Ethanol and Methanol in Gasoline

[BIGR]

I know my local Stihl Dealer that I trade with sells the Startron. I think I might have tried it before but mainly have run Stabil.

One thing that dealer pointed out to me was that Stihl recommends at least a 89 Octane in these small engines. He believes in the Non Ethanol fuel, but said if a man could not get it, at least run 89 octane or above if it is 10 percent ethanol fuel. He said some people would go buy non ethanol fuel, but would buy regular which might just be 87 octane. He said in that case they should at least be buying 89 octane fuel in the non-ethanol fuel also.

 

[btfarm]

All I know about it is from my experiences of the past 20 years or so. I did not have success with Stabil added to the 87 octane 10% fuel I buy from the farm service supplier. I have had certain success with Startron with the same fuel supply.

 

[Will L.]

The ethonal/ methanol burns hotter but less btu per gallon. Like gasoline vs diesel.
So getting higher octane fuel sometimes means more eth/meth in it to boost the numbers, so check it out first

 

[THEFERMANATOR]

Part of it is ethanol/methanol can be run at a richer mixrure without flooding. So yes it takes more of it, but you can still get more btu's of it squeezed in than you can of gas. Ethanol is an oxygenating additive as well as an octane booster. 90 octane ethanol free becomes 93 octane once it receives a 10% blend of ethanol. And due to it having a colder burn, it helps to retard detonation also allowing for more power potential. You can dyno test it even, e-10 will make more power than straight gas.

 

[FellowTraveler]

http://pure-gas.org/
This is helpful for finding ethanol free fuel.

Here we have plenty of ethanol free fuel at "PURE."

 

[JayTheCPA]

All I know is that with just the change in fuel and no other tuning / mechanical modifications, 10% ethanol translated into 10% loss in fuel economy. And that is in my injected gasser that drinks 91 (or better) octane. A friend made the same observation with his car (different manufacturer that also calls for minimum 91 for the motor).

 

[JayTheCPA]

http://pure-gas.org/
This is helpful for finding ethanol free fuel.

Use care in selecting the fuel source. Some of the listings are general aviation airports where IIRC the fuel still has lead in it.

 

[JayTheCPA]

I want the little bubble fuel the Jetson's space cars used...
Imagine Bbbbbbbb sound mixed with clack clack clack of a 6.5- yeah boy!

I think this was already tried . . .

 

[THEFERMANATOR]

All I know is that with just the change in fuel and no other tuning / mechanical modifications, 10% ethanol translated into 10% loss in fuel economy. And that is in my injected gasser that drinks 91 (or better) octane. A friend made the same observation with his car (different manufacturer that also calls for minimum 91 for the motor).

I've seen bigger drops than that by running E-10. Going WAY back old school, my grandfathers model t got 22 MPG on pure gas, but dropped to 17-18 on E-10. My 88 JEEP with a 4.0L did 23 running 70, but with E-10 dropped to 17. My DAKOTA with a 4.7l V8 got 18 on real gas, but on E-10 dropped to 15. On the other hand the G6 my wife had barely changed with it. It would do 34-35MPG running 65 on real gas, but would still get 33-34 on E-10.

 

[JayTheCPA]

Which is why I am personally struggling with the 'benefits' of ethanol.

From what I had read, the platform that sees the most 'benefit' is older cat systems (whatever that means) while the cat is warming-up; once the cat is up to operating temperature, there is no real difference in pure versus diluted gas emissions. Supposedly, the current generation of vehicles do not get a benefit (from an emissions perspective) from the ethanol at any stage of cold versus warm operation. But then again, the Internet is full of interesting 'facts' and it is tough to tell what is truly scientific as opposed to agenda based. So, am open to anybody who can enlighten me on what is really going on here.

Now, change the equation a bit to where the fuel is 100% ethanol and that makes more sense presuming it is from a sustainable ecological and / or recovery source.

 

[Will L.]

No current answer, just history class.

The methonal @ 100% was the initial goal (even though 85 is as close as we got commercially). If not for all cars, a portion of them. It was pushed as renewable and cleaner burning so ecofriendly on both ends. Problem is it is causing massive starvation in 3rd world countries where the crops grown for it at peak production are jot for for human consumption. But the mighty $ pushes out food crops inplace of fuel for profit. So while well intentioned, it is killing better than an ak through malnutrition.

Since that came up and the people behind most of the push for it are the save the world groups, they have since changed their minds. Now we are stuck with the transition laws on the books, and a modified economy adapted for it that was major investment to make happen. Now that the American farmer is set in motion on it, the gubmint inducment to walk away from it is not just saying lets plant tomatoes instead.

The benifits of the alcohol in the fuel is being surpassed by the technology to control combustion more accurately, so now the newer cars dont benifit as much as the older ones emissions wise. Keep in mind the emissions gain was a net gain. Back in 2001 I had to do a speach at the college and university here and northern nv, as well as az. whle working for the oil/fuel company. In 2001 the average mpg loss was 11%. But the emissions from the cars (1990-2000 range) was slightly over 20% cleaner. So the emissions offset was achieved even though the consumption rate was higher. Fuel production cost was 5% cheaper and it was ASSumed the cost to the consumer would follow (HAHA yeah, cuz that happens all the time).

So in the end the plan was the US consumer would eat 5% more in fuel bill while reducing emissions and causing the world to alter vehicle production to make the entire world burn cleaner fuel. In turn more US produced fuel would push the economy in further upward trend and ease any loss of economic impact through localized volume economic gains, meaning noe the farmer will make more money and spend it wt his local stores, where they spend it in the area, etc.

Win / win just like the 7 habits book taught us all. Except the $ we laid out to aid those strickin down in foriegn countries outweighed the economic gains by factors instead of fractions.

Now they just leave it alone afraid of any more meddling can just muddy the water at the advice of those with for thought enough to argue against it before they started. Currently the big thing is lighter weight vehicles and let technology advance as fsr as it can, while subsidizing electric vehicles instead.

I was not allowed to, and was instructed to steer the conversations away from the impact on the poor and starving. Especially because the media was there and was set up to promote more ethonal usage and the abandonment of diesel fuels while the pawns...er...students learned hoe to save the earth. I was not supposed to promote diesel use on more fuel efficient systems (imagine electronic injected idi efficiency under massive volume boost and 30:1 compression with wmi maybe). Yet somehow at every talk, there were a couple of amazingly informed students that made the footage unusable with their interuptive questions on the subjects. When it was discovered that one of them was a distant relative of mine there were some inquisitive theories that came about.

I just hope all those random students that spoke up have enough influence for improvements in the future that is benificial to the air we breathe and the economic food chain we eat from while not laying an economic burden on the average joe. Some of the students that spoke up are the same that pushed so hard for tesla to set foot where they did by getting the locals to rally.