Using ethanol free gas.

[gazingm42]

I have a 2014 Ram 3500 w/ 6.4 Hemi. I have been using the pure gas which is 100% ethanol Free. While it more $$ I get around 4MPG in the city and about 6 MPG on the highway, your mileage may vary. So in the long run it cheaper per gallon but I have more power in the truck and don't have the issues that ethanol can caused long term.

Just curious on others if they used this while towing and what type
of results they have seen?

Thanks

[empty_nest]

Since they started selling ethanol-free gas in my town, I run it religiously in my outboard motor. Ethanol is a killer to high performance 2-stroke engines. It's worth the extra cost. Still cheaper that a $6k rebuild. Have not tried it in my truck or MH.

[Roy_Lynne]

down home wrote:
Ethanol is pure crony capitalism. Payback to Big Ag contributors.
It is a net increase in use of resources and has caused billions of dollars in equipment damages There are lots that repeat the pr campaigning points, of the media attesting to its benefits, when science and honest reporting shows it is costing society and our pocket books big time, in all areas including most prominently food costs and avilability. Lots more corn and soybeans and a lot less in food crops and variety.

Yep. And we drove the back roads cross country and I swear all we saw was corn.

[wa8yxm]

Alcohol is safe.. So I never spent a week in a burn unit healing from burns from an alcohol fire I guess. Only I did and that's a fact.

Page 2

I read a lot of stuff I can not comment on beyond to say "First I ever heard of that) about phase separation and the Octane differences and so on

Facts. Alcohol has been added to gasoline for a lot longer than you know (Only not so much) Rember the ads for Standard Gas back in it's day "My Advice Sir, Get De-Icer". Well that was HEET brand gasline anterfreeze.. ALCOHOL about 1%

The alcohol absorbs water in the tank agitation mixes it with the gas and it goes out the tail pipe as water vapor after heat separates in during combustion,


Of course that is not today's E-10

In a properly running engine. increasing the OCTANE rating of the fuel will NOT increase mileage provided you do not go beyond design MINIMUM reducing it will not either. NOTE The need to be properly tuned. I had a car once with a bad Carb. It ran better on Mid-Grade till I replaced the carb.

The difference comes from the scientists lab

If you burn say a fluid ounce of Gasoline it will release a specific amount of energy.. Burn a fluid ounch of alcohol and likewise it will release a specific amount of energy.. A MUCH SMALLER amount than the gasoline did.

This is where the loss of MPG comes from the fuel has.. if you will pardon the term Less PUNCH At one time I had the numbers but not today.

By the way the folks who push E-10 talk about the enviorment.. How use of Alcohol causes less pollution and results in less use of oil over all.
But they tend to forget the oil used to plant the corn cultivate and harvest it make the field ready for planting. transportation to the still. distilling the alcohol and so on. THe final result is an INCREASE iu pollution over all. All they accomplish is relocation of the pollution from the city to the country.

But that.. Is how things work I am afraid to say.

[LeonK]

Bioethanol is really a great option. It is safe for the environment and can be used in a number of ways. For example, I recently have bought a freestanding ethanol fireplace at Planika https://www.store.planikausa.com It is so great! Ethanol makes it safe and pollution free!

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Phase separation does NOT require a particular temperature range or time frame. It is caused by exceeding the point at which the fuel blend (10% Ethanol) can no longer absorb any more water, but the ethanol can still absorb more water and it's available to be absorbed. When that threshold is surpassed the water-laden alcohol drops out of solution with the gasoline. At that point you no longer have 50 gallons of E10 in your tank, you have 45 gallons of E0 gasoline and 5 gallons of straight, albeit water-laden, Ethanol. When that hits your engine, the fertilizer hits the rotary air circulation device.

Funny, that is not what you said before? LOL

In fact YOU capped NOT for emphasis.
Move goal posts much? LOL

You need a better source than Wiki. It's failing you.

I'll give you a clue. The reason 99.99999999 of the general population has never heard about phase separation is because it about as rare as finding a 3 pound of gold in your grandma's attic.
If knew anything about engine controls and it was common, the engine would get a big gulp of water and alky and go dead lean and instantly set a misfire and lean code.

BTW, I've seen fuel samples in my county and they were all to spec except one sample in 13 years. If you think you have a fuel problem with adulteration I suggest you talk to your local W&M officials. They are there to help you.

