PDA

View Full Version : Gasoline



Rekabeduts
07-30-2005, 07:31 PM
I've been using 93 octane Chevron gas in my 64 Hawk for a few years, and it has run fine. Recently, someone with a 63 Vette told me that the Techron additive in Chevron was bad for older engines, and recommended Sunoco (in South Florida). I'm not inclined to change gas, but was wondering....any opinions on Chevron vs. Sunoco (93). The one thing I do avoid is Methanol/10% blended gas.

Hank

curt
07-30-2005, 07:38 PM
Congress passed or is considering, ethanol in gas, withouy coustomer knowledge. They have to sell the corn byproduct and say energy savings. All the expertis I have spoken to say corn-ethonal is a net consumer of energy.:(

DEEPNHOCK
07-31-2005, 06:27 AM
quote:Originally posted by Rekabeduts

I've been using 93 octane Chevron gas in my 64 Hawk for a few years, and it has run fine. Recently, someone with a 63 Vette told me that the Techron additive in Chevron was bad for older engines, and recommended Sunoco (in South Florida). I'm not inclined to change gas, but was wondering....any opinions on Chevron vs. Sunoco (93). The one thing I do avoid is Methanol/10% blended gas.

Hank


DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
'37 Coupe Express
'37 Coupe Express Trailer
'61 Hawk
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

Roscomacaw
07-31-2005, 01:15 PM
Heh - it TAKES more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol itself yields.[xx(] Another guvamint boondoggle to subsidize farmers and expect us to pay for it.
I think the story you were given about Techron is not worth worrying about.:D

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

DEEPNHOCK
07-31-2005, 07:51 PM
While it may well be true that it takes more energy to make one gallon of ethonol vs. 1 gallon of gasoline.....today...
But.....
You can grow another gallons worth of corn over and over again...
You can only suck one gallon of oil out of the ground and refine it and burn it once.
Think about the long range curve of dwindling supplies of oil and the price per gallon and the fairly constant cost of corn and the refining process.
There will come a day that the curves will cross and corn ethanol will seem like a sweet (corn) deal.
Just a matter of time....
Jeff
[8D]



[quote]Originally posted by Mr.Biggs

Heh - it TAKES more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol itself yields.[xx(] Another guvamint boondoggle to subsidize farmers and expect us to pay for it.
I think the story you were given about Techron is not worth worrying about.:D
Miscreant at large.


DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
'37 Coupe Express
'37 Coupe Express Trailer
'61 Hawk
http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock

Roscomacaw
08-01-2005, 01:14 AM
Why then, did the corn farmers demand an exemption for themselves from using ethanol to run the very vehicles used to produce it?

Of course - I already know the answer. But what an irony, eh?[:0]

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

DilloCrafter
08-01-2005, 01:24 AM
Stop arguing about ethanol. The point is moot. We aren't going to run out of petroleum-based gasoline for our beloved Studebakers.

There is an unbelievable amount of oil underneath Canada, previously difficult to extract from the sand and shale. But those oil fields are now being mined by new techniques, and likely will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

Here's a quote I stole from a web page describing the "tar sands" or "oil sands" in Alberta, Canada:

By 2005, oil sands production is expected to represent 50% of Canada's total crude oil output and 10% of North American production. Although tar sands occur in more than 70 countries, the two largest are Canada and Venezuela, with the bulk being found in four different regions of Alberta, Canada: areas of Athabasca, Wabasha, Cold Lake and Peace River. The sum of these covers an area of nearly 77,000 km2. In fact, the reserve that is deemed to be technologically retrievable today is estimated at 280-300Gb (billion barrels). This is larger than the Saudi Arabia oil reserves, which are estimated at 240Gb. The total reserves for Alberta, including oil not recoverable using current technology, are estimated at 1,700- 2,500Gb.

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup

SoCal54Champion
08-01-2005, 11:26 AM
Shhhhhh...keep that Cananda info to yourself otherwise next thing ya know we'll be invading them too

"Oh That? It's a STUDEBAKER!!"

wagone
08-01-2005, 02:31 PM
I've read the comments on ethanol and the energy balance with great interest, especially those from Curt and Deepnhock. I would like to have some reader of this discussion who is truly qualified to answer the ethanol energy balance question. I have believed for some time that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than what is derived from it. Which is what Curt is saying. That is, the natural gas consumed in the production of a given amount of ethanol contains more btus of energy than is present in the final product ; i. e., the alcohol. This is ignoring any issue of the cost of producing the corn initially. It doesn't make any sense to burn 100 btus of natural gas to produce 90 btus of alcohol--which I believe is Curt's point. But I'm not the expert--certainly this shouldn't be too difficult to find out, and I just may tackle it for my own information. Stay tuned.
wagone and Avanti I

wagone
08-01-2005, 03:10 PM
Ok.......Got some information as to my earlier question on grain alcohol (ethanol, if you wish) energy balance efficiencies. I live in the midwest where we grow a lot of corn! I spoke just a minute ago to an ag engineer at our land grant university. As to units of energy (btus or whatever unit you want to measure) for every 60 units of alcohol produced it takes about 20 units of natural gas but 80 units of energy are locked in the corn. So as with all reactions the balance is always (I think) negative--less out than you put in, in this case 100 energy units in and 60 out. But as long as corn is CHEAP (read government subsidized as is the ethanol) it works. It works in the short term, but probably not in the long term--but then what does. Course the real issue for us with our collector cars is that they (we) can't use the alcohol (Washington or the states may force ethanol on us) (I wonder what you guys in California do about gasoline "additives" for your collector cars?) What will the rest of us do then--I don't want to try and use ethanol but maybe it can be done.
wagone and Avanti I

