New E-15 Ethanol Gas creating BIG problems!

I wouldn't mind seeing a more technical source on the effects of compression ratio on completeness of combustion and octane rating. Or any kind of prospective research pointing to a connection between grain consumption and cancer, the question is too complex for me to put any weight into an ecological study, as I pointed out before, people who don't starve to death when they are young tend to live to get cancer more often.

So prove I don't know what I am talking about. Shouldn't be difficult if that is the case.

Show how high octane fuel doesn't burn completely and leads to lower performance when burned in engines that don't require high octane fuel.

Ball's in your court.

I speak from experience. There are dozens of theories on how this stuff works, I speak as someone who has done this on the dyno, both engine and chassis, and have seen the results. There isn't much difference if you are talking 87-93, but if you are talking running and engine designed to run on 87 octane, and are trying to make it run on c16 (117 octane), you will be down on power considerably, it will be hard to start, won't be responsive at all, and the exhaust will reek of unburnt fuel, showing off the charts unburnt h/c levels. No amount of tuning will correct this. Now, running the c16 in a 14-1 compression engine, you get the exact opposite. Great running, snappy, clean burning and will fire right off.

You can do your own research on the net, I've done this in my own shop, on my own dyno's, with my own engines, and done it dozens of times. I've proven this to customers hundreds of times as well. Chevy, Ford, Mopar, Toyota, Nissan, MG, Triumph, Harley, Suzuki, Honda, Kawasaki, even a Ural. I've gotten more power, cleaner, out of them all with the proper octane fuel over a fuel with too much octane. Proper fuel for engine or proper engine for the fuel, 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other, same thing.

UMMMMM Marmot, you wrote that high octane fuels will burn "exactly" the same as low octane fuel in a low compression engine.

SEE POST #83

YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION IN POST #99

Marmot
"Well, I guess if J quoted you and it's on the internet then it must be true!

The EPA did an interesting study a few years ago to determine how knock sensors might allow the use of lower octane fuel, or at least reduce the need for higher octane in the days before ethanol entered the picture as an octane booster.

Look up EPA/AA/CTBB/TA/82-1 Knock Sensor Vehicle Test Program by Larry C. landman. It documents that fact that higher emissions were measured when the same 8.0:1 CR engine used high octane fuel vs lower octane.

That means combustion of the low octane fuel was more complete. As a matter of fact, they also documented better mileage with lower octane fuel in the same engine. That kind of knocks (no pun intended) your myths on the head."

Higher emmissions were measured when the same 8.0:1 compression used high octane fuel versus lower octane fuel. That means combustion of the low octane fuel was more complete......DUH

Was this post edited? I only recalled seeing the first line.

Anyways, as J stated, you proved my point yourself.

On the surface that would appear to be the case. But, keep in mind those tests were performed in the early 1980s before ethanol became the oxygenator and octane enhancer of choice.

I see what you mean though, re-reading my posts made me go "duh" for a minute too ... until I returned to the present era. Don't ignore that those tests were done on the same model engine in the same model car using different fuels. That 1980 engine was carbureted and turbocharged, the poster engine for high octane fuel.

The tests showed that when "mechanical octane" was provided by the knock sensor, better performance was obtained with the lower octane fuel - even in an engine designed to benefit from high octane. But, since the EPA stepped in and required even lower emissions we have moved out of the bronze age as far as engines are concerned. Carburetors are a relic.

To correct the emissions issues that MIT and the EPA documented, and I referenced, refiners were forced to use an additive to increase the amount of oxygen available in the fuel to achieve more complete combustion as well as raise octane. They used MBTE which was consequently found to be really nasty stuff and probably worse than the lead it replaced and was itself replaced by alcohol.

There is no current data (that I have been able to find - and I have looked) to show that using high octane fuel in automotive engines currently in service that were designed for lower octane fuel decreases performance or increases emissions. If you can find data from an independent lab then please provide a citation.

I am not talking about or interested in race car engines, "race gasoline", antique cars, carbureted engines, exotic supercars, or anything other than would be seen driving down any American street today.

The mythology around any automotive technology is profoundly resistant to change. It is a very common myth that using high octane fuel in cars that don't require it will help reduce emissions enough to get through a smog check so that myth directly counters your myth.

Like I wrote ... provide citations to peer reviewed studies that show the use of high octane fuel in a car that does not require it will lead to poor combustion. If there are any they should be easy to find.

Real data does not include cut and pasted anecdotes from hot rod enthusiasts, car dealers, or aftermarket performance parts shops.

You just wrote that knock sensors allowed lower octane fuels make more power. Why? Because the lower octane was able to properly combust before being exhausted. Carb or efi doesn't change that.

You said you didn't care about classics, exotics, or anything that wouldn't be on the road today, but there are thousands of exotics, classics, hot rods and street legal race cars on the road today. Remember, the higher state of tune exaggerates situations that may be a non-issue in a low output engine. What is learned from exotics and race cars gets passed on the more common production cars all the time. High performance exotics were the reason it was learned that higher compression engines can run cleaner on lower octane fuels. Peak performance and peak efficency go hand in hand.

Lmao, high octane fuels will cause a low compression engine to fail emissions tests. Ever seen the fuel treatments that say they will make your car pass emissions? Rxp and the like? They lower the octane, and make the fuel burn hotter to clean up emissions. That's the funniest thing I ever heard, high octane fuels to pass emissions, my entire life in the performance industry, and the only people I have heard say stuff like that are the same people that would throw 2-stroke oil in the engine if the oil level was low because " oil is oil." The oil is oil mentality would fall for the "premium is better" scam. That may have been a rumor among non-car people, but not people with experience.

