Ethanol is a filler.

 

One other waste of government money to pour farm subsidies into making bio fuels, very dumb.

 

Some of your statement is true, but overall it's not that simple. There are actually some small performance benefits for some engines and conditions with 10% ethanol. It's an octane booster, and even though in pump fuel it's mainly used to maintain a minimum octane number, it has a property that controls the combustion burn a little better than most pump gas additives that are allowed these days. This is a small benefit but a benefit nonetheless. For most engines this benefit sees little result. And yes, ethanol in its pump amount can yield slightly lower mpg in many vehicles, it's not the devil that people seem to enjoy making it. In engines like our KLX that uses a carb, we still retain the ability to rejet for optimum performance with the fuel available. Computer controlled "manufactured for street use" FI engines have many benefits, but their fuel and ignition maps usually have quite a few compromises so that you get little advantage from the types of pump fuel available.

The bottom line is that the ethanol added fuels issue is not as simple as it sounds...like the most common one...all aspects of ethanol are bad. Ethanol produces slightly less mpg than most gasolines in most engines, and when stored improperly or over long periods, it can absorb moisture more readily than pure gasoline. With our ability to jet properly, it's just not quite as big an issue.

 

Apples to apples ethanol is 2/3 the energy as gasoline, since it has a higher octane rating though it can be optimized for somewhat better efficiency; I believe even the best flex fuel cars still see around a 26% ish decreased mpg with E85 vs gasoline (somewhat less than 33%). Also, ethanol has terrible cold starting characteristics which is why the limit of ethanol to gas mixtures is currently set at E85 in the US.

Water is soluble with alcohols, so naturally ethanol has a tendency to pull water from air at the same time the water condenses very readily from the ethanol at saturation levels and decreased temperatures.

None of the like bothers me, even though I feel ethanol is kinda a bad use of the plants n what not... straight combustion as biomass for electrical production is actually much more practical.

The only thing that makes me upset is its not labeled, so I rarely ever know when I'm buying E10 (soon to be E15 if not already I believe). I mean even my cigarettes remind me all the time about my super painful death that awaits me, how hard can it be to label the fuel lol. :-D

The main reason I would like to avoid is simply because my 89 Buick Lesabre is constructed with a terne steel gas tank of which ethanol chews up like crazy.

 

Thump, I think your 25% mpg reduction involves the use of E85 not the 10% ethanol fuels that "I think" we're basically talking about here. E85 just about requires a true flex-fuel vehicle...or the ability to manipulate fuel delivery manually...like rejetting. The 10% ethanol that most all of us deal with usually only impacts mileage in the area of 1-2%.

 

Correct

I guess all I was trying to show was that even though ethanol has has a higher octane. They just use it for targeted octane values... so the benefits can really be a moot in certain circumstances. Though E85 actually has octane values well above premium gas if I'm not mistaken, which compensates for the slightly better management of ethanol fuel from what would be assumed for 33% decreased mpg to roughly 26%.

The best flex fuel cars can only manage to close the gap of roughly 7% for energy differences of ethanol from the factual 33% less energy contained per gallon to a slightly better 26% reduced fuel fuel mileage compared to gasoline.

Does that make more sense?

So yes technically speaking since ethanol contains roughly 33% less energy per gallon, then cars not optimized for the mixtures should see fuel mileage decreases of roughly 3% using E10... which by the was is soon to be replaced by E15 if I'm not mistaken.

Sorry for derailing the thread lol.

 

I wouldn't mind the ethanol if the fuel price decreased to compensate. Or as thump said at least label it. I don't believe I had that problem, but who knows, I never see more than 54mpg out of my klx250sf even when it was stock.