E10 fuel at QuikTrip

[custosnox]

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

quote:Originally posted by custosnox

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

which station?  my part of the world is taken over by QT so I have to go a long ways to get real gas.

There is a sinclair at 81st and 169, that isn't that far.

they have not been vouched as using real gas.  until they advertise it like some other stations in BA do, it cannot be confirmed they don't slip in E10.

and for those on the foreign oil high horse, get over yourselves.  getting real gas does not mean more oil goes into it, it just means the ethanol filler isn't being used as an oxygenate.

I never said more oil goes into "real gas" vs. the blend.  However, if you are substituting 10% of your final product with ethanol you are obviously reducing your consumption of oil...big difference.

When your milage drops, your consumption increases.  How does this reduce consumption of oil?

Your measly 2% loss in efficiency (if that is even true) is small compared to the lowered consumption of oil made by refineries which is what I was referring to in the first place.  You don't consume oil you consume gasoline. Oil is used in the process by the refineries to make gasoline.  If the final product is 10% ethanol then less oil is consumed during the refining process to give consumers 1 gallon of fuel.

as much as a 25% decrease in effeciancy has been reported.  And when you consume gasoline, since it takes oil to produce gasoline, you are, in effect, consuming oil.  Not to mention the mechanical issues that running ethanol causes to your engine creating a greater loss of effeciancy, and increasing your maintenance cost.

[izmophonik]

If you believe in a 25% decrease then you probably also think that we never landed on the moon and that 9/11 was a government cover up.  Or maybe you don't believe in any of those things and you're just a moron.  Seriously, is science tought in Oklahoma schools anymore?

[izmophonik]

Sioux Falls, SD (December 5, 2007)- Research findings released today show that mid-range ethanol blends - fuel mixtures with more ethanol than E10 but less than E85 - can in some cases provide better fuel economy than regular unleaded gasoline, even in standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles.

Previous assumptions held that ethanol's lower energy content directly correlates with lower fuel economy for drivers. Those assumptions were found to be incorrect. Instead, the new research strongly suggests that there is an "optimal blend level" of ethanol and gasoline - most likely E20 or E30 - at which cars will get better mileage than predicted based strictly on the fuel's per-gallon Btu content. The new study, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), also found that mid-range ethanol blends reduce harmful tailpipe emissions.

The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR) conducted the research using four 2007 model vehicles: a Toyota Camry, a Ford Fusion, and two Chevrolet Impalas, one flex-fuel and one non-flex-fuel. Researchers used the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) to examine a range of ethanol-gasoline blends from straight Tier 2 gasoline up to 85 percent ethanol. All of the vehicles got better mileage with ethanol blends than the ethanol's energy content would predict, and three out of four actually traveled farther on a mid-level ethanol blend than on unleaded gasoline.

In addition to the favorable fuel economy findings, the research provides strong evidence that standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles can operate on ethanol blends beyond 10 percent. The three non-flex-fuel vehicles tested operated on levels as high as E65 before any engine fault codes were displayed. Emissions results for the ethanol blends were also favorable for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and nonmethane organic gases, showing an especially significant reduction in CO2 emissions for each vehicle's "optimal" ethanol blend.

[sauerkraut]

A gallon of Ethonal does not have as much "bang" per gallon  as a gallon of gasoline does. Fuel mileage drops big time. if you get 20 mpg with pure gasoline you'll drop to around 15 mpg  with Ethonal (or somewhere around there). You'll have fill up much more offten too. Ethonal does not have the BTU power of gasoline.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

While your out getting "real gas" you're also supporting foreign oil you dumb$#@!  Stop whining about 10% Ethanol and support your local farmers.  I bet you drive an Expedition with a "Support Our Troops" yellow ribbon sticker too.

How about reading this?

Ethanol and it's so-called 'advantages' are a farce.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003612429_ethanol11.html

[custosnox]

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

If you believe in a 25% decrease then you probably also think that we never landed on the moon and that 9/11 was a government cover up.  Or maybe you don't believe in any of those things and you're just a moron.  Seriously, is science tought in Oklahoma schools anymore?

First off, I said reported.  If you want a news article that has been manufactured to "prove" this, like the one you pasted in (without even the benifit of a link or notation of who wrote it)to try and prove your point, go search the web and I'm sure you will find plenty.  But it is belivable, if you had attended science and shop.  The science says that it will have less energy in it period.  No matter what spin you want to try and put on it, you can't change that fact.  BTU = energy.  ethonal has a lower BTU then gasoline.  Shop class (or just doing a little shade tree mechanic work) tells you that if you put anything in your car that it was not designed to burn causes problems.  Problems, over a period of time, create a loss of effiecency.  So yes, a 25% fuel loss is possible from burning this poor excuse of an alternitive.  

And I always find it humorous when someone runs out of good arguments that the first thing they do is make an attempt at insulting the other person, which generally shows their own ignorance.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

quote:Originally posted by custosnox

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

which station?  my part of the world is taken over by QT so I have to go a long ways to get real gas.

There is a sinclair at 81st and 169, that isn't that far.

they have not been vouched as using real gas.  until they advertise it like some other stations in BA do, it cannot be confirmed they don't slip in E10.

and for those on the foreign oil high horse, get over yourselves.  getting real gas does not mean more oil goes into it, it just means the ethanol filler isn't being used as an oxygenate.

I never said more oil goes into "real gas" vs. the blend.  However, if you are substituting 10% of your final product with ethanol you are obviously reducing your consumption of oil...big difference.

