Just wondering if any of you guys use ethanol in your trucks? If you do what do you think about it? Is it hard on your vehicle or will you lack horsepower from it? Well if you do or dont let me know and what you think about it!!

 

I have used it from time to time without a problem. (1998 F150) Most modern vehicles are designed to use up to 10% ethanol blended fuel. More reciently there are vehicles designed to use up to 85% ethanol blend.

To me it is just a personal choice. With that said here are a few of my thoughts. Anyone feel free to correct if I mispeak.

1) ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so you may notice a slight decrease in mileage.

2)Ethanol has a higher octane rating than the standard 87 octane gasoline. Could help those vehicles that knock running 87 octane gasoline.

3) ethanol burns cooler than gasoline. So you can burn more fuel/air mixture without melting the engine. (think supercharged) I believe Ford designed a mustang that could run on close to 100% ethanol. It actually built more horse power running mostly ethanol than it did running gasoline.

4) Never have to worry about moisture in you fuel lines in the winter with an ethanol blend in the tank.

5) ethanol helps to maintain a clean fuel system.

6) ethanol evaporates easier than gasoline.

7) ethanol helps to produce cleaner emissions. (debatable)

8) Helps to support the Iowa corn farmer??!?!?! (don't want to start that debate)

9) Not sure what it does in the 2 cycle engine. I don't use it in these engines.

In my opinion will blended ethanol fuel harm your engine? No. I used to use it all winter long when I lived in North Dakota.

 

The debate is that it actually takes more energy to convert the corn to the ethanol than energy the ethanol will produce. In other words an energy deficit.

 

Use what is reccomened 87 or with a chip 93.
Just my two cents.

 

#1. Correct - slightly less energy content. Tests and studies show a 2-5% decrease in fuel mileage from gasoline with a 10% blend.

#2. Any gasoline sold as 87 octane is just that. An 87 octane with no ethanol has the same octane as an 87 octane with ethanol. The difference is the regular 87 is all 87 octane gasoline. The 87 with ethanol is 84 or 85 octane gasoline mixed with the 100+ octane ethanol to produce the overall 87 octane final product. Ethanol itself is very high octane, and one of its other uses is as an octane booster. Many stations will sell an 87 octane reg and an 89 octane mid - the mid with ethanol as the only difference.

#3. No idea if it burns cooler.

#4. True, no problems with water as ethanol is the same as most deicers sold on the market.

#5. Debatable - detergents in the gasoline do more to maintain a healthy fuel system.

#6. True, ethanol does evaporate easier than gasoline - not a good property in the summertime.

#7. Ethanol blends do reduce tailpipe emissions of Carbon Monoxide by roughly 35% promoting a cleaner, more efficient burn, epsecially under cold conditions. Many areas of the country dramatically reduced CO emissions using ethanol blended fuels. Form that standpoint, it does work, and that remains true even given the slighly higher consumption. What is debatable is whether the emissions from ethanol production offset or just move some of the reduced pollution seen in other areas. For all the debate about ethanol requiring more energy to produce than what is obtained, one fact gets lost in the shuffle - gasoline takes more energy to produce than it contains. Doubt me? Look at all the electrical lines that feed a refinery. What produces the electricty? Generally burning something to get electricty. In that respect, its no different than ethanol.

#8 Farm policy - I'm not even going to start on that!


All gasoline sold here is 10% ethanol by state law, except some for select retailers who offer non-oxy premium for motors that need it. Its been than way since 1996. If it were a real problem using ethanol, we would have seen it by now.

 

One of the reasons given for the west coasts fuel price increase is a state mandate that oil companies remove MTBE and replace it with ethanol. The supply of ethanol is low ( so the oil companies have been saying) and that has caused production shortages and shortages increase the price. ( a pipeline to AZ broke a few weeks ago and we have seen prices go up almost .45 per gallon in three weeks) The cost of ethanol ( the previous post regarding cost and energy needed to produce it) has kept it from being widely used as an additive but the enviromental concerns about other additives have now made it the add. of choice. I have not heard of any ill effects from using it in any of the modren computer controlled engines.

