Ethanol free gas.
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Ethanol free gas.
Has anyone used ethanol free gas? Have several places with 87 and 91 ethanol free. Thought I might try about half a tank!??
#5
Drifting
This is a duplicate of a post I just made in a similar thread in the C7 forum.
Ethanol is like a religion to quite a few on the forum, mostly against, with a few for. I don’t like it myself, but for what I think are logical, not religious reasons. Here are the facts. For a car built after the early 1990’s, there is only one significant difference for 10% ethanol in gas, namely, a loss of about 3% in mileage. There is no power difference, nor is there any consequential risk from the long laundry list of horror stories (water, corrosion, crud, etc) that the anti ethanol forces keep trotting out. Just put it to the most basic of reality checks. Is it even remotely plausible to believe that in this age of scandal reporting, with most of the gas in the US containing ethanol, major risks or operability problems could be covered up? Come now.
True, there are some minor performance plusses and minuses that can be important in a few highly specific situations, but none of those situations apply to Vettes with stock or even moderately “tuned” engines. On the plus side, if you have a highly tuned engine, ethanol burns a smidgen cooler and will give you a smidgen more power. Witness the old Indy cars that used to run on the closely related methanol fuel. On the minus side, it is slightly more prone to absorbing moisture, but practically speaking, that only applies to small engines with poorly sealed tanks, like lawn mowers, chain saws, etc. So for 99+% of Vette owners, these simply aren’t issues.
Pricing is a bit of a quagmire. Ethanol is considerably more expensive to make than gas, but a long laundry list of tax credits and blending mandates drive the price at the pump down. While most of the tax credits are gone now, blend mandates remain, and those mandates mean that essentially all gas must have 10% ethanol. So to sell E0 (ethanol free), somebody must sell either E85 or E15 which not many people want. To make up for the beating they take being forced to sell more E15 or E85 if they make E0, then the price of the E0 goes up. It’s not more expensive to make, nor is there any conspiracy involved, it’s simple supply and demand as driven by the blend mandate. Repeating with slightly different words, if you want to sell E0, you must compensate for the ethanol not blended into E0 by blending more E15 or E85, neither of which many people want. Therefore the price of E0 is driven high.
Most ethanol haters blame Obama and the Democrats since they support ethanol because the incorrectly think it helps the environment. However, the blame is actually a 50/50 deal, with Republicans also supporting it as pork to their farm state voters and fat cat investors in ethanol plants. Wouldn’t you know that one of the vanishingly few places where the parties cooperate is the ethanol boondoggle? Let’s see, which is worse, Democrats trying unsuccessfully to do something good, or Republicans handing out pork? Pretty hard to pick a winner from those two options.
For my part, I’m against ethanol, but for economic, not performance reasons. It costs a lot of money and does no good (unless of course you own a corn farm or ethanol plant). If I could buy top tier E0 for the same or only slightly more than E10, I would. But I wouldn’t pay a big premium for E0, or go grossly out of my way to get it, or use non top tier E0.
Ethanol is like a religion to quite a few on the forum, mostly against, with a few for. I don’t like it myself, but for what I think are logical, not religious reasons. Here are the facts. For a car built after the early 1990’s, there is only one significant difference for 10% ethanol in gas, namely, a loss of about 3% in mileage. There is no power difference, nor is there any consequential risk from the long laundry list of horror stories (water, corrosion, crud, etc) that the anti ethanol forces keep trotting out. Just put it to the most basic of reality checks. Is it even remotely plausible to believe that in this age of scandal reporting, with most of the gas in the US containing ethanol, major risks or operability problems could be covered up? Come now.
True, there are some minor performance plusses and minuses that can be important in a few highly specific situations, but none of those situations apply to Vettes with stock or even moderately “tuned” engines. On the plus side, if you have a highly tuned engine, ethanol burns a smidgen cooler and will give you a smidgen more power. Witness the old Indy cars that used to run on the closely related methanol fuel. On the minus side, it is slightly more prone to absorbing moisture, but practically speaking, that only applies to small engines with poorly sealed tanks, like lawn mowers, chain saws, etc. So for 99+% of Vette owners, these simply aren’t issues.
