MrChaos said:In reply to frenchyd :
literally 0 e85 stations within 100 miles
I find E85 to be primarily a Northeast thing. It’s almost nonexistent in the south.
MrChaos said:In reply to frenchyd :
literally 0 e85 stations within 100 miles
I find E85 to be primarily a Northeast thing. It’s almost nonexistent in the south.
In reply to A 401 CJ :
There is an app for your phone to help you find E85 stations. In the Midwest there are 4300 E85 stations.
Plus even places where no corn grows you’ll find E85 stations. My buddy in Southern California found all sorts of them once he got the app
In NC there are 0 west of Charlotte. There are a bunch in Greenville, SC and Knoxville, TN.
I put my 2nd tank of top tier gas in the miata and haven't really noticed a difference from the e free.
All my vehicles, from a 2017 Turbo Ford Edge, a 1997 Ford Ranger, a 2004 Mazda MSM turbo, objectively get better fuel mileage with E0 gasoline and subjectively get more power with it. I can measure fuel mileage with my calculator but not power.
My 2017 Turbo Ford Edge has a knock sensor. The owners manual states the the engine is 87 octant compatible but will get better performance with higher octane fuel. This is my experience. More power and better fuel mileage with 93 octant E10 and even better with 93 octane E0 (when I am in a place that has it by the way). Cost per mile is a different issue IMO.
And now Buckee's has started to sell ethanol free gasoline with iso-butanol as the oxidizer. This substance has more BTU/gal than ethanol so the resulting mixture has more btu/gal. This stuff is available at the Buckee's in Texas and gives better mileage and performance than E10 as well but still not at E0 levels. They offer it in 89 and 93 octane. http://gulfracingfuels.com/isobutanol-and-going-ethanolfree/ - Its also getting price competitive with E10. Really the price has to do with shipping volumes. If a lot of E0 is not ordered then the cost to deliver is higher. If you live in an area with the oxidizer mandate you are living with this economic fact.
What I really like about iso-butanol is it gives competition to the ADM/Cargill lobby getting government subsidies for farmers to grow corn crops to produce ethanol. A proven net loss of energy in the growing /producing process by the way. But the same laws make it tough for sugar cane farmers to convert their crop to ethanol mostly because they don't need as much of a subsidy because it way easier to make ethanol out of sugar cane (rum anyone) and therefore would put the corn people out of business. The laws also make it almost impossible for Cuba and Brazil to ship ethanol to us produced from their huge sugar cane crops because they can beat the price of American made ethanol even with shipping costs. Heavy tariffs were placed on these imports years ago because of that.
jharry3 said:All my vehicles, from a 2017 Turbo Ford Edge, a 1997 Ford Ranger, a 2004 Mazda MSM turbo, objectively get better fuel mileage with E0 gasoline and subjectively get more power with it. I can measure fuel mileage with my calculator but not power.
My 2017 Turbo Ford Edge has a knock sensor. The owners manual states the the engine is 87 octant compatible but will get better performance with higher octane fuel. This is my experience. More power and better fuel mileage with 93 octant E10 and even better with 93 octane E0 (when I am in a place that has it by the way). Cost per mile is a different issue IMO.
And now Buckee's has started to sell ethanol free gasoline with iso-butanol as the oxidizer. This substance has more BTU/gal than ethanol so the resulting mixture has more btu/gal. This stuff is available at the Buckee's in Texas and gives better mileage and performance than E10 as well but still not at E0 levels. They offer it in 89 and 93 octane. http://gulfracingfuels.com/isobutanol-and-going-ethanolfree/ - Its also getting price competitive with E10. Really the price has to do with shipping volumes. If a lot of E0 is not ordered then the cost to deliver is higher. If you live in an area with the oxidizer mandate you are living with this economic fact.
What I really like about iso-butanol is it gives competition to the ADM/Cargill lobby getting government subsidies for farmers to grow corn crops to produce ethanol. A proven net loss of energy in the growing /producing process by the way. But the same laws make it tough for sugar cane farmers to convert their crop to ethanol mostly because they don't need as much of a subsidy because it way easier to make ethanol out of sugar cane (rum anyone) and therefore would put the corn people out of business. The laws also make it almost impossible for Cuba and Brazil to ship ethanol to us produced from their huge sugar cane crops because they can beat the price of American made ethanol even with shipping costs. Heavy tariffs were placed on these imports years ago because of that.
The reason Brazil and Cuba can’t sell sugar in the US is the sugar producers ( 12 families) have an import tariff that means Americans spend twice as much as the rest of the world does for Sugar.
