They did it ONCE like that.
Run 20 percent for thousands of miles and see long it takes to fuck up YOUR engine or some other car system.
I’ve been reading this thread for the last few days and I’m still confused about a few things. These are honest questions otherwise I’d be in the pit right now.
-
TCS, do you think that if you add deisel fuel and it just starts to run poorly, that adding real gas will make it run ok? Will this be a road test or on a dyno which would give you better data?
-
Is the reason you’re using a rental because of the “fck it, it ain’t mine” mentality or because you honestly believe you will not ruin the engine but just in case “better them without a car than me”?
-
Suppose you’re wrong. Are you prepared to pay them to get their car fixed?
-
I am still at a loss at how adding deisel will counter the effects of ethanol. Deisel has significantly lower octane and on a few of my cars, I found that I could increase MPG simply by moving up from 87 to 89 octane (89 to 91 was no change). You mentioned BTUs. What is the BTU for deisel vs. gasoline and more importantly what is the relationship between BTU and MPG?
Again, not a flame but honest-to-goodness questions.
First, let’s talk about alcohol. I would expect that using E10 *will *result in a drop in fuel economy, but only on the order of 2-3%. The few studies I found, after a desultory search, seem to match that. A drop of 2-3% would be noticeable to a Prius hypermiler, but would still be only a couple mpg, and not the substantial drop you’re reporting.
So, why is that? My first guess is that you probably have something else going on with your vehicle that’s coincidentally causing an additional drop in fuel economy. It’s also possible (although, I think, unlikely) that there’s something about the Prius driving strategy that accentuates the loss of BTUs in the fuel. Again, seems unlikely.
However, the conclusion here is that there’s either something different about your partiular vehicle, or something different about the Prius in particular, that’s causing a drop in fuel economy. Either way, experimenting on another car and expecting to use the data to improve the performance of your car seems unlikely.
Now, about diesel fuel: Adding diesel fuel to gasoline will lower the octane of the fuel. Your engine is built to use fuel of a certain octane rating; lower octane fuel will cause the engine to retard spark timing to prevent knock. The retarded timing reduces power and efficiency. I suspect the drop in fuel economy due to timing changes will be more noticeable than the rise in mpg because of the higer BTU content of the fuel.
That or it will knock even with the computer trying to compensate and destroy the engine in fairly short order anyway.
Yes, you’re correct on that count, I don’t need one to be one, but it sure does help, doesn’t it?
& isn’t what the gov’t & the EPA is doing w/ the promotion of gasohol creating or at least aggravating the problems of decreased mileage, hydroscopic effects in the fuel & systems, & increased carbon deposits in critical areas of the engines that are forced to use it?
So, it seems, are you, although what you’re talking out of is both a lot smaller & a lot less pretty than my “@$$”. Give me some credit for at least thinking OTB! Well, so far, & with little or no explanation to the contrary, you’ve done even less to substantiate yours. I’ve presented my years of experience in several fields; what, if any, have you presented to substantiate yourself? Absolutely nothing! My apologies if you’ve somehow failed to comprehend my points, but I’ll try once again, if nothing more than merely presenting a little free education & if for no other reason than by again attempting to enlighten the ignorant.
And, somehow, I sincerely doubt that you’ve taken the time to read back through the entire thread; my Original Question was far enough removed from the present vein of topic to justify (at least to me) starting another thread, but since you asked here, I’ll answer here.
You stated previously, & I quote:
“I have enjoyed this thread, but stayed away mainly because of the line quoted above about marine engines being simpler and tougher than today’s auto engines.”
So, why then did you post a response at all? Bored? Or is it that you merely like to “bitch”?
“What specifically is ‘simpler’?”
I thought I’d made that clear enough, but I sometimes forget that I’m dealing with what appears to be one with a lot less experience & knowledge in the history & design of marine engines as well as the rigors of the marine environment. I’ll elucidate below.
“Since marine engines range from multi-port injected 502 cubic inch Mercruisers built from GM big blocks to sophisticated Honda 4-stroke V6 outboards based on the car maker’s auto line, what exactly makes marine engine simpler? Marine engines are engines with some parts replaced for marine use (such as non-sparking components, brass plugs or other add-ons that can withstand salt/water/etc.”
Yes, even today, they do range in those types, but that wasn’t always the case; also, many systems required in auto engines to start & run reliably in much wider temperature ranges while maintaining low emissions standards & many miles & years of warranty coverage simply aren’t required (or offered) for marine use. Neither would they be suitable without re-design for both the cramped, sometimes explosive & certainly more corrosive marine environment. Certainly auto engines (or even truck engines) don’t see the continuous near or full-throttle demands on them that marine engines are commonly required to handle.
