(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Flex fuel..real data

H

Hay hay hay

Well-known Member
I hear all the BS,.... but for those of you that have actually tried flex fuel and tracked the mileage and cost differences...what have your learned?

PS: for those of you have no real data and real life trials...please don't waste our time with your untested and unverified opinions.
 
I have 2 vehicles that are e85 flex fuel models. A 16 super duty and a 15 Escape. My experience with both is a drop in fuel mileage versus gasoline. Enough drop that I figure e85 has to be at least $.40 /gallon under gas prices to come close to being equal in per mile costs. Around here it is consistently. 30 less. I use gas.
 
An engineer friend of mine has calculated his gas mileage both ways and claims that E-85 has to be $.59 cents cheaper to break even if he uses it.Your mileage may vary.
 
Sister in law runs cab company with many cars in their fleet and of course they keep an extensive log on each. So it boils down to percentage of what ever the price of E10 gasoline is. I say E10 because all our gas has 10 percent alcohol weather people know it or not. It's mandated. So for many years now even going back to the high price gas days of years ago her data on E85 was that you need to use an 80 % factor. So if E10 gas is 4 bucks E 85 needs to be $3.20or less to be competitive. If E10 gas is $3 then E85 needs to be $2.40 or less. We have an equinox, Tahoe, and had ford Taurus. We tested each one and if they had proper maintenance such as keeping in tune as you would with any car, her formula was spot on. Now in our local town we had two gas stations that we could always get a price under what the formula suggested so we always run the E85. It simply gave us more bang for our buck.
 
Last summer my wife and son took a 4000 mile trip from mn to VA to upper Michigan and another 4000 miles this spring to Arizona and areas around there, my sons project was to track the miles and mileage using E10, E 15, And E 85 when available my son loves math and that was his job asigned to him during the trip , we found right at 21.8 mpg with e10 and e15. Saw no difference and a 10% drop in mileage using e85 to around 19.8. we tried to be as accurate as possible and for what its worth the car mileage readings was almost spot on with the figures we came up with, usually we find e85 to be between 40 to 60 cents cheaper, this was using a 2016 ford explorer
 
I do not have one, but the math show gasoline = 114,000 BTU / gallon, E85 = 81,800 BTU per gallon, so I would expect it would take 1.4 times as much fuel for same HP.
 
When my wife got her flex fuel vehicle she was excited at how much she was going to save so I explained to her that even though the price was cheaper it a gallon didn't go as far. She tested it and found that E85 had to be something like 40 cents cheaper than E10 to break even. She ran something like 3 consecutive tanks of E85 to make sure it was as real world accurate as possible.
 
C'mon H H H ..... waste some of my time with your own untested and unverified opinions. Which brings a question to mind, how can an "opinion" be tested/untested or verified/unverified. That makes no sense to me. How can one put restrictions or parameters on opinions since an opinion doesn't need to be any of those things, it's just an opinion.
 
My wife has a 2012 Impala, flex fuel. I bought a gas can and marked it "E-85 Only". I always keep some gas in the barn for the tractors or cars and fill them when price is favorable.
In 2013, I tried some E-85 because of price per gallon. I tracked our mileage for several tanks full.
I have not kept the figures and don't remember them except, my cost per mile went up, PERIOD.
We have not purchased any E-85 since.
 
(quoted from post at 20:44:31 05/13/18) Sister in law runs cab company with many cars in their fleet and of course they keep an extensive log on each. So it boils down to percentage of what ever the price of E10 gasoline is. I say E10 because all our gas has 10 percent alcohol weather people know it or not. It's mandated. So for many years now even going back to the high price gas days of years ago her data on E85 was that you need to use an 80 % factor. So if E10 gas is 4 bucks E 85 needs to be $3.20or less to be competitive. If E10 gas is $3 then E85 needs to be $2.40 or less. We have an equinox, Tahoe, and had ford Taurus. We tested each one and if they had proper maintenance such as keeping in tune as you would with any car, her formula was spot on. Now in our local town we had two gas stations that we could always get a price under what the formula suggested so we always run the E85. It simply gave us more bang for our buck.
Click to expand...


boberjagel, You didn't specify the year or the exact configuration of the Taurus, but using the official EPA site info for a 2013 (as an example) times your numbers, using E85 at the cost ratios you posted doesn't work!
21cfevs.jpg


The fuel use ratio (difference in gallons used to drive 100 miles) is 1.4, EXACTLY what DavidG estimated!
 
