General *Gas Price Thread* - Post here and Track Biden-flation.

BeardOfKnowledge said:
It's literally my profession.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that for a second, unless you’re trolling.

There’s no arguing that there’s less btu’s with an ethanol mix.

There’s also no arguing that given the same octane, the fuel with less btu will have worse fuel economy.

It’s also a fact that ethanol attracts water. Which leads to water in the fuel system on vehicles not driven regularly.

This also leads to water in the crankcase of DI engines that are short tripped due to fuel dilution & the oil not getting hot enough to burn off the fuel & water.

All these issues are common and caused by ethanol in fuel.
 
rmenergy said:
I don’t believe that for a second, unless you’re trolling.

There’s no arguing that there’s less btu’s with an ethanol mix.

There’s also no arguing that given the same octane, the fuel with less btu will have worse fuel economy.

It’s also a fact that ethanol attracts water. Which leads to water in the fuel system on vehicles not driven regularly.

This also leads to water in the crankcase of DI engines that are short tripped due to fuel dilution & the oil not getting hot enough to burn off the fuel & water.

All these issues are common and caused by ethanol in fuel.
Click to expand...

It's very apparent that you don't understand the first thing about how a modern car works, so please, just stop.
 
BeardOfKnowledge said:
It's very apparent that you don't understand the first thing about how a modern car works, so please, just stop.
Click to expand...
I love how you can’t go after my statements as they are all scientifically sound. Instead you attempt to shift to “modern cars” operation.

Theres no getting around physics for modern vehicles. Are you stating there’s no fuel dilution issues, especially with short tripped DI engines?

Are you also trying to say there is some magic out there allowing a modern vehicle to burn two different fuels, at the same octane level, but one at a reduced btu & there will be no corresponding loss in mpg?

If this is the kind of crap you’re trying to say, my guess is your job in the industry is a petroleum distillates transfer engineer. Pump Jockey.
 
rmenergy said:
I love how you can’t go after my statements as they are all scientifically sound. Instead you attempt to shift to “modern cars” operation.
Click to expand...

You're making statements about stationary fuel being burned and that isn't how an internal combustion engine works. Your statements are for laboratories and not the real world.

As I said, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about so just stop.
 
giphy.gif
 
BeardOfKnowledge said:
You're making statements about stationary fuel being burned and that isn't how an internal combustion engine works. Your statements are for laboratories and not the real world.

As I said, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about so just stop.
Click to expand...
I understand about atomization of the fuel on the intake. It doesn’t change my statements or the fact that fuel wash past the piston rings DOES occur in practice & that the btu content of the fuel still impacts mileage.

Do you have no actual real world experience? This is like speaking to a new SCADA engineer who can’t understand why something on paper doesn’t work like their models show in practice.

One look into UOA’s will show you I’m correct about fuel wash.

A simple discussion or look into engine builders seeing rust on rotating assemblies of engines running high amounts of ethanol or engines with lower amounts of ethanol but rarely getting the oil up to operating temperature will also show you that I’m correct.

If you’re going to try to argue btu content not impacting mpg, then you’re just an idiot. Take one look into multi fuel engines and their different efficiency ratings on different fuels.

From first hand experience we lost about 30% mpg converting a fleet of service trucks from gasoline to to LP Gas. This makes sense given the reduced btu content with no major changes to compression or cam timing to take advantage of the LP Gas higher octane rating. We could have gained back a few percent by raising the compression to 12:1 from about 9:1 but the added expense didn’t justify the return in this case.

I actually have plenty of experience with several types of engines from axial flow to reciprocating piston of different types. I’ve also had to study fuels from working at both race engine machine shops specializing in alcohol through dual fuel power plants. I’ve worked for chevron & have had several of their white papers on fuels on my desk & still keep in touch with a few of their engineers today.

I would implore you to make your comments about octane not having any impact, fuel wash not being real or ethanol not attracting water to any professional. They’ll laugh your ass right out of the building.
 
rmenergy said:
I understand about atomization of the fuel on the intake. It doesn’t change my statements or the fact that fuel wash past the piston rings DOES occur in practice & that the btu content of the fuel still impacts mileage.