A case in point, when I attended the Mercury Marine school in Brick, NJ & was Certified in both Alpha & Bravo I & II drives, they demonstrated their pre-entry model of proprietary multi-port fuel injection system on a MerCruiser marinized GM-based V8 block, the theory & practice of operation, troubleshooting, etc. Even at that time, multi-port fuel injection systems had already been around for years on cars, & aside from that fact, & I pointed this out in front of the class, it wasn’t an “open-loop” design, being merely a “closed-loop” pre-programmed system, in that, there was no feedback from something like an exhaust oxygen sensor, for example, to modulate the fuel mixture due to varying demands & conditions. It was explained to me that it was more expensive, less durable, more prone to wear +/ damage from both the heavy-duty conditions (the near-constant exposure to the near full-throttle conditions would quickly burn out/overheat the O2 sensor, for instance) & served no real useful purpose, marine engines not having any emission restrictions at that time.
In regards to outboard motors, that is much the same scenario, despite many larger Honda outboards being based on their highly-engineered & successful auto engines. For example, they don’t have O2 sensors, either; neither do they have the same ignition systems, emission controls, compensations built into the fuel management systems to account for stop-and-go traffic, starting in sub-zero temperatures, etc. While some Mercury outboards have used belt-driven alternators due to the inherent design limitations of the traditional under-flywheel ignition & charging systems, the former remains typical as it is both more compact & durable, at the sake of serviceability & efficiency (it’s common to use a constant full-charge design to supply the voltage to the battery & vessel, yet simplicity & durability is achieved at the expense of efficiency by dumping the excess through a water-cooled heat-sinked resistor rather than using a more complicated [& vulnerable] yet more efficient standard automotive alternator which varies the field coil strength to modulate the output voltage to the typical 14.4VDC.) Some outboard charging systems didn’t even have any kind of regulation, relying instead on the tolerance of the lead-acid battery to absorb the overcharge by gassing.
If you wanted some examples, there’s some. I have more to follow, since this seemed enough of an issue to bring your head out of its proverbial shell.
“These parts are mostly accessories. The internal and fuel delivery systems on marine engines (filters aside) don’t like water. Keeping water out of a marine engine is just as important as on a car engine. Marine engine internals don’t stand up to water any better than car engines.”
The fact that no engines like water, including filters, anywhere it’s not supposed to be should be a given. Typical 2-stroke engine bearings are an exception in this case. Being rollers in design, either as needles, tapered, or ball, makes them more vulnerable to fuel & oil quality & much less tolerant of (especially!) salt-water exposure. An exception to this would be British Seagull, which uses brass sleeve design, although this requires a much heavier oil mix ratio in their fuel. This also makes them much tougher when it comes to less-than-optimum operating conditions, which includes from time-to-time saltwater immersion.
So, perhaps you’ve never seen an Atomic Four? Designed early in the last century, they were flathead 4 cylinders, raw-water cooled, no thermostat originally, simple 1-barrel carbs, points ignition, etc. Just about as basic as could be, very much like the similar GrayMarine fours. They were around for many years after sophisticated electronic fuel injection & ignition systems were commonly used in autos. & some may still be running today. Their 2 main shortcomings were their raw-water cooling system & the fact that their gasoline fuel combined w/ their original iron carbs (& the inevitable water-contaminated fuel) lead to many explosions when the inlet needle would stick from the rust in the bowl.
Do you recall the Volvo MD2B? Another hard-to-kill workhorse, much simpler & tougher than equivalent-period auto engines. I even recall laying hands on museum pieces using a handful of moving parts & a pre-Kettering ignition design.
Shall I go on? Yes, I’ll concur, there are many design basics which remain similar if not the same, part for part, but when the engine as a whole is considered, comparing period for period, I maintain that marine engines are typically both more basic & tougher in design & construction.
Did I mention that I was just about the only parts importer & service rep for British Seagull, a parts & service rep for Rapair marine ignition systems, & the only person who was able to service the OMC SailDrive in the Annapolis-area?
I don’t ask you to agree; in fact, I didn’t ask you at all.
What I did ask was my original Question, which aside from a few gems of anecdotal information & intelligent discussion, has largely been a waste of my time & effort.
Realizing that there are several different definitions of the word “dope”, while I first came here for some, & finding precious little, I’m dismayed at finding so many.
In the future, if I choose to visit again, I’ll be sure to first preface my Question with the request that only those with informative Answers need respond.
Have a Nice Day!
I don’t know for sure, hence my original Question, but considering all, it seems to be the most reasonable thing to try. At least, premium fuel tends to be more detergent, more important than ever w/ the alcohol in it.
Dnftt
You’re assuming that it will… as far as the FDA & the US Army, they still do, in case you didn’t know; the only thing that’s changed is better secrecy. Even now, you no doubt see all the possible side-effects of the stuff that’s advertised to treat this or that. A database is constantly updated & developed from medical reports from the doctors & hospitals (& morgues) from those who take them.
Thanks for the intelligent ?s!
-
Having a marine background & not having access to a dyno, testing by incrementally increasing the % & noting the details is about the best I can manage. I very sincerely doubt that any indications of incompatibility that MIGHT show up would be either permanent or irreversible after adding the several gallons of fuel to return to the pre-problem fuel state that I’m proposing carrying along in just such a case. Perhaps one of the reasons I originally posted my ? was to see if anyone else might have thought OTB as I usually do. Any takers?
-
There’s no “f-it” mentality here, otherwise I’d also like to also play w/ how long it would take to spin the rubber off the tires doing doughnuts in a parking lot or seeing how many stuperous drunks I could fit in the trunk & driving through rolling fields before they all puked at the same time… but as those latter 2 serve no beneficial purpose, whereas mine does, & not having an old Biscayne Beater or a WWII Jeep to test, I believe it better than exposing a vehicle I depend on constantly as only 1 of 2 we have available to drive. Also, as much as any rental company would wish it otherwise, having worked for a couple keeping their equipment in running order after being abused repeatedly, the rental companies know full well that the equipment will certainly be abused. I’m not sure that the saying “the ends justify the means” would apply, but that would be a consideration.
-
If that were the case, sure! Why not? & if I do, indeed, find an ideal %, would everyone else be prepared to pay me for taking the risk? Presently, I hadn’t considered asking, being somewhat altruistic, but now that you mention it…
-
- “I am still at a loss at how adding deisel will counter the effects of ethanol. Deisel has significantly lower octane and on a few of my cars, I found that I could increase MPG simply by moving up from 87 to 89 octane (89 to 91 was no change).”
It was my theory & proposition that the ideal % of diesel would restore the BTU content of the gasohol lost as a result of the addition of alcohol, which has a lot less BTU/gal, w/ diesel, which has a lot more. I recall researching the specifics, & please feel @ liberty to check them for yourself (Wiki is a great place to look).
Re: switching to a higher octane, that would only work if your vehicle actually NEEDED the increased octane. If you actually do, then by all means, use it. Perhaps I might be able to extrapolate that by adding premium fuel w/ the % of diesel it might provide the most cost-effective mileage gain. Also, might one ponder whether the increase in mileage you experienced was documented consistently or merely perceived? Driving w/ a more expensive fuel might cause the driver to unconsciously use more conservative practices. I’m not saying that this is so, just speculating on the possibility…
As mentioned earlier, one of the reasons racers use alcohol as a fuel is its much higher octane, sacrificing mileage (since they’re not out to set any records in that regard). If octane alone depicts mileage, why aren’t we using alcohol exclusively? If it’s because of cold startup problems, the technology already exists to counter that, in the same line w/ diesels using glow plugs, etc. As another poster responded, the whole alcohol scheme has been political in origin w/ the public spoon-fed what was portrayed as an environmental cause. If the fuel was made from waste biomass, there might be some validity to that logic, but it’s food (typically, corn) that’s used & the energy expended in harvesting it is typically diesel-sourced, resulting in a net loss, not gain.
“You mentioned BTUs. What is the BTU for deisel vs. gasoline and more importantly what is the relationship between BTU and MPG?”
This might be a better topic for one of the previous posters, “Una Perssona” as I recall, since it appeared as if they’d a much more detailed knowledge on that specific topic. However, it is my understanding by instruction & experience that mileage is not merely a function of fuel BTUs but engine design as well. If it was the only factor, I wouldn’t be proposing the small % of diesel addition but switching to it exclusively. Diesel engines also don’t have throttles in that they operate in at least full atmospheric manifold pressure (for those w/out turbochargers) & vary their output strictly as a result of the amount of fuel injected per piston stroke, not by varying the amount of combustion efficiency as gasoline engines do as a result of operating the intake manifold at sub-atmospheric pressures (as in, a partial vacuum) at anything less than WOT.
I hope that this has been fruitful. Thanks for the opportunity!
