Ethanol in fuel?

[vwq47]

Downunder, Subaru EJ22s are run on "standard" 91 octane unleaded fuel.
I understand that in Japan the octane rating on which they run is as
little higher though I don't know whether there is any difference in
Janapese and export engines.

I run My EJ22 import on 91 octane and it seems happy ($1.24/litre
today). Today I find the local petrol station is selling "standard"
unleaded with 10% ethanol ($1.21/litre today. There is pressure to
use this fuel in Australia though when it was first introduced there
was strong objection on technical grounds.

Can anyone comment on the wisdom and effect of using a 10% ethanol
fuel in an EJ22?

 

[Brian]

Well, I can comment from Oregon, US...

Stations here use up to a 10% ethanol mix here in the winter time.
Sometimes the attendant can tell you the exact amount if you ask but
otherwise you're left guessing.

Not sure how the ethanol affects octane rating.

* It can give you up to a ~10% distance decrease per unit of fuel burned,
depending on ethanol content. (Yay, just what everybody wants!)

* It does not decrease the end cost of fuel.

* Supposedly the alcohol helps prevent frozen fuel lines, or at least lower
the freezing point, while at the same time improving wintertime emissions,
but I've only heard this as rumor. (If you have to burn more fuel to
traverse the same distance, have you really improved emissions any?)

* 10% or less of ethanol is not supposed to be enough to cause problems with
fuel seals in cars that were not designed for it. (How would any average
joe be able to figure this?!)

~Brian

 

[hippo]

Downunder, Subaru EJ22s are run on "standard" 91 octane unleaded fuel.
I understand that in Japan the octane rating on which they run is as
little higher though I don't know whether there is any difference in
Janapese and export engines.

I run My EJ22 import on 91 octane and it seems happy ($1.24/litre
today). Today I find the local petrol station is selling "standard"
unleaded with 10% ethanol ($1.21/litre today. There is pressure to
use this fuel in Australia though when it was first introduced there
was strong objection on technical grounds.

Can anyone comment on the wisdom and effect of using a 10% ethanol
fuel in an EJ22?

Local spec 2.2 and 2.5 are both designed to urn on 91 ULP. In my
experience to date, our previous 2.2 coped with 10-18% ethanol (about 3
tanks out of 4 on average) for 70,000ish Km without anything going funny,
but fuel consumption was down a little on 91ULP. Price at the time more
than compensated. 95 E10 wasn't available to compare and premium didn't
make *any* difference to performance or consumption, but cost more! 2.5
currently runs ok on 91ULP, 91 or 95 E10, or premium ULP. Fuel consumption
is *slightly* lower on 91 E10 than std unleaded, up to 1Km/L lower on 95
(no I don't know why wither, but it's consistent) and no different on any
premium we've tried over the last 80,000Km or so. Best performance /
consumption / cost compromise seems to be Shell or BP 91, then 91ULP, then
91-92 E10. The other two options we've given up on unless there's no
alternative on the day. Cheers

 

[Frank]

Well, I can comment from Oregon, US...

Stations here use up to a 10% ethanol mix here in the winter time.
Sometimes the attendant can tell you the exact amount if you ask but
otherwise you're left guessing.

Not sure how the ethanol affects octane rating.

* It can give you up to a ~10% distance decrease per unit of fuel burned,
depending on ethanol content. (Yay, just what everybody wants!)

* It does not decrease the end cost of fuel.

* Supposedly the alcohol helps prevent frozen fuel lines, or at least lower
the freezing point, while at the same time improving wintertime emissions,
but I've only heard this as rumor. (If you have to burn more fuel to
traverse the same distance, have you really improved emissions any?)

* 10% or less of ethanol is not supposed to be enough to cause problems with
fuel seals in cars that were not designed for it. (How would any average
joe be able to figure this?!)

~Brian








- Show quoted text -

I use in my Forester in US because that is all that is available
here. In addition to above comments, fuel with ethanol has stronger
solvent properties and before gas station conversions, tanks must be
cleaned or may contaminate fuel. It also cannot run through pipelines
for same reason and must be trucked from refinery.
Supposed positive environmental effects are dubious and have been
foisted on us by big agribusiness who profits vastly from its use.

Frank

 

[Dominic Richens]

Can anyone comment on the wisdom and effect of using a 10% ethanol
fuel in an EJ22?

Been using 89 octane E10 for years in my 95 Legacy. I do think the ECU
wasn't design to use it optimally because I find that I _seem_ to get a
sudden boost of performance and economy if I put in the odd tank of straight
unleaded.

I haven't tried to do a scientific trial to verify whether this is actually
true or just my perception (influenced by weather, how much crap is in the
back etc...)

A theory is that E10 burns more completely leading to less crap going past
the O2 sensor which causes the ECU to compensate by running the engine a
little too rich. Could be a totally bogus theory - comments?

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

Downunder, Subaru EJ22s are run on "standard" 91 octane unleaded fuel.
I understand that in Japan the octane rating on which they run is as
little higher though I don't know whether there is any difference in
Janapese and export engines.

I run My EJ22 import on 91 octane and it seems happy ($1.24/litre
today). Today I find the local petrol station is selling "standard"
unleaded with 10% ethanol ($1.21/litre today. There is pressure to
use this fuel in Australia though when it was first introduced there
was strong objection on technical grounds.

Can anyone comment on the wisdom and effect of using a 10% ethanol
fuel in an EJ22?

Its promoted as being safe for all cars. There are some who worry that,
if E85 si not safe for older cars due to fuel system component damage,
wouldn't E10 just damage components more slowly? And you may experinece
lower mileage for a coupla reasons. Ethanol has only about 60-70% the
BTU/volume as gasoline, and it may 'fool' the car's computer into
running slightly richer.

To me, the bigger problems are those outlined here;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119621238761706021.html


Carl

 

[Charles Perry]

Well, I can comment from Oregon, US...

Stations here use up to a 10% ethanol mix here in the winter time.
Sometimes the attendant can tell you the exact amount if you ask but
otherwise you're left guessing.

Not sure how the ethanol affects octane rating.

* It can give you up to a ~10% distance decrease per unit of fuel burned,
depending on ethanol content. (Yay, just what everybody wants!)

Where did you get that? Every source I can find, including ethanol
producers, claim a decrease in mileage. The "best" I have seen is a claim
of a 2% reduction when using 10% ethanol and the worst I have seen is a
claim of 15% reduction when using 10% ethanol. Ethanol has less energy
(BTU) per unit volume than gasoline so you would expect a decrease.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[Brian]

Where did you get that? Every source I can find, including ethanol
producers, claim a decrease in mileage. The "best" I have seen is a claim
of a 2% reduction when using 10% ethanol and the worst I have seen is a
claim of 15% reduction when using 10% ethanol. Ethanol has less energy
(BTU) per unit volume than gasoline so you would expect a decrease.

Charles Perry P.E.

Charles, I think you and I are saying the same thing. Perhaps I misworded
or am just plain confusing, but was trying to say "a decrease in miles per
gallon" in a manner that miles and kilometers didn't get in the way for the
folks outside of the States. (-; I find it less confusing than liters per
kilometer at any rate, or whatever it is the Canadians are using at this
point! And I hope nobody accuses me of being a proponent of ethanol.

~Brian

 

[Charles Perry]

Charles, I think you and I are saying the same thing. Perhaps I misworded
or am just plain confusing, but was trying to say "a decrease in miles per
gallon" in a manner that miles and kilometers didn't get in the way for
the folks outside of the States. (-; I find it less confusing than
liters per kilometer at any rate, or whatever it is the Canadians are
using at this point! And I hope nobody accuses me of being a proponent of
ethanol.

~Brian

Sorry about that. I missread your statement.

I hate paying for gasoline with ethanol in it. I feel I am being cheated.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[DK]

Sorry about that. I missread your statement.

I hate paying for gasoline with ethanol in it. I feel I am being cheated.

No worry. The entire nation is being cheated by the ethanol hoax.

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRPaper2.pdf

DK

 

[Clifford Heath]

No worry. The entire nation is being cheated by the ethanol hoax.

The worst part is that a lot of the ethanol comes from corn, which is
produced using nitrogen fertilizers, which in turn have been produced
from natural gas... a fossil fuel. The resultant demand for corn has
pushed up world corn prices as well.

Not many people are aware that the grains that form the bulk of their
food (or feed the animals that are the food) is grown the same way.
Your bodies are also running on fossil fuel, folk! And even if society
survives the melt-down when the oil runs out and transport becomes 10x
as expensive, there'll be a worldwide food shortage because of the lack
of fossil-fuel fertilizers, so 90% of the land used for grain will
become unusable.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Rick Courtright]

A theory is that E10 burns more completely leading to less crap going > past the O2 sensor which causes the ECU to compensate by running the > engine a little too rich. Could be a totally bogus theory - comments?

Hi,

What I KNOW about ethanol would fill a thimble, while what I THINK I
know would fill volumes. So I'll just toss some ideas out and folks can
chew on 'em...

We KNOW that:

Ethanol has a lower heat content (BTU/unit weight) than gasoline. This
results in lower fuel economy (miles/gal, km/l, l/100km, however you
like to rate it.)

Ethanol is VERY clean burning relative to most other common fuels. Note
it's used in marine stoves, where there's a close quarters, poor
ventilation problem more often than not. People don't get "gassed" as
easily w/ it as if they were using propane or some other liquid fuels.

Ethanol doesn't vaporize and burn as well at low temps as some other
fuels.

Now, put this into an auto engine, and it means you'll get lower fuel
economy, fewer emissions (at least of the type we're used to. Fingers
have been pointed at formaldehyde as a byproduct--I dunno. Frank L?
Anybody?), and good low temp running, esp. below freezing, isn't a
selling point.

As for the O2 sensor and the ECU, my understanding of most common O2
sensors is they run on heat. They sample the exhaust gas temps, and if
the mix is running lean, it'll be too hot, and the sensor will tell the
ECU to toss some extra fuel in there, richening the mixture. If the
temp's too low, it's too rich, so the sensor calls for less fuel (all of
this, of course, after the various other sensors have had their input:
you can't call for a leaner mixture on a cold engine and expect
"driveability" to be part of the picture.)

So... IF the exhaust from a "gasohol" mix IS actually cooler than that
from a straight gasoline burn, I suppose the O2 sensor could make a call
for a richer mixture. I'm not sure the actual "cleanliness" of the
exhaust is a player, especially at a light mixture of ethanol, such as
E10.

As I said, the last ideas are from the volumes of "I think I know"
stuff, so I stand to be corrected as necessary!

Rick

 

[houndman]

Well, I can comment from Oregon, US...

Stations here use up to a 10% ethanol mix here in the winter time.
Sometimes the attendant can tell you the exact amount if you ask but
otherwise you're left guessing.

Not sure how the ethanol affects octane rating.

* It can give you up to a ~10% distance decrease per unit of fuel burned,
depending on ethanol content. (Yay, just what everybody wants!)

* It does not decrease the end cost of fuel.

* Supposedly the alcohol helps prevent frozen fuel lines, or at least lower
the freezing point, while at the same time improving wintertime emissions,
but I've only heard this as rumor. (If you have to burn more fuel to
traverse the same distance, have you really improved emissions any?)

* 10% or less of ethanol is not supposed to be enough to cause problems with
fuel seals in cars that were not designed for it. (How would any average
joe be able to figure this?!)

~Brian

In the air force in the 60's we used to test for icing inhibitor for
jet fuel, and it had to be 7%. There will always be microscopic
droplets of water in fuel from condensation that won't settle out, and
can freeze, and the ethanol is supposed to mix with the water.

Sube said not to use E-85 in my 07' Impreza

 

[Frank]

Hi,

What I KNOW about ethanol would fill a thimble, while what I THINK I
know would fill volumes. So I'll just toss some ideas out and folks can
chew on 'em...

We KNOW that:

Ethanol has a lower heat content (BTU/unit weight) than gasoline. This
results in lower fuel economy (miles/gal, km/l, l/100km, however you
like to rate it.)

Ethanol is VERY clean burning relative to most other common fuels. Note
it's used in marine stoves, where there's a close quarters, poor
ventilation problem more often than not. People don't get "gassed" as
easily w/ it as if they were using propane or some other liquid fuels.

Ethanol doesn't vaporize and burn as well at low temps as some other
fuels.

Now, put this into an auto engine, and it means you'll get lower fuel
economy, fewer emissions (at least of the type we're used to. Fingers
have been pointed at formaldehyde as a byproduct--I dunno. Frank L?
Anybody?), and good low temp running, esp. below freezing, isn't a
selling point.

Formaldehyde, I don't know but would not consider it much of a problem.
Incomplete combustion of ethanol might give acetaldehyde. But, mixed
with gasoline, other decomposition products would probably overwhelm
those just from ethanol alone.

The original oxygenate requirement was engineered by big agra-business
like ADM to benefit farmers. Lower pollution, particularly in winter
was claimed but refiners said they could meet it without ethanol. In
response to the government mandate, they satisfied the oxygenate
requirement with MTBE which is cheap and also increased octane which
ethanol does not. Unfortunately as ppb MTBE in drinking water causes
bad taste and environmental groups jumped on it and had it banned.

In this thread, also, I'm not sure of commercial status of a Subaru E85
vehicle for US but Subaru one. In DE where I live, there is exactly one
E85 station about 30 miles from here

Frank

 

[Scott]

In my 98 US Impreza with a 2.2 and manual trans, I get a 20% reduction
in fuel economy with a 10% ethanol mix. 26mpg vs 32. I no longer use
ethanol fuel in my subaru for that reason

 

[DK]

In my 98 US Impreza with a 2.2 and manual trans, I get a 20% reduction
in fuel economy with a 10% ethanol mix. 26mpg vs 32. I no longer use
ethanol fuel in my subaru for that reason

Lucky you. Where I live (Madison, WI), you cannot find non-gasohol
fuel within 20 miles of the city limit. Winter or summer.

DK