Many of those folks had informative answers, but I would also like to know how much, or little that would mean as far as corn prices, or exactly how much it helps farmers, cuts emissions, the overall results. If it is not worth it, should we drop it? Even e10 is a pain in old engines, especially if you pour it in and it sets there a few months.
 
HHH asked for real data, since he had none. You had nothin', Crazy, but you posted anyhow. At least you were able to win the award for most useless post on the thread. Y'all come back soon, y'hear?
 
E25 is probably the sweet spot for most vehicles on the road. It supplies the octane, uses poorer gasoline so more gallons per barrel of crude, burns the most effiently of the blends in a conventional gasoline engine. There are less but per gallon, but E25 burns with a cleaner explosion, more efficently, which makes up some for the lower btu.

So of course, we set up E10 and E85, neither of which is a great mix for efficiency.

D'oh.

E85 could be quite a bit more efficient if we had dedicated engines that used the very high octane and other strengths of it, as Brazil does. But, we cling to using a standard gasoline tuned engine, and have the computer adapt somewhat for stronger ethanol blends.

When testing, one would need to run several tank falls to get the system fully to the blend you think you have, and for the computer to adjust fully to the stated blend.

Paul
 
You would be correct by using the ford sticker they are saying 72.7 % energy yield from E85 versus the 80% my sister in law was getting. So $3.00 gas X 72.7% = $2.18 per gallon as the magic breakeven number for E85. 82 cents difference. You all got my curiosity up so I ran to the gas station tonight. E 10 is $2.75 and E 85 is $1.94. So for now anyway my best value in my town is E85.
 
My f250 gets 20 percent less mileage on E85. All our gas is at least 10 percent. It is 2.579. E85 is 1.999. So we burn E85 in a 15 Explorer and a super duty. Watched a girl in a 2003 Chevy pickup fill with E85 last time I was at station. She drove away. My daughter has put it in a 1997 Ford Explorer and got away with it.
 
In my case there is a little more than mileage to consider when comparing cost of E85 to other blends.

My 2013 Tundra specifies oil changes at 5k miles. 0w20 full synthetic. BUT, if using E85 that gets cu in half. An oil change is 8 qts + the filter, which is more expensive that a common spin on. There is no way for the fuel savings to cover an additional $100+, approximate cost at an oil change place, every 2500 miles.

Toyota's reasoning is the combustion products of ethanol deposit an acid in the oil that shortens its' life in that engine.
Most Toys specifiy 10k intervals, but not mine, darn it. My dealer provides oil changes for life at the 5k interval, but not 2500, so my costs would really increase with more ethanol!
 
The problem in my part of the world is that the retailers have figured out the game and priced E85 exactly 20% cheaper than E10. They are keeping all of the incentive to use E85. I still use E85 in my vehicles whenever it is priced more economically to E10.
 

I know farmers like the expanded market, but ethanol has been a huge harm to the US energy industry and given the built-in inefficiency it has had a damaging effect on the economy over-all. The damage the damned tree huggers have done to our economy on any number of fronts will never be recovered.
 
The US produces something like 60 % of ethanol used in the world, mostly from corn. Economists think that it adds 20 - 30 cents to the market price of corn. Not sure anyone really knows that number for sure but that has been the estimate. E-fuel markets means a lot to corn farmers operating on break even corn prices in 2018.
 
(quoted from post at 19:42:45 05/13/18) E25 is probably the sweet spot for most vehicles on the road. It supplies the octane, uses poorer gasoline so more gallons per barrel of crude, burns the most effiently of the blends in a conventional gasoline engine. There are less but per gallon, but E25 burns with a cleaner explosion, more efficently, which makes up some for the lower btu.

So of course, we set up E10 and E85, neither of which is a great mix for efficiency.

D'oh.

E85 could be quite a bit more efficient if we had dedicated engines that used the very high octane and other strengths of it, as Brazil does. But, we cling to using a standard gasoline tuned engine, and have the computer adapt somewhat for stronger ethanol blends.

When testing, one would need to run several tank falls to get the system fully to the blend you think you have, and for the computer to adjust fully to the stated blend.

