Jump to content

ethanol in jeeps


Recommended Posts

I live in Iowa....I and other here are seeing an increase of up to 7 mpg when we put non ethanol added gas in our vehicles... Anybody else dealing with this.... or seen any write ups on it... Just curious....

 

 

yup. I get 29mpg in my 86 with the 96 camaro 3800 in it when I run non-ethanol.

 

the 87 (wheeling truck) gets 24ish mpg with non-ethanol and a 4.0 liter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ethanol has fewer BTU, so between buying one gallon of pure gas, or gas with ethanol, your are paying for fewer BTUs.

 

This is one reason why diesel has better fuel economy, diesel has more BTUs in it.

 

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

 

Not quite. Octane measures the tendency to pre-ignite. Adding ethanol increases the octane level. 89 octane is still 89 octane whether it has ethanol or MTBT or whatever that stuff is called.

 

Ethanol is also not too good for rubber fuel system components as it has a tendency to corrode rubber, nor too good for the top end of your engine as it washed the oil off the cylinder walls.

 

Government thinks ethanol is great because it is produced domestically and works fine in their fancy 2009 model cars. They don't care about those of us who can't afford to take out a second mortgage to buy transportation and are stuck driving old junk that was never designed for ethanol.

 

But with less available energy, even a flex fuel vehicle will get better mileage and last longer engine wise with less ethanol and more gasoline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

 

Not quite. Octane measures the tendency to pre-ignite. Adding ethanol increases the octane level. 89 octane is still 89 octane whether it has ethanol or MTBT or whatever that stuff is called.

 

You'll find that for a 15% ethanol blend at 89 octane, and a gasoline only 89 octane, that the ethanol blend will have less propensity to preignite than the gasoline.(of course, this probably isn't a problem unless your pushing 14lbs of boost on a 320hp engine)

 

That being said, it still wreaks havoc with injectors and other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have always stayed away from ethanol as much as possible more because it dries out and cracks rubber parts. unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find non-mix around here. i've tried several different stations around town and can't find straight gas. if you call most stations, they answer your question with "uhhhhhh, i don't know". i think i'll go looking around again this weekend. :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

 

Not quite. Octane measures the tendency to pre-ignite. Adding ethanol increases the octane level. 89 octane is still 89 octane whether it has ethanol or MTBT or whatever that stuff is called.

 

Ethanol is also not too good for rubber fuel system components as it has a tendency to corrode rubber, nor too good for the top end of your engine as it washed the oil off the cylinder walls.

 

Government thinks ethanol is great because it is produced domestically and works fine in their fancy 2009 model cars. They don't care about those of us who can't afford to take out a second mortgage to buy transportation and are stuck driving old junk that was never designed for ethanol.

 

But with less available energy, even a flex fuel vehicle will get better mileage and last longer engine wise with less ethanol and more gasoline.

 

Incorrect....

 

My 99 Dodge Mini-van with the 3.3 Flex-Fuel motor gets a combined 18 MPG on E-10....

 

On E-85 it gets..... a combined 18MPG...

 

If your theory worked correctly.. we should see less MPG...

 

Also when the fuel price climbed to $4.35 per gallon last summer.. E-85 finally crossed the $3.00 barrier.. topping out at $3.09 per gallon.

 

My 5.2l 94 ZJ normally gets around 15-16 MPG combined on E-10 or no lead. With a 50/50 mix of E-85 and E-10.. I averaged 15.5 MPG.. with one tank that was almost all interstate I got over 18 MPG with it....

 

And since the mid-80's pure rubber in fuel systems has been rare and getting more so. Nitrile Rubber and Viteon have replaced it. Both of these are alcohol resistant so they don't corrode.

Also the mini-van is the older generation that had an alcohol sensor in the fuel tank. This allows the ECM to alter the engine settings to compensate for the change in alcohol content. The secret is not change fuel concentrations back and forth constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be missing the boat here on this E-85 stuff..........there only 1 stations in this whole area that even sell the stuff.......we're all Dino fuel around here :hmm:

 

Even with an ethanol plant near by, all there "product" gets shipped to Jersey.

 

Oh course, we also have the highest prices on gas in the country :rant:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it's any concern...running mid-octane is better than low octane in most situations. I run 89 octane religiously in the 4.0 liter 87 comanche (it's also got some performance mods tho), and I refuse to run anything but 91 octane in the 3800. convenient for me since no one else buys that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

 

Not quite. Octane measures the tendency to pre-ignite. Adding ethanol increases the octane level. 89 octane is still 89 octane whether it has ethanol or MTBT or whatever that stuff is called.

 

Ethanol is also not too good for rubber fuel system components as it has a tendency to corrode rubber, nor too good for the top end of your engine as it washed the oil off the cylinder walls.

 

Government thinks ethanol is great because it is produced domestically and works fine in their fancy 2009 model cars. They don't care about those of us who can't afford to take out a second mortgage to buy transportation and are stuck driving old junk that was never designed for ethanol.

 

But with less available energy, even a flex fuel vehicle will get better mileage and last longer engine wise with less ethanol and more gasoline.

 

Incorrect....

 

My 99 Dodge Mini-van with the 3.3 Flex-Fuel motor gets a combined 18 MPG on E-10....

 

On E-85 it gets..... a combined 18MPG...

 

If your theory worked correctly.. we should see less MPG...

 

Also when the fuel price climbed to $4.35 per gallon last summer.. E-85 finally crossed the $3.00 barrier.. topping out at $3.09 per gallon.

