kennyw
Road warrior
OK, time to start a new ethanol thread in the classifieds... not sure how to do that and meet the rules but it should work with some creativity.
Ethanol vs. Your Engine
- Thread starter fiscy_imp
- Start date
Southwend
Running like a top
I live in a very rural area and have access to non-ethanol fuel as it is preferred for the many small engine applications on farm equipment. Question, I know the manual says 86 octane but I have been running the 93 high test anyway, non ethanol at 87 octane should not be a problem, right?
All things equal should have about the same energy as the 93?
All things equal should have about the same energy as the 93?
ChipBeck_imp
Road warrior
Gentlemen,
One other item to consider. When developing energy resources to power the nation one of the most important factors is "energy yield". This is the net addition in energy after all energy expenditures required to produce the fuel or electricity for end users. When oil is refined into gasoline the net energy yield is about 84%. In other words, for every 100 BTUs produced by refined gasoline, 16 BTUs are of energy are consumed in the production of that gasoline. You can think of your personal employment the same way. You might have a job that requires an expenditure for dry-cleaning your business suits, cell phone bills, commuting, etc. If you spent $16 on such expenditures for every $100 that the job paid you, your job (leaving taxes out to keep this simple) would yield 84% of your take-home pay that you could actually spend on non-work related items.
Ethanol has a net energy yield of less than 20%. For every 100 BTUs produced by refined ethanol, approximately 82 BTUs are consumed in it's production, most of that energy being used in farming and the transportation prior to refining. In many cases the net energy yield producing ethanol is actually negative.
The cleanest fuel currently available to power automobiles is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine the only byproduct is water. How cool is that? So why aren't we powering all of our automobiles and trucks with hydrogen? The answer is negative energy yield. It requires nearly 5 times as much energy to produce hydrogen as that hydrogen will yield while powering a vehicle. 100 BTUs of hydrogen requires approximately 500 BTUs to produce it. This would be like spending $500 a day on expenses to perform a job that paid you $100 a day.
Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are efficient, pre-existing fuel sources that require a minimal expenditure of energy to extract and refine them. If vast piles of corn existed somewhere and did not need to be farmed, planted, fertilized, watered, harvested, and transported then ethanol might have a net energy yield similar to that of oil. But the tremendous amount of energy required to perform all of the steps prior to the refining process makes ethanol marginal at best and a net loser at worst when it comes to lessening this nation's dependence upon fossil fuels. Hydrogen would be a dream fuel if there was a way to produce it cheaply.
Currently, the only efficient energy sources are those that do not need to be produced. Oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium don't need to be produced, they are pre-existing and can be found and extracted with minimal energy expenditure. Producing an energy source on the other hand, whether it's ethanol, hydrogen, or Duracell batteries, uses a ton of energy in the production process resulting in slim or negative net energy yields. All the best.
Chip
One other item to consider. When developing energy resources to power the nation one of the most important factors is "energy yield". This is the net addition in energy after all energy expenditures required to produce the fuel or electricity for end users. When oil is refined into gasoline the net energy yield is about 84%. In other words, for every 100 BTUs produced by refined gasoline, 16 BTUs are of energy are consumed in the production of that gasoline. You can think of your personal employment the same way. You might have a job that requires an expenditure for dry-cleaning your business suits, cell phone bills, commuting, etc. If you spent $16 on such expenditures for every $100 that the job paid you, your job (leaving taxes out to keep this simple) would yield 84% of your take-home pay that you could actually spend on non-work related items.
Ethanol has a net energy yield of less than 20%. For every 100 BTUs produced by refined ethanol, approximately 82 BTUs are consumed in it's production, most of that energy being used in farming and the transportation prior to refining. In many cases the net energy yield producing ethanol is actually negative.
The cleanest fuel currently available to power automobiles is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine the only byproduct is water. How cool is that? So why aren't we powering all of our automobiles and trucks with hydrogen? The answer is negative energy yield. It requires nearly 5 times as much energy to produce hydrogen as that hydrogen will yield while powering a vehicle. 100 BTUs of hydrogen requires approximately 500 BTUs to produce it. This would be like spending $500 a day on expenses to perform a job that paid you $100 a day.
Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are efficient, pre-existing fuel sources that require a minimal expenditure of energy to extract and refine them. If vast piles of corn existed somewhere and did not need to be farmed, planted, fertilized, watered, harvested, and transported then ethanol might have a net energy yield similar to that of oil. But the tremendous amount of energy required to perform all of the steps prior to the refining process makes ethanol marginal at best and a net loser at worst when it comes to lessening this nation's dependence upon fossil fuels. Hydrogen would be a dream fuel if there was a way to produce it cheaply.
Currently, the only efficient energy sources are those that do not need to be produced. Oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium don't need to be produced, they are pre-existing and can be found and extracted with minimal energy expenditure. Producing an energy source on the other hand, whether it's ethanol, hydrogen, or Duracell batteries, uses a ton of energy in the production process resulting in slim or negative net energy yields. All the best.
