Is Ethanol "Losing Its Clout"?

Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum

Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Fuel mileage studies have shown E-10 fuels get 11-14% less mileage....... that alone means the imports of oil have not gone down because of E10.
For fuel with 10% ethanol to lose 10 percent (or more) mileage would mean that it has no energy value at all. This simply isn't the case. Ethanol has about 1/3 less energy value than regular gasoline, so an E10 fuel blend will deliver about 3 - 4% worse fuel economy than straight gasoline.
Agree. I have met riders who swear that they get 15 percent less mileage because of ethanol and that premium gives 10 percent better mileage than regular. They also rely on their bike's computer to determine mileage because they don't know how to calculate it manually.
Plus, premium doesn't knock because it burns colder than regular. If the octane is high enough the flames will completely freeze
wink.png


When E85 arrives fuel systems will have to eliminate rubber, aluminum and magnesium. Another fun change is that E85 is electrically conductive. There is mention that vehicles with fuel-tank-mounted fuel pumps will need to prevent arcing, and may need to have flame arrestors in the fill pipe. Should motorcycles ever go to E85 I will stop filling my tank while sitting on the bike.

...An advantage of ethanol is that it does raise the octane rating of the fuel. If one were to also increase the effective compression ratio of the engine a commensurate amount you would be able to get nearly the same fuel mileage out of the ethanol fuel as straight gasoline even though it does have a lower energy content per unit volume...A normally aspirated engine with very high compression designed to maximize the energy available...
There are fuel sensors which can read the type of fuel being used to allow for optimized fuel injection pulse widths which can permit a flex fuel engine to have equal or better mileage than an engine burning straight gasoline. With the properly designed engine it would also make up to 12% more power.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fuel mileage studies have shown E-10 fuels get 11-14% less mileage....... that alone means the imports of oil have not gone down because of E10.
For fuel with 10% ethanol to lose 10 percent (or more) mileage would mean that it has no energy value at all. This simply isn't the case. Ethanol has about 1/3 less energy value than regular gasoline, so an E10 fuel blend will deliver about 3 - 4% worse fuel economy than straight gasoline.
Agree. I have met riders who swear that they get 15 percent less mileage because of ethanol and that premium gives 10 percent better mileage than regular. They also rely on their bike's computer to determine mileage because they don't know how to calculate it manually.
I think if a person sets out to prove a tank of 100% gasoline will get better mileage, he'll be more likely to do so -- just like people who buy the whizbang gadgets online and then swear they work. I just know that personally, in a side by side test with another buddy on a Goldwing, I got about 1/10 of a mpg worse than he did. I was running E10 while he ran no-ethanol from the same station. We were there from Monday through Thursday and filled up daily and rode every mile together at the same speed. We always did get virtually the same mileage before, after, and during the experiment.

I'm anal about records and have every tank of fuel I've bought posted on my computer, where it automatically calculates mpg. For a period of time, I posted whether the fuel was E10 or not, and I never have been able to show that the mileage changes substantially.

But fuel mileage is the least of my concerns. I posted this link earlier, but I'll post again. It's the best article I've seen about while this national experiment has failed.

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-dirty-cost-obamas-green-051200204.html

 
There are fuel sensors which can read the type of fuel being used to allow for optimized fuel injection pulse widths which can permit a flex fuel engine to have equal or better mileage than an engine burning straight gasoline.
Consumer Reports tested a '07 Chevy Tahoe a few years back and got substantially worse mileage on E85. Article at https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2011/01/the-great-ethanol-debate/index.htm.

I also worked with a fellow who decided to save money by buying E85 for his flex fuel vehicle by saving 20 cents per gallon or so. After a couple of tanks he decided he couldn't afford it.
no.gif


 
If the fuel has less energy than pure gas, then I'm going to make the engine work harder and that will lower MPGs. As you can easily prove, you get a lot better mileage at a steady 55 or 60 MPH than when you make the engine work harder and push you along at elevated speeds. So, I believe that the effect of E10 on MPG is not linear. A 3% reduction in energy of the fuel translates to more than 3% reduction in MPG.

 
There are fuel sensors which can read the type of fuel being used to allow for optimized fuel injection pulse widths ...
That is true, but that feature is because the optimum soichiometric ratio of ethanol, with it's higher oxygen content, is considerably lower than that of gasoline.

Empirical evidence shows that Flex Fuel vehicles of today deliver significantly worse fuel mileage (and economy) when running on E85 than on E10 or E-zero gasolines. My last company car ('08 Chevy Impala) was actually a flex fuel capable car. I never had an opportunity to run it on E85 as I never drove it outside of New England and E85 just isn't prevalent in these parts. But the other engineers in my company from the midwest that did run theirs on E85 experienced 30-40 percent worse mileage. That car was actually a pretty well engineered car (as American cars go) and would deliver 28-29 highway mpg on E10 fuel, which is pretty good IMO for such a large car with a large engine (3.5L V6).

