10% Ethanol?
I just got the Sept. issue of Super Chevy. They have an artical on E85 fuel. Im not the kind of guy that believes everything I read, but if the things they say in this write up is true, than Im all for it!
They say 20% increase in HP. 16% more TQ. (with your engine tuned to run it) And NO reduction in MPG!!! Also burns cleaner, and doesnt contaminate your engine oil like unleaded gas does.
They also talk about converting your vehicle to E85. For carbs - 35% increase in jet size. Stainless or poly gas tank and fuel lines.
Like I said, I dont believe everything I read, but this artical is very interesting!!
They say 20% increase in HP. 16% more TQ. (with your engine tuned to run it) And NO reduction in MPG!!! Also burns cleaner, and doesnt contaminate your engine oil like unleaded gas does.
They also talk about converting your vehicle to E85. For carbs - 35% increase in jet size. Stainless or poly gas tank and fuel lines.
Like I said, I dont believe everything I read, but this artical is very interesting!!
Thread Starter
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 881
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by LS1Aggie09
Basically...from the stuff i have read here and from my opinion, oil is not gonna be a freakin problem as far as running out. Think about it, all the dead **** that is underground, its not gonna be running out anytime soon. The problem is that the most oil-rich parts of the globe are supposedly are in the countries that are not our allies.
As far as this global warming BS...give me a break...cars account for very little of what is put up into our atmosphere (which is massive anyway), you want to bitch about that look at the factories. and why bitch anyway? does it really cause that much of a problem? The earth goes through natural cycles and can adjust to us because its natural and things in nature tend to adapt...deal with it freakin liberals.
As far as this global warming BS...give me a break...cars account for very little of what is put up into our atmosphere (which is massive anyway), you want to bitch about that look at the factories. and why bitch anyway? does it really cause that much of a problem? The earth goes through natural cycles and can adjust to us because its natural and things in nature tend to adapt...deal with it freakin liberals.
The same is true in science. Unless your article or research project meets with the biases of the editors, peer reviewers, sponsors, etc, it doesn't happen. Law and Order had a episode that touched on it: a researchers grant was turned down because the leading expert on the review panel was the person who's work it contradicted.
It is becoming a bit of a scandel now in medical research, where marginal papers supporting new drugs get published, and critical reports are sidelined. If you want pharmaceutical money to fund your research, you need to know what side your bread is buttered on.
The same holds for climate research. Current research is very, very, biased.
How strong is this block? Just think, acceptance of meteor impacts on the earth's surface are maybe 45-50 years old, less in acceptance. Ditto, acceptance of the creation of the Scablands by a cataclysmic flood. Luckly Bretz lived to 99, since he wasn't recognized for his work until he was 97. Harrison received his award for the chronograph when he was 80. he died at 83. Galileo spent his last 15 years in house arrest (they were harder on you back then if you disagreed with them).
Originally Posted by LS1Aggie09
instead of bitchin....whats your opinion on the subject of the thread instead of wasting space mrdude_1?
well, the theory of oil aside, and ignoring all the conspiracy and political crap, and speaking only on the intended topic......
.... i added about 7 percent more fuel across the board on my speed density open loop tune, and she runs just like before.. theoretically, i should get 7% worse mpg, but i didnt see that change i expected to see.
if anyone is interested in the long term effects of 10% ethanol on automobiles, i suggest disassembling the fuel system of a car from the midwest.
but my opinion on the actual subject matter in the thread.... is that hes a idiot that talks even when he has no basic knowledge of a subject.
Chiming in late, but just to address your point on corn not being the most efficient way to generate ethanol:
At least a by-product is corn! How the hell are we going to eat switch-grass?
T
At least a by-product is corn! How the hell are we going to eat switch-grass?
T
Originally Posted by lo_jack
On this you are correct. We have already begun importing ethanol from Jamaica and other countries, which is part of the reason it costs so much. The other reasons have to do with it absorbing water, so it does not get to be put into pipelines, and must be trucked.