[JaxDad]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Happens all the time. People are mistaken or don't know the facts all the time. Take you for instance. You didn't know that phase separation was dependent on temperature until I showed you a link.

You're a funny guy, but please stick with the truth. Yes I know it's temperature dependant, but we're not talking about hot or cold extremes.

BTW, I notice you never commented on the zero HC's because of additives or the host of other flaws with the EPA / corn lobby 'science' I've offered over the years, just the same old gibberish over and over.

Also, while we're on the subject of the unexplained, would you care to give us the benefit of your opinion on why in a single year the ethanol imports into Canada jumped by 365,000,000 litres in 2012?

Because if nobody is adulterating E10 for huge profits, and gasoline consumption didn't increase, there's about 3.65 BILLION litres of gasoline unaccounted for. That, in 2012, amounts to almost 10% of the entire countries consumption.

But people would never spike fuel with extra ethanol merely to make an extra $292 million. That's how much 365 million litres of ethanol sold at pump price as gasoline would net.

[Rick_Jay]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Happens all the time. People are mistaken or don't know the facts all the time.

Just for the record. I know the facts. And I am quite capable of calculating miles per gallon. I do it on every tankful. I maintain that on ALL of our vehicles which have run both real gas and E10, the average mpg decrease is about 10% on the E10. If we should be travelling in an area and I happen to find real gas, there is a noticeable increase. If the decrease in using E10 was just what the government states, then it wouldn't be so noticeable.

Also for the record, I now have 3 vehicles which I have measured this: a 2001 Honda, a 2003 Suzuki and our 2004 W-22 Workhorse. I also noticed it on my 1988 Honda, but I no longer drive that vehicle. Each of the other three vehicles were driven and fuel mpg calculated before our state made E10 a requirement. So I had numerous opportunities to compare depending upon which station I filled up at. Sometimes it was less than a 10% difference, sometimes a bit more. But in round numbers, for all four vehicles driven in real world conditions, E10 caused about a 10% decrease in calculated mpg. Summer, winter, spring & fall.

Now, perhaps the newer vehicles deal with it better. I don't know. And seeing as I expect to get another 100,000 miles out of each of our current vehicles, we probably won't be buying a new car for another 10-12 years or so.

You can believe what you want. I'll believe what I KNOW. Just don't suggest I'm mistaken on this issue. I am not. And neither are many others who have observed results similar to mine.

~Rick

(NOTE: It bothers me when "scientists" and "engineers" consider their "lab results" or "calculations" as the only correct answer and refuse to believe real world results when they differ. And yes, I am one. 🙂 It's also pretty obvious that the government and the ethanol industry will slant their test results in whatever way possible to put their product or political decision in a favorable light.

Or, look at it this way. If ethanol was so "good" why did it have to be forced upon us? Most people wouldn't even notice a 1% decrease in mpg. It could've been done without being required by law as people would've flocked to it because it was (should have been) cheaper than regular gas. But in reality, it wasn't, and the decrease in mpg is almost 10 times worse then they claimed. So no one flocked to it. And it was forced upon us.)

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

JaxDad wrote:

Grit dog wrote:

gazingm42 wrote:
Yes it improving my mileage about 4 MPG. I jumped from 14 in the city to over 18.

Umm, no it didn't.
And unless you are storing the truck for a while, save your $ and don't bother with no E gas. It's not going to hurt anything in newer vehicles if used while fresh.
Same truck running 100% no E gas in AK, averaged 12-13 mpg commuting, sea level. In WA, similar commute, sea level, ethanol, avg 12-13 mpg.

Rick Jay wrote:
On all of our vehicles, I've noticed about a 10% decrease in real world mpg.

When we first got the motorhome, it was averaging about high 7's to low 8's for mpg. Once the E10 became all we could get, that range dropped to high 6's to low 7's.

I know what the math numbers (and the government) say, but every one of my vehicles disagrees with those numbers. A 10% decrease is what I observe.


Sure wish we could get real gas again.

~Rick

So are you saying these two members are lying, or they just don't know what they're talking about?

If you read the results of folks responding to fuel economy polls, the largest group is saying they are losing +10% on E10.

Happens all the time. People are mistaken or don't know the facts all the time. Take you for instance. You didn't know that phase separation was dependent on temperature until I showed you a link.

