Forum Discussion

rk911's avatar
rk911
Explorer
May 03, 2014

E15 Gas Introduced, Car Mfgs Warn Not To Use It

Clicky

the link takes you to a YouTube video, a clip from FBN on the new E-15 ethanol fuel now making its way so some gas stations. Many major car manufacturers have apparently warned customers that using this fuel may void their warranties.
Seeking Advice

71 Replies

Show More
  • weathershak's avatar
    weathershak
    Explorer
    May 10, 2014
    Turtle n Peeps wrote:
    I'd appreciate your opinion of how you can remove 10% of the potential energy in a gallon of gasoline and NOT see a 10% increase in consumption.


    They are not removing 10% of the energy content. And let me show you why.

    You have 10 gallons of straight gasoline and you remove 10% of it. You now have removed 10% of your energy and end up with 9 gallons of straight gasoline.

    Then you replace that one gallon of straight gasoline with one gallon of straight ethanol. You now have 10 gallons of what is called E10.

    Since that "one gallon" of straight ethanol has only around 2/3's the amount of energy as straight gasoline the new E10 you just made has 96 to 97% of the energy of the 100% straight gasoline.

    If you put this new E10 into a car that gets 10MPG on straight gasoline you would now be able to drive around 9.6 to 9.7 miles. So you would lose about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a mile in 10 miles of driving, but you would reduce some smog causing chemicals and gases by 25%!

    That's as simple as I can make it. As Geico says, it's so simple a cave man can get it. :B


    If your statement is true, you should have talked to the government and stopped them from wasting 500 thousand tax payer dollars. Current article.


    BTW...I have worked in the marine industry for over 27 years and want to thank the folks that made E10 fuel possible. We make lots of money doing carb rebuilds and fuel component repairs due to ethanol. We also sell new boats with the NO E15 sticker factory installed by the fuel cap.
  • Turtle_n_Peeps's avatar
    Turtle_n_Peeps
    Explorer
    May 06, 2014
    I'd appreciate your opinion of how you can remove 10% of the potential energy in a gallon of gasoline and NOT see a 10% increase in consumption.


    They are not removing 10% of the energy content. And let me show you why.

    You have 10 gallons of straight gasoline and you remove 10% of it. You now have removed 10% of your energy and end up with 9 gallons of straight gasoline.

    Then you replace that one gallon of straight gasoline with one gallon of straight ethanol. You now have 10 gallons of what is called E10.

    Since that "one gallon" of straight ethanol has only around 2/3's the amount of energy as straight gasoline the new E10 you just made has 96 to 97% of the energy of the 100% straight gasoline.

    If you put this new E10 into a car that gets 10MPG on straight gasoline you would now be able to drive around 9.6 to 9.7 miles. So you would lose about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a mile in 10 miles of driving, but you would reduce some smog causing chemicals and gases by 25%!

    That's as simple as I can make it. As Geico says, it's so simple a cave man can get it. :B
  • Tvov's avatar
    Tvov
    Explorer II
    May 06, 2014
    I run a small landscaping service. The ethanol mix gas does ruin carburetors and can essentially melt the "standard" rubber fuel lines - IF you let the equipment sit for extended periods between use, such as leaf vacuums that only get used in the fall or mowers that aren't used in the winter (I'm up here in New England).

    Most local small engine repairs shops in my area have large signs stating that NO warranties cover fuel-related engine damage.

    I am a member of my local volunteer fire department. We have been fixing and replacing small engines the last few years (water pumps, chain saws, generators, etc) that have been damaged by ethanol fuel. A lot of the FD equipment doesn't get used constantly, but has to be ready instantly when needed. We have had to switch to special extended storage fuel to put in our equipment, "Tool Fuel", that runs around $20+ PER GALLON. This is bulk pricing - this fuel can be $15 PER QUART in your local hardware store. This is one reason your fire department has been asking for more money at budget time.

    Some of the newest equipment coming out has ethanol resistant engine parts, but a lot doesn't, and it can be hard to tell which is which.

    I wonder what kind of environmental impact there has been from throwing away equipment ruined by ethanol (which ran fine previously, and could last for decades longer with good fuel), and having factories build new more expensive equipment that can survive the new fuel.

    I am just going by what I have experienced with ethanol mix fuels.
  • JaxDad's avatar
    JaxDad
    Explorer III
    May 06, 2014
    Turtle n Peeps wrote:
    I've already shown you that several auto makers and the EPA say that the loss is 3 to 4%. At that rate it is .2 to .3 MPG! That is a POINT 2 to POINT 3 MPG loss. Now if .2 or .3 MPG make that much difference in economics of driving your motor home maybe RVing is not for you? Maybe it's time to get out of the game?

    All you have to do is search this forum to see that people are actually losing 10% to 20% since the introduction of Ethanol in gasoline. Manufacturers claims are at very least, suspect, I for one would be VERY happy if any of my autos got the mileage the maker claims it will get.

    I'd appreciate your opinion of how you can remove 10% of the potential energy in a gallon of gasoline and NOT see a 10% increase in consumption.

    A typical automobile engine has a thermal efficiency of 25% or 30%, that means 70% to 75% of the gasoline burned is turned into nothing but waste heat and does no work.

    If you are saying you're reducing the number of BTU's by 10% and only seeing a loss of 3% or 4% that means the engine has suddenly become almost 25% more efficient. That's not possible.


    BTW, none of this addresses the fact that it takes the equivalent of 1.3 gallons of gasoline (in pollution equivalent) to make 1 gallon of Ethanol which even then is only the equivalent to 0.66 gallons of gasoline.

    So, in the end, it takes the equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline to replace 1 gallon of gasoline. Hmmmmm.

    Aaaaaaaaaaa let me take a stab at this one more time. The idea and goal is to reduce smog causing gases and chemicals. Let me give you an example of how I can burn many, many, many gallons of gas and be super clean with almost no smog and air pollution and you can burn less than a pint of gas and cause waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more smog pollution.

    Yes the goal is REDUCE smog and pollution, but in more than just a few big cities. It takes 2 gallons of gasoline to replace 1 gallon of gasoline with corn-based Ethanol. So it means you're actually INCREASING the pollution, but in somebody else's backyard not yours.

  • Turtle_n_Peeps's avatar
    Turtle_n_Peeps
    Explorer
    May 06, 2014
    I have a M/H that's pre-2007, I suspect there's a few of us out there. Is there a government program I'm unaware of to subsidize the cost of buying a newer M/H so we can exploit this new technology?

    None that I know of but lets do a little math to show you that maybe you won't need a new motorhome. Lets say your MH gets 7.5 MPG with straight gasoline. I've already shown you that several auto makers and the EPA say that the loss is 3 to 4%. At that rate it is .2 to .3 MPG! That is a POINT 2 to POINT 3 MPG loss. Now if .2 or .3 MPG make that much difference in economics of driving your motor home maybe RVing is not for you? Maybe it's time to get out of the game?

    Can you please address my example wherein I showed on the '1,000 mile drive' you burned more fuel and made more pollution with E15 than without?
    I thought I already did? Let me try again. If you have an engine burning straight gasoline that emits 10PPM CO and you go and put 10% ethanol in the mix that same engine will now emit 7.5PPM CO. A 25% reduction in smog! :E That is HUGE!! That same engine will reduce HC's to 9.5PPM. A 5% reduction in another type of smog. That is also HUGE!

    'Smog machines' are more "tests", they don't mean much in the 'real world' we live in.
    WT@%^^&??? Are you kidding me? What are we suppose to do? Guess? Ouija Board? Tarot cards? Or look and say, "that one looks good". "That one doesn't." LMAO A smog machine is a scientific way (and only way)to measuring smog causing chemicals and gases.

    BTW, none of this addresses the fact that it takes the equivalent of 1.3 gallons of gasoline (in pollution equivalent) to make 1 gallon of Ethanol which even then is only the equivalent to 0.66 gallons of gasoline.

    So, in the end, it takes the equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline to replace 1 gallon of gasoline. Hmmmmm.

    Aaaaaaaaaaa let me take a stab at this one more time. The idea and goal is to reduce smog causing gases and chemicals. Let me give you an example of how I can burn many, many, many gallons of gas and be super clean with almost no smog and air pollution and you can burn less than a pint of gas and cause waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more smog pollution.
    CEPA, ARB wrote:
    A gasoline-powered lawn mower run for an hour puts out about the same amount of smog-forming emissions as 40 new automobiles run for an hour.


    This means I can drive my (insert any gas hog of your choice) Hummer for 40 hours and I will pollute just as much as you riding your lawn mower for 1 hour!!! Link

    In short, if one burns a clean fuel(ethanol)one can burn a lot more gallons of this type of fuel and cause the same amount of amount of air pollution than burning a small amount of a dirty fuel.

    And now I have to go out and place my ouija board on my car to see how much smog it is making in the real world! :B
  • sonora's avatar
    sonora
    Explorer
    May 06, 2014
    mpierce wrote:
    dodge guy wrote:
    The energy in fuel with 10% E is way less. Enough that my X could barely hold 55mph in a headwind. When i switched to 93 octane my power and mileage came back. When i fill up in WI with real gas my X runs like it was supposed to.


    The ethanol is 10% less energy per gallon than gas. There is a 10% mix. So, 10% of 10% means there is 1% less energy per gallon.

    If the engine is adjusted to compensate, which all in the last 20 years or so are, the power will be the same. You could burn 1% more fuel to do it.

    So, if you had been getting 25 mpg with straight gasoline, you could drop to 24.75 mpg. I defy you to be able to tell that.

    I have been running it since the 80's in all my engines on the farm, and there are a LOT of them, including small ones. I have not had ONE SINGLE PROBLEM.


    If you like the corn gas then use it and be happy. BUT DO NOT FORCE ME TO USE IT!
  • JaxDad's avatar
    JaxDad
    Explorer III
    May 05, 2014
    Turtle n Peeps wrote:
    I can do the math, thank you. I can read too.

    Did you notice the language towards the bottom of page 3 - 1 where it says "Fuel economy decreased (7.7% on average), consistent with the energy density reduction associated with ethanol blending (in limited tests, this trend was observed to continue to E30)."

    This is on at the newest, 2007 vehicles. We have come a long way in computing and tuning since 2007. We have REALLY come a long way since 1999! Like I said; 3 to 4% is the norm now.



    It shows on the smog machine and these reductions are large.
    Like I said above, I'm no alkie fan. But facts are facts and smog machines don't lie.


    I have a M/H that's pre-2007, I suspect there's a few of us out there. Is there a government program I'm unaware of to subsidize the cost of buying a newer M/H so we can exploit this new technology?

    Can you please address my example wherein I showed on the '1,000 mile drive' you burned more fuel and made more pollution with E15 than without?

    'Smog machines' are more "tests", they don't mean much in the 'real world' we live in.

    BTW, none of this addresses the fact that it takes the equivalent of 1.3 gallons of gasoline (in pollution equivalent) to make 1 gallon of Ethanol which even then is only the equivalent to 0.66 gallons of gasoline.

    So, in the end, it takes the equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline to replace 1 gallon of gasoline. Hmmmmm. Anybody remember the $600 toilet seat?

    Government efficiency.
  • Turtle_n_Peeps's avatar
    Turtle_n_Peeps
    Explorer
    May 05, 2014
    I can do the math, thank you. I can read too.

    Did you notice the language towards the bottom of page 3 - 1 where it says "Fuel economy decreased (7.7% on average), consistent with the energy density reduction associated with ethanol blending (in limited tests, this trend was observed to continue to E30)."

    This is on at the newest, 2007 vehicles. We have come a long way in computing and tuning since 2007. We have REALLY come a long way since 1999! Like I said; 3 to 4% is the norm now. Look it up.
    You said:
    JaxDad wrote:
    In the case of E15 then you would be losing ~15% of the energy per gallon.

    It's ludicrous to think if you put 15% alkie in gasoline you will lose 15% mileage. That would give ethanol no energy content and that is just plain silly.

    Notice the words "on average", as in across all of the vehicles ranging from 1999 to 2007 and almost all of which are 4 or 6 cylinder small and mid-size cars. Of the 16 vehicles tested, only TWO are V8 pickups. Both 1/2 ton units with small V8's. Some were then better and some were worse, I'm guessing the older and bigger engines were MUCH worse.

    I'm guessing you're correct not because of a bigger engine but because of old tuning then. Like I said, we have come a long way since that study.

    As for your "alkie" comment, the ~15% reduction I stated should have been explained, it it is 10% for the blended value and other parasitic losses that add another 5% in 'the real world' and of course it incorporates the energy value of the Ethanol.

    The other parasitic losses include things like water ('alkie' is very hygroscopic and contains a lot of water by volume which has no energy and reduces the energy produced), reduced performance because of ECM 'adjustments' to try to correct the mixture, etc., and few vehicles are properly tuned, clean and performing perfectly.

    You can say people lose 15% all you want but that does not make it true. Like I said, it's silly to think adding 15% of any "fuel" will give you a 15% reduction in mileage.

    Further to all of that, the vehicles we are talking about here, maxed out TV's and M/H's are running hot, under heavy throttle and not exactly peaking on the efficiency scale.

    You would be 100% wrong on that statement. I run gasoline in my race engine. I race in the same class as people that run alkie. When it is hot out they make a TON more power than us. When it is cold out, we make around the same about of power but they make a bit more torque so they can get off of the turn a little faster. So as you can see, running hot and under heavy throttle is just what is made for alcohol fuel.

    Finally, that test, is just that, a TEST, under perfect conditions, using perfect lab-grade fuels and likely vehicles that have been 'gone over', no ugly plugs, dirty air cleaners, etc., etc.

    There are a ton more tests out there in real world conditions that show the same to 4% lose that I keep telling you about. Toyota and Ford even says 3%.
    Or are they lying too? :R Must be a conspiracy. :R I have more and I will post them if you want?


    Speaking of doing the math, lets say you take a car that gets 24 MPG and drive it 1,000 miles on E0 fuel, total gas burned 41.67 gallons.

    Then you take the same car and drive that 1,000 miles on E15 gasoline, but it losses 15% on the mileage so now it only gets 20.4 MPG, total fuel burned is now 49.02 gallons, 85% of which is gasoline, or 41.67 gallons.

    In both cases you burned 41.67 gallons, except with the E15 fuel you ALSO burned an additional 7.35 gallons of Ethanol on top.

    So then you've actually burned more fuel and created more pollution than you did before we had this "new improved, less polluting gasoline".

    Oh, and we've spent a lot more on fuel and food costs along the way.


    Government logic at it's finest.

    I can tell by that statement you have never ran a smog machine in your life. I have. The reduction in CO's is VERY large by adding a small % of alcohol in the gasoline. 20 to 25%. And then there is the reduction of HC's; around 5% or so.

    It shows on the smog machine and these reductions are large.
    Like I said above, I'm no alkie fan. But facts are facts and smog machines don't lie.
  • JaxDad's avatar
    JaxDad
    Explorer III
    May 05, 2014
    I can do the math, thank you. I can read too.

    Did you notice the language towards the bottom of page 3 - 1 where it says "Fuel economy decreased (7.7% on average), consistent with the energy density reduction associated with ethanol blending (in limited tests, this trend was observed to continue to E30)."

    Notice the words "on average", as in across all of the vehicles ranging from 1999 to 2007 and almost all of which are 4 or 6 cylinder small and mid-size cars. Of the 16 vehicles tested, only TWO are V8 pickups. Both 1/2 ton units with small V8's. Some were then better and some were worse, I'm guessing the older and bigger engines were MUCH worse.

    As for your "alkie" comment, the ~15% reduction I stated should have been explained, it it is 10% for the blended value and other parasitic losses that add another 5% in 'the real world' and of course it incorporates the energy value of the Ethanol.

    The other parasitic losses include things like water ('alkie' is very hygroscopic and contains a lot of water by volume which has no energy and reduces the energy produced), reduced performance because of ECM 'adjustments' to try to correct the mixture, etc., and few vehicles are properly tuned, clean and performing perfectly.

    Further to all of that, the vehicles we are talking about here, maxed out TV's and M/H's are running hot, under heavy throttle and not exactly peaking on the efficiency scale.

    Finally, that test, is just that, a TEST, under perfect conditions, using perfect lab-grade fuels and likely vehicles that have been 'gone over', no ugly plugs, dirty air cleaners, etc., etc.


    Speaking of doing the math, lets say you take a car that gets 24 MPG and drive it 1,000 miles on E0 fuel, total gas burned 41.67 gallons.

    Then you take the same car and drive that 1,000 miles on E15 gasoline, but it losses 15% on the mileage so now it only gets 20.4 MPG, total fuel burned is now 49.02 gallons, 85% of which is gasoline, or 41.67 gallons.

    In both cases you burned 41.67 gallons, except with the E15 fuel you ALSO burned an additional 7.35 gallons of Ethanol on top.

    So then you've actually burned more fuel and created more pollution than you did before we had this "new improved, less polluting gasoline".

    Oh, and we've spent a lot more on fuel and food costs along the way.


    Government logic at it's finest.

About RV Tips & Tricks

Looking for advice before your next adventure? Look no further.25,151 PostsLatest Activity: Jul 25, 2025