American sugar can’t compete against imported sugar price wise. Not the only thing big business makes Americans pay a lot extra, but I digress
As for your comment regarding energy production please do a little basic research. When I did I noticed everything was assumed to be trucked. Ethanol is treated the same as other fuels it’s piped from the ethanol plants to the refineries. In addition ethanol refineries are put right in the areas where corn is grown. Not trucked across the country. Finally most of the volume of corn once the ethanol is extracted is resold to local farmers as animal feed.
In reply to frenchyd :
I'm in the Midwest, in a large metro area, and E85 is slim pickings. I'm not surprised others find it difficult to find, either.
What I have noticed, though, is that it's easier to find in rural areas. At least in SE Wisconsin.
In reply to frenchyd :
Do not get me started on US business monopolies.
In reply to A 401 CJ :
Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?
I have two somewhat technical questions/wonderings.
First: how can fuel affect intake valve deposits in a direct injected vehicle? Is there some other large deposit difference?
Second: I am curious about power differences on my BMW E30 (M20 engine) race car between E0 and E10. We can change fuel pressure but otherwise can only do specific chips, no custom programs. Most tests I have seen involve reprogramming.
Jcamper
^ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/Fuel-Quality-Full-Report.pdf
AAA conducted primary research in the area of fuel quality to better understand the impact of detergent additive packages on engine cleanliness. These additives have been used in commercially available gasoline for more than 20 years to help keep fuel system components clean and prevent the buildup of carbon deposits on critical engine components such as fuel injectors, intake valves and combustion chamber surfaces.
Key Findings:
1. The test engine operated on a TOP TIER gasoline averaged 19 times fewer intake valve deposits than when it was operated on non- TOP TIER gasoline. (based on the ASTM D6201 test - TOP TIER gasoline averaged 34.1mg of deposits per intake valve versus non- TOP TIER average of 660.6mg)
2. Based upon secondary research findings, long-term use of a gasoline without an enhanced additive package can lead to reductions in fuel economy of 2-4%, drivability issues, and increased emissions. © 2016 American Automobile Association, Inc. 3
3. In most cases, carbon deposits can be reduced or removed from critical engine components 1 by switching to a gasoline that meets TOP TIER standards
...
Both PIB-amines and PIB-Mannichs are effective at controlling intake valve deposits... ...It is generally believed that the hydrophilic nitrogen-containing region of the detergent is responsible for preventing deposit formation by adhering to the metal surface and forming a thin hydrocarbon film.
Jcamper said:I have two somewhat technical questions/wonderings.
First: how can fuel affect intake valve deposits in a direct injected vehicle? Is there some other large deposit difference?
Second: I am curious about power differences on my BMW E30 (M20 engine) race car between E0 and E10. We can change fuel pressure but otherwise can only do specific chips, no custom programs. Most tests I have seen involve reprogramming.
Jcamper
First question- the intake system deposit on DI engines is very dependent on who's DI engine it is- some are really bad, some are not so bad. Much if it is about the PCV system, and how it deals with crank case flow. Other parts have to do with valve temps- as if you look at the actual brands who are really bad with DI and deposits, they tend to be the same companies that are really bad with intake deposits and PFI.
As for E10- the actual fuel difference is 3% in terms of how much you need. Which is well within the 25% learning rate of all modern motors. Even better if you have WB exhaust sensing. But the reality is that I've never seen a car that does not over fuel during WOT, mostly for component protection needs. So even if there was no learning, the 3% decline in WOT fuel would be a net benefit.
z31maniac said:Basically unless you're in the middle of nowhere, or buy from cheap mom-n-pop type stations, you are getting Top Tier gas.
Damn, my usual source - Wawa - isn't on that list. I guess I'm switching to Exxon, Mobil, Sunoco, or Valero. At least for the 2 new DI cars.
Jcamper said:I have two somewhat technical questions/wonderings.
First: how can fuel affect intake valve deposits in a direct injected vehicle? Is there some other large deposit difference?
Second: I am curious about power differences on my BMW E30 (M20 engine) race car between E0 and E10. We can change fuel pressure but otherwise can only do specific chips, no custom programs. Most tests I have seen involve reprogramming.
Jcamper
Along with those questions does that mean ignition timing cannot be changed to take advantage of the ethanol? I know alcohol likes more ignition advance and with the higher octane of Ethanol 114 octane vs 92-3 octane. Isn’t a significant amount of timing advance called for?
In reply to frenchyd :
Pump E0 vs pump E10? No spark adjustment.
RealMiniNoMore said:In reply to frenchyd :
I'm in the Midwest, in a large metro area, and E85 is slim pickings. I'm not surprised others find it difficult to find, either.
What I have noticed, though, is that it's easier to find in rural areas. At least in SE Wisconsin.
Have you used the app to find E85 or just looked at pumps?
One of my stations that advertised E85 only has one side of one pump that actually sells it. In fact thinking about it, all of the stations by that brand only have one side of one or at most two pumps that actual dispense E85!