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, BS! Pure ethonal produces 75,670 BTUs per gallon. Pure low octain gas produces 115,600 BTU's per gallon. That means that gas, no matter how an engine or other fuel burning device is used, is more that 25% more efficeient than ethanol. Hard to argue with scienctific fact. Because of the nature of the IC engine the more efficent the fuel the more efficent the egnine. That why diesels get som much better mileage. Diesel produces about 139,000 BTU per gallon.

We own a flex fuel vehicle. I did experament when we first got it because I was curious. The mileage drop was about at the 25% mark on E85. I buy ethanol free gas and the lowest % of bio whenever possible. I never, ever run ethanol blended fuel in any samll engine. Every farmer I know including family can go broke before I buy ethanol based fuels. Explain to me why I should pay more to dive just so they can continue a corn bean rotation!

Rick
 
Efficiency is the ratio of how much energy is available for mechanical use compared to
how much energy is in the fuel. In other words, we are talking about the efficiency of
the engine, not the fuel. The real question should be miles per dollar. And we need to
factor in any government subsidies because part of what you're paying for fuel (food,
medical care, etc.) is hidden in your taxes.
 
If you are adding 10 % ethanol costing 1.46 a gallon to a gallon gas selling for 2.75, seems like that would lower the overall price of the gallon of gas, since you are diluting it with a cheaper energy source. And helping the farmer immensely to have another market for his crop in oversupply. Having millions of consumers buy cheaper gas on daily basis does not seem like it is hurting the economy , in fact it is just the opposite from a consumer point of view.
 
Coshoo, if you get a minute maybe you can show me where HHH said he had no data of his own, it's not in the post that I read. Meanwhile, I get second place for the most useless post. You get the gold for posting a reply to a useless post.
 
I did a little 5 month study in my 15 F250(6.2l flex fuel with LP/CNG prep). We have a few stations in my area starting to carry it. One seems to fluctuate prices with
the market, 45-75 cent difference(but not in a direction I go often). The others are a chain that pegs it at 40 cents under 87 octane gas.

I needed to maintain a 13-15% price difference to break even. At $2.00 E85/$2.40 87oct at the big chain the numbers worked for me. I made it a point of carrying cans with me an grabbing an extra 20 gallons when I went near the station with better prices.

As we go closer to $3 gas the $2.60 E85 quits being economical.

Mileage was also remarkably worse when towing, even a light trailer. Going into spring where I was going to be pulling fertilizer most every day, I switched back to gas as I didn't want to have to run 20 miles for E85, and the mileage pulling 10K plus is horrible.

Lack of power was never an issue. I had a couple times where it idled rough in the first couple tanks when switching over, but was told it is normal.
 
Why should I pay more to drive?

If not for ethanol you would be paying much more to drive. The oil companies would have a heyday with gas prices if not for the competition of ethanol.

Because of Government regulations there has not been a new refinery built for years. The refineries could slow production to cause an increase in price. Which they have done in the past. With ethanol in the mix it keeps them moving as we could all go to e85 if need be to keep driving.

One other point to keep ethanol around. If not for ethanol our oil shortages would come much sooner.

Some day our oil supplies will be depleted. Until then we better find alternative power sources to move the people of the world.

Right now ethanol is the best alternative.

Electric cars may be an alternative but the energy to power them is in trouble as well. Government won't allow hydro electric dams to be built. Some fish may not get up stream. They won't allow nuclear plants to be built. And don't want electric plants to burn coal.

We better wake up some day and figure out someway to produce some form of energy.

Until then I will burn ethanol as I have been since 1973. With no ethanol related problems, except one small weed eater engine that the ethanol shrank the fuel lines in 25 years ago.

Gary
 
Reading all the writings this morning has been informative. I see one in particular mentions about storage. Gas that is clean, no addatives, ethinol, stores with less loss of useability, where with ethinol seperation takes place over a 3 or so month time duration leaving a ""pile"" in the bottom of the storage container, what ever that is. Even though high test here in Ontario is from 8 to 20 cents more on average I do my best to use it since it still is ethinol free.
 
Thank you all for the info and experience sharing. I was sure that many of you had tried it, assessed it and kept the data. Based on your experience, I think I will stick with E10.
 