Pricing is a bit of a quagmire. Ethanol is considerably more expensive to make than gas, but a long laundry list of tax credits and blending mandates drive the price at the pump down. While most of the tax credits are gone now, blend mandates remain, and those mandates mean that essentially all gas must have 10% ethanol. So to sell E0 (ethanol free), somebody must sell either E85 or E15 which not many people want. To make up for the beating they take being forced to sell more E15 or E85 if they make E0, then the price of the E0 goes up. It’s not more expensive to make, nor is there any conspiracy involved, it’s simple supply and demand as driven by the blend mandate. Repeating with slightly different words, if you want to sell E0, you must compensate for the ethanol not blended into E0 by blending more E15 or E85, neither of which many people want. Therefore the price of E0 is driven high.
Most ethanol haters blame Obama and the Democrats since they support ethanol because the incorrectly think it helps the environment. However, the blame is actually a 50/50 deal, with Republicans also supporting it as pork to their farm state voters and fat cat investors in ethanol plants. Wouldn’t you know that one of the vanishingly few places where the parties cooperate is the ethanol boondoggle? Let’s see, which is worse, Democrats trying unsuccessfully to do something good, or Republicans handing out pork? Pretty hard to pick a winner from those two options.
For my part, I’m against ethanol, but for economic, not performance reasons. It costs a lot of money and does no good (unless of course you own a corn farm or ethanol plant). If I could buy top tier E0 for the same or only slightly more than E10, I would. But I wouldn’t pay a big premium for E0, or go grossly out of my way to get it, or use non top tier E0.
#6
Race Director
Slightly better gas mileage is an advantage, as is no corrosive effects from the ethanol. Even though cars are set up for 15% ethanol today its corrosive effects are still detrimental over the long haul.
#7
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jan 2016
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 8,055
Received 2,682 Likes
on
1,408 Posts
2018 C6 of Year Finalist
#8
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2004
Location: Oklahoma City OK
Posts: 58,255
Received 1,673 Likes
on
1,296 Posts
C6 of Year Finalist (appearance mods) 2019
All I use is Ethanol free gas in my Vette.
#10
Racer
I use ethanal free in my car mostly for economy purposes. The higher cost likely even out the increased mileage. I'm on the against ethanol in fuel for a numbers of reasons others have already stated, but then for my 'regular' cars that only require 87 I just use the standard 10% ethanol gas.
It is interesting to see the warnings on the straight gasoline pumps "Warning - Contains no ethanol!" . drama. sigh..
It is interesting to see the warnings on the straight gasoline pumps "Warning - Contains no ethanol!" . drama. sigh..
#11
Thanks for your thoughts on this. Very interesting read. My personal (uneducated) opinion is that it’s too far and few in between where I’m from to go out of my way or pay more money for. 93 with up to 10% Ethanol has been treating me well with all my vehicles so I see no need to go really far out of my way and pay more money.
#13
Personally, I would opt for top tier rather than ethanol free.
I don't let them sit, but if I did that may be a different discussion.
I don't let them sit, but if I did that may be a different discussion.
#14
Yes, I use ethanol free 90 fuel in my 2008 Coupe, and mix it 50 50 with my 100 octane aircraft fuel. Great performance, not interested in the gas mileage. That is why I own a Corvette, performance Baby !!
The following users liked this post:
LDB (05-27-2018)
#16
Drifting
Good catch. I was scanning rather than reading so didn't notice it. No, the lead is not yet out, so it's not only a bad idea for your cats and engine, it's also illegal for street use. A few companies are making some lead free test fuels for avgas, and Swift has approval from some engine manufacturers for theirs. But it's uncommon and 102 octane, so almost certainly is not what he's using. When he says 100, it's almost certainly the standard, 100 low lead, which is basically 93 plus lead.
#17
Drifting
One odd note...
There are some videos online describing how to "remove the ethanol from gasoline"..
Don't do it!
RBOB, or MOGAS for the 48 is the gasoline blend that will be on-test AFTER the 10% E is added...E has a higher octane so removing it will put your gas off spec on octane, not to mention RVP, and many other specs...
FWIW, we in CA have our special blend, CARBOB, LOL. It has lower emissions for the tree huggers here...
RBOB = Regular blend stock for oxygenate blends
There are some videos online describing how to "remove the ethanol from gasoline"..
Don't do it!
RBOB, or MOGAS for the 48 is the gasoline blend that will be on-test AFTER the 10% E is added...E has a higher octane so removing it will put your gas off spec on octane, not to mention RVP, and many other specs...
FWIW, we in CA have our special blend, CARBOB, LOL. It has lower emissions for the tree huggers here...
RBOB = Regular blend stock for oxygenate blends