On this you are partially incorrect. The oil industry does not have anything to do with the production of ethanol. The primary producer in the states is Archer Daniels Midland, and they produce 25% of US domestic supply. Oil companies actually have to pay more to buy the ethanol to mix with gasoline (if they have refining arms) or pay more for gas to their supplier if they do not. Make no mistake, the oil/refining industry does not benefit from ethanol.
The corn growers do. It is a market for extra product. Corn however, is the least efficent product that can currently be usedto make ethanol, but comprises nearly all of the current feedstock for our plants. Why are we making ethanol the worst and most expensive way? That is another question. Sugar is more efficient per acre, and celluose based variants like switchgrass are more efficient still.
Finally, ethanol use is mandatory in the United States, per the "Energy Bill" which was passed earlier this year. All brands, all grades must contain a percentage of ethanol, as an oxygenator for aiding combustion, by law. This is meant to replace MTBE, which was similarly hastily passed before anyone figured out that it loves to hang out in the water table and is carcinogenic.
E85 is not mandatory, but a little lobbying from ADM and the corn growers and boom - the big three start making a bunch of flex fuel vehicles and virtually hailing corn ethanol as the fuel that is going to save America.
Ethanol made from something else could be a useful part of the mix that we use in the future, provided its not made from corn. The opportunity cost that dland got into slightly is a big part of that. Our current maxium output of ethanol without buying from someone else is about 4.5B gallons. GALLONS. Our gasoline use in 2004 was 134B gallons. Remember, there is less energy in ethanol so those 4.5B gallons are really more around a third less, roughly 3B gallons. Think about how much corn we would have to grow to supplant all gasoline with ethanol, and even with modern farming we would pretty much all be farmers. I did some research on this. Here is the output of ethanol in gallons per acre"
Corn 330
Sugar 630
Switch grass/cellulose 1150
These are all high averages from a number of tests I found. But it does not take a scientist to see that corn is the least productive method available. I found several corn studies and used the highest, sugar I found a couple, mostly on studies from brazil and the switchgrass was a test by Oakridge National labs.
The true kicker here is that Saudi can make the most ethanol in the world, but it is a petrochemical byproduct for them, so it is not "clean" or good for the earth..etc. But they can make the most, and sell it the cheapest. And I doubt that there is any language in the legislation that mentions not using "clean happy natural" ethanol instead of "cheap, petrochemical, imported" ethanol from Saudi.
I found a lot of information about plants, output, scheduled construction and feedstock here:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/resources/
Take a look for yourself - ethanol is not all it is cracked up to be as we are currently doing it. At this rate we will be importing more than we produce of yet another "mandatory" fuel.
On this you are partially incorrect. The oil industry does not have anything to do with the production of ethanol. The primary producer in the states is Archer Daniels Midland, and they produce 25% of US domestic supply. Oil companies actually have to pay more to buy the ethanol to mix with gasoline (if they have refining arms) or pay more for gas to their supplier if they do not. Make no mistake, the oil/refining industry does not benefit from ethanol.
The corn growers do. It is a market for extra product. Corn however, is the least efficent product that can currently be usedto make ethanol, but comprises nearly all of the current feedstock for our plants. Why are we making ethanol the worst and most expensive way? That is another question. Sugar is more efficient per acre, and celluose based variants like switchgrass are more efficient still.
Finally, ethanol use is mandatory in the United States, per the "Energy Bill" which was passed earlier this year. All brands, all grades must contain a percentage of ethanol, as an oxygenator for aiding combustion, by law. This is meant to replace MTBE, which was similarly hastily passed before anyone figured out that it loves to hang out in the water table and is carcinogenic.
E85 is not mandatory, but a little lobbying from ADM and the corn growers and boom - the big three start making a bunch of flex fuel vehicles and virtually hailing corn ethanol as the fuel that is going to save America.
Ethanol made from something else could be a useful part of the mix that we use in the future, provided its not made from corn. The opportunity cost that dland got into slightly is a big part of that. Our current maxium output of ethanol without buying from someone else is about 4.5B gallons. GALLONS. Our gasoline use in 2004 was 134B gallons. Remember, there is less energy in ethanol so those 4.5B gallons are really more around a third less, roughly 3B gallons. Think about how much corn we would have to grow to supplant all gasoline with ethanol, and even with modern farming we would pretty much all be farmers. I did some research on this. Here is the output of ethanol in gallons per acre"
Corn 330
Sugar 630
Switch grass/cellulose 1150
These are all high averages from a number of tests I found. But it does not take a scientist to see that corn is the least productive method available. I found several corn studies and used the highest, sugar I found a couple, mostly on studies from brazil and the switchgrass was a test by Oakridge National labs.
The true kicker here is that Saudi can make the most ethanol in the world, but it is a petrochemical byproduct for them, so it is not "clean" or good for the earth..etc. But they can make the most, and sell it the cheapest. And I doubt that there is any language in the legislation that mentions not using "clean happy natural" ethanol instead of "cheap, petrochemical, imported" ethanol from Saudi.
I found a lot of information about plants, output, scheduled construction and feedstock here:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/resources/
Take a look for yourself - ethanol is not all it is cracked up to be as we are currently doing it. At this rate we will be importing more than we produce of yet another "mandatory" fuel.
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TT402LS1
I just got the Sept. issue of Super Chevy. They have an artical on E85 fuel. Im not the kind of guy that believes everything I read, but if the things they say in this write up is true, than Im all for it!
They say 20% increase in HP. 16% more TQ. (with your engine tuned to run it) And NO reduction in MPG!!! Also burns cleaner, and doesnt contaminate your engine oil like unleaded gas does.
They also talk about converting your vehicle to E85. For carbs - 35% increase in jet size. Stainless or poly gas tank and fuel lines.
Like I said, I dont believe everything I read, but this artical is very interesting!!
They say 20% increase in HP. 16% more TQ. (with your engine tuned to run it) And NO reduction in MPG!!! Also burns cleaner, and doesnt contaminate your engine oil like unleaded gas does.
They also talk about converting your vehicle to E85. For carbs - 35% increase in jet size. Stainless or poly gas tank and fuel lines.
Like I said, I dont believe everything I read, but this artical is very interesting!!
Thread Starter
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 881
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
but my opinion on the actual subject matter in the thread.... is that hes a idiot that talks even when he has no basic knowledge of a subject.
And talking about facts, you claim that changing your tune (without any other changes) allowed you to use E10 with no power or mileage differences. That should reflect a problem in your measurements. While you may equal max power, your fuel system would have to be on a higher duty cycle. If you didn't see a mileage drop, something else has changed or your test wasn't comparable. It simply has less energy. Mileage has to be worse.
In 6 years of driving an S2000, I just had my first sub-200 mile tankful. On E10. I don't know if the Gulf I changed to is E10. No sticker on the pump. But there is no reason to buy E10 Sunoco Ultra 93 (instead of 94) for 5¢ per gallon more.
I've read that E85 is supposed to be ~10% cheaper to produce, and you'll get around ~15% worse MPG vs. normal fuel. The miles per dollars should be similar, and that is all that really matters.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: Anheuser Busch, Houston Texas
Originally Posted by Terry Burger
I've read that E85 is supposed to be ~10% cheaper to produce, and you'll get around ~15% worse MPG vs. normal fuel. The miles per dollars should be similar, and that is all that really matters.
Seriously. You summed up the economic argument for me anyhow.
It might cost slightly less to produce, but it contains less energy so you buy more of it.
I will do this again.
Gasoline @ 3.00 a gallon x 14 gallons = 240 miles (my car) = $42.00/240 miles
E85 @ 2.70 (10% less) x 14 gallons = 204 miles (your numbers) = $37.80/204 miles. But wait, I am missing 36 miles. I need another 2.47 gallons to go that far.
So now I am at $44.47 vs $42.00. And those numbers you used are conservative. I have had refiners tell me you get more like 25% less milage, and as for the cost - don't expect it to stay cheap for long.
Just for funzies, try some diesel:
Diesel @ 2.85 a gallon x 14 = 285 miles (15% more mpg, again conservative: diesel contains more energy) $39.90/285 miles, so we need less fuel to go 240 miles. 45 extra miles at 20 ish mpg = 2.21 bonus gallons, or $5.52 dollars back. To go 240 miles, you pay $34.38.