The dominant brand of gasoline in Minnesota has a Spotty availability of E85. One station carries it while most don’t. The station that carries E85 is usually located near a competitor that carries E85.
Within 10 miles of my house there are 5 stations that carry E85 while 6 don’t.
alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Pump E0 vs pump E10? No spark adjustment.
Even on cars with flex fuel?
Since they can use a lower octane less than 87 octane fuel and bump up the octane to 87 with the 114 octane of ethanol that probably makes sense.
Minnesota is one of the state’s that does not sell non oxygenated fuel except for 92 octane that cannot be legally used in licensed motor vehicles except collector cars.
In reply to frenchyd :
The question is between pump E0 and pump E10, which have the same octane rating. So no spark changes. Just a 3% difference in flow requirement.
In reply to frenchyd :
Using Gas Buddy, there are 51 stations "near me". Of those 51, five have E85 pumps.
I'd probably have better luck finding Unleaded 88. Is that worth discussing?
bigdaddylee82 said:Ethanol became standard in '07 right?
I have been paying attention since 1985, when my mom would have me pump the gas for her, and I don't remember a time when fuel pumps did NOT say 10% ethanol added. This is in Cleveland.
Additionally, the oldest car for which I ever had an owner's manual (1972 Ford Thunderbird) explicitly said that "gasohol", or what we today call E10, was an acceptable fuel. And that is all I ever fed it, because that is all that was available, and it probably lived its its whole life on E10.
It is nothing new, and it's not a problem. Or, as alfadriver points out, it shouldn't be a problem. If penny-squeezing Ford could figure it out in the 1970s, Husqvarna should have no problem in 2019.
Most of The Sheetz in the Winston-Salem, NC area sells E85 and E15.
When this thread started I said I would run a tank of each through my Fiesta ST. I recently completed task.
In general there was no difference except for the cost.
I ran some rolling acceleration tests,50 to 70. Timed with an old hand held stop watch.
in 6th and 5th there was app a half a second gain from the EO. In 4th I got no difference.
MPG showed a slight gain by the EO but could be caused by driving conditions since it was over 350 miles and there were no attempts for mileage , just regular driving.
36.2 vs 35.4.
Cost, EO 3.33 , 87 premium 2.73. Roughly $6.00 a fill up.
As for driving I could notice no difference.
Hardly worth the difference.
ive run a few tanks of top tier in my ND and I am maybe getting 1 mpg indicated more. so meh.
In reply to MrChaos :
Gaze upon my intake ports!
Yes, there not only is there no SSR to speak of, but there's a sharp lip where the port meets the seat. The lack of SSR is supposed to "tumble" the airflow across the center of the chamber to the other side, and the sharp lip is supposed to break up any un-atomized fuel and re-integrate it into airflow. Certain Toyota-themed head porters would cringe, but I've seen 42mpg from this low tech tubocharged luxury sedan, so it works for economy if not performance.
ANYWAY the point is clean ports! No great gouts of carbon! And this is due to clean living, err... top tier fuel!
In reply to Knurled. :
What oil refinery served your area? I’m lucky we have two, Ashland & Coke. They provide gas to all the stations around within a 300 mile radius. The same tanker that goes to a BP or Shell station serves the independent station.
1 - unless you have a modern engine that has 'search forward' programming, that is the ignition advances until it 'hears' light ping before stopping, you will get no more power from higher octane unless you advance the timing the old way, by twisting the distributor, to take advantage of the higher octane rating. Guys that swear they get more power on their old tech engines with premium without changing ignition advance are mostly self delusional. Ditto those who buy high test because they think it is somehow better for their baby - wasted money.
2 - I own two modern high compression sports cars, one a naturally aspirated engine with 11.5 compression, the other a 9.5 compression motor that is subjected to up to 25 psi of boost. I run ETOH free premium (we are fortunate in being able to get no lead 94 octane where I live). When I go elsewhere (e.g. visit the US) I just run the best available, which is usually 91 with ETOH, trusting to the knock sensor and programming to avoid knock, but still driving with a lighter foot than normal.
3 - although in is counter-intuitive that intake valve deposits would be a factor on DI engines where the fuel charge goes straight into the cylinder, in fact it is a significant problem and requires periodic rectification with shell blasting on some DI engines. Detergents in fuel bypass the valves and spray treatments are usually counter indicated as detrimental to turbo seals. See https://www.aa1car.com/library/intake_valve_deposits_gdi_engines.htm for sources of the deposits
4 - I also own several old sports cars. Some of the rubbers in the fuel systems on them are incompatible with ETOH containing fuels, so to be safe, those systems need rebuilding with modern synthetic seals, but you only have to do it once.
You'll need to log in to post.
