is going away in dec.
>>> KB
>>
>> Where do you get a 20% blend?
>>
>> Around here I have only two choices - gasoline that may contain up to
>> 10% ethanol (and almost certainly does) and E85 (85% alcohol). The
>> nearest station that sells E85 has it priced about 6% lower than
>> regular (E10), however, you can go two miles down the road and buy
>> regular (E10) for the same price as the E85, so I figure the price is
>> a wash. And for sure E85 has a much lower energy content than even
>> E10. I can't imagine anyone would claim they get better mileage on E85
>> than on E10. As for E20 - never seen it, but I cannot beleive it would
>> be better than true regualr gasoline with the same octane rating, or
>> even the E10 crap they force us to buy. I'd have to see accurate
>> records collected over a significant period before I'd be convinced
>> that you got better mileage using a 20% ethanol blend (assuming you
>> are comparing it to regualr gasoline with the same octane rating). It
>> is just not reasonable to expect this. In Energy department tests,
>> vehicle using E20 got,on average, 7% worse fuel mileage than when
>> running E10 (which is already giving on average around 3% lower fuel
>> economy than true regular gasoline). Becasue of the way ethanol
>> enhanced gasoline affects the feedback system of modern cars, I think
>> you need to monitor fule usage over a number of tankfuls to get
>> accurate fuel mileage results. I think a one tank switch can give
>> erroneous results.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>
> we have some blender pumps here. I can get 10,20,30,50, or 85. the
> university of Minn. did some tests and found some cars get better milage
> on e20 to30 so I have been doing some myself and found it to be true that
> some do get better with e20, e30 was usually about the same and haven`t
> tried higher because I don`t have flex fuel so it gets too far out of
> range higher than that for the system to handle. KB

How many tankfuls did you run per blend? I think you need to do at least 3
tankfuls (more is better) to get a representative average (assuming
consistent driving conditions and pattern). Single tank averages are
worthless. As mentioned above the DOE tested E20 and on average got 7% worse
mileage than with E10.

I'd would not trust anything cooked up by Minnesota regarding ethonal
performance. I don't really trust the DOE either, but given the Government
ridiculous pro-ethanol bent, I figure they wouldn't admit E20 was 7% worse
than E10 unless it was really really bad.

Since you believe E20 did better than E10, what is your explanation for this
improvement? Surely you understand E20 has significanty less energy content
than E10 (and much much less than straight gasoline). Maybe you could get a
slight improvent if the E20 has a higher octane rating, but this at best
could only slightly offset the much lower energy contnet. Over the short
term, switching to an ethanol blend can fool the engine management system of
a modern fuel injected vehicle, resulting in a very lean mixture and
temporarily higher mileage, but over time the system will compensate and the
mileage will decay.

Ed

On 09/24/2011 09:01 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "C. E. White" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> No your a idiot. I have tested it in my own vehicles and all but one
>>>> gets BETTER milage with a 20% blend. and it is quite a bit cheeper to
>>>> purchase also. Besides the supposed subsidy is going away in dec.
>>>> KB
>>>
>>> Where do you get a 20% blend?
>>>
>>> Around here I have only two choices - gasoline that may contain up to
>>> 10% ethanol (and almost certainly does) and E85 (85% alcohol). The
>>> nearest station that sells E85 has it priced about 6% lower than
>>> regular (E10), however, you can go two miles down the road and buy
>>> regular (E10) for the same price as the E85, so I figure the price is
>>> a wash. And for sure E85 has a much lower energy content than even
>>> E10. I can't imagine anyone would claim they get better mileage on E85
>>> than on E10. As for E20 - never seen it, but I cannot beleive it would
>>> be better than true regualr gasoline with the same octane rating, or
>>> even the E10 crap they force us to buy. I'd have to see accurate
>>> records collected over a significant period before I'd be convinced
>>> that you got better mileage using a 20% ethanol blend (assuming you
>>> are comparing it to regualr gasoline with the same octane rating). It
>>> is just not reasonable to expect this. In Energy department tests,
>>> vehicle using E20 got,on average, 7% worse fuel mileage than when
>>> running E10 (which is already giving on average around 3% lower fuel
>>> economy than true regular gasoline). Becasue of the way ethanol
>>> enhanced gasoline affects the feedback system of modern cars, I think
>>> you need to monitor fule usage over a number of tankfuls to get
>>> accurate fuel mileage results. I think a one tank switch can give
>>> erroneous results.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> we have some blender pumps here. I can get 10,20,30,50, or 85. the
>> university of Minn. did some tests and found some cars get better milage
>> on e20 to30 so I have been doing some myself and found it to be true that
>> some do get better with e20, e30 was usually about the same and haven`t
>> tried higher because I don`t have flex fuel so it gets too far out of
>> range higher than that for the system to handle. KB
>
> How many tankfuls did you run per blend? I think you need to do at least
> 3 tankfuls (more is better) to get a representative average (assuming
> consistent driving conditions and pattern). Single tank averages are
> worthless. As mentioned above the DOE tested E20 and on average got 7%
> worse mileage than with E10.
>
> I'd would not trust anything cooked up by Minnesota regarding ethonal
> performance. I don't really trust the DOE either, but given the
> Government ridiculous pro-ethanol bent, I figure they wouldn't admit E20
> was 7% worse than E10 unless it was really really bad.
>
> Since you believe E20 did better than E10, what is your explanation for
> this improvement? Surely you understand E20 has significanty less energy
> content than E10 (and much much less than straight gasoline). Maybe you
> could get a slight improvent if the E20 has a higher octane rating, but
> this at best could only slightly offset the much lower energy contnet.
> Over the short term, switching to an ethanol blend can fool the engine
> management system of a modern fuel injected vehicle, resulting in a very
> lean mixture and temporarily higher mileage, but over time the system
> will compensate and the mileage will decay.
>
> Ed

the only way you can improve yield from an ethanol mix is to increase
compression ratio. last i checked, there were no variable compression
ratio vehicles on the market. we have to conclude that mr buttoff is
therefore both ignorant of the facts, and can't do simple fuel
consumption arithmetic.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam > wrote in :

> On 09/24/2011 09:01 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "C. E. White" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> No your a idiot. I have tested it in my own vehicles and all but
>>>>> one gets BETTER milage with a 20% blend. and it is quite a bit
>>>>> cheeper to purchase also. Besides the supposed subsidy is going
>>>>> away in dec. KB
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get a 20% blend?
>>>>
>>>> Around here I have only two choices - gasoline that may contain up
>>>> to 10% ethanol (and almost certainly does) and E85 (85% alcohol).
>>>> The nearest station that sells E85 has it priced about 6% lower
>>>> than regular (E10), however, you can go two miles down the road and
>>>> buy regular (E10) for the same price as the E85, so I figure the
>>>> price is a wash. And for sure E85 has a much lower energy content
>>>> than even E10. I can't imagine anyone would claim they get better
>>>> mileage on E85 than on E10. As for E20 - never seen it, but I
>>>> cannot beleive it would be better than true regualr gasoline with
>>>> the same octane rating, or even the E10 crap they force us to buy.
>>>> I'd have to see accurate records collected over a significant
>>>> period before I'd be convinced that you got better mileage using a
>>>> 20% ethanol blend (assuming you are comparing it to regualr
>>>> gasoline with the same octane rating). It is just not reasonable to
>>>> expect this. In Energy department tests, vehicle using E20 got,on
>>>> average, 7% worse fuel mileage than when running E10 (which is
>>>> already giving on average around 3% lower fuel economy than true
>>>> regular gasoline). Becasue of the way ethanol enhanced gasoline
>>>> affects the feedback system of modern cars, I think you need to
>>>> monitor fule usage over a number of tankfuls to get accurate fuel
>>>> mileage results. I think a one tank switch can give erroneous
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> we have some blender pumps here. I can get 10,20,30,50, or 85. the
>>> university of Minn. did some tests and found some cars get better
>>> milage on e20 to30 so I have been doing some myself and found it to
>>> be true that some do get better with e20, e30 was usually about the
>>> same and haven`t tried higher because I don`t have flex fuel so it
>>> gets too far out of range higher than that for the system to handle.
>>> KB
>>
>> How many tankfuls did you run per blend? I think you need to do at
>> least 3 tankfuls (more is better) to get a representative average
>> (assuming consistent driving conditions and pattern). Single tank
>> averages are worthless. As mentioned above the DOE tested E20 and on
>> average got 7% worse mileage than with E10.
>>
>> I'd would not trust anything cooked up by Minnesota regarding ethonal
>> performance. I don't really trust the DOE either, but given the
>> Government ridiculous pro-ethanol bent, I figure they wouldn't admit
>> E20 was 7% worse than E10 unless it was really really bad.
>>
>> Since you believe E20 did better than E10, what is your explanation
>> for this improvement? Surely you understand E20 has significanty less
>> energy content than E10 (and much much less than straight gasoline).
>> Maybe you could get a slight improvent if the E20 has a higher octane
>> rating, but this at best could only slightly offset the much lower
>> energy contnet. Over the short term, switching to an ethanol blend
>> can fool the engine management system of a modern fuel injected
>> vehicle, resulting in a very lean mixture and temporarily higher
>> mileage, but over time the system will compensate and the mileage
>> will decay.
>>
>> Ed
>
> the only way you can improve yield from an ethanol mix is to increase
> compression ratio. last i checked, there were no variable compression
> ratio vehicles on the market. we have to conclude that mr buttoff is
> therefore both ignorant of the facts, and can't do simple fuel
> consumption arithmetic.
>
>

we both know there are many varriables that affect milage from a specific
eng. not just heat units and compression. My results are actual
calculated results. the fact you don`t like them is tuff titty. Mine are
not the only factual tests done either. if you don`t like the results,
too bad. It is your assumption that is incorect, not actual factual
results. And there are several varriable rate comp ratio eng manfatured
today. It is called turbo charging and is the same result when computer
contoled to increase boost. KB

"Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
...