$34.38<$44.47
Some of you may say, well big deal, its 2.47 a tank difference. Well, thats a 14 gallon tank, getting about 17mpg on regular gas. Try it in a 'Burban with a 35 gallon tank gettin 12. People complain about less.
TECH Regular
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 470
Likes: 4
My comments on this whole 10% ethanol (E10) madness:
First off, someone responded to this thread that Shell gas is very good and we should use it. Does that contain 10% ethanol in NJ? I've been using BP Ultimate 93 with no problems.
I was very concerned 2 months ago when I started seeing the 10% sticker on the pump (my HPP+ came to my mind since they explicitly say "use 92 octane or higher"). I emailed Hypertech about their tuning and E10, and they said they never tested or tuned for ethanol blended fuels, and the car would more than likely ping or detonate. I took my chances and I never heard a ping or any kind of detonation at WOT using BP Ultimate 93 (E10). I emailed Hypertech back and said I did not hear anything, they said as long as I did not hear any pings, I'm OK.
I also have one comment on E85. I recall seeing an episode of Motortrend 10 years ago, with the Mustang Super Stallion optimized for E85. It had a supercharger which gave the car maximum boost on E85 putting out 595 HP, and 545 on straight gas. Again, this was 10 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!
First off, someone responded to this thread that Shell gas is very good and we should use it. Does that contain 10% ethanol in NJ? I've been using BP Ultimate 93 with no problems.
I was very concerned 2 months ago when I started seeing the 10% sticker on the pump (my HPP+ came to my mind since they explicitly say "use 92 octane or higher"). I emailed Hypertech about their tuning and E10, and they said they never tested or tuned for ethanol blended fuels, and the car would more than likely ping or detonate. I took my chances and I never heard a ping or any kind of detonation at WOT using BP Ultimate 93 (E10). I emailed Hypertech back and said I did not hear anything, they said as long as I did not hear any pings, I'm OK.
I also have one comment on E85. I recall seeing an episode of Motortrend 10 years ago, with the Mustang Super Stallion optimized for E85. It had a supercharger which gave the car maximum boost on E85 putting out 595 HP, and 545 on straight gas. Again, this was 10 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 34,661
Likes: 2,591
From: Schiller Park, ILL Member: #317
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
if anyone is interested in the long term effects of 10% ethanol on automobiles, i suggest disassembling the fuel system of a car from the midwest.
Just curious, because I've lived/driven in the chicago area my whole life. All the cars I own have been driven on E10 for nearly their entire lives, as we've had E10 gas here for many, many years.
My point? I've never had any fuel system corroision or failure issues on any of these cars. Frankly I don't see E10 causing any real harm long term to any fuel system built from the mid-'90s forward. Is that your conclusion as well?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no chemical engineer), but isn't it correct that Ethanol itself is not what causes corroision of older fuel system components, but rather when water/mositure gets into a fuel system that, combined with Ethanol content, will cause the potential corroision issues? If that is correct, the simple solution seems to be the use of a fuel system agent that displaces water in the system. Many fuel system treatments provide this benefit.
Thoughts?
Teching In
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
I live 10 miles from the Kansas-Nebraska line, and usually fill up in Kansas, I have ran nothing but E10 in my car since i bought it last August, cause it is 91 octane instead of 87. In Kansas the cost for regular and E10 is the same or E10 is lower but I noticed on a trip North the other day that E10 was 5 cents higher, than regular. They are trying to set up several small ethanal plants in the midwest right now, one not 30 miles east of me, and from what I have heard my dad discuss with the owner of the station that was higher in Nebraska, is that the nebraska is taxing the E10 more, cause they aren't making the profit that they were. If all these little ethanol plants succeed in getting off the ground, and e10 goes down in price, all the government would have to do is add a little bit more tax to it and people would stop buying it, thus the plants would close. I think that the best thing for oil prices right now would be if the senate passes the bill to open up the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling.
But about how E10 runs, we run it in all our vehicles, when the price is the same or lower,which is most of the time, and havent have any problems, dads 2003 chevy 1/2 ton averages 15.6 mpg highway and country roads, and my Camaro averages around 21 highway and town.
