HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » study: gasoline without e...

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 07:03 PM

study: gasoline without ethanol increases wear & tear on engines - aromatics are the problem

[font size="+1"] “In ... Wichita [Kansas], the average E0 has 46% more benzene and toluene by volume than the same 87 octane blend with ethanol."[/font]



http://energy.agwired.com/2015/06/29/urban-air-initiative-ethanol-reduces-engine-wear/#more-84488

The Urban Air Initiative (UAI) has released a study that finds ethanol free gasoline blends actually increase the wear and tear on engines including hoses, seals and fuel tanks. In other words, the data supports ethanol blends lead to cleaner engines. The findings were presented at the semi-annual meeting of ASTM by Steve Vander Griend, technical director for UAI who also works for ICM.

The report demonstrated that high aromatic content of gasoline, including toxic aromatics like benzene and toluene, negatively impact engine parts. Vander Griend explained in his presentation that the toxic aromatics create a significant increase in the escape of harmful emissions that can have a devastating impact on public health as these are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency has known and suspected carcinogens.

“What we are seeing is that benzene and toluene are increasing permeation, which means increasing the amount of fuel vapors that seep from a vehicle. For anyone who has a garage at home and smells gasoline, vapors are escaping through the vehicles fuel system or small engine gas tank,” said Vander Griend.


Also during his presentation Vander Griend explained that extensive testing was conducted on fuel lines, gas containers, and plastic components. The materials were each soaked in straight gasoline (E0) and a 10 percent ethanol blend (E10) for extended periods of time. In every case, said Vander Griend, the ethanol free gasoline increased the damage to fuel lines, gas containers, and plastic components, while the materials soaked in E10 were impacted less.
(more)

22 replies, 2212 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply study: gasoline without ethanol increases wear & tear on engines - aromatics are the problem (Original post)
Bill USA Jul 2015 OP
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2015 #1
edgineered Jul 2015 #2
Bill USA Jul 2015 #4
edgineered Jul 2015 #6
Bill USA Jul 2015 #8
OakCliffDem Jul 2015 #12
Bill USA Jul 2015 #3
madokie Jul 2015 #7
Bill USA Jul 2015 #15
madokie Jul 2015 #19
AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #9
Bill USA Jul 2015 #14
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2015 #11
Bill USA Jul 2015 #17
Bill USA Jul 2015 #18
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2015 #20
Bill USA Jul 2015 #21
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2015 #22
Bill USA Jul 2015 #5
nilram Jul 2015 #10
Bill USA Jul 2015 #16
appal_jack Jul 2015 #13

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 07:30 PM

1. I find this hard to believe.

 

Power equipment is especially vulnerable to E10 because the ethanol is hygroscopic. I also don't understand why the gasoline E10 is different than the gasoline in E0.

My Subaru gets up to 10% better mileage on E0 than E10. Think about that - in that case, the ethanol adds exactly as much energy to the blended fuel as air would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:03 PM

2. not only problems with water, but

what the hell is up with green mold or algae or whatever it is that grows in tanks, carbs, and other parts of the fuel system? A machine doesn't have to sit for much more than a month or so before this stuff starts to grow, plugging jets, ruining needles and seats, and worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edgineered (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:13 PM

4. NASCAR and INDY car teams don't seem to mind using ethanol (Indy cars 100%, NASCAR: E15)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:31 PM

6. Sure, they don't run old fuel.

This year the fuel doesn't seem to go bad as quickly as it has in the past several years. All riders are given a few tips when they pick up their bikes; those who ride infrequently are told to keep a minimal level of fuel in their tanks. Basically for those who do not ride at least once every few weeks my advice is for them to bring the bike home nearly empty. If planning on riding 60 miles, drive to the gas station and put in a few gallons only. That way each time they ride they are using relatively fresh gas. Not only does the ethanol blend cause the mold, but the deteriorated fuel doesn't allow the bike to rev easily - I'm guessing because of a longer burn time. For those who drive or ride regularly, and have newer machines with fuel injection don't have these problems. Whether it is the ethanol, the mold, the propensity to hold water, the age of the fuel, or any combination of them isn't clear, what is clear is that the problem with many things I repair comes from this category. Coincidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edgineered (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:39 PM

8. Ethanol does absorb water. something that you have to keep in mind if there are breaks between uses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 05:58 AM

12. The maintenance done by professional racers is different than consumers

The car owners at NASCAR completely disassemble, clean, and overhaul their engines after every race. They even have engines for qualifying and another engine just for race day, all of which are overhauled after every race. The car owners at NASCAR do not care because the fuel is only in the engine for a few days.

