Other: Fuel. Non-ethanol gas - does it make a difference?

[Caligulette]

There's a station in the next town over which advertises "non-Ethanol gas" - would this be better? Would it matter? (Most Ethanol in the area is Ethanol10)

[Dick Steinkamp]

I've driven many Studebakers and other vintage cars tens of thousands of miles using mostly 10% ethanol gas. I find no driveablility, performance, or mileage differences between ethanol and non ethanol gas.

If you are still using fuel lines, fuel pump diaphragms, carb accelerator pumps, or other "soft" fuel system parts that are more than 10-15 years old, the ethanol can react with these parts and cause them to fail. Of course, if you have soft fuel system parts that old, they should be replaced anyway.

However, others have reported SUBSTANTIAL driveablility, performance, and mileage differences between 10% ethanol and non ethanol gas. You are going to have to be your own judge on this one.

[Mike Van Veghten]

As Dick says.
I live in So. Cal., and we get all kinds-a weird gasolines, summer blend, winter blend, 10% alcohol....my 259 powerd Lark is a daily driver, and I've seen zero difference in anything they shove at us......except maybe the cost..!
I don't even have any vapor lock problems on 108 degree days..with the coolant temps. just touching 195 degrees.
Maybe my Lark just likes it here..!? I've got a ton of ignition advance, an Edelbrock, 500cfm Performer with an OEM fuel pump.

Mike

[deco_droid]

There's a station in the next town over which advertises "non-Ethanol gas" - would this be better? Would it matter? (Most Ethanol in the area is Ethanol10)

10% ethanol lowers your mpg's one or two miles, plus your horsepower decreases about 10%. Ethanol is just not as efficient a fuel as gasoline. If I had a choice and it wasn't a huge price difference, I would go for the non-ethanol fuel. I know the corn producers love it, but I don't find the logic in running up our food prices just to satisfy a questionable EPA mandate.

[studegary]

10% ethanol lowers your mpg's one or two miles, plus your horsepower decreases about 10%. Ethanol is just not as efficient a fuel as gasoline. If I had a choice and it wasn't a huge price difference, I would go for the non-ethanol fuel. I know the corn producers love it, but I don't find the logic in running up our food prices just to satisfy a questionable EPA mandate.

I agree with you.
The problem is that stations anywhere in this area are not allowed to sell non-ethanol gasoline.

[poweroptions]

Ethanol SUCKS ! Of our 4 modern cars, I get 2-4 miles per gallon better with non-ethanol. The Infiniti Q45 throws the check engine light from time to time because of the ethanol. All of the vintage cars suffer from dry fuel bowls if they are left to sit a week or longer. The ethanol has lead me to have to rebuild all 8 carbs in the old cars because it ate up various gaskets and seals in every carbureted car.

[Kurt]

10% ethanol lowers your mpg's one or two miles, plus your horsepower decreases about 10%. Ethanol is just not as efficient a fuel as gasoline. If I had a choice and it wasn't a huge price difference, I would go for the non-ethanol fuel. I know the corn producers love it, but I don't find the logic in running up our food prices just to satisfy a questionable EPA mandate.

Corn used for ethanol has little to no effect on food supply/prices. The ethanol by products are used for animal feed. So we get food and fuel both.... Just for the record I do not like the ethanol mandate either.

To answer the question, it depends.... Two of my Studes run fine on ethanol, one does not, So I feed them accordingly.

[bsrosell]

my assumption has been that the alcohol in the "regular gas" would be more prone to high temps in summer parades, idling, etc... and therefore to vapor lock.
So, have tried to get Dad to run premium NON-OXYGENATED (no alcohol) in the '53 Buick V8 (all original). Seems to help when he does it, but he still likes the tin foil and clothespin approach and credits that. :-) As for me, I'm installing a newer (NOS R2 ?) fuel pump in my Golden Hawk so I can have a return line to the tank and keep it circulating. In that case, only issues I can see would be those mentioned above, seals, and the fact that it can turn to jelly in a carb bowl over the winter up here (at least I've seen it in my lawn tractors and such, without SeaFoam or something in it).
I use non-oxygenated premium in all my small engines that sit for long periods, and my Model-A Ford; no problems with any of them since I've started doing it.

[Kurt]

You can use race gas or aviation gas too. Neither has alcohol. They are pretty cashy though. Some have reported success blending regular gas and race/aviation with success.

[deco_droid]

Corn used for ethanol has little to no effect on food supply/prices. The ethanol by products are used for animal feed. So we get food and fuel both.... Just for the record I do not like the ethanol mandate either.

