Dodge Challenger Forum banner

61 - 72 of 72 Posts

Registered
Joined
405 Posts
This --> "Ethanol is a lousy fuel additive. And to add insult to injury human consumable food -- corn (in the US) -- is used for its production. "

Thank you Rockster, your statement is 100% correct, and congress ignores it every ( beeping) year! Brazil uses sugar cane for their ethanol.( don't know if that is any better, but I think they view it as Sugar cane is easier to raise than corn.)
Oh well, I like trains, and they get to haul corn around everywhere in covered hoppers. What shakes out going down the tracks, the pigeons & maybe 'parrots' get to eat. 馃悿

Ethanol will eat your your fuel lines. Lexus had a recall back in 2010/2011 to replace my fuel lines with stainless steel. I run non-alcohol in everything, especially in my old Jeep wrangler.
yeah its crazy, always knew you had to buy more ethanol.
best regards
parrott
 

Registered
2018 Scat Pack SHAKER in Plum Crazy
Joined
2,376 Posts
It definitely does, and as stated it is called oxygenated as described st load facilities and bill of lading which if you anything about hazmat you know that everything has to have its official name as well as common name and other information as well
I am not saying it isn't oxygenated, I'm saying the ethanol is not the oxidizer.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
15,972 Posts
I've been going on about the ethanol matter for years - in the early 2Ks, when MBTE (oxygenate) was phased out and ethanol replaced it - I noticed by fuel economy in both the cars (early 90s and early 2K models) decreased by 15 - 18%.

as I researched this, I discovered that the added ethanol (was ~ 7% then) the reason.

so the result was increased fuel consumption and the dent corn [yellow #2 dent] (feed corn for livestock) prices went up - which in turn drove up food prices with regards to poultry / pork / beef. HFCS is also derived from dent corn - so whatever foods (many) are produced using HFCS, those have gone up as well.

I remember my dad commenting on animal feed prices kept going up.

sweet corn is what's used for food for human consumption
 

Registered
Joined
2,753 Posts
I am not saying it isn't oxygenated, I'm saying the ethanol is not the oxidizer.
Of the 3 components of gasoline, iso-octane, heptane, and ethanol, ethanol is the only component with oxygen in its molecular make up. If the oxygen from oxygenated fuel doesn't come from ethanol where does it come from?

Ethanol treated gasoline was to bring extra oxygen into the combustion chamber to offset the rich fuel mixture arising from carburetted engines. But with fuel injected engines and those that have the fuel/air mixture controlled by computer the ethanol is unnecessary. The computer can easily remove fuel and get the mixture to a 14.7:1 which is "perfect" for the converters, provided the engine is healthy.
 

Registered
2018 Scat Pack SHAKER in Plum Crazy
Joined
2,376 Posts
Of the 3 components of gasoline, iso-octane, heptane, and ethanol, ethanol is the only component with oxygen in its molecular make up. If the oxygen from oxygenated fuel doesn't come from ethanol where does it come from?

Ethanol treated gasoline was to bring extra oxygen into the combustion chamber to offset the rich fuel mixture arising from carburetted engines. But with fuel injected engines and those that have the fuel/air mixture controlled by computer the ethanol is unnecessary. The computer can easily remove fuel and get the mixture to a 14.7:1 which is "perfect" for the converters, provided the engine is healthy.
I guess, but I didn't think the burning ethanol releases extra Oxygen, been decades since Chem class. MTBE or whatever did, correct?
All I know is burning pure ethanol you get CO2 and H2O, that doesn't sound to bad.
 

Registered
Joined
2,753 Posts
MTBE is also an oxygenate. It also has oxygen in its molecular make up. As the heat of combustion chamber rises the chains break up to form ignitable compounds. This "releases" the oxygen.

Ethanol when burned produces more than CO2 and H2O. Rather than type this all in allow me to paste this:

Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde.This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity and more ground level ozone. These data have been assembled into The Clean Fuels Report comparison of fuel emissions and show that ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times as much ozone as gasoline exhaust. When this is added into the custom Localised Pollution Index (LPI) of The Clean Fuels Report, the local pollution of ethanol (pollution that contributes to smog) is rated 1.7, where gasoline is 1.0 and higher numbers signify greater pollution.[41] The California Air Resources Board formalized this issue in 2008 by recognizing control standards for formaldehydes as an emissions control group, much like the conventional NOx and Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs).

