-
Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password. If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?
-
Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.
The Election forum is here: Election Forum
AMA Posts Ethanol Alert!
- Thread starter pauls1150
- Start date
39520
New member
They have a nifty iPhone app as well.
Thanks for the tip. I found one station locally selling non-ethanol, and I know our local marina sells non-ethanol as well.
Choice of gas does not seem to affect the performance of my K12 in any noticeable way. However, I have an old Porsche Turbo with mechanical fuel injection, and of course it can't make timing adjustments on the fly like a modern car or motorcycle with EFI. It likes good gas.
NI5L
New member
36654
New member
You can use your high school chemistry and calculate the heat energy content of the blend vs the non-blend. Or, you can listen to anecdotal comments.
It's just a matter of what you want to believe.
39520
New member
Good point.
I looked up the energy densities of gasoline (34 MJ/l) and E10 (33.18 MJ/l). These would mean that E10 has 97.5% of the energy density of gasoline. If the relationship between energy density and horsepower is linear, then my K12's horsepower is reduced by 4 HP, from 160 to 156 when using E10. My personal butt dyno is not calibrated to that level of sensitivity.
But on the other hand, if you had to fill up with E85 you would take a noticeable hit in energy density - E85 has 75% of the energy density value of pure gasoline. (E85 being 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline).
36654
New member
Good point.
I looked up the energy densities of gasoline (34 MJ/l) and E10 (33.18 MJ/l). These would mean that E10 has 97.5% of the energy density of gasoline. If the relationship between energy density and horsepower is linear, then my K12's horsepower is reduced by 4 HP, from 160 to 156 when using E10. My personal butt dyno is not calibrated to that level of sensitivity.
But on the other hand, if you had to fill up with E85 you would take a noticeable hit in energy density - E85 has 75% of the energy density value of pure gasoline. (E85 being 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline).
At constant speed, your mileage should be proportional to fuel energy content per volume.
dukekaboom
One Man Wolfpack
E10 > E15 Gasoline Mix Impact
Folks,
As a technically-degreed executive of a nearly 100-year old engineering consulting firm, I am a firm believer in science-based risk analysis and absolutely deplore political rhetoric and grand-standing. Too many organizations have taken positions based on the misguided beliefs of their financiers and not scientific fact or empirical data.
I want to share a reasonably well written summary on the findings of a proposed plan to move from E10 to E15 gasoline mix. I can tell you that a large population of automobiles was rigorously tested and effect measured on their performance (in the broadest sense) to determine E15's impact. We presented the results of our tests to Margo Oge of the EPA who was extremely pleased with the rigor of the analysis (as I would have expected) as there is so much "hot air" on this subject we needed to be absolutely robust in our approach.
I am going to follow up with my team to ascertain if any similar analysis was conducted on "small personal transportation vehicles" like ATVs, motorcycles, and so on -- and I'll pass that on. In the meantime, here is the article:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/09/15/496452.html
I hope this helps and for anyone that needs a complete copy of the report I will see if I can find a way to post it for you.
Kent
Folks,
As a technically-degreed executive of a nearly 100-year old engineering consulting firm, I am a firm believer in science-based risk analysis and absolutely deplore political rhetoric and grand-standing. Too many organizations have taken positions based on the misguided beliefs of their financiers and not scientific fact or empirical data.
I want to share a reasonably well written summary on the findings of a proposed plan to move from E10 to E15 gasoline mix. I can tell you that a large population of automobiles was rigorously tested and effect measured on their performance (in the broadest sense) to determine E15's impact. We presented the results of our tests to Margo Oge of the EPA who was extremely pleased with the rigor of the analysis (as I would have expected) as there is so much "hot air" on this subject we needed to be absolutely robust in our approach.
I am going to follow up with my team to ascertain if any similar analysis was conducted on "small personal transportation vehicles" like ATVs, motorcycles, and so on -- and I'll pass that on. In the meantime, here is the article:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/09/15/496452.html
I hope this helps and for anyone that needs a complete copy of the report I will see if I can find a way to post it for you.
Kent
mika
Still Wondering
Corn is more pervasive in our national diet than sweet corn on the cob, canned corn, corn oil and on and on. I am certain there is a corn nerd someplace able to tell you how much is consumed even Americans who avoid the stuff in a 1st degree form.
Hate to break it to you but there is an ever growing number of non food uses for things with names you would recognize as food. I would argue in many cases it is a high and acceptable use of arable land. At one point I would have made that argument for my state, but as a short term fill int until a long term solution to a problem the state faced until another solution was found.
I have seen E85 drag racers, street rods, stunt planes at EAA in Oshkosh etc. All had had impressive performance and the wonderful aroma of French fries. What seems to be lost on many is that such performance can be obtained with a properly thought out power plant and do it with a matching life expectancy of a similarly tuned engine using 'pure' gas in the same application. The question for many is not can it be done but should it be as E10-20 for day to day use.
The AMA has a way of playing chicken little that can be frustrating to many. I don't think the MOA should or ever would take a political stand on ethanol. What I wish is much smaller than that.
I wish, given the background of many forum members as researchers, engineers and the vast mechanical skills we have around here, is that the forum became a repository of vetted information that is helpful to the daily rider in on the forum.
Hate to break it to you but there is an ever growing number of non food uses for things with names you would recognize as food. I would argue in many cases it is a high and acceptable use of arable land. At one point I would have made that argument for my state, but as a short term fill int until a long term solution to a problem the state faced until another solution was found.
I have seen E85 drag racers, street rods, stunt planes at EAA in Oshkosh etc. All had had impressive performance and the wonderful aroma of French fries. What seems to be lost on many is that such performance can be obtained with a properly thought out power plant and do it with a matching life expectancy of a similarly tuned engine using 'pure' gas in the same application. The question for many is not can it be done but should it be as E10-20 for day to day use.
The AMA has a way of playing chicken little that can be frustrating to many. I don't think the MOA should or ever would take a political stand on ethanol. What I wish is much smaller than that.
I wish, given the background of many forum members as researchers, engineers and the vast mechanical skills we have around here, is that the forum became a repository of vetted information that is helpful to the daily rider in on the forum.
36654
New member
Kent,
Are you sure you want to wade into this cesspool? Just because your company (a respected multinational automotive industry consulting firm) did research on the subject, I'm doubtful that any opinions will be changed.
36654
New member
But the fact that the ethanol is made from a food staple really pisses me off.
I know a few farmers that really like the price stability it adds to their business. Accordingly, the states of KS, NB, IA, SD, MN, WI, IL, etc...... probably like idea, too. They all have two senators and at least one congressman.
Even here in PA, no US senator or congressman is ever going to vote for lower corn prices, that wouldn't support our farms. The subsidies might disappear, but the price support via ethanol blends will remain.
jad01
New member
I don't really have an opinion on whether ethanol is detrimental to vehicle engines, but as a scientist myself, I did find this statement from the autochannel report Kent posted interesting:
This study... concluded “that the adoption and use of E15 in the motor vehicle fleet from the studied model years should not adversely affect these vehicles or cause them to perform in a sub-optimal manner when compared with their performance using the E10 blend that is currently available.” (emphasis added)
The report does note that it applies to model year vehicles from 1994 to 2000. That noted, I'm curious how much difference there is between E15 and E0, and whether that was investigated. The statistical error (variance) that occurs within replicate-based analysis means that while the measured differences between any two adjacent groups (E0 and E10, or E10 and E15- the independent variable in this case) may not be statistically significant, the difference between the two extremes along a gradient (E0 and E15) may well be statistically significant. It is not clear from this popular press report whether any comparisons other than E10 to E15 were considered in the study. This could represent potential bias in the study that would need to be considered depending on the application to specific vehicles. I'd be interested in reading the full report.
That said, I don't have a problem with ethanol or other biofuels as a strategy to replace fossil fuels, but it sure seems like it would make sense to use a plant base that has a more efficient energy conversion rate from sunlight to biomass than corn (~1.5% conversion rate). Maybe sugarcane (~ 8% conversion rate) or perennial switchgrasses if we are going to use biofuels sustainably into the future.
We live in interesting times...
This study... concluded “that the adoption and use of E15 in the motor vehicle fleet from the studied model years should not adversely affect these vehicles or cause them to perform in a sub-optimal manner when compared with their performance using the E10 blend that is currently available.” (emphasis added)
The report does note that it applies to model year vehicles from 1994 to 2000. That noted, I'm curious how much difference there is between E15 and E0, and whether that was investigated. The statistical error (variance) that occurs within replicate-based analysis means that while the measured differences between any two adjacent groups (E0 and E10, or E10 and E15- the independent variable in this case) may not be statistically significant, the difference between the two extremes along a gradient (E0 and E15) may well be statistically significant. It is not clear from this popular press report whether any comparisons other than E10 to E15 were considered in the study. This could represent potential bias in the study that would need to be considered depending on the application to specific vehicles. I'd be interested in reading the full report.
That said, I don't have a problem with ethanol or other biofuels as a strategy to replace fossil fuels, but it sure seems like it would make sense to use a plant base that has a more efficient energy conversion rate from sunlight to biomass than corn (~1.5% conversion rate). Maybe sugarcane (~ 8% conversion rate) or perennial switchgrasses if we are going to use biofuels sustainably into the future.
