Pure Gas ( No Ethanol ) experiment

... says the guy who repeatedly lied about me being part of the "ethanol in gasoline industry", and about my words.

Relevance?

I have never denied that E0 gets a bit more miles per gallon and per tank than E10. So what?

... especially after having achieved over 1000 kilometers (621 miles) in my Toyota with E10, without running the tank too low ...

Even my old Honda handily beat 500 miles on both E0 (before ethanol mandates) and E10 (after).

 

8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% is more than a bit. & you are part of the "ethanol in gasoline industry". You just work fer nuthin'. At least I work fer sumpun. I work for 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% more MPG with 87 octane E0. Just don't know why you have to compare inexpensive gasoline engines with expensive hybrids. Mentioned somewhere once, that 2 new Hyundai Accents sold for $14,000. No relevance to link cheap cars with hybrids, except to one-up someone, which you didn't. In truth, I mentioned that our Hyundai's got 500 miles, ONLY when burning 87 octane E0 efficiently, while 87 octane E10 can't be burned efficiently in 87 octane gasoline engines.... which IS the topic of this thread.

 

It is conceivable where you live that the supply of E0 has more energy content, because WA is not subject to EPA reformuated gasoline requirements. EPA gasoline regulations are complex, my understanding there could be energy variations. Not by me...RFG takes the energy out and we got no E0 option. If I lived by you I'd be doing a little sampling to get density to see.

I am thinking back when EPA "took the energy (aromatics) out" of reformulated gasoline, they said big companies were not allowed to relocate those molecules to other parts of the country (so-called anti-dumping provisions). So some companies have their hands tied and cannot do much different. But local areas could have higher energy if that is the way it always was or smaller cos. not impactd by RFG.

 

I think we have identified a resident sea lion here.

 

E10 is efficiently burned in a gasoline engine. In fact, gasoline engines can become more thermally efficient with ethanol, the miles per energy content of the fuel increases.

 

Nah! First, you say gasoline engines CAN become more thermally efficient with ethanol. Present gasoline engines are NOT such.
However, high compression ratio 15:1 ethanol engines, efficiently burning high octane ethanol (see the connection), really sing during INDY car races. Low compression ratio, 8:1 to 11:1, 87 octane gasoline engines can NOT burn 114 octane ethanol/gasoline blends efficiently. Gasoline engines---ethanol..... see the dis-connection?

 

With a gas blend of 30 to 40 percent ethanol, multiple cars have been shown get more miles per btu than when running on E0. Others matched the efficiency of straight gasoline with that ethanol mix.

Of course the engines would run more efficiently with a higher compression ratio, that has always been my criticism of flex fuel engines. Of course, we could also have more efficient gasoline engines if we switched to RON and had a higher octane for regular, with or without ethanol.

edit to add: Using regular gas in a high compression engine is also less efficient, but many do because it is lower cost.

 

Curious what your source is for this.

 

Do not concur.

Sealioning is a type of trolling that consists of..."pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility."

As soon as an internet troll starts using ad hominem attacks such as:

Then they become regular-old, garden variety, TROLL trolls.
People like this think that if you repeat a lie loudly enough and often enough then it sort of sounds like the truth.
Especially if you mix a little personal insult with the numbers.
I tried E0.
Multiple times....and from multiple dealers, and even if I achieved the maximum of those oft-repeated numbers, they do not come close to making any kind of economic sense since E0 is always much more expensive than E10.

I don't work for Big Corn OR Big Oil.....or some of these stations that use FUD to lure unsuspecting customers into their stations with "pure gas" claims.

 

I too would be interested in the source reference for this. Note that even if you get more miles per BTU, you aren't buying fuel by the BTU, you are buying it by the gallon. So, if you buy fuel that has (for example) 10% fewer BTU's, but your vehicle manages to make up 1% of the loss through advancing the timing or whatever method results in this, then you still have 9% less energy to deal with. And you likely didn't pay 9% less for the fuel.

 

Lol....
The One Time It Makes Clear Sense to Buy E85
Another reason not to buy a rental car.
I've rented many MANY cars over the years but curiously I've never thought of this particular hack.

...nor would I imagine that I would go out of my way to do so in the future.

 

It was back when I had the flex-fuel Ranger, and they were what could be referred to as quick and dirty experiments by a student that once worked here. A simple experiment done to see if full research is worth it. At least one came from an ethanol promotion group, but if I found the group again, they don't have the study up.

I know being more efficient per energy content may not be cost effective. The closest E85 station was in the middle of Philly, so I never got to experiment with it in the Ranger. So I have no personal experience.

Unrelated to efficiency, at E30 and higher, phase separation is no longer an issue.

This study supports the concept of efficiency per energy content going up, but the ethanol can also hurt it. I remember in the past one the Ford and Toyota cars showed improvement, but not the GM.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es305209a?src=recsys

"One of the studies2, which was released in December 2007, found that some vehicles had better fuel efficiency, even higher than gasoline, with a blend of 20 percent ethanol and 80 percent unleaded gasoline (E20). According to the study, "E20 offered a 15% mileage improvement over gasoline in one of the four vehicles, and E30 offered a 1% mileage increase in two of the vehicles." No damage to the engines due to increased ethanol was reported during the trials."
Ethanol Use in Motor Vehicles - Ethanol - University of Illinois Extension
It was an Argonne National Lab study, but the link there no longer goes directly to the paper.

"We measured the effect of using ethanol-gasoline blends on the power and torque
generated, the fuel consumption and CO2, CO, NOx and unburned hydrocarbon emissions, including
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene
which are considered important ozone precursors. The obtained results showed statistically no
significant differences in these variables when vehicles operate with a blend of 20% v/v ethanol
and 80% v/v gasoline (E20) instead of gasoline."
(warning: the link opens a PDF) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=2ahUKEwjLsa6dlcbiAhWptlkKHTmzDjQQFjAUegQIBRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1996-1073%2F11%2F1%2F221%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw2GPhqAiG3bXk28JqB2R8FB

This is a study using up to E9 in a small generator, so may not apply to a car, but they saw decreased emissions and improved thermal efficiency with ethanol. Considering how dirty small engines are, those working closely with them may consider this.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3155/1047-3289.60.2.142

This article(from 2013) mentions better efficiency, but is comparing a turbo engine to a non-turbo.

High Compression Ratios and Ethanol Blends Combine to Make a Super-efficient Car > ENGINEERING.com


Which leads to this study, which found that ethanol blends may make the fuel less resistant to knock than the RON value
would imply.
Combustion Characteristics of PRF and TSF Ethanol Blends with RON 98 in an Instrumented CFR Engine | Argonne National Laboratory

 

After going back to regular fuel with ethanol, I started getting the catalytic converter code P0420. I would reset and it would come back after a day. This process repeated itself a half a dozen times, with the code P0420, Clear code, return P0420.

Just about the time I started believing I needed a new catalytic converter, the code would sometimes go away on its own.

With each successive refuel (Regular gas and Ethanol), the code comes on less frequently and now it is completely cleared on its own.

I have no idea why then P0420 didn't come on in the absence of Ethanol, but it has resolved for now.

 

If it has resolved itself, it could just be the computer relearning the new fuel mix, or it may have had nothing to do with the fuel blend. Perhaps some gunk got on an O2 sensor. Ethanol is a decent fuel system cleaner, and going back could cause some dirt to come loose.