WTFITSTM? Obviously, this is one of the few days where I have little to do… :dubious:
But the coincidence is amazing, isn’t it? If that’s all it really was…
Not really. The EPA test methodology has nothing whatsoever to do with E10. Two unrelated things occuring at unrelated times do not a coincidence make.
“First, let’s talk about alcohol. I would expect that using E10 *will *result in a drop in fuel economy, but only on the order of 2-3%. The few studies I found, after a desultory search, seem to match that. A drop of 2-3% would be noticeable to a Prius hypermiler, but would still be only a couple mpg, and not the substantial drop you’re reporting.”
Well, if that were the case, then others wouldn’t have reported the same phenomenon on/around the same time nor would the condition remain consistent.
Also, in the same line of thought, the addition of a similar % of diesel might restore that %, wouldn’t it? Thus my original Q?
“So, why is that? My first guess is that you probably have something else going on with your vehicle that’s coincidentally causing an additional drop in fuel economy. It’s also possible (although, I think, unlikely) that there’s something about the Prius driving strategy that accentuates the loss of BTUs in the fuel. Again, seems unlikely.”
I don’t believe either is the case, because both the other Prius owners having similar experiences @ the same time & all the efficiency-increasing strategies I’ve already utilized. In case I hadn’t mentioned it, we’re also using 0W-30 100% synthetic oil, which is slightly thinner & easier to pump than the standard Toyota-recommended weight of 5W-30 synthetic blend (@ least from our most local dealer; personally, I think that blends are a waste of $). Since one of the reasons that the Prius in particular, & hybrids in general, are more efficient than other comparable vehicles is that gasoline engines are most efficient when run under the greatest load, minimizing pumping losses. For instance, when under a partial load, in a hybrid the excess engine capacity is diverted to charging the large battery & in conjunction w/ regenerative braking, is used to power the vehicle & systems when only mild throttle is needed, as in slower speeds of <40MPH in a Prius, where typically-powered vehicles get the worst mileage, esp. in stop-&-go traffic. Hence the Prius’ greater urban mileage vs. highway, just the reverse of standard vehicles, including diesel-powered. You mentioned the 2-3% drop; when you consider things on a percentile basis, the greater the mileage, the greater effect that percentile drop will be.
“However, the conclusion here is that there’s either something different about your partiular vehicle, or something different about the Prius in particular, that’s causing a drop in fuel economy. Either way, experimenting on another car and expecting to use the data to improve the performance of your car seems unlikely.”
Again, aside from the possibility of having a sudden loss of battery performance (which I sincerely doubt,; again, if it were a matter of age/mileage, others would be reporting a similar loss regardless of the addition of alcohol) the only other common denominator is the timing of the ethanol mandate. Unlikely as it may be, considering that they’re all gasohol-fueled, it still stands to reason that there would be some validity to the theory.
“Now, about diesel fuel: Adding diesel fuel to gasoline will lower the octane of the fuel. Your engine is built to use fuel of a certain octane rating; lower octane fuel will cause the engine to retard spark timing to prevent knock. The retarded timing reduces power and efficiency. I suspect the drop in fuel economy due to timing changes will be more noticeable than the rise in mpg because of the higer BTU content of the fuel.”
I agree on that point, except that w/ the addition of the alcohol would offset that drop in octane, since alcohol has a higher octane rating, correct? It seems reasonable to me that the evils of one would offset the evils of the other, restoring the original balance. It is my belief that the original postulate is still valid.
Thank you for your civility & thought devoted to your points
That might be true if I were to add a significantly higher % of diesel than would be beneficial, but I can tell that you’ve given little thought to either my original Question nor to your response, as you’ve failed to note my strategy of incrementally increasing the diesel % & noting the results; highly unlikely that somehow I’d fail to notice any driveability problems or unusual sounds that might develop long before such damage would occur by adding the supposed destructive levels of diesel as you state.
Yeah, & if my dog had a face like yours, I’d shave his @$$ & teach him to walk backwards… But neither of those is actually productive or answers the original Question, now, does it? 
“Fighting Ignorants Since 1973”?
Actually, the 2 things are related & they did occur around the same time; the EPA changed the mileage rating in response to the widespread introduction on a national basis of ethanol into the gasoline supply. I recall quite clearly our continual amazement w/ getting consistently better mileage than the original 60 city/ 50 highway EPA estimate, whether we were driving locally or interstate. We bought the Prius in 9/'04. As I related earlier, we still have the original sticker. Option pkg #7, ~$24K incl. extended warranty, total.