> we both know there are many varriables that affect milage from a specific
> eng. not just heat units and compression. My results are actual
> calculated results. the fact you don`t like them is tuff titty. Mine are
> not the only factual tests done either. if you don`t like the results,
> too bad. It is your assumption that is incorect, not actual factual
> results. And there are several varriable rate comp ratio eng manfatured
> today. It is called turbo charging and is the same result when computer
> contoled to increase boost. KB

It is certainly true there are many variables that affect fuel economy. It
is also certainly true that E20 will ahve significantly less energy per
gallon than straight gasoline. None of the vehicles you have used in your
evaluation of E20 (98 Ranger, 04 Ranger, 07 Fusion) have any sort of
sophiticated variable rate turbo chargers. At best they could alter the
ignition timing in response to higher octane fuel. Interestingly, I have
extensively driven a 99 Ranger and an 06 Fusion. For the Fusion I
experimented with high test gasoline and got no improvement in fuel economy
compared to regular. That fits in with your claim that your Fusion got 1 mpg
worse on E20. One mpg seems is about a 4% decrease. If you are comparing the
decrease to your mileage on E10, it is right on what I would have expected.
As for your claims of a 1 mpg increase in mileage for your 98 Ranger, I
think you need to rerun the experiment. You are claiming about an 6%
increase in mileage when using fuel that has around 7% less energy than
straight gasoline, or 3.5% less energy than E10. A '98 Ranger doesn't have
an espeically sophiticated engine managment system. So even if the E20 has
significantly higher octane than the E10, it is not going to be able to make
adjustments to radically change the engine performance. Maybe a slight
timing change to gain back a percent or two in mileage lost to the lower
energy content of the fuel, but nothing more. I can see a couple of reason
why you might have gotten confusiong / eroneous results

- poor data colelction - comparing results on one or two tankfuls is simply
not good enough. I keep a mileage log on all my vehicles. I drive a pretty
consistent pattern, yet I often have 2 or 3 mpg differences in fuel economy
calculated based on one or to fill-ups. You need to compare average over at
least 3 tankfuls, 5 or more is better

- different driving conditions - winter vs summer, loaded versus unloaded,
different traffic conditions, changes in driving patterns, etc. Did you
factor this into your compariosn?

- Since you got the unexpected results with your oldest and probably highest
mileage vehicle, could vehicle condition be a factor? If the vehicle has
become very octane sensitive, then it is possible it runs so poorly on
regular gasoline, or E10 that you aren't getting a true picture of the
mileage on those fuels and this is throwing off the comparion.

There are plenty of responsible studies that contradict your claims. See:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...EcVX28e7n5APLA -
Study used many vehicles and had an average mileage reduction for E20
(comapred to straight gasoline) of 5.93%.

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosp...s/gasoline.pdf -
Austrailian study, average incrase in E20 fuel consumption (compared to E0)
was 5%, wlthough for one vehicle the increase was only 2.5% - rear the
document for possible explanations...

The one study that agrees with you is a little bit weird. An intersting fact
about the North Dakota/Minnesota study
(http://www.rhapsodyingreen.com/rhaps...evel_study.pdf)
is that they did not compare regular pump E10, E15, E20 etc. to regular pump
gasoline. They comapred a specially blended fuel using undenatured
fuel-grade ethanol (purchased from Alchem, Ltd., Grafton, North Dakota) to a
special test gasoline used specifically for emmisions testing (purchased
from Haltermann Products, Channelview, Texas). The special test gasoline had
an energy content of approximately 112,000 BTU per gallon. Normal regualr
gasoline is usually considered to have an energy content of 115,500 BTU per
gallon. They got some rally weird results. For one thing they consistently
ignored check engine lights. Sometimes the best mileage would occure with an
Ethanol blend, with the check engine light on. For the vehicles they graphed
fuel economy versus fuel blend. All the charts would show decreased fuel
econmy with ethanol blends, except possibly at one or two specific blends
(E20 or E30). A couple of vehicles actually showed the best meileage with an
ethanol blend, but only with one specific ethanol blend - a blend with 10%
more ethanol or 10% less would be back to the expected results. And
different vehicles reacted differently to different belnds. A Camry got he
best mileage with E30, but sucked on E10, E20, or E40. An Impala was great
on E20 but sucked on E30. A Fusion was really bad on E10 but good on E30 and
horrible on E40. There results are so different than the DOT sponsored test,
one has to wonder about the methods. I ahve to beleive that a longer test
(especially one where you don't drive along with the MIL light on) will
result in more consistent results.

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> "Kevin Bottorff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > we both know there are many varriables that affect milage from a specific
> > eng. not just heat units and compression. My results are actual
> > calculated results. the fact you don`t like them is tuff titty. Mine are
> > not the only factual tests done either. if you don`t like the results,
> > too bad. It is your assumption that is incorect, not actual factual
> > results. And there are several varriable rate comp ratio eng manfatured
> > today. It is called turbo charging and is the same result when computer
> > contoled to increase boost. KB
>
> It is certainly true there are many variables that affect fuel economy. It
> is also certainly true that E20 will ahve significantly less energy per
> gallon than straight gasoline.

Gasoline has less energy than diesel fuel. Does that mean you will get
better mileage if you fill your tank with diesel?