 

My 5.2l 94 ZJ normally gets around 15-16 MPG combined on E-10 or no lead. With a 50/50 mix of E-85 and E-10.. I averaged 15.5 MPG.. with one tank that was almost all interstate I got over 18 MPG with it....

 

And since the mid-80's pure rubber in fuel systems has been rare and getting more so. Nitrile Rubber and Viteon have replaced it. Both of these are alcohol resistant so they don't corrode.

Also the mini-van is the older generation that had an alcohol sensor in the fuel tank. This allows the ECM to alter the engine settings to compensate for the change in alcohol content. The secret is not change fuel concentrations back and forth constantly.

 

And how much was your ethanol without the socialized government subsidy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

 

Not quite. Octane measures the tendency to pre-ignite. Adding ethanol increases the octane level. 89 octane is still 89 octane whether it has ethanol or MTBT or whatever that stuff is called.

 

Ethanol is also not too good for rubber fuel system components as it has a tendency to corrode rubber, nor too good for the top end of your engine as it washed the oil off the cylinder walls.

 

Government thinks ethanol is great because it is produced domestically and works fine in their fancy 2009 model cars. They don't care about those of us who can't afford to take out a second mortgage to buy transportation and are stuck driving old junk that was never designed for ethanol.

 

But with less available energy, even a flex fuel vehicle will get better mileage and last longer engine wise with less ethanol and more gasoline.

 

Incorrect....

 

My 99 Dodge Mini-van with the 3.3 Flex-Fuel motor gets a combined 18 MPG on E-10....

 

On E-85 it gets..... a combined 18MPG...

 

If your theory worked correctly.. we should see less MPG...

 

Also when the fuel price climbed to $4.35 per gallon last summer.. E-85 finally crossed the $3.00 barrier.. topping out at $3.09 per gallon.

 

My 5.2l 94 ZJ normally gets around 15-16 MPG combined on E-10 or no lead. With a 50/50 mix of E-85 and E-10.. I averaged 15.5 MPG.. with one tank that was almost all interstate I got over 18 MPG with it....

 

And since the mid-80's pure rubber in fuel systems has been rare and getting more so. Nitrile Rubber and Viteon have replaced it. Both of these are alcohol resistant so they don't corrode.

Also the mini-van is the older generation that had an alcohol sensor in the fuel tank. This allows the ECM to alter the engine settings to compensate for the change in alcohol content. The secret is not change fuel concentrations back and forth constantly.

 

 

First of all, if you are only getting 18 mpg with a 3.3 NS van, then that is a problem. You should easily be seeing 22 to 24. Second, where do you see an alcohol sensor in said gas tank? I would like to see a reference to this.

The science behind what Sam stated is fact. Fewer BTU's in ethanol means less energy per gal, means more fuel to do the same thing. To take advantage of alcohol you need a high compression or forced induction engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is another reason diesels can be so good on mileage. High compression (17-19:1 for the turbos, as high as 27:1 for naturally aspirated) can make for a very efficient engine.

 

I still say easiest way to get to 80 mpg on gasoline is to build a diesel engine using gasoline for fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The up side to ethanol is that is does not preignite very easily, this means in a high compression, or turbocharged application you can get away with running a lower octane gas with ethanol and still make the same power or economy.

 

Though for a standard compression ratio engine, or a non turbo engine, it sucks monkey balls.

 

Not quite. Octane measures the tendency to pre-ignite. Adding ethanol increases the octane level. 89 octane is still 89 octane whether it has ethanol or MTBT or whatever that stuff is called.

 

Ethanol is also not too good for rubber fuel system components as it has a tendency to corrode rubber, nor too good for the top end of your engine as it washed the oil off the cylinder walls.

 

Government thinks ethanol is great because it is produced domestically and works fine in their fancy 2009 model cars. They don't care about those of us who can't afford to take out a second mortgage to buy transportation and are stuck driving old junk that was never designed for ethanol.

 

But with less available energy, even a flex fuel vehicle will get better mileage and last longer engine wise with less ethanol and more gasoline.

 

Incorrect....

 

My 99 Dodge Mini-van with the 3.3 Flex-Fuel motor gets a combined 18 MPG on E-10....

 

On E-85 it gets..... a combined 18MPG...

 

If your theory worked correctly.. we should see less MPG...

 

Also when the fuel price climbed to $4.35 per gallon last summer.. E-85 finally crossed the $3.00 barrier.. topping out at $3.09 per gallon.

 

My 5.2l 94 ZJ normally gets around 15-16 MPG combined on E-10 or no lead. With a 50/50 mix of E-85 and E-10.. I averaged 15.5 MPG.. with one tank that was almost all interstate I got over 18 MPG with it....

 

And since the mid-80's pure rubber in fuel systems has been rare and getting more so. Nitrile Rubber and Viteon have replaced it. Both of these are alcohol resistant so they don't corrode.

Also the mini-van is the older generation that had an alcohol sensor in the fuel tank. This allows the ECM to alter the engine settings to compensate for the change in alcohol content. The secret is not change fuel concentrations back and forth constantly.

 

And how much was your ethanol without the socialized government subsidy?

 

 

Personally.... I don't care... $3.09 is better than $4.35 any day of the week. I don't live in a state with a significant oil company presence like you.. but I do live in an area with an Extremely large grain farming presence..so we are going to see it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference in price translates to more mpg, usually two to up to 10 miles per gallon. difference depends on vehicle. here in oregon its only 25 or 35 cents difference. the other factors mean IT AIN'T WORTH IT!

 

MPG is MPG regardless of price. Now if you mean MP dollar, then I can see your point to an extent. But E85 is usually less than 80 cents per gallon cheaper here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...