Do you have no actual real world experience? This is like speaking to a new SCADA engineer who can’t understand why something on paper doesn’t work like their models show in practice.

One look into UOA’s will show you I’m correct about fuel wash.

A simple discussion or look into engine builders seeing rust on rotating assemblies of engines running high amounts of ethanol or engines with lower amounts of ethanol but rarely getting the oil up to operating temperature will also show you that I’m correct.

If you’re going to try to argue btu content not impacting mpg, then you’re just an idiot. Take one look into multi fuel engines and their different efficiency ratings on different fuels.

From first hand experience we lost about 30% mpg converting a fleet of service trucks from gasoline to to LP Gas. This makes sense given the reduced btu content with no major changes to compression or cam timing to take advantage of the LP Gas higher octane rating. We could have gained back a few percent by raising the compression to 12:1 from about 9:1 but the added expense didn’t justify the return in this case.

I actually have plenty of experience with several types of engines from axial flow to reciprocating piston of different types. I’ve also had to study fuels from working at both race engine machine shops specializing in alcohol through dual fuel power plants. I’ve worked for chevron & have had several of their white papers on fuels on my desk & still keep in touch with a few of their engineers today.

I would implore you to make your comments about octane not having any impact, fuel wash not being real or ethanol not attracting water to any professional. They’ll laugh your ass right out of the building.
Click to expand...

You're comparing full alcohol race engines with engines designed to run on E10 while also claiming an impossible 30% reduction in fuel mileage?

Christ on a cracker, I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.
 
BeardOfKnowledge said:
Just busy. Also, a lot of holy shit awful fights.
Click to expand...
Tbh, fights have become too scary for me. It's probably just a function of there being way more fights nowadays, but silva, Anderson, then weidman. Aspinal. A girl or guy dislocated arm posting when getting taken down recently. And fiziev a couple days ago

I'm often tense watching fights.

Hashtag ban leg kicks
 
BeardOfKnowledge said:
You're comparing full alcohol race engines with engines designed to run on E10 while also claiming an impossible 30% reduction in fuel mileage?

Christ on a cracker, I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.
Click to expand...
Your reading comprehension needs work.

You’ve also only claimed that the absolute rules of btu’s don’t apply to modern cars & can’t offer one iota of input outside of “just stop”. I’m going out on a limb & stating your homeslice from the OG. He’s the only idiot big enough to argue against physics ?

No more feeding the troll today.
 
rmenergy said:
You’ve also only claimed that the absolute rules of btu’s don’t apply to modern cars
Click to expand...

No, I claimed you don't understand how modern cars work. Your statements, although facts, don't apply to real world conditions. I told you to stop because you're spreading misinformation about octane impacting fuel economy and some nonsense about water in the fuel system as if the level of moisture in a sealed system is drastically changed by adding 10% of ethanol to gasoline. The guy you were backing up is a known troll and bullshitter.
 
Last edited:
kaladin stormblessed said:
Tbh, fights have become too scary for me. It's probably just a function of there being way more fights nowadays, but silva, Anderson, then weidman. Aspinal. A girl or guy dislocated arm posting when getting taken down recently. And fiziev a couple days ago

I'm often tense watching fights.

Hashtag ban leg kicks
Click to expand...

Did Fiziev get a busted leg?
 
BeardOfKnowledge said:
No, I claimed you don't understand how modern cars work. Your statements, although facts, don't apply to real world conditions. I told you to stop because you're spreading misinformation about octane impacting fuel economy and some nonsense about water in the fuel system as if the level of moisture in a sealed system is drastically changed by adding 10% of ethanol to gasoline. The guy you were backing up is a known troll and bullshitter.
Click to expand...
I never once stated octane impacted fuel economy. I stated btu does. Reading comprehension, again.

Water does enter fuel systems as they aren’t completely sealed & ethanol does attract water.

I absolutely do not spread misinformation.
 
rmenergy said:
I never once stated octane impacted fuel economy. I stated btu does. Reading comprehension, again.

Water does enter fuel systems as they aren’t completely sealed & ethanol does attract water.