To answer the question, it depends.... Two of my Studes run fine on ethanol, one does not, So I feed them accordingly.

I don't know how it can be disputed that taking millions upon millions of bushels of corn out of the food supply and diverting it to fuel use can NOT affect food prices. Less supply + constant, if not growing demand = higher prices. The proof of this is when inflation is calculated, they never include the data for fuel and food because it's "too volatile" and would show just how much food prices have gone up in recent years.

I also find it interesting how corn farmers are all for ethanol production and dead set against repealing the EPA mandate. Well, gee, if producing ethanol is NOT a sweetheart deal for them, why would they care so much about keeping it in place -- if they make the same amount of money either way. Hmmmm?

That being said, the main issue is that ethanol is just not an efficient fuel. I heard recently scientists developed another renewable fuel that is more efficient (don't remember what it is called offhand) but it is not allowed by the EPA simply because it is not ethanol. How does that encourage research and development?

[Kurt]

I am not trying to start a fight, or turn this into a political debate, but the fact is that when ethanol is produced, the corn is not "thrown away" the by products are used to feed cttle, hogs, chickens, etc.It is fed as gluten or distillers grain. It is a very economical feed. If it were not being used, then yes we would be taking away from the food supply. One problem is growing demand for grain in deveoping nations. As nations increase their standard of living they "eat better". The other fact is these developing nations are willing to pay a higher price for US grains and ethanol by products. This also drives up the cost of food to US consumers. Farmers have experienced below trend line yields for 3 years in a row. That is also making US grain more expensive. Those issues have as much or more to do with high food prices as ethanol. If there are more efficient ways to make renewable fuels, I agree that we should not let the politicians and lobbiest stand in the way. If we do find a way, it will still require land to grow that renewable source. Land, that won't be available to grow corn on.

Back to the topic.... My only complaint is that we do not have a choice, and are being forced to buy a fuel that is not all that it could be......

[Dick Steinkamp]

There are many farmers that make a lot of money NOT growing crops (due to government programs to limit supply and keep prices up)...corn being one of them.

I'm far happier with the farmers growing and selling their crops to a larger market (due to ethanol production) than having my tax dollars working by paying them to not grow it.

"Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments."

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

[studebakerkid]

The only engines I run on non alcohol blended fuel are my 66 Bultaco and my chainsaw and that is just because the fuel tanks are vintage plastic and will split with the alcohol blended fuel. Many Expensive motorcycles are in the same boat and there have been multiple lawsuits on this issue. My studes get alon on the 10 percent just fine as do my tractors and even my Triumph.

[Don Jeffers]

E-10, gasoline with 10% Ethanol, has about 3.3 percent less energy than straight gasoline.

It's the energy content that provides the heat to push the piston to push the car.

E-10 gets about 2% less mileage than straight gasoline.

Ethanol is corrosive. As for the effect on fuel system parts, Ethanol is effective at degrading the old soft parts. It's also effective at loosening old varnish in old car gas tanks and fuel systems and clogging the system. And it degrades the lead-tin alloys used in the plating of old car fuel tanks.

I use E-10 in my '54 Stude because that's about all that's available. If problems arise, like with a lot of other things, I just deal with it.

I would prefer having the choice of gasoline or E-10. When possible, I always go for the pure gasoline. Not much opportunity for that now-a-days, though.

As for the effect on animal feed, we got some anecdotal information on that subject when we were having our motorhome ammonia cycle refrigerator rebuilt by an Amish shop in Shipshewana, IN, last year.

The Amish use the same ammonia system refrigerators in their homes to avoid using electric refrigerators. The guy doing the work said the use of E-10 greatly increased the cost of operating their buggies and feeding their horses in general.

The feed got a lot more expensive. He gave me some dollar amounts, but I've long since lost any accuracy of memory on those amounts.

[deco_droid]

I know there are complexities to the farmer ethanol subject, but my main point was how the mandate makes food prices higher, not feed. That's fine that they can use the by products of ethanol production for animal feed, but those acres diverted for ethanol use are acres that could be used to lower our food prices through greater supply.

Someone brought up the issue of low crop yields, which is another good point. Any time the harvest suffers for whatever reason, the EPA mandate doesn't go away, so that creates less supply and higher food prices.

And I've heard that some farmers are paid by the govt. to NOT produce crops, which I have always thought is ridiculous. Just let the free market work. Of course if we were given a free market choice to buy ethanol or not, it would die a quick death. I am hopeful though -- when Al Gore admits ethanol is not all it's cracked up to be, there is a chance the politicians are listening to science.