As an engineer, I hate "feelings" not supported by hard data.1/4 tank left, went with premium. With tank down to 1/4 again, came across a station offering 93 ethanol free and filled it up again. started climbing the hills between SC and NC. Filled up again at another station in NC and proceeded over the mountain.I perceived the turbo working a lot less and engine just seemed to be smoother. Not the experience I was expecting.

philh wrote:As an engineer, I hate "feelings" not supported by hard data.I perceived the turbo working a lot less and engine just seemed to be smoother. Not the experience I was expecting.Then as an engineer, what you perceive is just a "feeling" until you prove it! lol

There's is no comparison. Non ethanol gas is much better for performance and mileage than gas with ethanol added. When I had my V-10 Excursion I filled with 93 non ethanol when ever I could. Always felt like I picked up another 30HP when I did. And I gained noticeable fuel mileage.

“Feelings?” National Enquirer and Car and Driver report “feelings” regarding unknown vehicles.

Well so far a lot of feelings but no data to support the feelings. Did you get better mileage based on cost per mile? Was the extra mileage worth the extra cost? I have no qualms about real gas being better but at 30-50 cents a gallon more is it worth it? For small engines like lawn mowers and leaf blowers perhaps.

My perception on real gas | Good Sam Community

47 Replies

mich800
Explorer
Jan 08, 2020
Bedlam wrote:
If fuel is mandated to be mixed with ethanol, it creates an artificial demand that would not exist without this requirement. Perhaps direct subsidies are not going to the farmers, but a demand is still being created for them.

I have a hard time understanding the economics of farming. I see many farms working at a loss year after year and just building up debt until the farm collapses and bankruptcy clears the debt. I am not close enough to this industry to see where the disconnect is between pricing, supply and demand.

I cannot think of one fuel source that does not have subsidies in some form. So whether it is to the consumer, producer or supplier, gas, electric, or other someone is getting a kick back.
Huntindog
Explorer
Jan 08, 2020
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Maybe I should tell my buddy to change his car from an alkie car to a gasoline car if gas makes more power.

There is a reason alkie makes more power than gasoline. Especially in supercharged cars. Alkie has O2 in it and gasoline does not.

Alkie (or gasoline with alkie) also has higher octane which does wonders with power on supercharged vehicles.
I have a pure apple to apples experience on this.
In 97 or so, I joinned a sprint car race team. In the begining we ran a mini sprint, and the rules allowed either gas or alcohol. The car we had ran on gas. Power was not an issue.There were only 2-3 gas powered cars running, and we had the only consistant front runner. It was a bit of a hassle, as the alcohol guys were suspicious of the gas guys. When we had a good night there was always a challange as to our fuel being doctored. We had to have it tested often, always passing the test. We soon went to alcohol, partly because of the hassle, but mostly because the motor just ran too hot on gas. The alcohol carbs were huge, and the consuption skyrocketed, but the motor ran nice and cool.

The consenusus was that the volume of alcohol was shedding more heat out of the exhaust.
IDN, but I do know that power was not an issue with either fuel..It just took a LOT more alcohol to do the job compared to gas.

Yep Dog, we had sort of the same thing going on.

On cool days our gas engine could hang with the alkie boys. But in the hot weather we would flat out get left off of the turn. They would pull a lot harder because the alkie had it's own O2 on board the fuel unlike our gas. We also ran carbs so it would intercool the manifold which gave them even more power.

The alkie boys had a hard time to keep their handling in check because they burned twice the fuel (methanol) and that would upset the handling of the car later in the race.

They would burn twice the fuel and upset their handling but they would also make more power.

Just like life. Give and take.

OP here is a good article on gas & alkie. (Yes I know this is about methanol and the E in E10 is ethanol. And you will get more power out of methanol than ethanol for the reasons you get more power out of ethanol than gasoline.)
For us, both fuels provided good power. lap times were good with both. The gas power though got the oil hotter than wqas desireable.
When we went to alcohol, there was a new issue:
Weight. The weight of the extra fuel we had to have in the cell. That made for many debates in the pits. How much extra weight vs. running out, and how it changed the handling of the car. The gas used so much less, as to make that a non issue.
MFL
Nomad II
Jan 08, 2020
Bedlam wrote:
If fuel is mandated to be mixed with ethanol, it creates an artificial demand that would not exist without this requirement. Perhaps direct subsidies are not going to the farmers, but a demand is still being created for them.

I have a hard time understanding the economics of farming. I see many farms working at a loss year after year and just building up debt until the farm collapses and bankruptcy clears the debt. I am not close enough to this industry to see where the disconnect is between pricing, supply and demand.