Very informative, however I did not see subsidies even mentioned. Don't you have to factor them in, I realize taxes are a hidden cost, but they are a cost. I presume they are so well hidden that it may be impossible to get an accurate cost per gallon. I am sure the subsidies would increase that cost per gallon of ethanol.

Bill
 
(quoted from post at 04:35:39 05/14/18) Why should I pay more to drive?

If not for ethanol you would be paying much more to drive. The oil companies would have a heyday with gas prices if not for the competition of ethanol.

Gary
Click to expand...

Prove it! With data from peer reviewed studies by major researchers not associated with any farm or environmental group.

Rick
 
As I expected, a tanker fella will support the oil industry to its dying day. :)

You are confusing raw energy available with the efficiency of using that energy.

If we pile up a mound of coal and light it, it will smoke and sputter and burn very poorly, but it will produce some energy.

If we break that coal into the proper size pieces, flow the proper amount of air through it to get the right mix of oxygen and coal surface
available, you have a very efficient burn creating maximum useable energy from that pile of coal.

A fireplace burns wood, uses most of the energy created to push smoke up the chimney and out of the house, taking warm air with it. A
fireplace makes heat, but very inefficiently. A catalytic wood burner cycles the right amount of air (oxygen) with the right amounts of wood and
wood gases to burn most of the energy and create heat, directed at heating the house, and sucks very little warm air out of a house. The same
pile of wood with the same energy content is much more efficient at heating a house in a modern wood furnace that simpler burning a pile of
sticks in an open brick column on a wall.

The difference between efficiency and energy.

Very basic concept.

Gasoline is a dirty fuel, some components of it evaporate at room temp, some need to be 400+ degrees to evaporate. Creating an even flame
front at the moment of ignition is very difficult. An uneven flame front inside a combustion engine makes poorer conversion of available power to
actual, useable energy.

Ethanol has a much easier to control ignition point. This makes It slightly more efficient.

You can hire two boys to help stack bales. One is stronger, able to do more work. But he complains a lot, checks his cell phone every 5
minutes, stops for water every 10 bales. The other boy is weaker, but he keeps a steady pace, he keeps pitching bales and stops for a break
when the work slows down.

The muscle bound kid has a lot more raw power, but the weaker boy gets more work done.

That is gasoline and ethanol.

We use ethanol in engines tuned for gasoline, so of course they appear more miles per gallon of gasoline. Duh.

But engines tend to get a few more miles per but from ethanol, and that is more noticeable on an engine that would be designed for ethanol.

I know, you will defend big oil until your dying day, you are an oil hauler, and that is your deal. I get it. I'm not trying to change your mind.

For the rest of the folk with open minds, ethanol helps us a lot in our fuel needs. We would be much poorer without it. E85 works if it is about 50
cents a gallon cheaper, E25 would be the perfect fuel with outer current fleet of vehicles, E10 helps us slightly stretch our fuel supplies and
adds some air quality to our lives. It all gets very technical and science based and folks glaze over pretty fast so won't get into i in a forum like
this. The info is out there, if you look for real research. Been available since the 1980s.

And, ethanol subsidies ended several years ago, so that's a pretty dead horse to keep beating too.

Oil, I enjoy your posts on every other topic on this forum, and really enjoy reading your stuff. On ethanol vs Big Oil, I think you are way off your
rocker. :)

Paul
 
3-4 years ago my wife and I went to visit her relatives in NE Ohio from NW Illinois. A little over 500 miles each way. This was driving a Dodge Journey with an engine designed to burn E-85. We used E-85 going out and E-10 driving around Ohio and coming back home. E-85 was about 15.1 mpg and E-10 was 15.7 mpg. I was disappointed with the mileage both ways. My bro-in-law gets 27-29 mpg with his Honda SUV. My 2000 1500 chevy truck gets 15-16 mpg on E-25 driving around locally. Not very scientific but she uses E-85 all the time and it is usually $0.50 per gallon cheaper. Plus Illinois used to have a program to promote E-85 and by sending in her E-85 receipts she received over $400 each year which covered a month's car payment. I own a few shares in Adkins Energy, only a few miles away, and corn from my farm is usually sold there so we support our local business. Another plus with ethanol is we don't have to have a couple of aircraft carriers and support groups protecting a portion of our energy supply. So I think ethanol has a part in our energy supplies, plus it is a lot safer than MTBE as a gasoline oxygenate. Thank God we still have choices in this land of ours!
 