Here is a prime example of this happening with the "infamous Tornado". It gets a 3.3 stars out of 5 stars. Not too bad for something that does not work at all!!!! We know the Tornado doesn't work but yet again over 3/5's of people that bought them gave it a favorable rating.

Same thing for HHO. :R Like the Tornado, we know it doesn't work but yet people say they get 30, 40, 75% or more improvement in fuel mileage with it. :R One infamous guy said that he could run his car on 100% water!!! :S

Here is a guy claiming he doubled his fuel mileage with HHO. There are many, many, many more like him.

Using your logic, the two above examples must work great because over 50% of the people that use them say they do. :R

When the double blind studies are done, all of the real facts come out. 🙂

[tpi]

From what I've read the fuel economy hit is about 3% maybe as much as 4%. Ford and Toyota claim 3%. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise-except when something has gone very wrong. That's 1 MPG on a 30 MPG vehicle, and .3 MPG on a 10 MPG vehicle.

According to what I've read EPA fuel economy is calculated with non alcohol fuels. Why I don't know...they're not generally available :?

My car runs slightly shy of the EPA rating but not grossly so. I'm inclined to believe the 3% figures.

Out of curiosity I checked with local sea water marina-they too sell gasoline with the ethanol.

[westend]

"Suspicions that the industry is topping the tank with ethanol have arisen because of a dramatic surge of imports from the U.S., which rose 150 per cent last year to 1.1 billion litres, the equivalent of more than 10,000 rail tank cars."

Wouldn't this be in relation to some other country than the US since it says "from the US"? Where are you getting this information?

[JaxDad]

westend wrote:
Are those folks polled in areas where Ethanol added gas has recently been introduced? Is E10 new to some areas of the US and Canada?

There's no way to tell where the people responding are from.

AFAIK there's not been any new areas getting E10 that didn't previously have it in 5 years.

An interesting aside though, while the government doesn't like people talking about fuel spiking, an article from 2012 made this interesting statement;

"Suspicions that the industry is topping the tank with ethanol have arisen because of a dramatic surge of imports from the U.S., which rose 150 per cent last year to 1.1 billion litres, the equivalent of more than 10,000 rail tank cars."

It's interesting because fuel consumption stayed the same and no new areas required increased ethanol content.

So the $64 dollar question is where did the extra 365 million litres (96.5 million US gallons) of ethanol go if not into the gasoline supply chain?

[westend]

Are those folks polled in areas where Ethanol added gas has recently been introduced? Is E10 new to some areas of the US and Canada? I don't keep track of Ethanol's introduction to different areas as in MN it has been mandated for many years. I kind of assumed it was used everywhere and has been that way for years. I haven't traveled out of State for many years and if I did, probably didn't pay attention.

[JaxDad]

Grit dog wrote:

gazingm42 wrote:
Yes it improving my mileage about 4 MPG. I jumped from 14 in the city to over 18.

Umm, no it didn't.
And unless you are storing the truck for a while, save your $ and don't bother with no E gas. It's not going to hurt anything in newer vehicles if used while fresh.
Same truck running 100% no E gas in AK, averaged 12-13 mpg commuting, sea level. In WA, similar commute, sea level, ethanol, avg 12-13 mpg.

Rick Jay wrote:
On all of our vehicles, I've noticed about a 10% decrease in real world mpg.

When we first got the motorhome, it was averaging about high 7's to low 8's for mpg. Once the E10 became all we could get, that range dropped to high 6's to low 7's.

I know what the math numbers (and the government) say, but every one of my vehicles disagrees with those numbers. A 10% decrease is what I observe.


Sure wish we could get real gas again.

~Rick

So are you saying these two members are lying, or they just don't know what they're talking about?

If you read the results of folks responding to fuel economy polls, the largest group is saying they are losing +10% on E10.

[Grit_dog]

gazingm42 wrote:
Yes it improving my mileage about 4 MPG. I jumped from 14 in the city to over 18.

Umm, no it didn't.
And unless you are storing the truck for a while, save your $ and don't bother with no E gas. It's not going to hurt anything in newer vehicles if used while fresh.
Same truck running 100% no E gas in AK, averaged 12-13 mpg commuting, sea level. In WA, similar commute, sea level, ethanol, avg 12-13 mpg.