Gasahol Or 91

[Spaniel]

With the rising gas prices and not so favorable exchange rate we are considering switching from 91 to gasahol for our 2008 Honda CRV, (2000cc) and 4 year old Civic. Has anyone that made the switch had any problems with this?

[Phil Conners]

Honda claims all their cars run fine on gasohol.

It has been claimed that the mileage on gasohol is so much poorer than 91 that it isn't worth using. I'd be curious of anyone actually testing and verifying this claim.

[Gary A]

Honda claims all their cars run fine on gasohol.

It has been claimed that the mileage on gasohol is so much poorer than 91 that it isn't worth using. I'd be curious of anyone actually testing and verifying this claim.

I have a Ford Focus that requires 95 octane fuel. I can use 95 octane gasohol or 95 octane gasoline and can't tell any difference. If you believe the poor economy opinions, you should consider that E-10 gasohol is 10 percent ethanol so 10 percent of 10 percent adds up to a grand total of 1 percent overall if the 10 percent less claim is valid.

[Plus]

E-10 gasohol is 10 percent ethanol so 10 percent of 10 percent adds up to a grand total of 1 percent overall

[indothai]

I have the new CRV 2007 2.4 purchased January 2007.

I've been using gasohol 95 or gasohol 91 since March 2007, no problems. I try to fill her up with gasohol 91 when ever I can, just cause it's cheaper, gasohol 91 is much harder to find.

I don't see any performance advantage/disavantage between the types of gasolines, since I mostly sit in traffic I don't see this to be an issue. On the highway, I think the gasohol performs just fine, i can pass cars without any fuss. I did try switching to regular 95, just to see if I can outrun that Porsche...... hehehe.. thanks, i'll stick to my gasohol.

If there is a difference, then I think it's got to be the kpl (kilometers per liter) numbers, and it's negligible.

[Gary A]

E-10 gasohol is 10 percent ethanol so 10 percent of 10 percent adds up to a grand total of 1 percent overall

Well Plus, had I known you would read the post I would have explained it in a little more simple terms. The claim is that ethanol (alcohol) is ten percent less efficient than gasoline (benzine). Are you with me so far? Gasohol contains ten percent ethanol. The means that gasohol is ninety percent gasoline (benzine) and ten percent ethanol (alcohol) making the total one hundred percent. If you take ten percent of the ethanol, that would be one percent of the total. Do you agree with that? I'm sorry to have confused you again. It has nothing to do with the size of your fuel tank.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi there.

Been running my '94 Volvo 460 on Gasohol 95 since that stuff became available here, ZERO difference in mileage and/or power between it and pure petrol 95. Go for it.

Thanh

[Killroy]

Running our Honda Stream 2003 on Gasohol,don't see any difference in consumption or preformance from using petrol..

[initiala4]

I can say that the ECU on the VW pretty much hates gasohol. Correction factor goes way up and there are problems starting...that is from my experience..

[culicine]

I'm currently running my civic 2.0 (2004 model) on gasohol 91.

Previously the attendant put in gasohol 95 by mistake and it ran slightly more poorly and got poor mileage (less than 300km on almost a tank).

However, my wife the other day put in gasohol 91 and didn't tell me. I couldn't notice a fifference in performance, and the last reading for mileage was over 10km/l, which is close to the standard 91. So I'd say for 3 baht/litre saving its well worth it.

[Plus]

The claim is that ethanol (alcohol) is ten percent less efficient than gasoline (benzine). Are you with me so far? Gasohol contains ten percent ethanol. The means that gasohol is ninety percent gasoline (benzine) and ten percent ethanol (alcohol) making the total one hundred percent. If you take ten percent of the ethanol, that would be one percent of the total.

No one has made this claim, and you base all your calculations on it, in this thread, so I lost you for a moment.

Now let me think if it's correct of not. As far as I remember journalists covering gasohol spoke about drop in mileage and performance when using gasohol, not ethanol on itself. How big is the drop? Good question, some are absolutely sure it's more than one percent.

[indothai]

I've been trying to find real scientific data on the internet about gasohol in relation to performance and long-term effects on the engine, and so far.... nothing. If anyone can find any real scientific data, please post. BTW: Real scientific data that is not bias is very very hard to come by.

Reasons why I switched: #1 Cheaper, #2 Honda guarantees that it will work.

When ever I want my car to go faster I would switch back to normal gasoline:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/16/pf/wine_hooey_0601/index.htm

http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html

[Gearhead13]

I'm considering switching from benzene 95 to gasohol 95. Shops and garrages have told me that I have to flush out the benzene little by little by mixing it with gasohol a little at a time until the whole tank gets filled with gasohol. The government has said that converters have to be installed in order to use gasohol for some cars. A little ambigous. How did you guys do it?

Some people say their engines knock with gasohol and some people never. Comments? So many stories, so many angles.

My car was made around 1994/1995.

[Thaiboxer]

Cars from the 90's should run just fine on 95 gasohol, provided the alcohol content isn't too high. I think gasohol here is 10% ethanol, so you should be fine. For older cars, the fuel system can't handle it as the alcohol (which is a solvent) corrodes the parts. My car is a 1981, so I would have to make some changes before using gasohol, therefore I just give it 91 gasoline.

[asiaworld]

why does it always have to be so categorical, as SWITCH ?!? actually, what i do is rather combine, depending on sircumstances.. well normally i use bensine , but on occasions i like to "compliment it with gasohol .. Like if you put half a tank of gasohol, it makes only 5% booze content i think, so i get a sort of double 'good feel', 1> do save a bit on costs & 2> don't have to resort to the tankfull of gasohol . i think it works, esp on the long drives, does anyone do same ?

[Gary A]

Has anyone seen the E20 at the pump yet? The article I read said it was 6 baht per liter cheaper ?? Will it come in 91 and 95 or will it all be just one grade of E20? Supposedly ethanol is naturally higher octane than regular gasoline.

[Plus]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

Click on Go and see some interesting results.

Mileage drops are a lot higher than 10%, but the difference in cost per year is about that.

Thailand's reasons for promoting gasohol is not better mileage or environment, it's the size of the country's import bill, and I don't know if it matters to motorists at all.

Oh, yeah, that's for E85 - 85% ethanol. According to

http://www.cleanairtrust.org/E85-Gas-Milea...onsumption.html

pure ethanol has 34% less energy content than gasoline, so drop of 3 and 6% for E10 and E20 is inevitable. In real life results should only get worse.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Plus

[Gary A]

If I find E20 along the highway going to Jomtien, I'll try it and see what happens. I don't see any difference between 95 gasoline and 95 gasohol E10. Ford has bragging rights to the first E20 designed engine in Thailand.

[tom yum goong]

if you're sitting in traffic most of the time, surely a drop in a power or mileage isn't going to be noticeable?

[Plus]

5% is nothing, people won't even notice that, maybe even 10% is nothing.

The big question - why do they use gasohol at all? Right now the price difference is what, 1.5 baht? With lower milage it would even out with usinng pure gasoline.

It's a political decision, people have been bombarded with govt propaganda so they follow (and many don't).

On the political level the advantages are also not clear. Yes, the country will import less fuel, but on the other hand demand for ethanol will push the prices of agricultural products up and people will end up paying more for their food.

I saw reports that it's happening in Mexico already - corn, their staple food, has become too expensive for many, because Americans now use it to feed their cars, forget the people.

Also recent UN studies show negative effects of biofuels on our climate.

[Moonfruit]

I noticed a considerable increase in consumption in my old Ford Escape using Gasohol. I never got around to calculating the difference, but it was certainly noticeable. More than 20% i would say.

With the new Camry, i dont notice the difference, and fill up with whatever is available.