Yes, the help, and protection, and infrastructure subsidies Big Oil gets would change things, but but we don't have to even include those.

Ethanol does not get any subsidies any more, that ended years ago. It was a 'start up' program to get the industry off the ground.

Grain farming gets some subsidies, because people in the USA want cheap food, they want excess food so there is never a shortage. And so, food is subsidied.

In the 1980s the subsidies and pile of excess food got very large. People told farmers to find their own cure, they are tired of using tax money to subsidize farmers.

So maybe farmers in my state and surrounding ones started ethanol plants, using their own money in coop investments to build the plants. The govt used the starter subsidies on ethanol to ensure the investment would be worth while.

It was money out of farmers pockets that started the industry tho.

So we did our job.

Without ethanol, you would have more, bigger Ag subsidies going on. We wouldn't have an even use of grains, local markets, etc. we would be back to the 1980s.

You have to look at the big picture.

Paul
 
All gas has 10% ethanol? Mandated? Not true.

Some STATES do mandate the ethanol, but it is NOT federally mandated. There is some language in RFS2007 that seems to point to a mandate, but E10 does not even qualify under the Renewable Fuels acts. The idea was to promote E85 along with biodiesel fuels not just in automobiles, but across the board including fuels used for heating and power generation.

The information is out there. Read it for yourself.
 
My first hand experience is flex fuel vehicles are able to use 10% ethanol much better than the nonflex fuel vehicles. I have no first hand experience with using E85 in anything - I've only seen it for sale at a few larger cities and didn't feel the urge to try it out for only a tank of fuel.

I've had three flex fuel vehicles that there was virtually no measurable difference in mileage when using E10 or "100%" gas. Two were Ford Taurus and one is a Chevy Impala. The "non" flex fuel vehicles usually dropped about 10% in mileage when using 10% ethanol. The biggest differences were noticed in fuel efficient vehicles like the Focus we had (almost 35 MPG with regular, 28 or so with 10% ethanol) - gas guzzlers like my 1988 F250 didn't seem to notice the difference.
 
Hey Paul, while I agree with the data you posted, please understand that a tanker, in his case, might refer to a person who operated armored vehicles for the military as in Patton and Abram's tanks. From other comments he has made, I do believe that was his story.
 
What about the fact that ethanol production uses so much energy and water if it wasn't govt. subsidized they would lose money on it!
 
Congratulations on a very useful way to enhance the education of your son through a practical use of his math classes.
Good parenting is a process of growing the child physically and mentally. My Dad did it in ways that made me use my classroom learning in his workshop. Too often I see young people in a store that seemingly have not developed a practical application of their education...starting with how to make change without a cash register.
 
Do you consider federal mandates on ethanol percentages as a subsidy? I certainly do because there would be very little market for ethanol otherwise. Government arm twisting forces the consumers to subsidize whatever industry profits from the regulations imposed. I am not against ethanol, I make money feeding the by-products of ethanol production and in general I am for most anything which helps keep American farmers in business, but in reality, if ethanol was a true money maker no one would have to be forced to buy it.
 
Had an interesting talk with one of the kids at work the other night- he has a new hot rod Mustang and runs the E85. Like most of the hot rodding today, it's all done on a laptop rather than valve lapping. He has a tuning kit and computer to alter the engine operating parameters. The tune he bought for E85 is most to his liking on track times (his important use). I can attest that the car really sounds good in the parking lot and smells like a brewery going by, so those two important factors are covered.
 
Somebody needs to tell the people in Oklahoma that. Most of their fuel pumps advertise the fact they don't have ethanol in their fuel.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/10/466010209/the-shocking-truth-about-americas-ethanol-law-it-doesnt-matter-for-now



The ethanol mandate requires gasoline companies to do something that, at the moment, they'd do anyway.

The reason, in a word, is octane.

Octane is a measure of gasoline's tendency to ignite under pressure. If it's too low, the gasoline/air mixture in an engine's cylinders will burn too soon, creating damaging "knocking." Rhe industry standard for gasoline is 87. But getting gasoline's octane rating up to that standard costs money. It means more refining of the petroleum, or using high-octane compounds in your gasoline formula, such as ? you guessed it ? ethanol. So gasoline companies aren't using ethanol for its energy ? they're buying it for its high octane rating.


