Does Anyone Know What the Gas-Alcohol Mix is in Our Gas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

In North America the content percentage must be posted on the pump

Not in the USA.

At US pumps in states the require the use of ethenol you will normally E10 fuel (Fuel containing 10% ethenol).

I love E10.......,My fuel milage went from 18mpg to 13mpg. I am so happy that ethenol is in my fuel.

You said:My fuel milage went from 18mpg to 13mpg. I am so happy that ethenol is in my fuel.

Seems like somewhat of an excessive drop in fuel economy, however is a very good point, you are going to get reduced fuel economy with a ethanol gasoline mix, so in states like California we not only pay more for fuel but also enjoyed reduced fuel economy.

To the original poster's question I believe 10% is the maximum for a standard vehicle, to run more than that requires a flex fuel vehicle, I know they'll run on E85, 15% ethanol I'm not sure what their limits however.

So like they tell you in traffic school alcohol and gasoline do mix they make a lousy tasting drink.

I don't know mine went from 16 mpg to 18.5 mpg since the change. I have to keep track because it's a company vehicle and they want to know. I average over 175 miles a day maybe that's the difference, because of the consent driving.

It varies based on your state I believe, though maybe there is a federal minimum of 10%. Ethanol is currently the alcohol of choice, though other alcohols can be used as fuel. Ethanol is made from corn usually, but it would be more efficient to make it from sugar cane.

No Federal minimum.

During the 70's OUR GOVERNMENT tried the same thing, alcohol in the gas. I was a dealer tech for a major performance automobile at the time. We had home made testers in our tool box as this would be the first thing to check when fuel related problem arose. At that time the mix was 10%. It did not work then and it will not work now!!!!!!

My cars are 2000 model Toyota's (Camry and Avalon), if there are natural rubber lines anywhere in your fuel system, in my opinion, you will eventually have some kind of problem. Not all cars are setup to to use Alcohol.HE THAT DOES NOT LEARN FROM HIS MISTAKES IS DOOMED TO REPEAT THEM.

Making this stuff is just not cost effective, using it is really not cost effective. Only time will tell how much damage to older cars this stuff will do. I don't care what they say, not all cars are prepared for this stuff.

I am locating stations in my area that are not using alcohol, moonshine, to put off the inevitable.

I have read many post, comments that hydrogen, (not compressed fuel cells) on board crackers, ARE THE ANSWER!!!!! There are to many people around the world that are successful in doing so. I have seen it working, with zero emissions, other than the by product, WATER.

After 30 plus years in the automotive industry, I KNOW how engine and related systems work, by using Hydrogen, it is not NECESSARY to have all the complicated trick crap being used today to get emissions down to GOV levels. Back to the basics, Carb, Electronic ignition, cracker, tank for water and your off. I am doing away with all that junk on mine.

Can you possibly imagine how much less a car would be to make, much operate, but alas there in lies the problem. BIG AUTO, and BIGGER OIL AND LETS NOT FORGET THE GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE MORE SLICK WILLYS UP THERE THAN I CARE TO KNOW.

Just venting!

Just put off using moonshine until you have to. not all cars are flex, with metal lines and no natural rubber. I am not sure how moonshine and silicon rubber react, Those came along after my tenure. I retired from the automobile business in 2000.

Just cant wait to see the ridiculous post debunking the hydrogen thing. Guys you are only trying to convince yourselves. IT WORKS. There is a reason those that are closest to having a marketable cracker are all of a sudden gone, shut down or scared to death, some literally. Google- Stan Meyers, The Joe Cell, there are going to be so many post of experimenters you cant watch them all, forgot, U-Tube as well.

Here's the bottom line. If we can land a space craft on Mars, and time it to have a satellite orbiting Mars watch it, and it soft lands and works, just one hundredth of that brain power applied to this as a project, would most probably take a week to figure out. Sound crazy, BACK TO THE FUTURE !!!!!! onward, FISION anybody???

Well, got that off my chest. Thanks for the post, hope this helps, remember, take what you need leave the rest.

Yours in Search of a Better Way,

Pat

PS, the tester, in a tube, scaled to 100cc, I believe, put 10 cc water and 90 cc gas, shake it really good and let settle. When settled you will have three components. They should be 10 cc water, 10cc Moonshine, that is what we saw, as a rule, and 80 cc gasoline. Hence 10% Moonshine. Could be more could be less, but you will see it clearly.

Good luck!!!!

