I'm a little confused here, Ethanol is one heck of a cleaner(in fact that's one of the problems of ethanol) so how does that not keep the fuel sending unit clean?

 

I posted these two relies because both of these gentleman hit the nail dead center. The EPA wanted an additive that would be a oxygenate and would make the exhaust of all cars burning gasoline cleaner. The two headed problem with 'Ethanol" is that Ethanol burns at 101 degrees and Gasoline is a higher burn ratio. So while the Ethanol is a clearer additive, is burns faster which means your going have fill -up more often that if you were buying straight gasoline.

The other problem is in some automobile using ethanol can be a very corrosive additive. It will destroy some old rubber and all of the tiny metal parts in your fuel pump and the fuel regulator and finally the fuel injectors. And it's made out of corn, which should be in a bowl in the mornings not in your fuel tank. In South America they almost always use ethanol in their fuels, but they use sugar canes for the element to make or refine gasoline. But they have a zillion acres of Sugar Cain to use not corn. And most cars shipped from Japan to anywhere in South America have stainless steel fuel systems and run E85 without a single problem

 

Another reason they like adding ethanol is it takes less base stock to make premium fuel.

 

It corrodes it

As stated by killain, it eats things if they aren't manufactured to with stand it.

If you have any experience with some of the older vettes, especially the C4, that's the number one reason for all of the fuel delivery system failures. ie, pumps, sending units, rubber lines and finally injectors.

I've had small engine components completely fail due to parts literally being eaten away by ethanol. In many places, like Oregon, they exempt small engines and in particular boat engines from having to use ethanol because of this.

 

Alcohol/Ethenol produces/contains less energy (about 20% less) than gasoline. So, even though it is/was cheaper at the pump, the overall price/mile was as high or higher than gasoline. Vehicle MADE for E85 can tolerate it as well as make adjustments for all gas, all 85 or combinations of the 2 fuels.

Some here run E85 in their C5 but seem to me your asking for fuel system problems somewhere down the line doing that.

 

Interesting stuff. Thank you all for the info. I'm learning!

So... with schools of thought on both sides of using only pure gas or it being ok to use gas with the legal limit of 10% ethanol.... I am struggling to figure out if most guys would choose 89 octane pure gas with no ethanol... or if you'd prefer to use, say, Chevron Techron 93 or Shell V Power 93??

 

Doubt there is really anything as PURE gasoline anyway-so many detergents, oxygenators and other stuff in most gas today, what does PURE even mean?

 

Understood, however all I meant by pure gas is gas without ethanol added. So, I'm curious to know if people would choose 89 octane gas without ethanol or 93 octane from a chevron or shell where it has up to 10% ethanol?

 

I may pay a higher price for Ethanol free gas but I wonder if the cost is made up because of better performance and mileage. For the few miles I drive in the summer, I would rather feel better that I'm using a gas that won't potentially hurt my car in the long run.
By the way, before I bought my car, the dealer had to drop the gas tank and replace the sending unit because it went bad.....guess why!

 

That's 2 pieces of sweet red candy you have there! I guess your vote is for ethanol free guess even though it may be lower octane than recommended for our engine?

 

Ethenol has ZERO to do with the gas guage, it's typically sulphur in the petroleum that causes issues with gas senders. 10% ethenol is NO problem, it all you can get around here for many years now.

 

Exactly My point ! If you have a stock C3, C4 or whatever, and you put ethanol / water in your tank, at some point your going to find out just corrosive it is. But I'm not pitching any dirt at it, If we all drove E85 cars or flex-fuel vehicles there would not be a problem. Years ago in the seventies, lead was stopped from being added to gasoline, and that had a big effect on all cars without hardened Valve seats. Everybody wants clean air. But you have to buy a bottle of "Ethanol-Free" a auto parts store or Home Depot just run your lawn mower or weed whacker ? And now I hear the EPA want the ethanol amount boosted to 15%.

But I live very close to a major airport, and if you stand on my wife's porch with a glass of ice tea and see & count all the pitch black exhaust coming out the Airliners engines, each one not 30 seconds apart, you'd have a better idea of exhaust flumes. If I wash her white Jeep in the morning and wait till 3PM you can go out and slide your finger on the hood or roof your finger will have a line of black soot on it. Is there any emission specs on the huge General Electric jet engine ?. . . Nope. So the EPA goes back to the heard and rules anything they want to, and enforce it because we all just tiny targets on their radar. Fair, there's no "Fair" in this country. Fair. . .

 

So I think I understand the basis of the OP's original question. Let me some it up with this question:

What's worse for the car Premium 93 with 10% ethanol or ethanol free 89 Octane (that's what's available near me)?

 

It's SUM it up!

 

That is essentially the question, yes... which is worse... and hence the other would be preferrable...