Would you leave my gas alone!

If they could make fuel from fetuses, then the political landscape would be far different .... (OK, OK, it was in poor taste. (like that's unheard of around here))

DILYSI Dave wrote:

xFactor wrote: Well, I haven't noticed any detonation difference between e10 and old fashioned 93 pump gas, but e85 is like running pure alky, where you crank the boost and timing. But you need a monster fuel system, like 1600cc injectors for a 2.0L engine and all that supporting stuff. Alky does burns cooler and slower, kinda like the way high octane Q15 race fuel does...but way cheaper. later, matt

Hello Mrs. Information. I'm running 450cc injectors on my 12:1, 10psi , 1.6L. They are nowhere near maxed out.

First, I think you meant Miss Information, thank you.

Second, I'm talking about systems that make 600+hp on corn.

Third, (This is where I'm extrapolating a little), according to RC Engineering's injector calculator, working the math backwards, you are good for 216 hp at the crankshaft, on gas, with a BSFC of .63, 43.5psi and a duty cycle of 80%. Real world apps definately have seen more than 216hp at the crank though with a 450cc on a 1.6l.

Now I don't know what blends of gas or moonshine you have up there, but I'm betting if you are making any substantial power, (300+ to the wheels) the injectors probably are close to static on gas. I don't even see how it would be possible on e85.

But hey, I don't know nuthin'...

later, matt

JoeyM wrote: I can't say that I've noticed a difference in the smell around a pump, but I can definitely smell a difference in the exhaust of leaded and unleaded gas[+]. Perhaps part of the difference you are detecting is the absence of lead in modern pump gasoline.

I'm not that old.

xFactor wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

xFactor wrote: Well, I haven't noticed any detonation difference between e10 and old fashioned 93 pump gas, but e85 is like running pure alky, where you crank the boost and timing. But you need a monster fuel system, like 1600cc injectors for a 2.0L engine and all that supporting stuff. Alky does burns cooler and slower, kinda like the way high octane Q15 race fuel does...but way cheaper. later, matt

Hello Mrs. Information. I'm running 450cc injectors on my 12:1, 10psi , 1.6L. They are nowhere near maxed out.

First, I think you meant Miss Information, thank you. Second, I'm talking about systems that make 600+hp on corn. Third, (This is where I'm extrapolating a little), according to RC Engineering's injector calculator, working the math backwards, you are good for 216 hp at the crankshaft, on gas, with a BSFC of .63, 43.5psi and a duty cycle of 80%. Real world apps definately have seen more than 216hp at the crank though with a 450cc on a 1.6l. Now I don't know what blends of gas or moonshine you have up there, but I'm betting if you are making any substantial power, (300+ to the wheels) the injectors probably are close to static on gas. I don't even see how it would be possible on e85. But hey, I don't know nuthin'... later, matt

600+ HP on corn probably would require a lot more than I've got. Maybe even 1600cc. I didn't realize you were talking 2 Liter drag motors. It read like you were talking about normal street motors.

I'm putting 215 to the ground. So probably 250 - 275 at the crank. The fuel is pump E85 - no fancy blend. I agree with you that 300+ to the wheels probably won't work on the 450's with E85, but probably would on gas.

Knurled wrote:

JoeyM wrote: Perhaps part of the difference you are detecting is the absence of lead in modern pump gasoline.

I'm not that old.

I am.

I can definitely smell the difference at the pump. Last week the last station in town finally gave into E-10 and I could smell it instantly. As far as effects on older vehicles goes for me, I have had it eat through a few sets of rubber lines, which should be solved now with updated lines.

I just don't understand burning a bunch of diesel to produce a food crop and bring it to the factory, then a bunch more energy to make it into fuel. Sure it helps one market, but hurts another.

Oh, you guys are talking about the smell of the ethanol (Which I should have figured out from the overall subject of the thread.) Yes, the smell of ethanol is detectable, both at the pump and in exhaust of street cars.

In pure form (e.g. indy car fuel) it is REALLY obvious. During qualifying at the Grand Prix in St. Pete, we were commenting about how different the Indy and ALMS cars smelled.

I have no real opinion on this. I haven't noticed any real difference with 10% vs "pure".

Anyway, I bought some 112 octane gas at the Watkins Glen race track last week, while I was at a ~vintage race~. The race gas pumps at the track stated "Contains 10% Ethanol". The 100 octane pump had the same note.

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever smelled pump gas that wasn't E10.

the "pure" was a reference to indy cars burning pure ethanol. (In reality, it is 98% ethanol, 2% gasoline, so as to render it inedible.) That smell is very distinct.

I think that high ethanol cars are easily identified with the nose, just like nitromethane dragsters are. YMMV

Rad_Capz wrote: You'll find a list of ethanol free stations here http://pure-gas.org/

and there are none in Asheville...

RexSeven wrote: RANT ON: Big Agriculture and corn subsidies strike again. Not only does corn-based ethanol drive up the price of food corn, it also does not accomplish any environmental goals. In fact, it's worse for the environment. The processing of corn to become ethanol requires a lot of energy, and we aren't reducing oil consumption due to E10's lower fuel efficiency. I'm not totally against ethanol- Platinum90 mentioned its higher resistance to detonation, and there are other plants and biomass materials that can be made into ethanol - it's just that I'm against companies like ADM pushing corn-based ethanol blends to boost their profits. As long as Iowa remains an important election state, we'll never see a reduction in government corn subsidies or Big Ag's lobbying. RANT OFF.

Agreed

Way off topic, but on point with the corn subsidies and ADM..... High Fructose Corn Syrup in food stuffs. Nasty, nasty, nasty. I specifically look at every label to avoid that crap and will even pay more for that product. I already have enough girth for myself and someone else, I don't need more of it from eating something that a body can not process properly.

Now, I just need some E85 pumps here for that cheap "race" gas.......

Brian

wbjones wrote:

Rad_Capz wrote: You'll find a list of ethanol free stations here http://pure-gas.org/

and there are none in Asheville...

There's a couple around me, but they're all at least 30 minutes out of my way.

On the flip side, if i wanted to drive 3 hours, i can get REAL 94 octane.

TASTY.

wbjones wrote:

Rad_Capz wrote: You'll find a list of ethanol free stations here http://pure-gas.org/

and there are none in Asheville...

don't feel bad, on the other side of the Mountain in Morristown we lost our local ethanol free station.

I wasn't crazy about it because it was ethanol free but it would give you $0.03 off per gallon if you had a receipe from Wendy's. Excuse to buy a frosty.

Ranger50 wrote: Way off topic, but on point with the corn subsidies and ADM..... High Fructose Corn Syrup in food stuffs. Nasty, nasty, nasty. I specifically look at every label to avoid that crap and will even pay more for that product. I already have enough girth for myself and someone else, I don't need more of it from eating something that a body can not process properly. Now, I just need some E85 pumps here for that cheap "race" gas....... Brian

Can you cite a credible source? I have seen no scientific evidence suggesting that hfcs is handled any differently by our bodies than cane or beet sugar. Corn alcohol in our gas is bs for sure. It costs more to produce, contains less energy, and raises the cost of food. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Another rant-worthy point is when burned, ethanol puts out 3x the amount of "greenhouse gas" of gasoline.

It's all about subsidies and buying votes.............

16vCorey wrote: IIRC, a lot of the '80s Ford trucks had problems with alcohol messing up the valve that switched between the front tank and the rear tank, but that's the only real ethanol related problem that I can think of.

E36 M3! that's what i drive!! And now that I'm in MA I can't buy pure gas...

2002maniac wrote: Can you cite a credible source? I have seen no scientific evidence suggesting that hfcs is handled any differently by our bodies than cane or beet sugar.