[bino]

We took our new VIOS for a road trip just before Christmas. Bangkok to Chiang Mai to Chiang Rai to Phu Chee Fa, and then back the same way. The car had just had its initial 1000 km service, and I was interested to see the difference between the two fuels, and figure out what is the best for the new car.

We filled up alternately between gasohol 95 and benzene 91. I never actually crunched the exact numbers, but there was a marked difference in fuel economy. We squeezed a best of 560 km out of a tank of gasohol, to the point of nervously running on fumes (discovering that the blinking LCD fuel guage / idiot light speeds up when you get to the critical level- making you even more paranoid) as we tried to find the next gas station. Under average circumstances, we were filling up to a normal slow blinking LCD after 540 km.

Benzene took us 575 km on the leg of the trip that included the arduous climb up into the mountains at Phu Chee Fa, and 590 km of "normal" highway driving.

Considering that we get approximately 50 more km out of a tank of benzine, this is close enough for me to go along with the 10% difference in economy mentioned by other members.

There was also a noticeable difference in performance. Acceleration was more sluggish on gasohol. It was instantly noticeable after driving more than five hours straight on gasohol and then filling up with benzene to continue the journey. The car seemed to fly out of the service station as I accelerated back out onto the highway, and calling up more power for passing seemed much more effortless. Passing acceleration is my own personal "benchmark" test, more so than acceleration from a standing start. This is a more "real life" situation, translating how much time you spend in the oncoming trafic lane when passing cars on a two lane highway.

10% performance difference... I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I briefly had the car up to speeds in excess of 160 kmh on both fuels with no problem (purely for testing purposes of course....) but the difference in acceleration is definitely noticable.

Our conclusion: in town and traffic, for Ms. Bino going to work and home, we will use gasohol 95. When we go on a road trip (and I am driving ) we will pay the extra few baht for the hi-test.

[raro]

running my Honda Jazz for about 5,000 km on gasohol now. Fuel consumption didn't change (8 l per 100 km +/- 5%) and couldn't see any power drop either.

[gregb]

Just completed a trip to Surin where NGV isn't available. Had the opportunity to check out Gasohol 91 vs. the same statistics from 2 years ago using a traditional blend.

The entire distance of the trip not covered by NGV was 317 km. Car is a 2001 Toyota Altis with automatic transmission. Air conditioning at 26 degrees was used through the whole trip. The land in Isaan is completely flat, where a rock in the road would represent the highest natural terrain feature. Speed was attempted to be controlled at a constant 100 km/hr where possible, however the 2 lane roads mean some slowing down and passing was necessary. Care was given to driving with fuel consumption in mind. Previous experiments have shown optimum fuel consumption with air conditioning on to be in a range between 97 km/hr and 102 km/hr. (No cruise control so difficult to get more accurate that this.) Tires were inflated to 38 PSI in Korat, the same pressure I used during my recordings 2 years ago.

2 years ago, over this same stretch (no NGV at that time) I received 16.1 km/liter over this flat expanse. This trip, using Gasohol 91, I recorded an average fuel economy of 15.5 km/liter. So, according to my records, Gasohol 91 is approximately 96.3% as efficient as a traditional blend from 2 years ago. Please keep in mind the car was 2 years older this time, and also carrying a 100kg CNG tank which was not present during the earlier trip, so the actual efficiency may be higher.

On a pure energy scale, the lower heating value of conventional gasoline is approximately 116,090 BTU/gal or 32.389 MJ/liter. Ethanol has a lower heating value of 76,330 BTU/gal, or 21.296 MJ/liter. A blend of 10% ethanol should have given me the energy equivalent of 31.280 MJ/liter, or approximately 96.6% efficiency.

The 0.3% difference between the anticipated 96.6% efficiency and the observed 96.3% efficiency could either be due to small, uncontrolled differences in conditions, or it could be due to the increased weight of the car due to the 100kg CNG tank in the back. Overall, I consider the experiment to yield substantial support to the second law of thermodynamics, which says if you reduce the energy content of a liquid fuel and use the same efficiency engine, you get reduced performance.