Just the opinion of a 17yo so take it easy
But about how E10 runs, we run it in all our vehicles, when the price is the same or lower,which is most of the time, and havent have any problems, dads 2003 chevy 1/2 ton averages 15.6 mpg highway and country roads, and my Camaro averages around 21 highway and town.
Just the opinion of a 17yo so take it easy
Originally Posted by Jeff 97 Formula
First off, someone responded to this thread that Shell gas is very good and we should use it. Does that contain 10% ethanol in NJ? I've been using BP Ultimate 93 with no problems.
Details: http://www.toptiergas.com/
A quote from the website: "Over the past several years, the minimum level of detergent additive required by the EPA has declined by an estimated 50%."
Current retailers:
QuikTrip
Chevron
Conoco
Phillips
76
Shell
Entec Stations
MFA Oil Company
Kwik Trip/Kwik Star
The Somerset Refinery, Inc.
Chevron-Canada
Aloha Petroleum
Tri-Par Oil Company
Shell-Canada
Top Tier Standards (Note Section 1.3.1.2 for Ethanol Information)
Deposit Control Standards
The standards developed by the four automobile manufacturers (BMW, General Motors, Honda, and Toyota) for TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline are described below. This technical document describes the deposit control performance of unleaded gasoline at the retail level that minimizes deposits on fuel injectors, intake valves, and combustion chambers. These standards comprise the requirements for TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline.
Standards
1.1 Retail Gasoline Performance Standards. The deposit control performance of unleaded gasoline conforming to section 1 of this document shall be met at the retail level in all grades of gasoline sold by a fuel company in all marketing areas of a selected nation. In addition, conformance to the standards shall mean gasoline sold in the selected nation shall not contain metallic additives, including methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT).
1.2 Deposit Control Additive Requirements. The deposit control additive used to meet the performance Standards described in 1.3 shall meet the substantially similar definition under Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act. Also, the additive shall be certified to have met the minimum deposit control requirements established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR Part 80. Lastly, the additive shall be registered with the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR Part 79.
1.3 Deposit Control Initial Performance Standards. Initial deposit control performance shall be demonstrated using the tests shown below.
1.3.1 Intake Valve Keep Clean Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.1.1 Test Method. Intake valve deposit (IVD) keep clean performance shall be demonstrated using ASTM D 6201, Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-lgnition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation. Tests demonstrating base fuel minimum deposit level (1.3.1.2) and additive performance (1.3.1.3) shall be conducted using the same engine block and cylinder head. All results shall be derived from operationally valid tests in accordance with the test validation criteria of ASTM D 6201. IVD results shall be reported for individual valves and as an average of all valves.
1.3.1.2 Base Fuel. The base fuel shall conform to ASTM D 4814 and shall contain commercial fuel grade ethanol conforming to ASTM D 4806. All gasoline blend stocks used to formulate the base fuel shall be representative of normal U.S. refinery operations and shall be derived from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes are allowed for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical streams is prohibited. The base fuel shall have the following specific properties after the addition of ethanol:
1.3.2 Combustion Chamber Deposit Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.2.1 Test Method. Combustion chamber deposits (CCD) shall be collected and weighed along with IVD using ASTM D 6201, Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation. ASTM D 6201 does not contain a procedure for collecting and measuring CCD. Adapting a scrape and weigh procedure developed by CARB is recommended (see referenced test method dated March 12, 1999). Results for individual cylinders and an average shall be reported.
1.3.2.2 Base Fuel. Combustion chamber deposits shall be measured for the base fuel from 1.3.1.2.
1.3.2.3 Demonstration of Performance. The base fuel from 1.3.1.2 treated with additive at the concentration meeting the standard found in 1.3.1.3 shall not result in more than 140% of the average CCD weight for the base fuel without additive.
1.3.3 Fuel Injector Fouling Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.3.1 Test Method. Fuel injector fouling shall be measured using the TOP TIER fuel injector fouling vehicle test available from GM. GM will run the test on a first-come-first-served basis and shall make the method available to those who wish to run the test on their own.