DilloCrafter
08-01-2005, 03:52 PM
quote:I wonder what you guys in California do about gasoline "additives" for your collector cars?

I recently bought my 55 Stude truck from a guy in San Jose, California. He has been running it on 93 octane, and I could smell the alcohol in the mixture as he was filling it up. Maybe the Californians simply "live with it" and pay any consequences later?

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup

Mike Van Veghten
08-01-2005, 05:31 PM
To answer the original question...
Yep, here in So. Cal. we've been using it on and off for years.
In my (everyday) 259 Lark 2dr. wagon, I run 89 oct. Union for around town and 92 oct. for longer trips (over 60 miles) or when hitting the steeper graded hills. I run the 87 oct. in the flat-head 6 in the Conestoga all the time cause it don't kow the difference!

The measly 10% they use mixed with gas doesn't hurt a thing. Not the rubber, not the carburetor (Holley, Carter, Edelbrock, Stromberg, Rochester et. al.), nuthen. Now mix much more than 20% percent and it'll eat everything.
It also doesn't change the way "most" engines run.
If the tuneup was on the lean side to begin with....yes, you may notice a lack of poop. A new tune is required.

SoCal54Champion
08-01-2005, 05:36 PM
I think basically everyone out here is doing something alittle different. The ethanol replaced MTBE as an oxigenate and there isn't any options to get around it.
Previous discussions on the board highlight the concoctions of fuel, diesel, mystery oil, etc alot seem to be running. The ethanol is worst on the rubber components and that's where we'll see the problems first I would guess. It's also a water magnet so accelerated rust problems are possible too.
One step at a time. Keep an eye on the rubber parts, keep the fuel system clean and go on down the road smiling, literally. :D

"Oh That? It's a STUDEBAKER!!"

curt
08-01-2005, 06:44 PM
Your reply is information to me. I see that a change is taking place in the thinking of ethanol production and ethanol is most likely a 77 Btu product that takes 35 Btu to produce. Ethanol is then a net gain of about 55% or it takes 45% of the possible grain's energy to make ethanol. I know this is a change from a few years ago, it would be interesting to know why the LATEST says grain to ethanol is more Btus. I did my research on the internet and it makes reference to the fact a lot of people are under the impression grain to ethanol is a no gainer. I learned today, thanks for the correction.

curt
08-01-2005, 07:30 PM
It would be most informative if the net energy gain is in ethanol or calcuated as the by product of animal food. I do find it interesting to hear an energy gain/loss changed from negative to positive. Having lived in Kansas an the Ag Extension people saying a loss in the 1980's.Today a gain of Buts. How did this happen???[?]

curt
08-01-2005, 07:33 PM
NOw back to gas, I burn mid grade gas and add 4 oz of Marvel Mystry Oil to a fill up. Snak oil aproach to valve erosion.

whacker
08-01-2005, 10:03 PM
I live in an agricultural state where all our gas has at least some ethanol in it. I also work in the hydraulics industry, so I am familiar with different compositions of "rubber". Most of the older "rubber" products are not compatible with alcohol, although they may be compatible with gasoline. My first electric fuel pump lasted two years before the diaphragm gave out. The second one I purchased has lasted one year now, although the label on this one said it was compatible with ethanol and the first one didn't. As a taxpayer, I am glad you other people are subsidizing my farm economy, and let me be the first to say thanks to you for that. It kind of evens out for us supporting your useless shipyards. As far as making the ethanol, it doesn't have to be made from corn, actually sugar beets work better. The corn is actually improved as a cattle feed by the fermentation process, which adds protein to the mash. As for the gas, I use the premium grade, which has the least amount of ethanol in it. It is really only two octane better than the cheaper stuff, but although it still has ethanol in it, it has less than the rest.

Mike
08-02-2005, 03:50 AM
Here's an article about a DOE study on the cost of producing etanol vs. gasoline:
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/agNews_050328crETHANOL.xml&catref=ag1001 .

Here's "key points" of the study:
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf .

One of the costs of producing anything, is energy. In this case the product itself happens to be fuel. If production of a fuel uses more energy than is finally sold, it isn't particularly significant. It certainly doesn't make it impractical. In fact the study above shows that gasoline production uses 1.23 BTU for every BTU sold. That compares to .73 for ethanol.

Mike M.