Chip
redbirds_imp
Road warrior
Thanks for the info Chip. 
the Ferret
Road warrior
Southwend, the CB has low compression, and is low revving. Honda specifies 87 octane, and approved for up to 10% ethanol. You don't need 93 octane and as much as people want to believe and even though wives tales to the contrary abound, your bike will not run any better on 93 octane than 87 octane. You can certainly run 93 if you wish, but you are just wasting money. It will probably run a little better and get better mileage on non ethanol gas from research I have done, but I can't verify that personally. I probably get some of the best mileage on the forum and all I run is 87 octane gas with 10% ethanol. Honda says that is ok for my bike, they are the designers and engineers who built the bike. I take them at their word, I am not an engineer.southwend_imp said:
some easy and interesting reading if you are so inclined
http://www.cartalk.com/content/premium-vs-regular-1
kennyw
Road warrior
Chip,
Great info but you left out hydroelectric, solar, and other renewables. I'd be curious how they compare in overall energy yield. My favorite is still nuclear power when handled properly.
Great info but you left out hydroelectric, solar, and other renewables. I'd be curious how they compare in overall energy yield. My favorite is still nuclear power when handled properly.
Lord Popgun
Road warrior
Why can't we use nuclear batteries in electric cars? Cost? Fear?
the Ferret
Road warrior
Although fascinating, hydro electric, solar, uranium, nuclear, wind have nothing to do with our CB's, or as far as I know, motorcycles in general. Lets stay on topic.
emptysea
Road warrior
Gonna chime in here (although I may have already done so 3 pages or 3 ethanol threads ago)...
I use 89 octane in my bike, if it's available and only because I THINK it performs better with my aftermarket exhaust. I don't care if it has 10% ethanol in it, but I opt for the non-ethanol if there is a choice at the pump, even if that's a lower or higher octane. I do not care what brand of gasoline I use, although I prefer to use my local Shell station when I'm home because he's local, a nice guy, and doesn't charge for air. I probably run just about as much 87 octane e-10 as I do 89 octane "pure". I have 17,000 miles on my bike and it runs like a champ.
I have heard that there's a problem with storing your bike with ethanol in it, but I add stabil and besides, the bike doesn't usually sit for more than a couple of weeks in the winter.
So, here's my point....if you can get nearly 20,000 miles on your bike without really paying attention to the octane or mixture, I'm pretty sure you can get 20,000 miles more on it without changing your buying habits. My guess is that well over 50% of the folks here will have a different bike before this one gets to 40,000 miles so, in the end, it should make almost no difference to the typical rider if they use e-10 or not. Just ride, fuel, repeat.
I use 89 octane in my bike, if it's available and only because I THINK it performs better with my aftermarket exhaust. I don't care if it has 10% ethanol in it, but I opt for the non-ethanol if there is a choice at the pump, even if that's a lower or higher octane. I do not care what brand of gasoline I use, although I prefer to use my local Shell station when I'm home because he's local, a nice guy, and doesn't charge for air. I probably run just about as much 87 octane e-10 as I do 89 octane "pure". I have 17,000 miles on my bike and it runs like a champ.
I have heard that there's a problem with storing your bike with ethanol in it, but I add stabil and besides, the bike doesn't usually sit for more than a couple of weeks in the winter.
So, here's my point....if you can get nearly 20,000 miles on your bike without really paying attention to the octane or mixture, I'm pretty sure you can get 20,000 miles more on it without changing your buying habits. My guess is that well over 50% of the folks here will have a different bike before this one gets to 40,000 miles so, in the end, it should make almost no difference to the typical rider if they use e-10 or not. Just ride, fuel, repeat.
kennyw
Road warrior
For the general case, there are electric powered motorcycles. But it is straying off topic.The ferret_imp said:
Wisedrum
Road warrior
I stick to this comment. The last couple of months I always used 87 octane gas with 10% ethanol without any problems.The ferret_imp said:
The Honda runs good with an excellent mileage, which my also be due to the warm weather conditions the CB has been driven in.
And the engineers should know more about the bike than any other, which pretend to know a little more, well, but they don't.
Wisedrum
AndyHe_imp
Running like a top
Oh I agree it runs fine with 87 octane and 10% ethanol. Runs like a sewing machine.
I just happen to believe that I have seen much better than a 10% MPG improvement when running without ethanol so I don't see it adding value.
The fact that it breaks down over time is also a PITA for mowers and such when they don't get used much.
I just happen to believe that I have seen much better than a 10% MPG improvement when running without ethanol so I don't see it adding value.
The fact that it breaks down over time is also a PITA for mowers and such when they don't get used much.
emptysea
Road warrior
Doing some very quick math: i have 17000 miles on my bike over 3 years. Let's say I get 45 mpg. 17000/45=378 gallons used. If I increased my fuel economy by 10%, I would be getting about 50mpg. 17000/50=340 gallons used. A savings of 38 gallons of gas. Let's say that the cost of that gas is $3.00/gallon (I usually pay a bit less than this). That's $114.00 over 3 years or $38.00/year....or a little more than 6/10ths of a cent per mile. I'm just not going to worry about fuel economy in general or how ethanol does or does not affect it specifically.
Southwend
Running like a top
Thanks for the info, Ferret. I usually keep multiple 5 gallon containers full of treated non-ethanol gas because my small engines like it and it is much more stable to store than ethanol. I agree that 93 octane is a psychological benefit and no doubt wasteful. Of course the bike was brand new and it made me feel better BUT I think i am over it now. My Wife's Bonnie on the other hand craves the good go juice. I would prefer to keep the Honda filled with 87 stabilized gas anyway. So good info all around. Oh and I like the comment about the 'easy' read, does it have pictures too? How did you know that I was a teacher on summer break, I try not to read anything more challenging than the funny pages until the fall:beerchug:
the Ferret
Road warrior
I think my Bonnie called for mid grade 89. Anyhow some links look like links to legal briefs or Kevin Cameron articles. My eyes usually glaze over about 100 words in and I lose comprehension focus with those type articles hence the " easy read" link lol
ChipBeck_imp
Road warrior
Gentlemen,
There is one reason to use premium in bikes that don't require it. All Chevron gasolines have Techron additive. It works better than the oxygenates in Shell, Mobil, 76, etc. to keep valves carbon free and fuel injectors clean. Premium Chevron has twice as much Techron per gallon as regular Chevron fuels. My CB does not get ridden that often so I use Premium. Non Top Tier gasoline from Oil Companies like Giant and Maverik and most grocery store stations don't have any detergents and problems with carbon buildup are significant within 10,000 miles. Cheers.
Chip
There is one reason to use premium in bikes that don't require it. All Chevron gasolines have Techron additive. It works better than the oxygenates in Shell, Mobil, 76, etc. to keep valves carbon free and fuel injectors clean. Premium Chevron has twice as much Techron per gallon as regular Chevron fuels. My CB does not get ridden that often so I use Premium. Non Top Tier gasoline from Oil Companies like Giant and Maverik and most grocery store stations don't have any detergents and problems with carbon buildup are significant within 10,000 miles. Cheers.
Chip
redbirds_imp
Road warrior
Our local grocery store fuel island has the lowest price in town but has no detergent additives. You can select a detergent additive when you turn on the pump but the price per gallon goes up to the price of the name brand gas.
ChipBeck_imp
Road warrior
Using and selling raw gasoline without additives is perfectly legal of course but it's false economy. All major car makers recommend using Top Tier fuels. Without effective detergents hard carbon deposits start building up on intake and exhaust valves which impede air flow, decrease mileage, and increase emissions. Fuel injectors often stop flowing properly as well. For the last 35 years all automakers building cars in the U.S. have used Chevron fuels exclusively for their 50,000 mile emissions and fuel mileage testing. There are no Chevron stations in Michigan so makers there truck Chevron gas nearly 1000 miles to us it. That should tell drivers a lot.redbirds_imp said:
Chip
JustPassinThru_imp
Been there
Using and selling raw gasoline without additives is perfectly legal of course but it's false economy. All major car makers recommend using Top Tier fuels. Without effective detergents hard carbon deposits start building up on intake and exhaust valves which impede air flow, decrease mileage, and increase emissions. Fuel injectors often stop flowing properly as well. For the last 35 years all automakers building cars in the U.S. have used Chevron fuels exclusively for their 50,000 mile emissions and fuel mileage testing. There are no Chevron stations in Michigan so makers there truck Chevron gas nearly 1000 miles to us it. That should tell drivers a lot.ChipBeck_imp said:
Chip
Holiday convenience stores in Michigan make a big deal of selling Top Tier branded gasoline. I always thought it was a Holiday trademark; now I see it used at other stations. Must be a tradmark for a mix of detergent additives - Kwik Trip stores in Wisconsin used the same trademark.
There's a lot of cross-pollination of gas brands - In Ohio, Standard of Ohio country, Sohio/BP took their brands off their tank trucks, because so often they'd be filling up the BP station at one point, and then the Gastown station across the street.
If you buy from a reputable vendor (not reservation gas; not Joe's Gas and Tax Service) you'll probably be okay. The only thing I look for, is, first - non-ethanol when I can get it; and second: If it IS advertised as non-ethanol, MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T SHARE A HOSE WITH OTHER GRADES OF GAS. Separate nozzle for the ethanol free.
DaSwami_imp
Been there
Now dang, I did not think of that. All my local stations use the same hose. For just filling up a couple of gallons, I can see how that is a big deal, and actually would explain a lot!!!!JustPassinThru_imp said:
