REAL GAS - NO QTrip E10

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller


Hopefully this will start a revolt and we can get most stations back to 100% gas.

With the "100% Gas" being illegal in 26 states and growing, I doubt we will see any mass changes.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller


Hopefully this will start a revolt and we can get most stations back to 100% gas.

With the "100% Gas" being illegal in 26 states and growing, I doubt we will see any mass changes.

banning MTBEs is a grand conspiracy designed to pad the farm lobbiest pockets.  I mean, how come there are NO OTHER alternatives to MTBE besides ethanol?  Yeah right.  very little has been shown that MTBEs are harmful and WHO still does not list it as a carcinogen.  Once again, the fruit heads in California overreact and we all get to pay the price.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

From what I have been told, in all new cars the octane matters alot for gas mileage. The higher the octane the better the fuel mileage. The reason is because the engine's timing is computer run and when you put in low octane fuel the engine's computer backs off the timing to avoid the "pinging" and as the timing is backed off mileage & engine power drop off. When you dump in high octane fuel the computer can advance the timing and the engine runs better and gets more miles per gallon. With older cars it's another story.

This is only true with high-compression engines.  Lower compression engines can run just fine on 87 octane without pinging, and using gasoline with a higher octane rating will not affect performance or economy in any meaningful way.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

From what I have been told, in all new cars the octane matters alot for gas mileage. The higher the octane the better the fuel mileage. The reason is because the engine's timing is computer run and when you put in low octane fuel the engine's computer backs off the timing to avoid the "pinging" and as the timing is backed off mileage & engine power drop off. When you dump in high octane fuel the computer can advance the timing and the engine runs better and gets more miles per gallon. With older cars it's another story.

This is only true with high-compression engines.  Lower compression engines can run just fine on 87 octane without pinging, and using gasoline with a higher octane rating will not affect performance or economy in any meaningful way.

LOTS of cars have high compression ratios these days.  But they have VVT (or something similiar) to back the timing off.  It all boils down to whether the ECU is programmed to back the timing way off.  A performance car is not going to do that because -duh- it is a performance car and the ECU is configured for performing under the best circumstances (high octane, high CR)

good cars these days will have an ECU and knock sensor that will take advantage of high octane gas, but not hurt the car if you want to put regular in it.  Infiniti EX35 for example.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by inteller


banning MTBEs is a grand conspiracy designed to pad the farm lobbiest pockets.  I mean, how come there are NO OTHER alternatives to MTBE besides ethanol?  Yeah right.  very little has been shown that MTBEs are harmful and WHO still does not list it as a carcinogen.  Once again, the fruit heads in California overreact and we all get to pay the price.

Or maybe it's a conspiracy designed to keep the MTBE out of our precious bodily fluids. That stuff spreads like wildfire if it manages to make it into groundwater (which it always does, whether from a leaky tank or someone overfilling their tank and spilling gas on the ground).

Me, I'd rather have an oxygenate than smog, but hey, you can keep on tilting at the 3% reduction in mileage windmill if you like. I prefer breathing and not having a brown stain over my fair city, thanks. And I continue to enjoy greater than 30mpg on the highway in my old clunker. And I'd rather drink water without MTBE. I don't really dig the smell of turpentine in something I'm drinking.

[buckeye]

Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff.  Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...

But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?

Heck if cars burned a fuel such that emissions were heat and water only, we'd be in trouble!  What gas contributes the most to negative greenhouse effects?  Water vapor...

There are enough humans that need to get places that whatever fuel we use will have an impact.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by buckeye

Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff.  Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...

But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?

Actually, no. You actually create less pollution because the oxygenate causes the gasoline to burn completely rather than going out the tailpipe only partially combusted. I suppose it does increase the amount of carbon dioxide released, but it reduces the amount of carbon monoxide, particulates, and other byproducts. It gets us closer to just carbon dioxide and water out the tailpipe.

That goes for MTBE or an alcohol like ethanol, methanol, or one of several others that can be used for the purpose.

Additionally, the pollution output is lessened due to the cleaner burning nature of ethanol (and other alcohol) on its own vs. the gasoline, so in addition to making the 90% of the mix that is gas burn better, you're burning 10% that's much cleaner.

As far as the most objectionable pollutants, oxygenates have been shown to significantly reduce respiratory problems due to pollution in major cities that require oxygenate blended gasoline. I seem to recall the average is somewhere around a 17% reduction in particulates, sulfides, and other respiratory irritants in the first five years after adoption of blended gas.

Of course, in this part of the country, it's not such a big deal, as there's usually ample wind to blow the pollution elsewhere and dilute it in the process. In other parts of the country, not so much.

And just FWIW, there are other alcohols that can be used, some even have more energy per unit volume than gasoline and are a more ready substitute. They're difficult to mass produce, however, although that is being worked on. One of the main reasons we're using ethanol now is all the work that was done on it in the 70s and 80s. It was already known how to make ethanol from corn thanks to government subsidized research.

Personally, I think we ought to plant over as much of the area near the gulf of mexico as we can with sugar beets instead of using corn. It's a more efficient process while we're stuck with ethanol (you get more energy out of it compared to what you put in farming the stuff), and it doesn't use up a major food source.

[dggriffi]

quote:Originally posted by buckeye

Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff.  Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...

But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?

Heck if cars burned a fuel such that emissions were heat and water only, we'd be in trouble!  What gas contributes the most to negative greenhouse effects?  Water vapor...

There are enough humans that need to get places that whatever fuel we use will have an impact.

But that three percent reduction is offset by the 10% ethanol.   So your burning 3% more fuel of which 10% is carbon neutral ethanol.  Every once of carbon release during an ethanol burn is carbon that corn captured from the air when it was grown.

[buckeye]

Good stuff to know.

Now, what about what about the "fun" oxygenate that comes in compressed gas bottles...  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by dggriffi

quote:Originally posted by buckeye

Granted, I don't have much information, but it seems to me that MTBE is nasty stuff.  Surely there are other compounds to fulfill the same role...

But on point, you realize that a 3% reduction in fuel economy equals more fuel burned per mile per car meaning MORE POLUTION, right?

Heck if cars burned a fuel such that emissions were heat and water only, we'd be in trouble!  What gas contributes the most to negative greenhouse effects?  Water vapor...

There are enough humans that need to get places that whatever fuel we use will have an impact.

But that three percent reduction is offset by the 10% ethanol.   So your burning 3% more fuel of which 10% is carbon neutral ethanol.  Every once of carbon release during an ethanol burn is carbon that corn captured from the air when it was grown.

Ahhh, but what about all the CO2 released while turning said corn into ethanol?

[nathanm]

quote:
Ahhh, but what about all the CO2 released while turning said corn into ethanol?

Therein lies some of the stupidity of using corn for ethanol, since you have to convert the fibers into sugar to ferment the sugar into ethanol.

However, that carbon dioxide is also released from the plant itself, so was fixed by the plant in its growth process.

No matter what you do, if you're burning fuel created from plants, you're not releasing any net carbon into the carbon cycle. There is a limited amount of it above ground. The problem comes in when you dig it up from a place where it has been sequestered for millions of years and release it.

[buckeye]

But nitrous oxide emissions are up with E10, CO2 is about the same (from some quick googling).  

I remember reading that converting the nation's entire agricultural output to corn still wouldn't satisfy our transportation fuel demand.  How does Brazil do with sugarcane?

Consider also that present agriculture uses quite a bit of petroleum to grow anything and there's a net energy loss for every gallon of ethanol as fuel.

[nathanm]

quote:
Consider also that present agriculture uses quite a bit of petroleum to grow anything and there's a net energy loss for every gallon of ethanol as fuel.

Actually, no. Ethanol from corn gets you about one and a half times the energy you put in back out. Sugar beets are more like 7 times the energy you put in and generally require less fertilizer and pesticides.

Sugar beets are more efficient because you don't have to turn the starch into sugar before converting it to ethanol.

Not that ethanol is the be all and end all of alternative fuels. There's some other alcohol that most engines designed for 100% gasoline can run on without modification. It's currently produced from petroleum due to a lack of demand, but could be made by similar processes as ethanol.

[citizen72]

What about the octane rating listed on the pump. If they are using E10 it should be listed lower but they are not.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by citizen72

What about the octane rating listed on the pump. If they are using E10 it should be listed lower but they are not.

Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline. Both RON and MON are over 100. (MON is around 102, while RON is about 129)

There are other alcohols that are somewhat less.