10% ethanol

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

bamboo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Posts
98
Has anyone had any problem using ethanol gas, I have heard some boaters are having problem with it because they don't use them regularly
 
My Workhorse owners manual says it's okay to use 10%.
I have used it a few times and could see no difference.
Gas mileage should decrease slightly but it was lost among the variables such as headwinds and grades.
 
Ethanol use does not contribute even one iota to improving the enviorment.  Use of ethanal begins with its manufacture where a bigger carbon footprint is created in it manufacture.  Oh yes it could be done with less carbon but it isn't.  Use of ethanol decreases milage so in reality there is no gain since more fuel is burned to go a given distance.  The whole ethanol thing as it exists todays just a big put on IMHO.
 
Nere in Fort Collins, and the rest of this area, there is no choice--10% at all the pumps. Have had absolutely no problems with it in MH or car. Rated at 85 octane, the Winnie Fiord works without any problem even at 10,000 feet altitude going uphill. This is not an endorsement for the stuff, just a comment.
Tweedy
 
I ran E-85 in my truck for a couple months this summer mostly to see how it worked. The motor runs just fine, maybe even better than regular. It does reduce mileage. Funny thing is that for local driving the reduction isn't too bad. But for highway driving the reduction is more. In the middle of the summer it was 50 - 60 cents cheaper than regular. A couple days ago I noticed E-85 was $1.94 and regular was $1.58. So things have changed.
I only towed my trailer once this summer & with 10% it got 9.8 mpg and with regular with no ethanol it would get 10.4 mpg. You can still get plain regular in some spots in Mi. but it's mostly 10% now. I use a ScanguageII to check mileage. I mostly tow between 62-63 mph. The computer knows when it has ethanol in the tank. It advances the timing just a bit more when you drive.  Also on a cold start in the morning it smells like you've been drinking all night.
 
Ron said:
Ethanol use does not contribute even one iota to improving the enviorment.  Use of ethanal begins with its manufacture where a bigger carbon footprint is created in it manufacture.  Oh yes it could be done with less carbon but it isn't.  Use of ethanol decreases milage so in reality there is no gain since more fuel is burned to go a given distance.  The whole ethanol thing as it exists todays just a big put on IMHO.

Agreed.  Takes more energy to produce than you get from burning it.  It's used here to "oxygenate" the fuel for winter usage to reduce smog.  Ethanol wouldn't exist without govt subsidies. 
 
Regardless of everyone's political stance on ethanol ;) I think it's safe to say that most of us are forced to use the 10% mixture and there really is no noticeable difference in an RV, since we get such horrible gas mileage anyway.

As far as E-85, DO NOT USE THIS IN YOUR VEHICLE UNLESS IT IS RATED FOR IT.  That stuff is up to 85% ethanol, compared to the 10% blend standard gasoline we are talking about here.  Your engine might burn E-85 just fine, but over time it will internally damage your fuel lines and other components of the fuel system designed for gasoline.  There is a misunderstanding out there that E-85 is just 85 octane gasoline that's better for the environment, but that is NOT the case.
 
I have no emperical evidence to prove it, but I have found through experience that you cannot let any vehicle set for any lenght of time before starting the engine. I have two antique cars and a Honda scooter. None of which are used on a regular basis. If they set more than a few days without being started, they will all need special attention when trying to start them. This didn't use to be when we had good gasoline.

Don't know whether or not you can chalk this up to ethanol or just new blends of gas. I just know that it is a pain.

Does anyone else know whether or not stabil will help? I have not tried this yet.

Jerry
 
Jerrygroah said:
Don't know whether or not you can chalk this up to ethanol or just new blends of gas. I just know that it is a pain.

Does anyone else know whether or not stabil will help? I have not tried this yet.

Jerry, I have the same exact experience with my '69 Pontiac Executive.  And I generally fill it up with Shell V-Power premium or Mobil premium.  I know the Shell gas is ethanol-free, but not sure about the Mobil.  However it is generally months if not a year between tank fillings.  I do use Stabil (in fact the tank is due for another dose as we head into winter) and it doesn't seem to change anything in that regard.  My MH starts up okay generally, even after sitting for awhile.  I attribute that to the fuel injection, which my '69 auto certainly does not have.  ;)
 
Jerrygroah said:
I have no emperical evidence to prove it, but I have found through experience that you cannot let any vehicle set for any lenght of time before starting the engine. I have two antique cars and a Honda scooter. None of which are used on a regular basis. If they set more than a few days without being started, they will all need special attention when trying to start them. This didn't use to be when we had good gasoline.

Jerry

Around the turn of the century (ooh, doesn't that sound like a long time ago ;D ;D) we used to leave our daily driver home for the summer while we toured eastern race tracks towing our race/street car. Usually gone for 4-6 months. The daily driver always started right up when we got back.
 
When i went through Iowa all they had was 10% but it was 89 octane i didn't notice the drop off in fuel economy in my car. Haven't used it in the tow vehicle so don't know how it will effect it. but it might as well be 10% water.
 
Jerrygroah said:
I have no emperical evidence to prove it, but I have found through experience that you cannot let any vehicle set for any lenght of time before starting the engine. I have two antique cars and a Honda scooter. None of which are used on a regular basis. If they set more than a few days without being started, they will all need special attention when trying to start them. This didn't use to be when we had good gasoline.