 

I use ethanol all the time in my vehicles. Not one problem . I buy the 10% stuff. Here in Nebraska it is sold as mid grade 89 octane, and it is on average 10 cents a gallon cheaper. I think one of the reasons is that the ethanol portion of the gasoline may not be subject to some fuel taxes. Also, the ethanol is manufactured right here in NE and IA.

"Production
of corn-ethanol is energy efficient, in that it yields 34 percent more energy than it
takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and
distilling it into ethanol."
http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf

Ethanol makes sense. There is almost no waste from manufacturing ( byproducts are used to feed cattle), it provides another market for excess grain (corn or wheat), it reduces emissions, and some of my gas money goes to support the local farmers.
http://www.ne-ethanol.org/default.htm

 

I want more BTUs again! Chevron, in Cali, has the BTU. I'm not impressed with ethanol.

 

Normally I do try to stir the pot, but we are all helping to pay for this. But on the other hand, I did grow up on a farm, so I can see how It can appeal to make ethanol.
This is definately a change compared reading about if it is worth it to put on a K&N FIPK.

``UNSUSTAINABLE.'' But to one agricultural scientist, the idea of distilling alcohol from corn for fuel just doesn't compute. David Pimentel of Cornell University has done the math. His bottom line: It takes more fossil-fuel energy to produce a gallon of fuel-grade ethanol than burning it will produce. Growing crops to produce fuel amounts to ``unsustainable, subsidized food burning,'' charges Pimentel.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2...d/cornforf.htm

And the price at the pump? Ethanol from corn costs about $1.75 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. In addition, it takes 11 acres of land to produce the 850 gallons of alcohol needed to travel 10,000 miles -- the amount of cropland needed to feed seven people for a year, Pimentel says.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...10925_5596.htm

 

I don't know if it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it saves. I don't believe that is a primary driver for that fuel source. The primary drivers are a possible reduction in polution (maybe not if it takes more energy to produce than it saves) and the ADM lobby. Keep flames to selves, nobdy's making personal comments here.

 

The arguments of "unsustainable" and "more energy to manufacture" are all very typical of a realativly new product.

As more plants come on line and newer technology gets applied Ethenol will get cheaper and cheaper.

The oil companies have been holding back alternative fuel for years just like the auto industry has held back alternative fuels. They both have been concentrating so much on our current technology (Oil and internal combustion) that they have made it far to expensive to research and build alternatives.

But now that the pressure is on (Even more so than 20 years ago) to find new ways to drive I believe we will see more and more alternatives to Oil and internal combustion.

I am guessing that it will play out sort of like the whole history of the Tobacco companies. First they started with filterless then filters than light than ultra light then they had to go out and buy other companies not associated with tobacco in order to keep making a profit...

 

Should the tax payers be paying for ethanol though?

 

I found this post from last year and found it interesting.....
I am from Iowa and the last couple of years, ethanol plants have been popping up all over the place....I have dealt with ethonol since 1978...back when I had a 1967 Mercury Cougar. With the demise of premium gasoline!!.. I had no choice but to burn ethanol for the higher octane it had.....It took about 6 months for to eat rubber seals in the carb and another year for the valves to give way.(lead substitute..ya right!)......heard people with plastic floats in there carbs went bad (k-cars I think) ...With the advent of EFI...
The only thing I check every now and then is the rubber seals on the injectors (paranoid I guess)..and deal with the funky smell from the exhaust..(you can tell)..It now costs 3 cents less for ethanol (90 octane) than it does for regular (87 octane)...and as far as Minnesota goes..when I buy gas up there, I get about 3 mpg's less..mandated oxygenation...Just thought I would see if anyone has any more opinions..Thanks! BTW I am not a farmer..not affiliated with the farming industry..and only know one farmer...and he only works 8 months a year! (lighten up..just kid'n)!

Marlin