Sadly, I cannot.There hasn't been enough research done to prove or disprove the theory. But I will leave you with this thought. Clearly, we are getting fatter nearly exponentially since HFCS introduction in the early to mid 70's along with the rapid increase in insulin resistant Type II diabetes at the same time, coincidence or not? Right along with this thought, is HFCS really "natural" to your body when you have to modify corn starch to a derivative product to break that down farther to get to the end product?

Brian

Ranger50 wrote:

2002maniac wrote: Can you cite a credible source? I have seen no scientific evidence suggesting that hfcs is handled any differently by our bodies than cane or beet sugar.

Sadly, I cannot.There hasn't been enough research done to prove or disprove the theory. But I will leave you with this thought. Clearly, we are getting fatter nearly exponentially since HFCS introduction in the early to mid 70's along with the rapid increase in insulin resistant Type II diabetes at the same time, coincidence or not? Right along with this thought, is HFCS really "natural" to your body when you have to modify corn starch to a derivative product to break that down farther to get to the end product? Brian

Throwback Vs. regular Pepsi, the taste is enough for me

neon4891 wrote:

Ranger50 wrote:

2002maniac wrote: Can you cite a credible source? I have seen no scientific evidence suggesting that hfcs is handled any differently by our bodies than cane or beet sugar.

Sadly, I cannot.There hasn't been enough research done to prove or disprove the theory. But I will leave you with this thought. Clearly, we are getting fatter nearly exponentially since HFCS introduction in the early to mid 70's along with the rapid increase in insulin resistant Type II diabetes at the same time, coincidence or not? Right along with this thought, is HFCS really "natural" to your body when you have to modify corn starch to a derivative product to break that down farther to get to the end product? Brian

Throwback Vs. regular Pepsi, the taste is enough for me

Same goes for Mt. Dew

The real problem has nothing to do with fuel systems and everything to do with the absurdity of making ethanol from corn. If I had a list of global boogeymen, I'm thinking the corn lobby would come in pretty close to the top.

I hate them I hate them I hate them I hate them etc.

Ranger50 wrote:

2002maniac wrote: Can you cite a credible source? I have seen no scientific evidence suggesting that hfcs is handled any differently by our bodies than cane or beet sugar.

Sadly, I cannot.There hasn't been enough research done to prove or disprove the theory. But I will leave you with this thought. Clearly, we are getting fatter nearly exponentially since HFCS introduction in the early to mid 70's along with the rapid increase in insulin resistant Type II diabetes at the same time, coincidence or not? Right along with this thought, is HFCS really "natural" to your body when you have to modify corn starch to a derivative product to break that down farther to get to the end product? Brian

Pure anecdote, but I come to Korea and immediately lose weight. I go back to America and immediately start putting weight back on. What's the difference? Almost nothing I eat in Korea is processed, almost everything I eat in America is.

I would point out at this time I have very few warm or fuzzy feelings for the corn lobby, whose products constitute said processed foods.

Ranger50 wrote: Way off topic, but on point with the corn subsidies and ADM..... High Fructose Corn Syrup in food stuffs. Nasty, nasty, nasty. I specifically look at every label to avoid that crap and will even pay more for that product. I already have enough girth for myself and someone else, I don't need more of it from eating something that a body can not process properly.

Same here.

I just realized that back in St Pete where I've lived for years has always had ethanol free gas locally and now I've moved to Orlando..

neon4891 wrote:

Ranger50 wrote:

2002maniac wrote: Can you cite a credible source? I have seen no scientific evidence suggesting that hfcs is handled any differently by our bodies than cane or beet sugar.

Sadly, I cannot.There hasn't been enough research done to prove or disprove the theory. But I will leave you with this thought. Clearly, we are getting fatter nearly exponentially since HFCS introduction in the early to mid 70's along with the rapid increase in insulin resistant Type II diabetes at the same time, coincidence or not? Right along with this thought, is HFCS really "natural" to your body when you have to modify corn starch to a derivative product to break that down farther to get to the end product? Brian

Throwback Vs. regular Pepsi, the taste is enough for me

Ditto Coke