1.3.3.2 Base Fuel. Two options for base fuel are available:
1.3.3.2.1 Option 1. A full boiling range hydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending component, without oxygenates and without deposit control additives, that results in at least five inoperative injectors when tested by the method in 1.3.3.1.
1.3.3.2.2 Option 2. Federal emissions test gasoline specified in DFR 86.113-04, into which 4-methylbenzenethiol (WARNING: Flammable solid; irritant) has been blended at a concentration of 56 mg/L. The blended fuel must result in at least four inoperative injectors when tested by the method in 1.3.3.1. the Federal emissions gasoline, without deposit control additives, available from Haltermann Products (1201 South Sheldon Road, Channelview, TX 77530; tel.: 800-969-2542) has been found to be satisfactory.
1.3.3.3 Demonstration of Performance. A demonstration of injector fouling shall be done first. At least five out of six injectors (with Option 1) or at least four out of six injectors (with Option 2) shall be inoperative for the test to be valid. A demonstration of additive performance shall be done after the fouling tendency demonstration; no other test shall be conducted on the vehicle in the interim. A demonstration of additive performance shall be conducted using the same vehicle (including the fuel drain and flush procedures and installing new injectors) with the same batch of base fuel, but now containing the same amount of deposit control additive as in 1.3.1.3. A pass is defined as no more than one inoperative injector.
1.3.4 Determination of Deposit Control Additive Performance Concentration.
1.3.4.1 Methodology. The concentration of deposit control additive needed to meet the standards in 1.3.1.3 and 1.3.3.3 should be equivalent. However, if the concentration of deposit control additive in 1.3.3.3 is grater than in 1.3.1.3m the higher value shall be regarded as meeting both standards. Also, if the difference between the two concentrations is grater than 15%, 1.3.2.3 shall be repeated using the higher concentration.
1.3.5 Intake Valve Sticking Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.5.1 Test Method. Intake valve sticking tendency shall be determined using either the 1.9 L Volkswagen engine (Wasserboxer according to CEC F-16-T-96) or the 5.0 L 1990-95 General Motors V-8 engine (SWRI IVS test). Two options are available for demonstrating intake valve sticking tendency.
1.3.5.2 Option 1. The valve-sticking tendency of the test fuel by itself will not have to be demonstrated prior to testing the candidate additive. The following shall be required of all tests:
1.3.5.3 Option 2. The valve-sticking tendency of the test fuel together with an additive known to cause valve sticking shall be demonstrated prior to testing the candidate additive. The following shall be required of all tests:
Deposit Control Standards
The standards developed by the four automobile manufacturers (BMW, General Motors, Honda, and Toyota) for TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline are described below. This technical document describes the deposit control performance of unleaded gasoline at the retail level that minimizes deposits on fuel injectors, intake valves, and combustion chambers. These standards comprise the requirements for TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline.
Standards
1.1 Retail Gasoline Performance Standards. The deposit control performance of unleaded gasoline conforming to section 1 of this document shall be met at the retail level in all grades of gasoline sold by a fuel company in all marketing areas of a selected nation. In addition, conformance to the standards shall mean gasoline sold in the selected nation shall not contain metallic additives, including methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT).
1.2 Deposit Control Additive Requirements. The deposit control additive used to meet the performance Standards described in 1.3 shall meet the substantially similar definition under Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act. Also, the additive shall be certified to have met the minimum deposit control requirements established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR Part 80. Lastly, the additive shall be registered with the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR Part 79.
1.3 Deposit Control Initial Performance Standards. Initial deposit control performance shall be demonstrated using the tests shown below.
1.3.1 Intake Valve Keep Clean Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.1.1 Test Method. Intake valve deposit (IVD) keep clean performance shall be demonstrated using ASTM D 6201, Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-lgnition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation. Tests demonstrating base fuel minimum deposit level (1.3.1.2) and additive performance (1.3.1.3) shall be conducted using the same engine block and cylinder head. All results shall be derived from operationally valid tests in accordance with the test validation criteria of ASTM D 6201. IVD results shall be reported for individual valves and as an average of all valves.
1.3.1.2 Base Fuel. The base fuel shall conform to ASTM D 4814 and shall contain commercial fuel grade ethanol conforming to ASTM D 4806. All gasoline blend stocks used to formulate the base fuel shall be representative of normal U.S. refinery operations and shall be derived from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes are allowed for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical streams is prohibited. The base fuel shall have the following specific properties after the addition of ethanol:
- Contain enough denatured ethanol such that the actual ethanol content is no less than 8.0 and no more than 10.0 volume percent.
- Contain no less than 8 volume percent olefins. At least 75% of the olefins shall be derived from FCC gasoline as defined by CARB (advisory letter, April 19, 2001).
- Contain no less than 28 volume percent aromatics.
- Contain no less than 48 mg/kg sulfur. At least 60% of the sulfur shall be derived from FCC blend stock.
- Produce a 90% evaporation distillation temperature no less than 290°F.
- Produce IVD no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves.
1.3.2 Combustion Chamber Deposit Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.2.1 Test Method. Combustion chamber deposits (CCD) shall be collected and weighed along with IVD using ASTM D 6201, Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation. ASTM D 6201 does not contain a procedure for collecting and measuring CCD. Adapting a scrape and weigh procedure developed by CARB is recommended (see referenced test method dated March 12, 1999). Results for individual cylinders and an average shall be reported.
1.3.2.2 Base Fuel. Combustion chamber deposits shall be measured for the base fuel from 1.3.1.2.
1.3.2.3 Demonstration of Performance. The base fuel from 1.3.1.2 treated with additive at the concentration meeting the standard found in 1.3.1.3 shall not result in more than 140% of the average CCD weight for the base fuel without additive.
1.3.3 Fuel Injector Fouling Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.3.1 Test Method. Fuel injector fouling shall be measured using the TOP TIER fuel injector fouling vehicle test available from GM. GM will run the test on a first-come-first-served basis and shall make the method available to those who wish to run the test on their own.
1.3.3.2 Base Fuel. Two options for base fuel are available:
1.3.3.2.1 Option 1. A full boiling range hydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending component, without oxygenates and without deposit control additives, that results in at least five inoperative injectors when tested by the method in 1.3.3.1.
1.3.3.2.2 Option 2. Federal emissions test gasoline specified in DFR 86.113-04, into which 4-methylbenzenethiol (WARNING: Flammable solid; irritant) has been blended at a concentration of 56 mg/L. The blended fuel must result in at least four inoperative injectors when tested by the method in 1.3.3.1. the Federal emissions gasoline, without deposit control additives, available from Haltermann Products (1201 South Sheldon Road, Channelview, TX 77530; tel.: 800-969-2542) has been found to be satisfactory.
1.3.3.3 Demonstration of Performance. A demonstration of injector fouling shall be done first. At least five out of six injectors (with Option 1) or at least four out of six injectors (with Option 2) shall be inoperative for the test to be valid. A demonstration of additive performance shall be done after the fouling tendency demonstration; no other test shall be conducted on the vehicle in the interim. A demonstration of additive performance shall be conducted using the same vehicle (including the fuel drain and flush procedures and installing new injectors) with the same batch of base fuel, but now containing the same amount of deposit control additive as in 1.3.1.3. A pass is defined as no more than one inoperative injector.
1.3.4 Determination of Deposit Control Additive Performance Concentration.
1.3.4.1 Methodology. The concentration of deposit control additive needed to meet the standards in 1.3.1.3 and 1.3.3.3 should be equivalent. However, if the concentration of deposit control additive in 1.3.3.3 is grater than in 1.3.1.3m the higher value shall be regarded as meeting both standards. Also, if the difference between the two concentrations is grater than 15%, 1.3.2.3 shall be repeated using the higher concentration.
1.3.5 Intake Valve Sticking Initial Performance Standard.
1.3.5.1 Test Method. Intake valve sticking tendency shall be determined using either the 1.9 L Volkswagen engine (Wasserboxer according to CEC F-16-T-96) or the 5.0 L 1990-95 General Motors V-8 engine (SWRI IVS test). Two options are available for demonstrating intake valve sticking tendency.