Yeah. It seems the infinite wisdom of our leaders (or is it greed?) manifests itself once again by offering the oil/petroleum companys 50% tax break on the ethanol added to our gas supply supposedly to stimulate ethanol production in the U.S.(which is proven not to be such a viable solution for energy needs no matter what the source).It is my understanding ethanol burns w/ less energy which decreases efficiency of the combustion process and decreaseing mileage.It is also my understanding that the colder the ambient temp, the less energy produced by burning ethanol.In this " scratch my back, I`ll scratch your back" political system,I wonder which of our " leaders" are enjoying their scratched backs at their "subjects" expense!

Depends entirely on the state and time of year. Use local regulations.

In Virginia the tag on the pump states "May contain up to 10% Ethanol".

Incidentally, I lost about 15% mpg on my Honda 750 motorcycle when ethanol was introduced here. Most bikers I've talked to report similar.

I am not sure if it is standardized across the nation but here in Texas I have found it to be 15% .

The sad truth is that this 15% ethanol has been promoted by tree hugers, corn growers, politicians,and all the rest of those of little technical knowledge. There is a net loss in BTU (energy) value by alcohol replacement.In fact, if one would calculate the net cost/energy you woud find that it cost more to fill up your tank with the ethanol blend. The only real advantage would be the removal of water that may have formed in your gas tank because alcohol at 95% will absorb water.

inventoran, you said:

The sad truth is that this 15% ethanol has been promoted by tree hugers, corn growers, politicians,and all the rest of those of little technical knowledge.

While it might seem counterintuitive in general, in a place such as Texas, that statement might be more accurate when revised as follows:

The A sad truth fact is that this 15% ethanol [blending in Texas (of all places!)] has been promoted by tree hugers, corn growers and/or landed ag interests, self-perceived-enlightened as well as bought-and-paid-for politicians, ... and all the rest of those [special interests (including tree huggers to a small degee, and petroleum interests to a greater degree),] [all of them counting on the public to have] of [both unawareness and complacency, as well as] little insufficient or uninformed technical knowledge.

The reduction in gas mileage because of 10% ethanol addition is routinely in the 12-15% range on our cars. The 10% ethanol level is what they do here in Minnesota but our Governor is talking about stepping it up to 20%! Who knows what impact that might have on our MPG and on some cars gas lines!!!!!! On a political note, I read that McCain is in trouble with the farm vote because he opposes all ethanol subsidies and does not like the current farm bill for giving support to farmers who are making big bucks currently. Why can't they pass a bill that helps the farmers only when prices are low? Apparently too logical.

ethanol has 70% of the energy per gallon of gasoline. At a maximum of 10% ethanol, you should see .1 * (1-.7) = 3% drop in milage.

There is no 50% tax break, instead the government subsidizes at a rate of $.50/gallon and no excize tax on the ethanol portion, that saves what $.20/gallon.

E85 sells for guess what, 71% the price of gasoline, how convient huh?

If michigan mandates 20% ethanol, then the state will go bankrupt because they will have to pay to fix all vehicles that are damaged from having too much ethanol in the system. Don't believe that? Ask California how much it had to pay truckers for engines ruined when California mandated ultralow sulphur diesel fuel. Very costly.

Your theoretical study of expected gas mileage between gas and gas blended with ethanol is nice but doesn't relate to my real life experience.

Based on fuel usage that I have recorded on my Honda Shadow Aero 750 motorcycle:

Pre-ethanol blend recordings:

Average 180 miles per 3 gallons used (3 gallons is where my tank has to be switched from main to reserve) = 60 mpg.

Post-ethanol blend recordings - 10% max reported on pumps:

Average 150 miles per 3 gallons used = 50 mpg.

60 mpg drop to 50 mpg is a 16.6% reduction in mpg economy, far above the 3% drop expected purely from energy decrease per gallon.

Caveat: from collecting anecdotal info from other bikers, my personal results seem to be typical from bikes that are carburated. Bikers with EFI (fuel injected) systems usually report less of a loss, somewhere in the 8-10% range. This was in no way a scientific evaluation, just talking to a lot of people to get a better handle on the situation. Bikes seem to be more affected by ethanol, in general, but I have no idea why.

its because you have tuned it to 10% ethanol, its running rich.

I don't understand your statement. The way my bike is set up hasn't changed since before Virginia introduced ethanol into gasoline.

Are you saying that the addition of ethanol is making my bike run richer, thus reducing mpg?

I may be butting in here, but I think that the problem may lie in the fact that the ethanol does not produce as much energy per liter as petrol, so to get the same acceleration or speed, you need to have the throttle open wider and the engine takes more fuel as a result.....

yes, you need less air because the ethanol has the OH in it.