I absolutely do not spread misinformation.
Click to expand...

Water in fuel systems is not a legitimate concern. Water in crankcases is laughable. Fuel without ethanol does not produce better mileage than E10 as a vehicles mileage is based on the fuel it's designed to run and ethanol does not produce fuel leaks.

So yes, you are spreading misinformation.
 
BeardOfKnowledge said:
Water in fuel systems is not a legitimate concern. Water in crankcases is laughable. Fuel without ethanol does not produce better mileage than E10 as a vehicles mileage is based on the fuel it's designed to run and ethanol does not produce fuel leaks.

So yes, you are spreading misinformation.
Click to expand...
Ok. Since you're not going to listen to me on this how about the feds? Here's a DOE page explaining how the btu content of fuel WILL impact fuel economy & yes even E10 reduces mpg:

Ethanol (fueleconomy.gov)

Here are a couple studies on the corrosive tendencies of oxygenated fuels. Ethanol will hold FAR more water than E0 gasoline and has serious impacts on automotive and small engine applications:

Study of Corrosion of Metallic Materials in Ethanol–Gasoline Blends: Application of Electrochemical Methods | Energy & Fuels (acs.org)

Corrosion assessment of metals in bioethanol-gasoline blends using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy - ScienceDirect

Since many don't like to read, here is a video of some issues with ethanol during short tripped engines. I didn't search very long so this happened to be for E85. You will see rust, carbon & sludge. This was supposedly a short tripped engine that received 2,000mi OCI's.


View: https://youtu.be/bPcVBc4-5Mk?si=_e9m99L3uaZC9nxx


Now this issue can still happen with E10 & E15 it's just a slower process. Like I stated previously, vehicles & equipment that are stored for longer periods of time are more likely to encounter these issues than a daily driven vehicle, unless that DD is a short tripped DI engine and the oil is never allowed to come up to operating temperature.
 
I can only speak from experience

I notice a difference and I am running all types of engines, not just my 2 trucks...although they both are thirsty fellas.
Some of my smaller and midsized engines will absolutely get fucked up by 92 premium gas, firsthand experience tells me this.

If I only bought premium gas for all my engines I would pay about 3600...I choose to pay 4300 per year...700 cost is passed off because it is a business expense...700 a year/12 months = 60 per month cost to run only clear.

The higher Premium ethanol cost is, the less the price gap for Clear gas is here.
I have seen it as low as .10 USD difference per gallon in the last year, it is usually 30-90 cents higher.

I am ok with the cost







I appreciate all the posts and input, discussion is good
Thanks fellas
 
Last edited:
rmenergy said:
Ok. Since you're not going to listen to me on this how about the feds? Here's a DOE page explaining how the btu content of fuel WILL impact fuel economy & yes even E10 reduces mpg:

Ethanol (fueleconomy.gov)

Here are a couple studies on the corrosive tendencies of oxygenated fuels. Ethanol will hold FAR more water than E0 gasoline and has serious impacts on automotive and small engine applications:

Study of Corrosion of Metallic Materials in Ethanol–Gasoline Blends: Application of Electrochemical Methods | Energy & Fuels (acs.org)

Corrosion assessment of metals in bioethanol-gasoline blends using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy - ScienceDirect

Since many don't like to read, here is a video of some issues with ethanol during short tripped engines. I didn't search very long so this happened to be for E85. You will see rust, carbon & sludge. This was supposedly a short tripped engine that received 2,000mi OCI's.


View: https://youtu.be/bPcVBc4-5Mk?si=_e9m99L3uaZC9nxx


Now this issue can still happen with E10 & E15 it's just a slower process. Like I stated previously, vehicles & equipment that are stored for longer periods of time are more likely to encounter these issues than a daily driven vehicle, unless that DD is a short tripped DI engine and the oil is never allowed to come up to operating temperature.
Click to expand...


Oh, Jesus Christ.

Modern vehicles get better mileage than ever before and engines are replaced far less frequently. What a bunch of egghead's come up with in a lab does not equate to real world performance as I've tried to point out to you multiple times. At this point I'm not going to be responding to anymore of your "Trust the Science" posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top