When we’d fill (w/ regular, although I’ve experimented w/ higher octane, never noticed any difference) @ our regular station, it was ~12 miles drive home. We’d consistently get ~70-72 MPG & the last couple miles were @ 25MPH, the others were @ 45MPH, 55MPH & 50MPH respectively. We drove @ the posted speed w/ cruise control when the vehicle was (obviously) up to normal operating temperature w/ the aforementioned mileage-tweaking already applied. It was easily monitored - the Prius has a central LCD multi-function screen that shows both the instant & tank-average mileage w/ a bar graphing the last 1/2 hr. We’ve also saved all the fuel receipts over the years to prove it.
There’d long been the news that the ethanol addition would be mandated (at least in our area, southern DE) @ 10%. We’d anticipated the drop in mileage, but not to such a degree. Shortly after that, reports by others driving the Prius, of both older models as well as new, noticing an unexplained drop in mileage coinciding w/ the addition of the ethanol became common & prevalent & shortly after that, as a result of widespread complaints, the EPA re-evaluated its testing routine, supposedly for the reasons posted previously but what better way to cover-up the real source of the problem than by lowering the proverbial bar? Hardly a coincidence!
Not until we’d had some in-depth discussions w/ Toyota’s service & technical dept. did we find out the more insidious problem, & this is the case regardless of the make or model of gasohol-fueled equipment: the accelerated buildup & accumulation of hard-carbon deposits in places requiring expensive servicing to remove. Hence the prevalence of carbon-specific fuel detergent products like BG, Yamaha’s “Ring-Free”, OMC’s “Carbon Guard” & Chevron’s “Techroline”. Again, hardly a coincidence. In related documentation, I have copies of service bulletins from both OMC & Yamaha detailing the alcohol-carbon problem, specifically related to “phase-separation”, decreased fuel stability &, of course, increased carbon deposits.
Would you perhaps have some experience & records specifically substantiating your opposing statement available? And that aside, in what way might it answer my original Question?
Certainly some people report substantial mileage loss, but a handful of anecdotes don’t demonstrate that this is completely due to E10. As an example, a contrary handful of anecdotes are here, where most posters are seeing a 2-4mpg drop (although one sees more). That alone should indicate that something is different about your situation than theirs.
Depends on what you’re comparing. If you’re comparing 87 octane gasoline with 89 octane gasohol, then clearly you have room to knock the octane back down. However, I was assuming you’re comparing fuels with the same octane rating. If you’re buying fuel with a higher octane rating than necessary, the easiest way to save money is to buy lower octane fuel.
This is completely false.
::: sigh::: why do I let myself get sucked back into these things?
Oxygenated fuels have been around in California since about 1992. MTBE was used at first. Cite
In 2004 California and New York banned the use of MTBE. Cite The replacement for MTBE is ethanol. (same cite as before)
As has been stated the EPA reworked the mileage procedures in 2007.
People had been complaining for YEARS that the EPA numbers were unattainable in the real world. Cite
So in California for 6 months out of the year (Oct-Mar) the fuel have been oxygenated since 1992. In 2004 MTBE was banned. Ethanol was the replacement. EPA changed their numbers for 2008 in response to years of complaints.
Does not look like cause and effect relationship to me.
Oh and a few other things to note:
I would like to point out for the record that when Chevrolet set out to build the world’s fastest (at the time) production car they turned to that maker of simpler engines Mercury Marine. To build a 4 cam, 32 valve, 16 intake runner, V8. Cite. Chevrolet when to Merc Marine, because if you want state of the art casting in aluminum and lots of HP out of a very small package, you talk to guys that build outboards. Their stuff is state of the art.
I can’t talk about Yamaha or OMC products, but I can talk about both BG and Chevron’s Techron. Both of these products were developed in the mid 1980s in response to the problem on soft spongy carbon deposits in the intake tracks of automotive engines. I used both of these products when I was a technician back in the mid 1980s. These deposits were caused by an increase in the detergent level in the existing gasoline. These soft spongy deposits caused hard starting, and stalling when cold due to the spongy carbon soaking up the gas like a sponge and causing the engine to go to lean to run when cold.
So there is no coincidence as both of these products predate oxygenated fuels by about a decade.
After doing a bit of Googling on Phase separation and reading a few papers, I would love to hear how “alcohol-carbon problems” specifically relate to phase separation. Be specific, show your work.
Your experiment aint gonna mean shit in the “it wont hurt the car” department unless you plan on driving 10s of thousands of miles at each mixture level.
You plan on renting a car for a year or three and putting a couple hundred k on it?
And again I ask, if you are so sure it aint gonna hurt the car, why not use your own? And don’t give me some “har har har, let me use YOUR car” or “what the rental car company doesnt know won’t hurt em” excuse.