However, when you compare prices of the traditional blend of 91 octane at 32.09 vs. Gasohol 91 at 28.39, you realize that you only pay 88.5% of the price of the traditional blend and get 96.3% of the value. Thus, by own experiments, Gasohol 91 is a very good deal from an economic perspective, and there is absolutely no reason to consider using the traditional blend.

[Plus]

So it is cheaper. What about the future? For now it's subsidised, I believe, and what will happen to food prices if people start stuffing it in their cars. How much land is going to be used for ethanol production? Are they going to clear more land or are they going to squeze other crops thus creating deficits that would also drive up the prices?

So far no one studied these mdium to long term effects.

And what about the current subsidy? How long is it goind to last?

[gregb]

and what will happen to food prices if people start stuffing it in their cars.

Same thing that is happening now.

They're heading up. They'll continue to head up. Accept this now, buy some land and learn to farm. We are going to starve the poor of the world to fill up SUVs of the rich. Not worth debating. It is reality. Once the economy crashes, people lose their jobs and are starving, intensive human based agriculture vs. industrial farming will increase efficiencies until the food supply reaches equilibrium with a reduced population that will continue driving biofueled vehicles.

Your actions and my actions won't matter. As long as the government is subsidizing it, accept the subsidy. There is no moral debate here. The path is set, and as long as someone else sets the rules, you and I are obliged to play by them.

When you are emporer of the planet, I'll follow the rules you set.

[Spaniel]

and what will happen to food prices if people start stuffing it in their cars.

Same thing that is happening now.

They're heading up. They'll continue to head up. Accept this now, buy some land and learn to farm. We are going to starve the poor of the world to fill up SUVs of the rich. Not worth debating. It is reality. Once the economy crashes, people lose their jobs and are starving, intensive human based agriculture vs. industrial farming will increase efficiencies until the food supply reaches equilibrium with a reduced population that will continue driving biofueled vehicles.

Your actions and my actions won't matter. As long as the government is subsidizing it, accept the subsidy. There is no moral debate here. The path is set, and as long as someone else sets the rules, you and I are obliged to play by them.

When you are emporer of the planet, I'll follow the rules you set.

Thanks for your opinion but my original question was about switching from gas to gasohol and if anyone had problems that made the switch. For me I'm still pumping in gas (91) into our new CRV but if I get a few more positive replies that gasohol is ok then will switchf.

[jackbox]

I was running my new motorcycle on 95 Gasahol and recently switched to regular gas at the advice of the head mechanic at the Suzuki Distributor's service garage on Ramkhamhaeng. I switched to 91 regular gas and my moto is actually running better and with more power on the lower octane regular gas then the higher octane gasahol.

[Gary A]

I have posted before that I can't tell any difference between 95 octane gasoline and gasohol. I think people complaining about poor performance and poor economy are letting their imaginations affect their judgment. If anything I think I have better performance with gasohol. Since I can't tell any difference in economy, I now always buy the cheaper gasohol. I just made a round trip of 1,300 kilometers and got between 12.6 and 13.0 kilometers per liter. Not too good but no difference from gasoline.

[culicine]

I have posted before that I can't tell any difference between 95 octane gasoline and gasohol. I think people complaining about poor performance and poor economy are letting their imaginations affect their judgment. If anything I think I have better performance with gasohol. Since I can't tell any difference in economy, I now always buy the cheaper gasohol. I just made a round trip of 1,300 kilometers and got between 12.6 and 13.0 kilometers per liter. Not too good but no difference from gasoline.

I ran on three tanks of gasohol 91 and got 9.6 L / 100 km (about normal). Now I'm running on regular 91 (caltex) and will compare the results. Both have been under similar driving conditions. I found that the performance suffers a bit in that I think it slices a few HP off the top end (5500-6800rpm). It has a bit more zing on the regular gas. In normal city driving and normal acceleration though, I don't notice a difference.