The average consumer cannot overhaul their gasoline powered equipment on such a schedule. The man hours to remove and replace the power plant in a modern automobile approaches a full day's labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:08 PM

3. many tests have been done with E10. They always show a mileage decrement barely discernable ~ 2%.

With the Engine Control Module's modified to take full advantage of ethanol's higher octane mileage is improved significantly.

Fuel Freedom Foundation did a study with several FFVs and one non-FFV using various blends of Ethanol and Methanol. They modified the ECU's to take advantage of Ethanol's and Methanol's higher octane than gasoline.

http://www.fuelfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/white-paper_GGE-Sept-2013.pdf

They tested the cars with various blend levels from E0 to E85 (similar mix of blends of Methanol). They found the cars on Ethanol E85 averaged 17% better fuel efficiency than the BTU content estimate of mpg predicted (and BTU estimate does give a pretty good rough estimate of what FFVs with detuned engines - for low octane gasoline - achieve in terms of mpg). Using Methanol the improvement was 20%.

This was without doing anything to boost compression (as in turbo-charging) - just using optimal ignition timing. By using turbo-charging to get higher combustion chamber pressures (ethanol's higher octane will allow greater pressures than gasoline) you can produce more power per unit displacement and downsize the engine and achieve greater improvements in fuel efficiency.

Any difference in mileage for E10 is barely discernable (maybe 2%). This has been tested multiple times by Government labs.

THere really is no reason to get the poor mileage the FFVs get except to get along with (keep political contributions coming) the Oil industry.

Anybody involved in auto racing knows that alcohol is a better fuel than gasoline. burns cleaner and has higher octane and greater latent heat (another advantage when super-charging or turbo-charging).

Getting back to OP, the tests this group did were pretty straight-forward. Don't see any reason to doubt the results. Of course, engines do have to have seals and hoses made of material that can hold up to alcohol. Without those changes you can have problems. Autos since around 2001 are capable of handling E15 with no trouble.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:37 PM

7. We have a 2014 ford Focus

it is a flex fuel engine suitable for E85. It is direct injection and has a compression ratio of 12 to 1. When I check my miles per dollar I go 6 tenths of a mile further on a dollar of fuel if I use the straight gas. Since straight gas isn't available in our town we mostly use the 10% or less ethanol blend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 04:57 PM

15. since 'we're' talking single cases here.. another study had two vehicles that did far

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:57 PM - Edit history (3)

better than the average.

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #000000;"]Wait: on edit. this is a study done by the Fuel Freedom Foundation. here's the link: http://www.fuelfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/white-paper_GGE-Sept-2013.pdf

on average the several cars tested on E85 got 17% better fuel efficiency than the BTU content estimate predicts.


THe 2011 Chevrolet Impala 3.9 L V6, using E85, achieved 25.7% better fuel efficiency than the BTU content based estimate.
The 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt 2.2 L, using E85, achieved 37.1% better fuel efficiency than the fuel BTU content estimate.

But this was in cars of considerably lower compression ratio of 12 to 1. All they did was modify the spark timing to take advantage of ethanol's higher octane. There is also matters of piston design. Believe it or not, this can make a difference.

They were using E85 to get these improvements in fuel efficiency. You didn't specify but my guess is you were using E10.


the fact remains that the performance of the Chevy Impala and Cobalt show that it is possible to achieve much better fuel efficiency with ethanol if you set the engine up right - especially with proper spark timing (to take advantage of ethanol's higher octane) - to get much better fuel efficiency with ethanol than we currently are getting in current FFVs.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 06:14 PM

19. Yes I was using the 10% blend

this engine is set up for E85 and when I tried it the miles per gallon went way down but the miles per dollar went up. Its been too long since I tried the E85 that I don't remember what the figures were. We don't have an E85 station here in my town and not but one that I know of in this 4 town area that we live in. I just didn't like the fact that we'd not get very many miles per gallon in other words we'd have to fill up so often with it that I never followed up with the corn fuel. This Focus engine is, like I said, a 12 to 1 compression Direct Injection engine. According to the owners manual it is set up optimally for corn fuel. The E85 was close to a dollar a gallon cheaper when I tried it but that was when 10% etoh gas was selling for 3.50 plus a gallon. Don't know what the difference in price is now that we're buying fuel for around 2.50 and less a gallon now

I'm not disagreeing with you at all In fact I was only wanting to show what I have observed with the two fuels, straight and 10% corn. Wish I had figures recently for the E85 but don't.

