Ethanol question - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 10-14-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

What about E15? Most, if not all, car makers say E15 is OK.
I rarely believe any mileage claims, down, up or sideways because the computation is not done accurately. Fuel economy should drop by about 3 1/2 %. If your friends lose 3-4 mpg then their cars are getting 85 mpg or more. I simply don't believe them or you.

Do you believe that Ethanol has a lower BTU value than gasoline?

Chas H · #32 10-14-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

While I am strongly against Ethanol as a fuel here in the US, at least the Corn based that is/was the rage.

I thought that the addition of Ethanol as an additive IS beneficial to most vehicles, those not affected by rotting of rubber parts.
The ethanol is used to take some of the place of lead and PBE(?) that were both found to be very harmful too the environment. It though it helped prevent knock type problems.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding.

The current EPA increase proposed does not make sense though, except to support the Ethanol industry. Which our fantastic forward thinking

government threw billions of dollars at with little to show.

Although our politicians did do well with the huge campaign contributions from the ethanol industry. So I guess some good came out of it

.

Ethanol is added to conform to laws requiring an oxygenated reformulated fuel for lower emissions on start up, not to increase octane rating.
The addition of ethanol will increase the octane rating if nothing else is done to the additive package. Refiners will modify the additive package by reducing the normal octane improving additives when ethanol is added so the resulting reformulation has -theoretically- the same octane value.

aklim · #33 10-14-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

It though it helped prevent knock type problems.

The current EPA increase proposed does not make sense though, except to support the Ethanol industry. Which our fantastic forward thinking

government threw billions of dollars at with little to show.

In E85 equipped cars, you can run higher compression and timing. You will need more fuel to get the same power though but there it is.

You support the Ethanol industry and you get a larger war chest. You support farmers and you get a larger war chest. It does make financial sense for them.

Chas H · #34 10-14-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Do you believe that Ethanol has a lower BTU value than gasoline?

Of course. It has about 65% the heat content of gasoline. This is an easily researched subject.

dynalow · #35 10-14-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Second, for all of its screw ups, and this ethanol thing seems to qualify as a screw up, we have seen great improvement in the environment under its watch.

In the mid-Atlantic coastal waters (my back yard) you are absolutely correct. Poor air quality has never been a problem here. Polluted waters another matter... until EPA and NJDEP. Love Canal anyone?

But the pendulum has swung too far in certain areas, ethanol being one, imo.

Chas H · #36 10-14-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

In the mid-Atlantic coastal waters (my back yard) you are absolutely correct. Poor air quality has never been a problem here. Polluted waters another matter... until EPA and NJDEP. Love Canal anyone?

But the pendulum has swung too far in certain areas, ethanol being one, imo.

Air quality in urban areas was quite poor before the EPA/congress cleaned things up.
I spent a lot of time in Europe in the 80's; when the US was considerably ahead in terms of tailpipe emissions. European cities reeked of exhaust and gasoline in comparison to US cities.
The EPA is far from perfect, but it's largely responsible for our much cleaner air and more efficient engines.

Honus · #37 10-14-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

...Not sure what your point is. I said "when you weigh all factors in". Gain in 1 point is not good enough if the gain comes at the expense of a lot more.

All I said was that we have made progress with environmental quality since the EPA was established. Whether the improvement is worth the cost is another question. I think it is worth the cost, and then some, but would not claim to be an expert on that.

aklim · #38 10-14-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

All I said was that we have made progress with environmental quality since the EPA was established. Whether the improvement is worth the cost is another question. I think it is worth the cost, and then some, but would not claim to be an expert on that.

That is not in dispute. Which is why anyone can claim it is a success if the limit the scope to that one thing. Kinda like taking down the house to kill the spider. It is a 100% successful operation. The spider is dead and the goal was to get rid of it. However, before we can really call it a success or not, we need to be able to evaluate everything related to it. For instance, if to get this new bill to take care of a pond in some state, we had to add all kinds of pork into the thing so everybody passes it, it is a success if you consider the pond is now great. However, all the other damage might mitigate or negate or even set you back further.

kknudson · #39 10-14-2010, 03:54 PM

The EPA in concept is good, unfortunately it's just another government agency.
Wether it's political or not, it is a living breathing entity that wants to grow, eating anything it can.

I'd say they burn down the house to kill a spider.

Example, we are served by a community well system. It is old and needs upgrades, mainly the wells.

The EPA has required replacing EVERYTHING, the well was changed to a (politically connected) well company the village is partnered with. They wern't selling enough water on their own, so the village was on the hook, but forcing us to take their water they are making money.