Shhhh don't tell our 73 Jeep pickup that sets for months sometime without being started with no problem. ;D  The only time we had difficulty starting the 73 after setting for a year was when we had an Exide battery and replacing the battery was required.  Got rid of the Exide battery and no problems since.
 
The only time we had difficulty starting the 73 after setting for a year was when we had an Exide battery and replacing the battery was required.

Ah, that explains why you don't like Exide batteries Ron  ;D
 
I own 5 automobiles, 1948 - 2002, my 72 olds 442 requires 90 octane or better, it's getting harder to find these days along with gas that does not have 10% ethanol.  I never thought they would make gas out of food, but never thought you could sell water, wish I'd have bought stock in bottle water lol.
 
Yup that explains why Ron likes Exide batteries so much.  ;D But I have to agree with him.

When i went through Iowa all they had was 10% but it was 89 octane i didn't notice the drop off in fuel economy in my car. Haven't used it in the tow vehicle so don't know how it will effect it. but it might as well be 10% water.
When I was doing my test on Ethanol in a Ford pickup I noticed a slight drop off in mileage with 10% (9.8 vs 10.4) when towing. That was with only one trip. The E-85 is 105 octane. I'm not sure if it advances the timing more with 10%. With E-85 it will run about 39 deg advance most of the time. I don't recall more than 36 deg with regular. But I never watched it that much.

 
Tom said:
Ah, that explains why you don't like Exide batteries Ron  ;D

Yep one of the reasons.  I exchanged the Exide a couple times on the warranty but got tired of removing the Exide and decided warranty just wasn't worth the trouble.  Replace battery with a good brand and have not had a problem since.
 
I am amazed that on this thread we have not considered the effects of North America's use of ethanol as a fuel in causing starvation in the Third World.
Using crops for fuel means that the Third World is starved for carbohydrates/food, and it is very unfortunate that our efforts to produce a "green" effect on fuel consumption means that people die from starvation.
But it is so.
We should dump the whole ethanol idea.

Rankjo
 
rankjo said:
I am amazed that on this thread we have not considered the effects of North America's use of ethanol as a fuel in causing starvation in the Third World.
Using crops for fuel means that the Third World is starved for carbohydrates/food, and it is very unfortunate that our efforts to produce a "green" effect on fuel consumption means that people die from starvation.
But it is so.
We should dump the whole ethanol idea.

I agree that promoting ethanol is not a good thing since it does not really reduce the carbon footprint since it make a larger carbon footprint to manufacture and use it.  However, I also believe we should be taking care of our own too.
 
re "take care of our own"
Ron, I can't disagree with that.
But the ethanol foolishness drove the price of corn skyhigh, and people in other countries starved because of it.  And people who hate America and Canada for our wealth hated us a little more, and were more inclined to favour terrorism, and so it goes on.

Rankjo
 
A few nuggets on ethanol based on my industry experience with it:


1) Not all ethanol is the same.  Sugar cane based ethanol is much more efficient to produce than corn based ethanol.  Brazil uses about 85% ethanol in their vehicles (sugar based) and has been very successful at converting their system to ethanol over the last 25 years.  Cellulosic corn based ethanol is where the technology is heading and should replace the current thermally derived ethanol over the next ten years improving net-cycle efficiency from about 15% (85% of a current gallon of ethanol is wasted in production, 15% arrives at the consumer) to about 70%.  Even thermally produced corn ethanol is not "negative" in it's energy value/carbon footprint, it's just not very beneficial due to the massive thermal requirements in fermentation.

2) Ethanol is not starving anyone anywhere, corn subsidies are.  Farmers in the U.S. are paid not to grow corn to keep the price artificially inflated.  Ethanol further drives prices up, yes, but if ethanol weren't there those farmers would not be growing corn for export in the absence of ethanol, this is a fallacy perpetrated by the livestock industry since they want/need cheap feedstock for their animals.

3) The worst environmental effects of corn based ethanol are due to the fact that corn is a very destructive crop.  It has a very poor root system leading to increased erosion, it strips massive amounts of nitrogen from the soil, requiring significantly higher fertilization rates and nitrogen run-off into our river water systems, which leads to increased bacterial and algal growth and BOD in surface water systems, decreased aquatic diversity, etc.

4) Ethanol "must" be used as an oxygenator in fuels sold in the 26 NOx SIP Call states east of the Mississippi and all NOx non-attainment zones in the U.S. because EPA outlawed the use of MTBE for this purpose in 2006.  MTBE was banned as an additive because it was found to have catastrophic effects on ground water if it leaked from underground storage tanks, which occurred with alarming frequency.  The only alternative to ethanol at this point would be to require massive catalytic converters on cars to ensure complete combustion of VOC's along with some form of ammonia or urea based injection to control formation of NOx.  These would obviously add significant cost to new vehicles.

5)  Your mileage will decrease when using ethanol due to the lower calorific value of ethanol on a volumetric basis relative to gasoline.  This is also why diesel is inherently more efficient than gasoline...there are more BTU's in a gallon (think skim milk as ethanol, vs. 2% as gasoline, vs. whole milk as diesel).

IMNSHO there is a place for plant derived ethanol based fuels, but they will never be a real solution to offset petroleum based fuels...you would have to plant the entire planet 5X over with feedstock to make enough fuel to support current energy demand.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
131,767
Posts
1,384,568
Members
137,532
Latest member
DUSM0518
Back
Top Bottom