We live in interesting times...
mika
Still Wondering
That is the price support sound bite take. In Fly-Over-Land it is much more divisive than the sound bite would suggest. The price support out here cuts two ways. Yes it stabilizes corn prices. The that comes at a price. The trade is corn stability traded for support of dairy price supports. In turn on the Right and Left cost this balances out in higher dairy prices to offset the additional cost of feed. A potential win - win for dairy and corn farmers on either side. Here in F-O-L it pits WI and F-O-L dairy farmers against corn farmers in many ways.
mika
Still Wondering
I don't have a problem with plant based fuels. My concern is the source. In the case of corn if it was from cellulose from stalks and what is currently waste leaving the corn for other purposes I may be really able to get behind that.
Sugar cane is an interesting option. The problem takes you back into market protection and price subsidies for sugar beet farmers and others.
I will stop here because while we live in interesting times I don't want to over interest the moderators into enforcing forum political discussion guidelines.
36654
New member
Let's not even get into the M & W price game on dairy. It is a very tangled web of logic with much too history and many powerful beneficiaries......well removed from the farm.
88bmwjeff
SF Bay Area
Wow, IMO you misunderstand what the four gallons means. I read it as a suggestion to prevent engine damage. And it's only for gas stations that have blender pumps selling both E10 AND E15 ethanol gas. While I 'm not a fan of ethanol in gas, spreading misinformation like this is just plain wrong.
The letter is here.
http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com...s_Federal/EPAResponse_E15Misfueling.sflb.ashx
dukekaboom
One Man Wolfpack
Ethanol Cesspool
You're right... I don't want to wade into that cesspool as I don't want or expect to change any minds. What I do want to do is share hard data and then allow folks to decide for themselves. I should mention I grew up on a beef farm and sold cash crops like corn, wheat and alfalfa. Someone earlier in this thread quite rightly made the point that the corn used for ethanol is not the same as that used to feed the population. That is correct, the former is referred to as "pig corn" and the latter is "sweet corn". If you've ever bitten into pig corn, you'd swear you're eating bark -- it's awful. There is another argument that pig corn displaces land that can be used to grow sweet corn (or other grains). Well, maybe but I doubt it as our government pays farmers to allow millions of acres of land to remain fallow (yes, it seems crazy but it keeps feedstock prices up by reducing supply).
What I'm not certain of (we've looked at it but I haven't read the report) is if the energy put into producing ethanol exceeds that which is derived from it. What I do think may make more sense is the use of cellulosic ethanol which is derived from pure waste (e.g., the stalk, husk and so on). Other sources like switchgrass can also produce ethanol so that any argument about food or fuel is nullified.
It's a real mess littered with much rhetoric (as seen here) and opinion. One thing I am certain of is that ethanol is not going to go away. Higher octane is a desirable trait in fuel and, I suspect, that an increased mix of ethanol in gasoline will be a prime means to drive that -- and over time engines, small and large, will evolve to accommodate and benefit from it. Signing off now.
Kent
You're right... I don't want to wade into that cesspool as I don't want or expect to change any minds. What I do want to do is share hard data and then allow folks to decide for themselves. I should mention I grew up on a beef farm and sold cash crops like corn, wheat and alfalfa. Someone earlier in this thread quite rightly made the point that the corn used for ethanol is not the same as that used to feed the population. That is correct, the former is referred to as "pig corn" and the latter is "sweet corn". If you've ever bitten into pig corn, you'd swear you're eating bark -- it's awful. There is another argument that pig corn displaces land that can be used to grow sweet corn (or other grains). Well, maybe but I doubt it as our government pays farmers to allow millions of acres of land to remain fallow (yes, it seems crazy but it keeps feedstock prices up by reducing supply).
What I'm not certain of (we've looked at it but I haven't read the report) is if the energy put into producing ethanol exceeds that which is derived from it. What I do think may make more sense is the use of cellulosic ethanol which is derived from pure waste (e.g., the stalk, husk and so on). Other sources like switchgrass can also produce ethanol so that any argument about food or fuel is nullified.
It's a real mess littered with much rhetoric (as seen here) and opinion. One thing I am certain of is that ethanol is not going to go away. Higher octane is a desirable trait in fuel and, I suspect, that an increased mix of ethanol in gasoline will be a prime means to drive that -- and over time engines, small and large, will evolve to accommodate and benefit from it. Signing off now.
Kent
arthurdent
New member
Not ready for prime time?
Allegedly, commercial production of the cellulase enzyme is not up to speed so producers can't switch to cellulosic production of ethanol just yet. In any case, the part of me that doesen't trust anyone in the process to tell the truth is speaking to me.
Allegedly, commercial production of the cellulase enzyme is not up to speed so producers can't switch to cellulosic production of ethanol just yet. In any case, the part of me that doesen't trust anyone in the process to tell the truth is speaking to me.