Really ethanol is not much better than gasoline with regards to pollution. It is the incomplete combustion which produces the pollutants. And incomplete combustion is a characteristic of the internal combustion engine pretty much regardless which fuel it burns. (Hydrogen might be the cleanest burning fuel but it is not that common a fuel for ICEs.)

The converters really perform in some way secondary combustion which helps further reduce the more harmful pollutants into less harmful ones.

And ethanol brings with its production considerable carbon generation.
 

Registered
2020 HellRaisin 1320
Joined
285 Posts
Exactly, they get the same gas, both getting x, now there are additives yes, some are name branded and others are generic but all have detergents in them. Sure not all additives are created equal, however there is only so many chemicals that can be added to fuel that will maintain or at least not lower octane as well as actually blend with it, octane is randomly tested at stations on the spot.
I'm glad you jumped in here. I heard a very long time ago, like 20 some years ago, that the name on the gas station didn't matter, Shell, Texaco, Amoco, Marathon, etc., and that the trucks that deliver the gas to them all loaded up from the exact same fuel depot, and that all the 'my gas is better than your gas' is a bunch of BS as its really all the same.

I used to religously only use Shell which is why someone told me about that. Don't remember who, and never knew how much truth was in that, but to this day every single time I need to fill up I think about that and still wonder. There's a fuel depot or whatever you call it that I used to drive by where I could see fuel trucks lined up to get gas to deliver to stations and everytime I drove by I tried to see if the trucks had any branding on them and if they were lined up at the same tanks.
 

Registered
Joined
200 Posts
I thought MTBE was outlawed because it contained or produced some really bad pollutants. Is ethanol perhaps the lesser of two evils?
 

Registered
Joined
2 Posts
MTBE is a deadly chemical that was leaching into the water table from tank leaks and spills. It apparently is highly hydroscopic (mixes with H2O) and a carcenogen. In CA it was banned, as much of the counties rely on well water.
 

Registered
2016 Scat Pack M6
Joined
81 Posts
If you want a relatively cheap source of 94 octane ethanol free gas that is available everywhere look at Lowes or home depot for 4-cycle lawnmower fuel. The one near me has 5 gallon pails for $35. When I put my motorcycle up for the summer (way too hot to ride around here when it is routinely 105+) I fill the tank with a pail. It has a 5 year shelf life when opened and unlike ethanol fuels it is not nearly as hygroscopic so it is not as corrosive if it is going to sit
 

Super Moderator
Joined
15,972 Posts
MTBE is a deadly chemical that was leaching into the water table from tank leaks and spills. It apparently is highly hydroscopic (mixes with H2O) and a carcenogen. In CA it was banned, as much of the counties rely on well water.
this is true - at the period when MBTE was used as oxygenate for fuels, double-walled UST (storage tanks) were not legislated yet.

when it was discovered what MBTE would do with ground water and the cause were old USTs that were leaking - MBTE was phased out and legislation for double wall USTs went into law.
 

Registered
2016 Scat Pack Shaker
Joined
702 Posts
The 4.7L Dakota benefited from non ethanol gas, the bump in mileage was more than enough to offset the increase in price. On the other hand the 5.7L Ram had a very small gain in mileage using non ethanol gas, not even close to covering the price difference.

For racing the Scat Pack I'm using the highest octane non ethanol I can find locally (usually 90 to 93) boosted to 100 octane with TORCO. My current race tune is for 100 octane. I use my own PITA process to ensure there is little or no ethanol gas in the tank by the time I get to the drag strip. It is difficult to compare results because of the many variables but over time non ethanol gas appears to decrease ET by .05 to .1 or maybe a little more when compared to 93 octane E10 boosted to 100 octane with TORCO.

I'm not an expert on this but E10 / E15 appears to be the worst case for performance. It has neither the energy of pure gas nor the high octane and other benefits of E60 /E90. Wondering what others think.
 
61 - 72 of 72 Posts
Top