Maybe my google-fu is broken but I can’t seem to figure it out. I go out of my way to find gas stations that don’t use ethanol. Seems everywhere I go it says “may contain up to 10% ethanol”. Then there’s the gas stations that now have to advertise “We sell 100% gas! No ethanol.”
For the record, I drive a '04 Nissan Sentra 1.8 L and I just think ethanol may be causing it harm. I can’t say for certain but it does seem to get better mileage when I use real gas. I have heard those signs for “100% gas” are aimed at boaters and 2 stroke engines because ethanol is bad for 2 strokes. If it’s bad for 2 strokers then why would it be any better for a 4 stroke?
Ethanol doesn’t have the energy density of gasoline, so you would expect it to provide less mpg.
I don’t know about 2-strokes, but I know ethanol/alcohol can cause problems in engines that aren’t designed to burn alcohol. Alcohol can eat away at certain kinds of seals, gaskets and so on. Apparently a 10% ethanol blend isn’t concentrated enough to cause these problems in a gasoline engine.
The point of ethanol isn’t that it is better than gasoline but that it replaces gasoline. In theory- personally I don’t think producing fuel from corn is much help.
You’re mixing two issues. The 10% ethanol added to fuels isn’t so much to replace gasoline as a fuel as to provide an oxygenator to make it cleaner burning and prevent pollution. Serves the same purpose as MTBE, which we had an unfortunate fling with. It may have made the air cleaner, but it polluted the hell out of the groundwater. So they’ve largely fallen back on ethanol as an additive.
E85 mixtures are intended to replace gasoline in flex fuel vehicles. As observed, the issue with running ethanol in existing gasoline engines is largely one of corrosion of engine parts made of materials not intended for it.
Producing it from corn DOESN’T help, but I’m in favor of manufacturing flex fuel vehicles against the possibility of cellulosic ethanol working out. It’s not a big imposition on design or vehicle cost to do it, and not a lot is lost if most of those vehicles never use E85.
Do you have the owner’s manual? It will tell you if Nissan built your car to handle the ethanol. As far damage to your car goes, I doubt it- I’ve been running the ethanol mix for 15-20 years now and have never had any car issues because of it. I’m including 88k miles on one ride, 50k on another, and 147k on the third. There were no fuel related issues with any of them.
According to the people who put it in the gas as an oxygenator, it’s not in a high enough concentration to cause any damage. I’m not going to defend that particularly vigorously, but I don’t have any reason to doubt it either. The E85 (85% ethanol) used as an alternative fuel is another issue - you MIGHT be able to run on it, but it would probably eat holes in your fuel line.
Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and mileage for flex fuel vehicles running on E85 versus gasoline seem to bear out that kind of decreased mileage. The E10 should get about a 3% drop over ordinary gasoline, and an even smaller drop when considered against other oxygenated fuels.
Remote aboriginal communities use “Opal” fuel which has reduced aromatics, ethanol a whole different issue although the Australian Government has legislated for the introduction of 10% ethanol in standard fuels in the next year.
The 10% is not high enough to damage your relatively new vehicle. I have an old car (1967) and when the 10% ethanol first came out the old car crowd was all up in arms (great bunch, but they believe everything was in perfect balance in the year their cars were built, and any subsequent change will destroy their vehicles). Haggerty, an insurer of antique vehicles, commissioned a study where they ran a bunch of vintage engines for hundreds or thousands of hours on both 10% ethanol and 100% gas, and reported no problems. They did a tear down and found no problems inside either.
So I can’t speak to two strokes, but if these ancient 4 strokes can run on it, without lead no less, then I am positivie that your modern engine will be fine.
Next, we can debate how the oil industry/EPA/local boogey man have ruined our lives with ZDDP, no-lead, and weak octane. And then we can insist that bias ply tires are better! (sorry, inside joke that would probably get me banned for trolling on one of the antique auto boards)
The no-ethanol-for-boaters thing comes from the fact that ethanol is more hydroscopic than gasoline, and so has a habit of absorbing atmospheric moisture in humid environments.
This is not good for any engine, but the fuel on a boat can reach a saturation point very quickly (and boat owners tend to hold fuel for longer than a car – I rarely gas up more than twice a season, compared to every week in the car), which leads to phase separation when it cools down and then you are trying to burn water in the engine.
Slightly OT, but this is debatable when you analyze the total/net energy equation of large-scale ethanol production. Some argue that the production of ethanol actually creates more pollution than the amount it purports to reduce:
In other words, some argue that, if you were to add up all the energy resulting from the burning of fossil fuels that are used to produce ethanol (diesel fuel for tractors, fossil fuels for fertilizer, fossil fuels for fermenting/distilling the ethanol, etc.), it is greater than the energy we receive from ethanol. They also argue that the pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels that are used to produce ethanol is greater than the reduction in pollution when adding ethanol to gasoline.
I’ve been told (but have not found a cite) that any car sold in the US since the mid/late 80’s had to be able to run on up to 15% ethanol without damage. Supposedly in the mid-late 80’s they changed the rubber formulation in the fuel hoses to work with the ethanol. Don’t know if anything else also had to be changed?
Down here (Dallas) the only fuel available has 10% ethanol and it has been that way for years. My 1971 Corvette has not suffered any damage from it but then all the fuel hoses are a lot newer than 1971.
Well, even so, the fact remains that the INTENT of putting up to 10% alcohol in the gas is to reduce pollution. They were obligated by law to use an oxygenator from 1990 to 2005, and still have emissions standards to meet. They can’t use MTBE in many states, so …
Well, there is one more thing. I remember reports about the mix of 10% ethanol gas being variable. I’m not sure of the cause, but if you happen to be the unlucky customer you might fill up with a ‘bubble’ of 75%+ ethanol.
I don’t know if one tank of alcohol is enough to harm your car though.
It *does *reduce the amount of pollution emanated from vehicles. But at the expense of *more *pollution from other processes. There are those who argue that adding alcohol to gasoline actually increases overall pollution when you account for the pollution produced by harvesting corn and distilling it into alcohol.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the assertions about quantity of pollution, there’s probably some net public health benefit to moving pollution away from big cities and out into the countryside. Not that I expect the rural folks to appreciate that change …