They had to replace every piece of pipe, we had 1 1/2 copper mains on our street (10 houses), we now have 8" Plastic. So I'm not a math major, but I figure thats about a 1000 % increase in water flow.

Keep in mind that we had no real issue's with the flow from the 1 1/2, sometimes you'd notice it slow, but not bad.
Also consider that now a days we run low flush toilets, low flow faucets, washers are more water efficienent etc. So while our water flow needs are down they have massively increased it.

OK we did get fire hydrants (basically every other house on our block), I have one in my front yard, but our fire district is very highly rated even without hydrants, and there is a large pond with 2 dry hydrants maybe a 1/4 mile away.

Interestingly, 2 streets down got 4" mains and a fire hydrant at each end of the block.

Go figure, the company installing it, and the county (which owns the community system) have no explaination for the variations, except "Thats what the EPA required".

These are one acre lots, so my frontage is roughly 200 feet.

FYI the 2 dry hydrants is another example of government efficiency.
One side of the lake is one district, the other ours, it's only a 5 acre pond. Our district put the dry hydrant in at a cost of about 3500 bucks, 2 years later the other district did the same on their side at a cost of just under 5k.
Now these districts work together, and almost always show up at a fire together, why couldn't the second said Hey can we use yours if we need it, even maybe here's a grand for our rights.
And now neither is really needed !

kknudson · #40 10-14-2010, 03:59 PM

Oh and the EPA said replace it all NOW, not sya over 5 years.

And those dry hydrants need to be flushed regularly (twice a year I think), so each fire district has to come out twice a year and flush their hydrant.

Chas H · #41 10-14-2010, 05:22 PM

Sounds like a good plan to me. Did you get a reduction in your homeowners insurance premium because the fire hydrant is close? I got one when the development across the street put in a hydrant les than 1/4 mile away.
Let's not allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

kknudson · #42 10-14-2010, 06:42 PM

Not yet, but when they do the actual connection I will notify my carrier.

Another intersting plan, force by the county not the company doing the installation.

In july run the pipe, at least they used horizontal drilling, only a small disruption in my yard. something about needing to burp the drill hole.

August, dig up that spot to put in fire hydrant.

Last week
One hole to connect the main to the drop to my house, one hole to connect from that drop to my existing line into the house, another to connect the drop for the neighbor across the street.
They need to get chlorination testing complete at my drop before they can do the actual connection to my house.

But with much less effort ( I asked the guys installing it, they agreed) all but the connection from their drop to my house could have been done from one hole.

But the county and EPA said do it this way.

buffa98 · #43 10-14-2010, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

What about E15? Most, if not all, car makers say E15 is OK.
I rarely believe any mileage claims, down, up or sideways because the computation is not done accurately. Fuel economy should drop by about 3 1/2 %. If your friends lose 3-4 mpg then their cars are getting 85 mpg or more. I simply don't believe them or you.

Well in my suburban running 100% gas I get 13 around town, Running 10% Ethanol it drps to 9.9-10.5. This is the kid carrying, soccer gamegoing, double bass and cello transporting beast. The wife does the same trips all the time so I have hard proof that MY mpgs drop 2.5 to 3 running e10.

There is one gas station that has pure gas near me most of the other time she fills at WaWa.(Chas will understand)

buffa98 · #44 10-14-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Ethanol is added to conform to laws requiring an oxygenated reformulated fuel for lower emissions on start up, not to increase octane rating.
The addition of ethanol will increase the octane rating if nothing else is done to the additive package. Refiners will modify the additive package by reducing the normal octane improving additives when ethanol is added so the resulting reformulation has -theoretically- the same octane value.

Well the octane value is not the issue, It is the heat value of the fuel. My parents just retired to SD

(I guess it was not cold enough for them in pa) If they run the e85 in his Pick up the mpg drops to the point where it is cost nuetral vs gas.

Chas H · #45 10-14-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

Well in my suburban running 100% gas I get 13 around town, Running 10% Ethanol it drps to 9.9-10.5. This is the kid carrying, soccer gamegoing, double bass and cello transporting beast. The wife does the same trips all the time so I have hard proof that MY mpgs drop 2.5 to 3 running e10.

There is one gas station that has pure gas near me most of the other time she fills at WaWa.(Chas will understand)

If 10% ethanol added zero heat energy to the fuel we could expect your mileage to drop 10%. Your mileage dropped considerably more. So some other factors are involved in your decreased mileage. Your mileage MAY have decreased but not entirely due to the addition of 10% ethanol.