Yes, like any market, corn goes up/down, but using it to make ethanol does create an artificial market. Farmers get many subsidies, a nice term for handouts, to keep them going. If one does not run any business responsibly, it will fail. You can't squander the money made during good years, then expect a handout when a lean year follows. Another problem is operating a 250K farm with a million dollars worth of equipment. It is nice to get the planting/harvesting done in a week, but not necessary.

However, like most things political, it is the producers of this ethanol that are flourishing, using every ones tax dollars. They are the ones the politicians are helping, as they help the politicians. On the open market ethanol would not work, it costs way more than gasoline to produce. By using tax dollars to pay this high price, it has eliminated the competition for regular gas. Stations can't sell much regular for .30 a gallon more, so most don't even sell it. Without our tax dollars, it would be reversed, no one would pay more for ethanol.

Apologize for the rant, not meant to offend anyone, other than these filthy rich ethanol producers, that are bribing our elected officials.

Jerry
philh
Explorer III
Jan 08, 2020
Bedlam wrote:
The last study I have seen was that creating Ethanol took more energy than the result. Although it may be cleaner burning, this makes little sense to me. I see it more as farm subsidy than alternate energy source.

The concept as proposed, ethanol would save oil. Reality is, it uses as much, if not more than it saves.

Even worse is the amount of water that is poured on the crops to increase the yield. In south central MI, they've had to dig the wells deeper and the quality of water that is coming out of the wells has gotten much worse.
Bedlam
Moderator
Jan 08, 2020
If fuel is mandated to be mixed with ethanol, it creates an artificial demand that would not exist without this requirement. Perhaps direct subsidies are not going to the farmers, but a demand is still being created for them.

I have a hard time understanding the economics of farming. I see many farms working at a loss year after year and just building up debt until the farm collapses and bankruptcy clears the debt. I am not close enough to this industry to see where the disconnect is between pricing, supply and demand.
Grit_dog
Navigator III
Jan 08, 2020
"If you disagree, fine. Post any legit article and I will read it."

I get it and I said I agree with you at least twice. With the caveat being if you "can" give it more fuel, or if you "know" what the actual fuel was.
There are plenty of scenarios where you "can't" give it more fuel, so the equal volume of alky laced gasoline will make less power, all other things equal.
Besides, when we're talking E10 and a max of 3% difference, unless in a very controlled setting, that is borderline imperceptible.
However, unless you're certain that when the OPs engine is running pure gas, it pulls enough fuel back compared to running E10 to put it at a disadvantage compared to E10 then your broad brush statement doesn't work.
All I'm saying is you 100% dismissed that it is possible for the OPs truck to run better on pure gas than E10 and that it in fact had to have been making less power.
Of course we're splitting hairs here, now, because apples to apples, that 3% difference is now likely 2% because there was 1/4 tank of E10 left in the tank upon fillup, or maybe it was 1.5% because the E10 was actually only 6% ethanol.

Again, I AGREE with you on the merits of alcohol content in fuel. But in an uncontrolled experiment it does not mean those inherent merits had any positive affect, and as you claim, they could not have possibly had ANY negative effect which is countering the OP's butt dyno.
mkirsch
Nomad II
Jan 08, 2020
Bedlam wrote:
The last study I have seen was that creating Ethanol took more energy than the result. Although it may be cleaner burning, this makes little sense to me. I see it more as farm subsidy than alternate energy source.

Except, there is no longer an ethanol subsidy being paid. Hasn't been one for years.

When there was a subsidy corn was pushing $8 a bushel. Now it's <$4 a bushel, same price range as it was in 1974.

Only farmers get to work for the same pay they were receiving 46 years ago.
Bedlam
Moderator
Jan 08, 2020
The last study I have seen was that creating Ethanol took more energy than the result. Although it may be cleaner burning, this makes little sense to me. I see it more as farm subsidy than alternate energy source.
Lynnmor
Explorer II
Jan 08, 2020
For the most part, ethanol exists to buy votes in those square states.
aftermath
Explorer III
Jan 08, 2020
This has been an enjoyable read. The experts, on both sides, have jumped in and yet it still remains quite confusing. One issue that has yet to be mentioned is why do we have blended gas today? It was a government decision made to help improve the atmosphere. I lived in southern California in the '60s. Driving down into the LA basin was like driving into a black/brown cloud of pollution. It was visible, it was uncomfortable to the eyes and it even smelled. Today, even tough there are many more cars and trucks, it isn't even close to what it used to be.
When the experiment began there were many good arguments against it. Existing engines were not designed to deal with ethanol. It did create issues with loss of power and degrading of rubber tubing and such. Today, those arguments no longer exist,unless you are driving a classic.
So, if you don't care about the air we breathe, and you willingly agree to pay extra at the pump in search of a tiny improvement in power and mileage then buy that "real" gas. My "gut feeling" is that you will notice perhaps a very small increase in performance while you pay a small increase in money all the while you increase your footprint in polluting the air we all share.