When your milage drops, your consumption increases.  How does this reduce consumption of oil?

Your measly 2% loss in efficiency (if that is even true) is small compared to the lowered consumption of oil made by refineries which is what I was referring to in the first place.  You don't consume oil you consume gasoline. Oil is used in the process by the refineries to make gasoline.  If the final product is 10% ethanol then less oil is consumed during the refining process to give consumers 1 gallon of fuel.

you need to stop drinking the corn based kool-aid.  It is a LOT more than 2% loss.  For me I used to get 330 mi to a tank.  Now I get 280 if I'm lucky.  That is a 15% loss.  Is my gas 15% cheaper than before?  HELL NO!

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

If you believe in a 25% decrease then you probably also think that we never landed on the moon and that 9/11 was a government cover up.  Or maybe you don't believe in any of those things and you're just a moron.  Seriously, is science tought in Oklahoma schools anymore?

Yes it is AND spelling is also TAUGHT!!!!!

[sgrizzle]

E0 = 116,090 BTU's
E10 = 112,114 BTU's

a 3.4% reduction in BTU's gives a 25% performance drop?

[custosnox]

quote:Originally posted by cks511

quote:Originally posted by izmophonik

If you believe in a 25% decrease then you probably also think that we never landed on the moon and that 9/11 was a government cover up.  Or maybe you don't believe in any of those things and you're just a moron.  Seriously, is science tought in Oklahoma schools anymore?

Yes it is AND spelling is also TAUGHT!!!!!

Hey now, watch the spelling slams.  They could never teach me how to do that.  Spellchecker is my friend.

[custosnox]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

E0 = 116,090 BTU's
E10 = 112,114 BTU's

a 3.4% reduction in BTU's gives a 25% performance drop?

I would say (nothing to back it up, just my opinion) that the increased drop in performance is more then the BTU reduction.  I did say up to.  As stated before, your run of the mill internal combustion engines are designed to run off of gasoline.  So, when you have it running on something else, the mechanics behave differently.  When you have your EMC thrown into the mix, it does even more.  Since it is set to adjust to a straight gasoline burn, and you get a different result from a blend, it will give it problems, making it try to adjust to the new burn.  The adjustment can easily translate into loss of performance.  And the longer you run it this way, the more problems that are going to occur.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

E0 = 116,090 BTU's
E10 = 112,114 BTU's

a 3.4% reduction in BTU's gives a 25% performance drop?

I'm also guessing that the mechanics are changed by the ethanol, something about it.  Just a guess, based on empirical evidence.

Would W3.4 gas (3.4% water, the rest gasoline), which has 3.4% less BTU's than 100% gas get 3.4% less performance?  I'm going to guess it would screw a lot more up than just 3.4% of performance.

I think with E10, they found a way to water down the gas, while still getting it to run good enough that most people don't notice.  If ethanol was so great on its own, how come even ethanol vehicles run on E85 which still needs 15% gasoline to get the horrible mileage that it does?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

E0 = 116,090 BTU's
E10 = 112,114 BTU's

a 3.4% reduction in BTU's gives a 25% performance drop?

I'm also guessing that the mechanics are changed by the ethanol, something about it.  Just a guess, based on empirical evidence.

Would W3.4 gas (3.4% water, the rest gasoline), which has 3.4% less BTU's than 100% gas get 3.4% less performance?  I'm going to guess it would screw a lot more up than just 3.4% of performance.

I think with E10, they found a way to water down the gas, while still getting it to run good enough that most people don't notice.  If ethanol was so great on its own, how come even ethanol vehicles run on E85 which still needs 15% gasoline to get the horrible mileage that it does?

And I'd be one of those...I have a 2008 Dodge Avenger with a FlexFuel 2.7l V6 and if I use from QT, the mileage is horrible.  Not sure if the engine can tell and adjusts since it is such a new car.  I'll have to investigate.  But, since it's flex fuel, I'm hoping the corrosion of the rubber parts is a non-factor.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

E0 = 116,090 BTU's
E10 = 112,114 BTU's

a 3.4% reduction in BTU's gives a 25% performance drop?

I'm also guessing that the mechanics are changed by the ethanol, something about it.  Just a guess, based on empirical evidence.

Would W3.4 gas (3.4% water, the rest gasoline), which has 3.4% less BTU's than 100% gas get 3.4% less performance?  I'm going to guess it would screw a lot more up than just 3.4% of performance.

I think with E10, they found a way to water down the gas, while still getting it to run good enough that most people don't notice.  If ethanol was so great on its own, how come even ethanol vehicles run on E85 which still needs 15% gasoline to get the horrible mileage that it does?

And I'd be one of those...I have a 2008 Dodge Avenger with a FlexFuel 2.7l V6 and if I use from QT, the mileage is horrible.  Not sure if the engine can tell and adjusts since it is such a new car.  I'll have to investigate.  But, since it's flex fuel, I'm hoping the corrosion of the rubber parts is a non-factor.

It generally takes a tank or two to adjust, unless you reset the PCM on your vehicle and force the re-learn. It could even be possible that it thinks your E10 is E85. I would assume advancing the timing and running it a little richer would be preferred for E85.

[inteller]

my last tank I filled up on yesterday eeked out 314mi on 11.8gal.  That is a horrendous 26.6 mpg, down from my 28-29 that I was getting on real gas.  This was the pee water gas from Kum and Go.  I'm going to run a few tanks from Sinclair so I can determine what they are mixing.