There are other compounds that you can add to boost octane levels, but many, like alkylate or iso-octane, are generally more expensive than ethanol. Another additive that is widely used globally, called MTBE, has such a bad reputation for polluting the environment that many states have passed regulations that make it difficult to use.


"As of today, the alternative sources of octane are more expensive," says Irwin, who just updated his calculations on demand for ethanol last week.


Niznik, from Stratas Advisors, says that when corn prices hit a peak in 2012, because of a drought in the Midwest, there were bitter complaints about the ethanol mandate among farmers and people in the food industry who wanted that corn to be used for animal feed. "They were assuming that if we used less ethanol, the price of corn would go down," he says. "The truth is," Niznik continues, "the [petroleum] refining folks knew in their hearts that if the [ethanol mandate] went away for a while, ethanol use wouldn't drop much. They were looking around at the octane replacements, and knew that those things were really expensive." Niznik says removing ethanol also would have forced gasoline companies to disrupt their refinery operations.
 
Yeah paul, old tanker is an armored division veteran. On a side note, I"d like to know the efficiency of an M60, or an Abrams. How many gallons per mile does it burn?
 
I have one flex fuel vehicle. I'm in TX, and travel plenty. I tested two discrete trips from the Fort Worth are to Katy and back on E85, and then on E10. Using the best prices I could find for both fuels, the E85 was consistently higher cost per mile. It seemed to average about 1.2 cents per mile higher cost.

Ethanol makes a good octane booster. It's also a good fuel, but is not as energy dense as gas or diesel(as noted before). The other factors are production efficiency/cost. We have been hydrocracking oils for more than a century, and we are really, really good at it. From my investigation back in 2016 when we bought the E85 car, the cost to produce Ethanol for fuel is about double, or slightly higher than double the cost to produce gas from crude. There is a big 'however' involved here. Calculating the cost to produce is fraught with peril. Determining the life cycle cost of a commodity is really tough.

Next, the mishigoss of 'subsidies'. Although the cash subsidies for Ethanol ended in 2012, there is the lingering cost of the time value of borrowed money(a significant percent of our national budget is for interest on debt) which was spent on those subsidies from 2003-12. Some portion of that money paid out was borrowed, and we are still paying for the bonds floated to make those subsidies. This is true of all expenditures. In economics we would call this the indirect cost of funds. Adding to that, there are still farm subsidies for corn, and I can't decipher all the different subsidies that are given, and then allocate the part of that subsidy that would be spent on Ethanol fuel infrastructure. It is a non-zero number, and it must be taken into account because Ethanol fuel is still intact(RFS-46414G-31-2018).

Another however, there may be changes afoot in the mandate with this admin. But - as long as the mandate is present, the cost of complying with that fed order has to be taken into account.

A few more notes, non-ethanol is becoming more widely available all the time. We have it at our local walmart now, and I've seen it advertised on some travel stations along the interstate. One more indirect, but important cost is the damage to engines, and the reduced engine life of many early auto, motorcycle, boat, and small retail engines. Frex; I bought a top of the line 4 stroke weed trimmer from Stihl. I took such good care of it, fresh oil on time, don't overheat it, clean air, etc. However, they recommended E10 fuel in it. within 2 years, the piston was scraping on the cyl, and it was burning oil badly. I'm certain that quite a bit of the damage was due to using Ethanol fuel.

Lastly, supposing that Ethanol laced fuel actually does improve emissions. Lets say it reduces the CO by ~2%(has little to no effect on HC). The question we must then ask is; 'does the lowered energy density, and the worse cost of production of Ethanol offset the original CO produces by the IC engine in a catalyzed auto system?' In other words, if we completely get rid of Ethanol fuel production, and go back to some other iso-octane method, and live with the slightly higher CO produced, would be be a net gain or a net loss of environmental damage?

There are plenty of engineers who have postulated both ways. Frankly, in my opinion, I would like to have the mandate withdrawn, and allow the production and burning of E10 or E25, or E85 to reach it's market maturity. Unless or until there is definitive net gain to the environment which can be measured well. This is a complex calculus.
 