With all the three different fuels, heck even using premium I can not tell a difference with performance. The car seems to run as good with any one of the blends and straight gas, even the premium straight gas made no difference between it and the 87 octane, performance wise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:58 PM

9. Even at 52mpg, my motorcycle gains nothing from higher octane.

High octane simply suppresses detonation at higher compression ratios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 04:42 PM

14. no engine will gain the benefits of higher octane fuel without proper timing and compression ratio

or some other approach such as super-charging or turbo-charging.

THat's why FFVs don't get as good as mileage as they could with E85 because the timing isn't set right for E85. That is the whole point of the study referred to in OP. .... it's worth a look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 01:55 AM

11. I've tested this over many tanks.

 

04 subaru outback v6
During the test period on E10 I averaged 25.2 mpg. E0 I averaged 27.1 = 7.5% improvement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 05:38 PM

17. this is a sample size of "1". But, as I said, nothing it being done to take advantage of ethanol's

higher octane property. But with 10% ethanol it isn't going to raise octane very much. Then again @10% it won't lower the Heating value of the blended fuel very much either - maybe about 3%.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 05:55 PM

18. 3 MIT scientists designed a Direct Injection ethanol turbocharged engine: 25% better fuel efficicien

.. 25% BETTER fuel efficiency with only 5% ethanol. The ethanol is Directly Injected into the combustion chamber. If you add in the 5% ethanol - which replaces 5% of the gasoline you get a total improvement in miles per gallon of 30% - and that's with only 5% ethanol (as a percent of all the fuel used). The ethanol that is directly injected intothe combustion chambers is either 100% or 85% ethanol.


Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 emissions

The large increase in knock resistance and allowed inlet manifold pressure can make possible a factor of 2 decrease in engine size (e.g. a 4 cylinder engine instead of an 8 cylinder engine) along with a significant increase in compression ratio (for example, from 10 to 12). This type of operation could provide an increase in efficiency of 30% or more. The combination of direct injection and an a turbocharger with appropriate low rpm response provide the desired response capability


this shows what is possible if we wanted to use ethanol as effectively as possible.

The engine would cost about an additional $1,000 on a mass produced basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 07:53 PM

20. Ethanol injected as a knock suppressant into a high compression engine may yield benefits.

 

In my case, ethanol blended into gasoline does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 6, 2015, 06:25 PM

21. the high compression is achieved by use of turbo-charging not fixed by stroke.

The rest of the fuel can be gas blended with any amount of ethanol in the 'MIT' Ethanol Direct Injection engine.

regarding blended gas/ethanol... the study I referred to in cmnt 15

tested several different FFvs on varying blends of gas and ethanol. All they did was alter the spark timing in each of the cars to take advantage of ethanol's higher octane. They found that on E85 the cars got, on average, 17% better fuel efficiency than they did as stock models running E85. Two vehicles did far better than the average. A 2011 Chevrolet Impala (3.9 L V6), improved it's mpg 25.7% and a 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt (2.2 L) improved on the stock FFVs mpg 37.1%. This shows what can be done if we want to use ethanol in a way that takes advantage of it's higher octane.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #21)


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 08:23 PM

5. in anticipation of possible comment re lobbying: National Corn growers: $370,000 in 2014, Oil

& natural gas Industry: $64,000,000

national corn growers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:46 AM

10. Yeah, I wonder who their funders are.

Looked on their web site, no real clues there, though. 401c3. Definitely pro-E10, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nilram (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 05:16 PM

16. yeah, if in doubt that means it's definitely witchcraft. Best cover your eyes and not read it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 10:20 AM

13. With fuel stabilizer added to every jug, my small engines do OK.

 

I try to use-up gas within six months, but have had some batches around for longer. For the small engines, I always buy 93 octane, but never go out of my way for ethanol-free. The stations around here all have the vague statement that the fuel "May contain up to 10% ethanol."

Mostly I use the basic Sta-bil product. I have a bottle of Sta-bil Marine that I will use next, as it's always very humid here in summers. Some folks swear by the enzyme treatment instead, but I have not tried that yet.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread