Originally Posted by Milan

So much to say on this subject, but so little time. I will summarize my opinion with:

Although ethanol/E85 is not a replacement for gasoline or a long term solution to our dependence on foreign oil, it is NOT bad for your motor and is nothing but beneficial from a performance standpoint.

The biggest LOL of this thread was when the "chemical engineer" was talking about the "corrosive properties" of ethanol, as if ethanol is this super corrosive substance and gasoline is not.

Originally Posted by QCVette

Because you still have it wrong.

Using your link the wikipedia source shows 66.67% where your post shows 71%. However the 85% ethanol blend has 71.94%, so maybe you just misread the table.

Like I said, Please get your info right.

And also as you said, "Why not ask me where I get my info before you tell me to get my info right? LOL". You didn't when you stated my info was bad.


As for others talking about an ethanol debate and the merits of ethanol. I agree that for many race applications it can be a good fuel and better than gas for some. However in a normal street car without special tuning, there is a loss of mileage.

Originally Posted by SCM_Crash

Well, I went back and read your original post and realized you were talking about straight ethanol.

However, your point was still invalid. The amount of BTUs in the fuel doesn't correlate with amount of power you get from Ethanol vs. Gasoline. They both have completely different properties. One lends itself advantages over the other.

So in theory, if a car built completely for E85 only (or E100) was made, it could achieve the same economy and power levels as E10 or E0, because the advantages of E85/100 could be fully appreciated.

For example, lets take a Solstice since it's pretty simple to work with. The original Turbo Solstice is a 2.0L direct injection motor. The turbo is capable of about 24-26 PSI of boost, but is electronically limited to 20PSI. In terms of E10, that motors makes 260HP and averages about 34-36 MPG on the freeway.

However, if we were to redesign this powerplant for E85, we can boost the compression from 9.2:1 to over 11:1. We could decrease the displacement to 1.8L or even 1.6L (by destroking). We could allow the turbo to reach max boost. We could advance and retard timing on the variable valve timing to a MUCH higher degree.

What we've done here is lowered the amount of fuel necessary to run the engine on 0 boost which counters the amount of additional fuel we need to run on E85. However, since we've increased compression and optimized timing, we could get the same (if not more power) out of the 0 boost engine as the original 2.0L gasoline engine. And when it was time to into boost, we could see higher compression because we're working with less static displacement and higher boost levels on the turbo. In theory, thanks to the longer cooler burn of the E85, the E85 version would make significantly more power safely.

The only reason we get crappier economy on E85 is simply because we don't have cars specifically designed to run on E85.

/story

Originally Posted by SCM_Crash

Wow, there's a lot of misinformed people in here.

I'm not going to argue the dumb points about "food" in "fuel", because it is just that... dumb.

I'm also not going to argue about mileage as that is true.

But one thing I want to mention is that E10 blends help extend the life of your motor. It's actually proven that the ethanol blends help clean your motor and fuel system requiring you to almost never need an injection system cleaner.

Another plus is that your motor will run cooler on an ethanol blend than with straight gasoline.



Not quite. Your numbers are skewed. Ethanol has 71% of the energy capacity of gasoline gallon for gallon; not 60%. Also, ethanol has a more violent and longer burning combustion than gasoline, so you don't lose power. You DO however, lose mileage.



I've been running E10 for 12 years without any trouble. Same with the rest of California. I don't see what the problem is. I think it's just people feeding into fear tactics.

BTW, while you people can keep blaming the Obama administration, you guys have to realize the door swings both ways.

Both left and right are using fear tactics to get you to think how they want you to think. You should think for yourselves first. I'm not trying to insult anyone here or be condescending, but you have to take some facts into account:

A) California and other states have been using E10 blends a very long time. Here in Los Angeles, all of the environmental laws passed to help get rid of smog have paid off. We're not even remotely one of the smoggiest cities anymore and yet we still have the most cars. Cities like Dallas trump Los Angeles by a long shot. In 2011, Dallas was named the smog capital of the states. Texas doesn't have even remotely the environmental laws that Los Angeles has, and it shows.

B) There are definitely lots of pros for ethanol blends (and yes there are cons too), but for a horsepower loving crowd such as this forum is, it doesn't make sense there's so much opposition to it considering ethanol is used by racing teams as a cheap alternative to high octane race fuel. There's a reason they run it. NA and FI motors make more power on it and they do it safer. Ethanol burns cooler too, so cooling your motor isn't nearly as hard or expensive.

C) Everyone worried about corrosion and seals don't realize that ALL cars made in 1992 and up can handle E10 blends and ALL cars made in 2000 and up can handle E15. Long before these fuels were put out for public distribution, the manufacturers were all warned by the U.S. government (back in the 80's) that ethanol blends were going to be mandated. And so the manufactures started using stainless steel lines rather than rubber. Fuel pumps were made to handle the alcohol blends. Fuel injectors didn't actually need any changes because the gasoline is what lubricated them.

D) Cars that sit with E10 blends for months at a time without moving have no trouble with starting right up (assuming they were running before). E10 blends don't attract mass amounts of water like so many people scream and shout about. It's a myth. The car would have to sit for over a year and probably still wouldn't have enough water in the tank to cause any issues to the motor. With E85 summer blends, that's a different story, but not with E10 and it won't happen with E15 either. My dad bought a car that had been sitting for 3 years without ever being started. It had an E10 blend in the tank. When they went to fire it up, it started right up no problem! Guess what car it was? It was a 1985 Corvette. (Shocking?)

Either way, at the end of the day, you guys are really worried about something that has no real issues. E15 or E10, it's not going to hurt our cars. ESPECIALLY LSx motors.

The only thing that is weird about this whole situation is the 4 gallon minimum. I honestly don't think that will be enforced if it makes it to common law. It just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by QCVette

I almost agree. I think there is still a valid point.

As you say "....... is simply because we don't have cars specifically designed to run on E85."

That is exactly the point. If we lived in a different world that the cars were designed for using ethanol, they could make better power by increasing the amount of fuel and being tuned to use it. I am still not sure if they could be tuned to get the same mileage since the energy content per gallon is less and therefore if tuned for ethanol it may run well, but you still have a problem with the physics of getting more energy from the same amount of a smaller energy content fuel.

The problem is the current majority of cars are not set up for ethanol. Because of that, they get worse mileage.