You stated that "Real data does not include cut and pasted anecdotes from hot rod enthusiasts, car dealers, or aftermarket performance parts shops." And yet you mention some rumor that in my time in the automotive industry I have never heard from anyone that matters. Maybe some high school kid asking how to make his car pass emissions, but never a single individual in the industry because it is laughable.

You talk about carbs being outdated, that is true. But efi isn't a magical fix all. It has some adjustability, but within set limits. It can help an engine adjust to mildly different fuels. That does not change much about internal combustion. A spark ignition engine is a spark ignition engine, tests on an old one aren't made wrong just because something newer came along.

I'm still laughing about high octane fuels helping you pass emissions. I expect a myth like that from some fatherless 16 year old, but not from a grown adult with an IQ. I've kicked back timing and dropped 87 in hot rods before to pass emissions, not the other way around.

I'm not even looking to find you sources on the net. Like I said, I've been doing this for 2/3rds of my life, thousands of hours spent on the dyno trying to make the most efficient combustion, because that means the most power and the cleanest running engine. False sources mean nothing when personal experience has proven them wrong. I can spread false rumors like yourself or I can speak from experience. I choose the latter.

So here's a question. The government heavily advertises that the ethanol gas blend causes less particulate pollution. I know that it has very low sulphur content (but gas doesn't have much to begin with). So are they straight up lying to us? Or is the combustion incomplete is such a way that soot does not result?

Ethanol burns cleaner, so displacing gasoline with it means less particulate emissions. Also, the added exhaust heat from incomplete combustion in the cylinder is used to heat the catalytic converters. Many new vehicles have the cats right at the end of the exhaust manifolds rather than under the vehicle to get more heat in them. Basically, instead of fixing the problem (too much octane or not enough compression), they slap a band-aid type fix on the exhaust. This caused poor exhaust flow and hurt efficiency, causing high exhaust emissions. Rather than fix the original problem, they throw another band-aid at it. That is easier for them than getting an EPA regulation changed.

But yea, the hotter cat cleans better than a cold one, so they are only halfway lying because they don't really understand what all is taking place.

But the ethanol doesn't move the catalytic converter does it? Is what is left over from the ethanol not burning more easily burned up by the catalytic converter? I'm just having trouble squaring up burning cleaner and incomplete combustion. I've always thought of these things as polar opposites.

Here's one for you.

Why the name change from Gasohol to Ethanol?

IN2itiv Films

I would imagine because Gasohol is a terrible, terrible name.

It isn't burning cleaner, the cat is just hot enough to clean off the extra emissions. Think of why they use alcohol in the medical field. It doesn't leave anything behind when it evaporates. Same thing when it burns. The added cleaner burning fuel in the exhaust brings enough heat to the cat that it can burn off the emissions from the other fuel. The catalyst uses a heated element to burn off some kinds of exhaust emissions, the hotter it is, the more effective it is.

As you are finding out, there is a lot of mythology surrounding anything automotive.

They moved the cat closer to the engine as a means to reduce the time it takes for the catalyst to reach ignition temperature. According to EPA and other testing labs, "the present generation of gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles tested according to the EPA's Federal Test Procedure emit 70-80% of exhaust emissions during the first minute or two following "cold-start".

Improved Method of Heating Catalytic Converters of Vehicles to Attain Ultra-Low Emissions | Research Project Database | NCER | ORD | US EPA

Moving the cat closer to the engine is one way to reduce cold start emissions. There have been attempts to heat the cat electrically and chemically but there is no practical system on the market today though research continues.

A cat does not remove all particulates and hydrocarbons. at best they remove around 90 percent. A diesel particulate filter may remove up to 99 percent of particulates by routing the exhaust gases through a wall between inlet and outlet channels. The cat converter has open channels that allow more material to pass, particularly when cold.

The U.S. absolutely. It takes more energy to get the ethanol out of the corn, than you get from the ethanol. Also, in most cars gasoline with 10% ethanol in it makes the car lose 10% in fuel economy. It's a lose lose situation.

Most cars using E10 lose less than 4 percent fuel economy compared to E0.

http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf Table 3.1

When you weigh the enormous environmental, social, and economic benefits of using oxygenated gasoline vs the stuff your grandparents used, losing 2 to 4 percent fuel economy is a pretty good trade - particularly when you consider that overall mileage has improved around 60 percent since 1980.

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2011/cars-on-steroids-0104

"All factors being equal, fuel economy actually increased by 60 percent between 1980 and 2006, as Knittel shows in a new research paper, 'Automobiles on Steroids,' just published in the American Economic Review."

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.7.3368


If we listened to the hot rod enthusiasts and amateur automotive engineers we would need haz mat suits to walk around most major cities and more places would look like the photo below.

Because we don't let the oil companies and hot rod enthusiasts run the country we have made some progress and a few percent less mileage is a cheap bill to pay.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...0s-but-smog-levels-still-high-study-says.html

The real information is available if anyone really wants it instead of just passing on the same old myths.

$$ vs people

Has there EVER been a time when, in a money vs. people situation, that people came out on top?

When we ended prohibition. When we ended slavery.

The repeal of prohibition is arguable ... the states lost much of their revenue from liquor taxes and the cost of enforcement rose faster than the nation's spending on alcohol ... which was faster than a speeding rum runner.

New York lost 75 percent of its revenues instantly, the cost to the Feds in prisons alone increased over a thousand percent. We found ourselves paying state income taxes.

I could be argued that economic pressures, rather than altruism finally led to repeal.