You are entitled your opinion of shelf life of E-10. I have used it here in South Dakota for at least 25+ years. A few weeks ago I started up my lawnmower (JD STX 38 1988?)and BMW R90/6 cycle (1974) that have been stored since last Oct or so. Both started immediately (3-5 secs. cranking) with last years E-10. My 8N sits for months and I have even run it on E85. I have never had any issue with E10 getting old that have affected starting. These are my experiences with E10. I even worked on a Dirt Late Model which was probably the first in the US to use E98 and pulled 619 hp on a dyno.
 
I made no direct mention of the shelf life of Ethanol laced fuels, but we do know that there is a potential for phase separation due to the non-isomorphic lattice structure of methyl and ethyl compounds.

The fact is, there is strong and a large historical body of evidence of damage to fuel systems which were not intended for Ethyls.

For those interested in empirical tests, take any automotive rubber product and immerse half of it in non-Eth gas for a day, then immerse the other half in E10 for a day. You will believe what you see.

Legacy Aviation fuel systems are absolutely restricted from using any Ethanol. I've personally seen the damage done to boat tanks, fuel lines, and aircraft fuel carbs from Ethanol.

Ethanol is not a bad fuel. It can be a very good fuel, but the costs, and avoided food costs, and costs of production have to be taken into account. Also, the design of the fuel system has to be taken into account for Ethanol, including NO open air storage due to the hydroscopic nature of Eth, which is not present in gasoline or diesel.
 
although this is outside of the question you asked but related to some of the discussions below, I thought I would attach this article I just come across.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/paul-driessen/american-consumers-lose-ethanol-gravy-train-rolls
 
Facts:

1) Alcohol, per volume, has less BTU than gasoline.
2) In order to get the same amount of power that gasoline provides, you need to burn more alcohol.
3) E-85 isn't touted as a cheaper way to power your car, just an alternative to gasoline.
 
(quoted from post at 19:27:40 05/14/18) Facts:

1) Alcohol, per volume, has less BTU than gasoline.
2) In order to get the same amount of power that gasoline provides, you need to burn more alcohol.
3) E-85 isn't touted as a cheaper way to power your car, just an alternative to gasoline.
Click to expand...

The 'tout' of Ethanol was never a cost means test. It was a political tool designed by Cargill and other large ag operations to sell grain fuel by federal mandate to 'lower tailpipe emissions of automobiles'. The engineers at Cargill lied their butts off in their - ahem, 'research' reports. Which I mentioned about the difficulty of costing the production of a commodity which is very hard. Frex; we would normally include the cost of the diesel of the tractor used to plant, and harvest the corn. But - the ag people called that a sunk or companion cost because it was going to be planted and harvested for foodstuffs anyway. Do we allocate that diesel/maint/util cost to the production of Ethanol fuel or not? There are a lot more means-tested questions just like this.

As for the efficiency, another poster previously mentioned and it is worth repeating that the Ethanol fuels can sustain much higher C/R, and are very amenable to pressure charging with turbine or a mech pump. A 300 cu-in engine could easily be designed for E85 only fuel with a much higher C/R, or turbo, or supercharging to increase thermodynamic efficiency of the engine overall, not just the Ethanol efficiency, but the mechanical efficiency as well. The downside is the increase in pumping energy required, and the added mass of the engine components to support the greater mech stress. Thus - the 'flex' engines are designed with the relatively lower mech efficiency for E10, and are just de-rated quite a bit for E85. Alternately, a car engine which needs 300HP could be accomplished with much smaller displacement E85 fuel than the engine which must run E10, or non-Eth.

If I were in the business, and I could design what I want, I would offer an E85 engine ONLY, and have owners carry a 5 gal emergency bucket of octane boost for when no E85 is avail to avoid detonation/pre-ignition. But - this is not feasable for Ford/GM/Chrysler, so they live with the reduced thermo-efficiency to accommodate 'flex' fuel.
 
(quoted from post at 06:26:45 05/14/18) As I expected, a tanker fella will support the oil industry to its dying day. :)

You are confusing raw energy available with the efficiency of using that energy.

If we pile up a mound of coal and light it, it will smoke and sputter and burn very poorly, but it will produce some energy.

If we break that coal into the proper size pieces, flow the proper amount of air through it to get the right mix of oxygen and coal surface
available, you have a very efficient burn creating maximum useable energy from that pile of coal.