1.3.5.2 Option 1. The valve-sticking tendency of the test fuel by itself will not have to be demonstrated prior to testing the candidate additive. The following shall be required of all tests:
- Test fuel shall be either the same as in 1.3.1.2 or CEC valve sticking reference fuel.
- Concentration of deposit control additive in the test fuel shall be at least twice the amount determined in 1.3.4.1.
- Test temperature shall be -20°C.
- Three 16-hr cold soak cycles, each followed by a compression pressure check, shall constitute a complete test.
1.3.5.3 Option 2. The valve-sticking tendency of the test fuel together with an additive known to cause valve sticking shall be demonstrated prior to testing the candidate additive. The following shall be required of all tests:
- Test fuel shall be either the same as in 1.3.1.2 or CEC valve sticking test reference fuel.
- An additive known to cause valve sticking shall be selected, and, when blended into test fuel, shall demonstrate valve sticking tendency as follows: (a) for the Volkswagen engine, at least two valves shall be stuck; (b) for the GM engine, at least three valves shall be stuck.
- Test demonstrating performance of the candidate additive shall be conducted at a concentration that is at least three times the amount determined in 1.3.4.1.
- Test temperature shall be -20°C.
- One 16-hr cold soak cycle followed by a compression pressure check shall constitute a complete test.
Related links about top tier gasoline.
http://tedserbinski.com/2006/06/17/top_tier_gasoline
http://autorepair.about.com/od/generalinfo/a/110305.htm
http://tedserbinski.com/2006/06/17/top_tier_gasoline
http://autorepair.about.com/od/generalinfo/a/110305.htm
Tech Resident
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,117
Likes: 3
From: Philly
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
ChocoTaco369:
i hate people like you.
not for what you've said in this thread.. but because you spout off a bunch of things about subjects you obviously know nothing about.
i just thought id share.. maybe it'll make you reflect inward on what you're posting, and you'll think enough to ask yourself "do i really have any knowledge or training on the subject??" before you hit that post reply button.
i hate people like you.
not for what you've said in this thread.. but because you spout off a bunch of things about subjects you obviously know nothing about.
i just thought id share.. maybe it'll make you reflect inward on what you're posting, and you'll think enough to ask yourself "do i really have any knowledge or training on the subject??" before you hit that post reply button.
ask yourself this question: what is better for our cars, ethanol based gas or normal gas? i already know what the answer is.
ethanol should not be mandatory in fuels. gas stations should have both ethanol pumps and non-ethanol pumps. for cars that were designed to run it (like a prius), you'd go to the ethanol pumps for best results. for cars like us, we'd go to the normal pumps. i don't like being forced to run fuel that my car wasn't desgined to run on. that's my problem with ethanol.
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
From: Baltimore, MD.
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
ethanol should not be mandatory in fuels. gas stations should have both ethanol pumps and non-ethanol pumps.
The ethanol isn't there because the oil companies or anybody (except the ethanol producers) are pushing it on us to be green. It's in there to raise the octane of the gasoline. Previously, MTBE was used, but it has been phased out because of a bunch of health related issues (including messing up groundwater / drinking water). Before that, leaded gas was the answer, the lead (which isn't the heavy metal used for fishing sinkers) was the octane booster. It was phased out for environmental reasons (the lead isn't good for the atmosphere nor was it compatible with catalytic convertors).
So, would you prefer 10% ethanol gasoline with a 91 or 93 octane rating, or straight gasoline with a 83 to 85 octane rating? Because until the petrochemical industry comes up with some other wonder chemical to boost octane, there aren't that many good choices.
Yes, it sucks that gas mileage is lower and fuel costs go up. I don't like it any more that the rest of you guys. My estimates are that fuel economy should drop by somewhere between 4% and 6%. That's just the way the fuel chemistry works. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1, stoich for ethanol is around 9:1. Mixed 90/10, you end up with about 14.1:1 ratio, which should be about 4% more fuel, but this is only accurate at cruise. During acceleration, we should expect a bit worse number, probably around 5 or 6%.
'JustDreamin'