Interesting point, and I hadn't thought of that. Andy_Germany's comment is straight forward and makes sense but I'll have to look into what effect the oxy in ethanol may have on an engine. I'm not convinced that it is that significant but I'll look into it.

If you go to this link, you will see a table quite a way down that shows it has about a 1/3 rd less energy than standard petrol.

And a lot less energy than say Aviation petrol etc..

Thats the reason you get less MPG.

Ethanol main purpose was to replace MTBE correct? And according to your link ethanol has a net energy gain of 21% to 34% and MTBE has a net loss of 34%. How is it that the present mpg is supposedly lower then the gasoline prior to ethanol? I have a flex vehicle and I'm showing an increase in mpg in my truck using the 10%. Plus how is 33.7 MJ/L (gasoline) 1/3 less then 34.8 MJ/L (gasohol)?

Mechanical Engineering isn't my field so I might be looking at this the wrong way.

Net energy gain: The energy content of the product less the energy required to make the product. (Burning alcohol if produces more energy than burning, say, corn.)

Conversely for net energy gain, MTBE cost more energy to produce that it contains—a net sacrifice in the interest of air purity, but deleterious to the interest of water purity.

This is before blending in gasoline, and independent of changes effected to energy content of gasoline so modified.

Just another thought after my ramble this morning.

Hydrogen when run in an automobile using an on board cracker, will see an increase in power around 3 fold.

Users I know support that, some more some little less, but the fact is no matter what your number, it will increase horsepower.

By the way, some Diesel Tractors (semi's) are experimenting with a cracker that will produce 1000 liters of Hydrogen gas per hour. Hoo-ya....... also, Zero emissions.

Cost to operate the rig loaded I(80000 lbs) is about 1.50 per hour, with 60 to 80 percent diesel savings. This is using a speed of 65 mph, which most all trucks are running now(of course not all, but the larger percentage) to save on fuel. Diesel in my area is 4.80 (4.799-if we are to be specific) Saving that much fuel and zero emissions, if this thing takes off (if the developers live) You can only imagine the hair pulling and hand wringing, how did this happen, We (GOV) thought the largest portion of our population had no ambition, or the spirit to make a thought become a reality, or we are all just stupid.

When you see the Space Shuttle take off, the huge white cloud, hydrogen and lox, I think I read some where, isn't that water? Well it is, and you can bank on the fact that if it were not, some environmentalist, global warming nut case would put a screeching halt to that!!!!!!

I need to make one thing clear here, I DO NOT BUY THIS CARBON GLOBAL WARMING CRAP, NOT FOR EVEN A SECOND........I would believe, Wealth redistribution and more Government power over our freedom.

Ever watch Ice Road Truckers, or Deadliest Catch.......I would love to see Gore try to tell those guys they better enjoy the cold while they can because that area will be the new Bahamas soon as the atmosphere warms. Baloney.....

I look at this as a cost saving, resource saving matter. There will always be the need for oil and fossil fuels. But, jeez why stop developing a better way? or another type of fuel?

Something to think about...Congress just raised the Cafe standards for cars to average 35 miles per gallon by 2012, right? Anyone contemplating the consequence of that pearl of wisdom. Here is mine, want it or not.... Most cars are in the high teens or very high 20's, 30's, 40's and beyond. I can only guess the amount spent on each car for controls and emissions items to achieve the current cafe standards and emissions standards. (four rhodium filled cat converters rhodium by the way is about 9,000 dollars an ounce, Russia pretty much has the lock on that market) So, by the time we reach 2012 and cars are averaging 35 mpg, WHAT! do you suppose is going to happen to the price of gasoline. It's called profit margin(you know, bottom line net after all the expenses, most Government officials only quote gross profit not net and certainly not percent of margin) anyway, you can bet 4.00 gas will seem cheap. Oil companies, commodities traders etc. are not going to let this slide by.

So, in short, (cant seem to stop once I get going), I am going to convert to a home grown Hydrogen cracker, = ZER0 for fuel. No matter what it may cost to get in, the pay back is quick, at 4.00 dollars a gallon, and unless they can figure out how to meter the water from my 140 foot deep well, (which ain't gonna happen) water is free. So Far.

Chew on it, I'm a big boy I can take the heat. Although, most of the post are very good. It ain't gonna happen unless we (The People) make it happen!!!!!

See Ya,

Pat

hydrogen will not increase power. as for emmissions, making H2 onboard will increase emmissions as the engine in the cars runs harder and consumes more fuel to run the alternator that makes the electricity that makes the H2.

It is what the vendor ordered