Seems it's good as a cheap source of octane.

I pulled this bit out from an NPR article that made some mention of laws and politics so I wont post the source here.




The ethanol mandate requires gasoline companies to do something that, at the moment, they'd do anyway.

The reason, in a word, is octane.

Octane is a measure of gasoline's tendency to ignite under pressure. If it's too low, the gasoline/air mixture in an engine's cylinders will burn too soon, creating damaging "knocking."

The industry standard for gasoline is 87. But getting gasoline's octane rating up to that standard costs money. It means more refining of the petroleum, or using high-octane compounds in your gasoline formula, such as â€" you guessed it â€" ethanol. So gasoline companies aren't using ethanol for its energy â€" they're buying it for its high octane rating.

There are other compounds that you can add to boost octane levels, but many, like alkylate or iso-octane, are generally more expensive than ethanol. Another additive that is widely used globally, called MTBE, has such a bad reputation for polluting the environment that many states have passed regulations that make it difficult to use.

"As of today, the alternative sources of octane are more expensive," says Irwin, who just updated his calculations on demand for ethanol last week.

Niznik, from Stratas Advisors, says that when corn prices hit a peak in 2012, because of a drought in the Midwest, there were bitter complaints about the ethanol mandate among farmers and people in the food industry who wanted that corn to be used for animal feed. "They were assuming that if we used less ethanol, the price of corn would go down," he says.

"The truth is," Niznik continues, "the [petroleum] refining folks knew in their hearts that if the [ethanol mandate] went away for a while, ethanol use wouldn't drop much. They were looking around at the octane replacements, and knew that those things were really expensive." Niznik says removing ethanol also would have forced gasoline companies to disrupt their refinery operations.


Since this doesn't have anything directly to do with motorcycles I'll put it here.

Although that is true unless you are running E85 and compression high enough to offset the BTU difference between gasoline and ethanol you are loosing performance and fuel economy, not to mention swelling fuel tanks other side effects.

PM sent

Science perspective.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) published an article a couple of years ago that recommended not pursuing any energy source with an Energy Return On Investment (EROI) less that 5; e.g. amount of energy delivered vs amount of energy required to produce the source.

Ethanol was rated less than 2; bottom of the list along with biodiesel.  Tar-sand petroleum ranked higher than that at 3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested


Logical perspective.  It is pretty damn stupid to burn food.

Speaking of octane boosters...

A lot of people don't realize it, but that was the whole point of adding lead to gasoline back in the day.

Yes, sort of.

Ethanol (pure) has about 115 octane rating, but it flashes and burns far more quickly than gasoline and produces less energy.  Pump gasoline sans ethanol is around 84 octane. 

As long as ethanol is cheap in the US (for various reasons) it is cheaper for the gas companies to use it to enrich 84 octane gas instead of refining the gas up to 87. 

It does enhance the availability of energy in gasoline by lowering the flash point, but because it burns more quickly, the resulting gasoline blend has less energy (therefore, less HP and MPG per cc)

E85 has a very high octane rating, but owners experience a 10-20% drop in MPG and corresponding drop in HP when using it.

Additionally, ethanol has solvent properties that gasoline does not -- which is why most of the "valve cleaner" products are a mix of ethanol, methanol, mineral spirits, naphtha or kerosene.

Seafoam is mix of diesel fuel, naphtha and methanol or isopropanol.  

E10 gasoline is not really a problem in modern vehicles, but more than 10% creates performance issues -- lower MPG.

Anyone who tells you that ethanol is garbage is foolish unless they qualify it in some way -- ethanol is a fine fuel in engines DESIGNED FOR IT, but here in the US that is ONLY "E85" marked vehicles.  

There are other issues regarding the source of ethanol which make it problematic, but I won't address that.  By itself, ethanol is not a problem if used correctly and in the correct kind of engine.

Quote from: ducatiz on February 11, 2016, 09:53:04 AM

E85 has a very high octane rating, but owners experience a 10-20% drop in MPG and corresponding drop in HP when using it.

This is interesting. I have a 2009 F150 5.4 FFV. HP and TQ ratings from Ford show a 10HP and 25 ft-lb TQ increase with E85... (310 to 320 and 365 to 390)

Quote from: NAKID on February 11, 2016, 11:58:19 AM
This is interesting. I have a 2009 F150 5.4 FFV. HP and TQ ratings from Ford show a 10HP and 25 ft-lb TQ increase with E85... (310 to 320 and 365 to 390)

25 lb/ft of marketing is a significant difference.

Torque.

I meant to say torque.

Quote from: Rameses on February 11, 2016, 02:10:57 PM

Torque.

I meant to say torque.

Hahahaha!

Quote from: NAKID on February 11, 2016, 11:58:19 AM
This is interesting. I have a 2009 F150 5.4 FFV. HP and TQ ratings from Ford show a 10HP and 25 ft-lb TQ increase with E85... (310 to 320 and 365 to 390)

Depends how Ford built the motor.
If they set it up specifically to run good on E85, then I would expect that.

Unless the motor has a turbo, and can actively control the boost, how well it runs on 'gasoline' vs E85 is going to be dependent on how they biased the build.

Quote from: NAKID on February 11, 2016, 11:58:19 AM
This is interesting. I have a 2009 F150 5.4 FFV. HP and TQ ratings from Ford show a 10HP and 25 ft-lb TQ increase with E85... (310 to 320 and 365 to 390)

you give up MPG to get that.

in real life, most people want to keep the MPG so the cars are tuned to drop HP.

Edmunds did real life testig with it.  MPG loss runs around 20-30% for some vehicles.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html

Your Ford truck is probably running a fairly high compression ratio with excellent volumetric efficiency.  I would also suspect they are comparing torque using 87, not 93.  Ducatiz' explanation is excellent, but there are always exceptions.  Oh, Ford could be fibbing a little bit.

Quote from: ducatiz on February 11, 2016, 09:28:44 PM
you give up MPG to get that.

in real life, most people want to keep the MPG so the cars are tuned to drop HP.

Edmunds did real life testig with it.  MPG loss runs around 20-30% for some vehicles.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html

No, I completely agree. I wasn't interested in the "extra" power available with the E85. I was concerned with bang for the buck MPG. E85 isn't abundantly available where I live and even when I am able to find it, it's not worth the minor difference in price compared to the major difference in fuel economy.

I have run a few tanks of it through before to get my real world numbers and until there is at least $1-$1.25 difference in price, it's not worth it in my application.

Quote from: NAKID on February 12, 2016, 01:05:17 PM

I have run a few tanks of it through before to get my real world numbers and until there is at least $1-$1.25 difference in price, it's not worth it in my application.

Compared to what grade of gas?

Around here it's about $1.10/gallon cheaper than 93 octane.