The economy piece is artificially enhanced (in favor of ethanol) since the ethanol prices are being government subsidized so the cost at the pump is not the entire cost per gallon. But with the ~ 30% loss in available energy per gallon, resulting in a similar loss in mileage per gallon, even with subsidized pricing it is still more expense to the end user to run E85.

One other factor that muddies the mileage comparison discussions is that E85 is not ever 85 percent alcohol. It is up to 85 percent alcohol and, especially with E85, the actual blend changes by location and season. A lot of the time it is 50/50 blend for improved starting performance, alcohol not being as volatile as gasoline. On top of that, all ethanol fuel has been cut (by a few percent) in the legally required denaturing. Big brother don't want anyone drinking the E100 fuel (which is taxed at a considerably different rate than 80 proof hooch).
wink.png
So, E85 fuel is actually only up to ~82 percent alcohol, and as little as 15% gasoline.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since ethanol raises octane it lets you raise compression, preferably using a positive pressure intake that is variable and you get power and mileage back. As always the driver will influence mileage. Using a fuel type sensor to fine tune the fuel injection pulse width would then let you actually see noticeable improvements in mileage.

The Consumer Reports article was accurate for what it reported, but was seriously one sided not balanced by not talking about why the mileage was low or the available technologies that could improve power and mileage. This is not a totally immature fuel source, Brazil has been using ethanol in varying proportions for 37 or more years. AFAIK, Brazil does not allow 100% gas anyplace but is moving for E100 vehicles (100% ethanol). The only difference is American vehicles run on corn and the Brazilian vehicles run on sugar cane. Whiskey vs Rum
smile.png


Edited to add: The statements about mileage and power is based on what I have read. The guys at the track like being able to run higher compression.

Edited to add:

E85 is not ever 85 percent alcohol. It is up to 85 percent alcohol
Which I guess makes some Forumites rated to run on E85 to E100 too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the fuel has less energy than pure gas, then I'm going to make the engine work harder and that will lower MPGs. As you can easily prove, you get a lot better mileage at a steady 55 or 60 MPH than when you make the engine work harder and push you along at elevated speeds. So, I believe that the effect of E10 on MPG is not linear. A 3% reduction in energy of the fuel translates to more than 3% reduction in MPG.
I'm not following you here, Geezer.

Yes if a fuel contains 3% less energy you will have to (consciously or subconsciously) adjust your throttle to compensate for that loss in power to attain the same speed. With all other conditions being exactly the same (same speed, etc) the amount you would need to increase it is 3% and your mileage should decrease by 3%. Not seeing the compounding factor you refer to.

 
If the fuel has less energy than pure gas, then I'm going to make the engine work harder and that will lower MPGs. As you can easily prove, you get a lot better mileage at a steady 55 or 60 MPH than when you make the engine work harder and push you along at elevated speeds. So, I believe that the effect of E10 on MPG is not linear. A 3% reduction in energy of the fuel translates to more than 3% reduction in MPG.
I'm not following you here, Geezer.

Yes if a fuel contains 3% less energy you will have to (consciously or subconsciously) adjust your throttle to compensate for that loss in power to attain the same speed. With all other conditions being exactly the same (same speed, etc) the amount you would need to increase it is 3% and your mileage should decrease by 3%. Not seeing the compounding factor you refer to.
I am saying that it is not linear. The engine has to work harder to achieve the same power output. While the engine is working harder there are more internal losses and more fuel is required to overcome those losses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am saying that it is not linear. The engine has to work harder to achieve the same power output. While the engine is working harder there are more internal losses and more fuel is required to overcome those losses.
I do not think that this is true . The engine doesn't have to "work" any harder. It will not have to rev any higher to produce the same torque and HP. It will have to intake a bit more fuel/air charge at a given rpm to produce the same power, hence the 3% loss of mpg, but when it is making X amount of power at Y rpm it will be "working" exactly just as hard.

 
This is not a totally immature fuel source, Brazil has been using ethanol in varying proportions for 37 or more years. AFAIK, Brazil does not allow 100% gas anyplace but is moving for E100 vehicles (100% ethanol). The only difference is American vehicles run on corn and the Brazilian vehicles run on sugar cane. Whiskey vs Rum
smile.png
I've read that sugar cane is a much more efficient source of alcohol than corn, and of course, Brazil is a much better place to grow sugar cane than most of our country. Trying to go 100% alcohol here would leave us little land to grow what we eat
wink.png


 
Actually growing algae as a biomass energy source has a much higher yield per acre than corn (which we only use the kernels) or cane. If we were going to get serious about using renewable resources for energy we would have to ditch the entire idea of using corn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually growing algae as a biomass source is much higher yield than corn (which we only use the kernels) or cane. If we were going to get serious about using renewable resources for energy we would have to ditch the entire idea of using corn.
I saw that on Discovery Channel a couple years ago. They were talking about the yield from alge being higher than corn. They were also talking about the ability to grow a lot more of it in a smaller space, which would also decrease its carbon footprint. As it stands, corn based ethanol has a huge carbon print because of all the resources needed to grow, harvest, convert and deliver it.