A fireplace burns wood, uses most of the energy created to push smoke up the chimney and out of the house, taking warm air with it. A
fireplace makes heat, but very inefficiently. A catalytic wood burner cycles the right amount of air (oxygen) with the right amounts of wood and
wood gases to burn most of the energy and create heat, directed at heating the house, and sucks very little warm air out of a house. The same
pile of wood with the same energy content is much more efficient at heating a house in a modern wood furnace that simpler burning a pile of
sticks in an open brick column on a wall.

The difference between efficiency and energy.

Very basic concept.

Gasoline is a dirty fuel, some components of it evaporate at room temp, some need to be 400+ degrees to evaporate. Creating an even flame
front at the moment of ignition is very difficult. An uneven flame front inside a combustion engine makes poorer conversion of available power to
actual, useable energy.

Ethanol has a much easier to control ignition point. This makes It slightly more efficient.

You can hire two boys to help stack bales. One is stronger, able to do more work. But he complains a lot, checks his cell phone every 5
minutes, stops for water every 10 bales. The other boy is weaker, but he keeps a steady pace, he keeps pitching bales and stops for a break
when the work slows down.

The muscle bound kid has a lot more raw power, but the weaker boy gets more work done.

That is gasoline and ethanol.

We use ethanol in engines tuned for gasoline, so of course they appear more miles per gallon of gasoline. Duh.

But engines tend to get a few more miles per but from ethanol, and that is more noticeable on an engine that would be designed for ethanol.

I know, you will defend big oil until your dying day, you are an oil hauler, and that is your deal. I get it. I'm not trying to change your mind.

For the rest of the folk with open minds, ethanol helps us a lot in our fuel needs. We would be much poorer without it. E85 works if it is about 50
cents a gallon cheaper, E25 would be the perfect fuel with outer current fleet of vehicles, E10 helps us slightly stretch our fuel supplies and
adds some air quality to our lives. It all gets very technical and science based and folks glaze over pretty fast so won't get into i in a forum like
this. The info is out there, if you look for real research. Been available since the 1980s.

And, ethanol subsidies ended several years ago, so that's a pretty dead horse to keep beating too.

Oil, I enjoy your posts on every other topic on this forum, and really enjoy reading your stuff. On ethanol vs Big Oil, I think you are way off your
rocker. :)

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul again, links to peer reviews studies performed by qualified petrochemical engineers and mechanical engineers please. I know that on our last 3 vehicles going from E85 to E10 on the 2 that were/are flex fuel resulted in an increase of about 25% increase in economy over E85 and when I can buy gas without any ethanol I see about a 1 to 1.5 MPG gain.

Direct subsidies paid to ethanol producers were ended by the feds a few years ago. But some states are still paying those subsidies, generally with money given them by the feds.....plus ethanol mandates are a back door subsidy. Most businesses would love for the government to mandate that people buy their products.

As far as the viability of ethanol? I have read a lot of studies that say that it's a bad idea. Some of these studies have come out of major universities. So I'm supposed to believe some guy who makes money raising corn for ethanol or some guy who is a trained researcher working at an institute of higher learning? That's why I ask for links to peer review studies that prove what you claim. No I don't trust studies done by people pushing the sale of so called green energy and I won't ask you to accept studies done by big oil. I doubt either can be trusted to tell the truth.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 15:52:03 05/14/18) Yeah paul, old tanker is an armored division veteran. On a side note, I"d like to know the efficiency of an M60, or an Abrams. How many gallons per mile does it burn?
Click to expand...


LOL not good! The M60 series with the 1790 CI V12 took 385 gallons of fuel and had a cruise range of 310 miles Or right at .8 MPG. The M1A1 was worse. Took 500 gallons to fill it and we were told 300 miles or .6 MPG. The M60 burned only diesel while you can run just about any fuel through the M1.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
new owner of a 620, will try to update this as we go.
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
valiant8086
V
S
4010 diesel fuel problem tank to fuel pump
Replies
8
Views
1K
stano
S
J
Why the Letter Series are the Best Deere Tractors
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
SVcummins
S
2
Premium diesel versus #2 diesel
Replies
14
Views
1K
JDEM
J
J
EPA fuel mileage ratings
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Russ from MN
R
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top