I would still like to not have to run it in my trucks, bike, power equipment and toys...

 
Agree. I have met riders who swear that they get 15 percent less mileage because of ethanol and that premium gives 10 percent better mileage than regular. They also rely on their bike's computer to determine mileage because they don't know how to calculate it manually.
Plus, premium doesn't knock because it burns colder than regular. If the octane is high enough the flames will completely freeze
wink.png


When E85 arrives fuel systems will have to eliminate rubber, aluminum and magnesium. Another fun change is that E85 is electrically conductive. There is mention that vehicles with fuel-tank-mounted fuel pumps will need to prevent arcing, and may need to have flame arrestors in the fill pipe. Should motorcycles ever go to E85 I will stop filling my tank while sitting on the bike.
You guys! It's when people have fun like this...without an emoticon in sight...that we then see quoted on other forums because they totally missed the joke.

"No man! I'm serious. It's a well known fact that ethanol conducts electricity and our fuel pumps can arc if you put E10 in your tank. The government is about to mandate we put spark arrestors in our fuel tanks! It's _______ (insert political figure here) fault!"

pmb-screen.jpg


 
It is somewhat inconvenient right now to burn ethanol because we have this huge global infrastructure evolved around the burning of petroleum based fuels. But unfortunately, we will eventually run out of oil. Not in our lifetimes, certainly. And probably not even in our grandchildrens', but some day.

If 150 years ago the first engine designers had started out with the idea of burning alcohol fuels then the vehicles and fuel distribution systems would have evolved to suit them instead. I'm pretty sure an alcohol burning motorcycle could be just as much fun as a gasoline burning one (think nitro-methane here) ;)

The carbon footprint of renewable fuels isn't necessarily a bad one, like in the case of burning fossil fuels. The growing bio-mass absorbs (and stores) CO2 and emits oxygen into the atmosphere. The consumption of a biomass fuel does emit carbon, but it is the same carbon that was absorbed during its growth phase. A good argument can be made that the release of carbon from fossil fuels also came from the environment (eons ago) and is just being re-released. In which case none of the carbon neutrality **** matters in the least.

We are doing our part up here in the northeast this year, more as a reaction to local economics than any particular "green-ness" on our part. Last year during the 6 month heating season we refilled the heating oil tank about every 2 weeks at a cost of a bit over $400 per fill (we seldom let it get much below 1/2 on the 270 gallon tank). This year we bought a small wood pellet stove to supplement the oil fired FHW central heating system. As it turns out we can heat the majority of our 2800 sq.ft house (my office over the garage is excluded) quite easily on the little 30k BTU pellet stove, with it running at its lowest heat output pretty much all of the time. The pellets are a locally harvested and produced renewable resource, create very little in the way of ash to dispose of or air pollutants, and the cost is well less than half for the same amount of heat. It is, however, less convenient as you do have to fill the stove twice a day and clean it every other day.

I can envision people installing central heating systems in their homes in the near future that are wood pellet fired. The fuel trucks would have to fill a little "silo" storage tank of some kind and the heater would have to be gravity/auger fed from the bulk storage. The burners would have to be engineered to automatically self clean, but then it could be almost as convenient as burning oil is now, just twist the thermostat and sit back.

PS - Don't tell anyone, but gasoline is already somewhat conductive.
uhoh.gif
Alcohol is only slightly moreso.

 
I can envision people installing central heating systems in their homes in the near future that are wood pellet fired. The fuel trucks would have to fill a little "silo" storage tank of some kind and the heater would have to be gravity/auger fed from the bulk storage. The burners would have to be engineered to automatically self clean, but then it could be almost as convenient as burning oil is now, just twist the thermostat and sit back.

The future is already here ......................

 
Two questions:

1. Does anyone know if any metal parts of the fuel system (including the inside of the tank) have a coating on them that will inhibit the corrosive effects of Ethanol that remains stagnant? My Yamaha outboard boat motor (carbureted) does not and as such, ethanol is a known problem if the boat is not used regularly, and/or the carb bowls drained after each use.

2. "...Of course since naturally aspirated engines do not have variable compression ratios (unlike turbo or super charged engines)..."

Fred.... huh? I thought by definition, C/R was the ratio of the volume of the combustion chamber at BDC compared to TDC.

 
Top