Tonight our local News channel was talking about 100% pure gasoline supply being soon cut off due to some bullsh!t EPA mandates and force us to buy E10 and greater Ethanoil moonshine ****!.....It's bad enough I can only find 91 octane..now this?

There was mention at least finding 100% gasoline will be difficult, but not impossible..I personally believe that the Major oil/gasoline companies will maintain a supply of 100% for us and keep us Jag owners rolling...i.e., Shell, Conoco, Mobil, Exxon, etc.

I am a bit worried, but can't see it happening..As in my Owner's Manual it implicitly states: DO NOT USE Ethanol ..and if you by accident put in Ethanol, to stop the car, turn it off and have it flat-bedded into a Jag Dealer's service to have your tank drained and cleaned of this corn whiskey.

What next?

 

I can't recall having purchased "pure gasoline" in at least the past 5 years or more.

 

..Does that mean you prefer Ethanol or you can't find a supply of 100%? What's your point?...You realize as high up in the Rocky's as you are, you would benefit more with the higher BTU rating in pure gasoline vs the 10% alcohol mix..

Your S type needs only 91 octane or higher..at least your warranty when you had one, didn't stipulate, or warn in the Owner's Manual NEVER to use Ethanol...Like the XF does..

 

No they won't. Refiners love ethanol. Higher ethanol content equates to lower costs all other things being equal. And their friends, big agriculture are right beside them to help things along.

Ok ... what does it explicitly state?

 

Never paid attention to be honest, its just gas.

I'd bet your manual says not to use E85.

 

You tell me..is that the 51st State?..you run in the same circles as Obama?..


im·plic·it (m-plst)adj.1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: "Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self" (Patricia Hampl).
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust.

[Latin implicitus, variant of implictus, past participle of implicre, to entangle; see implicate.]
im·plicit·ly adv.
im·plicit·ness n.

 

Well, you're right...So if Plum is also right..it explicitly says do not use E85 or higher Ethanol content of 10%....I guess, if the Major gas companies all go to 10% moonshine, then I hope the car will not suffer..I know it shouldn't, but there are some horror stories out there about what Ethanol does to an Engine and fuel system not designed for it.

 

You should be safe

 

10% is fine in todays engines. E85 is another story, though.

 

Thanks everyone..I feel better now, at least if I have to burn E10..I can with no worries..

 

Much of North America has been using E10 for 20 or 30 years, many consumers being unaware until labelling on the pump became mandatory. Bona fide cases of cars being damaged or suffering in some way are extremely rare. 99% of times the issue had nothing to do with the fuel type.

 

Ethanol has a much higher octane rating than "pure" gasoline whatever you think that might be!

Ethanol also absorbs water very effectively (which is why you can so easily cut your whiskey with water) which is good not bad.

Two problems with ethanol: if made from corn it is ecologically unsound as it takes more petroleum products to make ethanol from corn than to just make gasoline in the first place; second it contains much less energy per unit volume than gasoline.

Importing Brazilian made ethanol made from sugar cane is environmentally sound. Making ethanol from American grown corn is just a wasteful boondoggle.

E85 in a properly built supercharged engine is excellent due to octane rating and charge cooling. It isn't difficult to ethanol proof an engine's fuel system.

"Pure" gasoline isn't going away anytime soon.

 

1) refiners are profit maximizers, therefore ethanol is their friend so it is only going to get worse.

2) i emphatically disagree that ethanol is harmless to fuel systems, and there are stories here as well as NHTSA official recalls to back that statement despite the best hand waving efforts of apologists. leaking stainless steel fuel rails hardly paints a benign picture of ethanol. and that's on E10.

3) wasting agricultural resources on ethanol is no more sound in Brazil than it is in North America on environmental or ethical grounds.

 

explicit1 (ɪkˈsplɪsɪt)

—adj
1. precisely and clearly expressed, leaving nothing to implication; fully stated: explicit instructions
2. graphically detailed, leaving little to the imagination: sexually explicit scenes
3. openly expressed without reservations; unreserved
4. maths Compare implicit (of a function) having an equation of the form y=f(x), in which y is expressed directly in terms of x, as in y=x4 + x + z

[C17: from Latin explicitus unfolded, from explicāre; see explicate]

ex'plicitly1

—adv

ex'plicitness1

I can copy and paste too, although I don't need to look up such simple words.

 

Yeah, there are "stories here" about a whole bunch of stuff. Generally told by folks who read "stories"!

 

Ethanol produced from corn is way more expensive than gasoline per unit of energy. Ethanol production in the US is heavily subsidized for fuel use. Fuel producers use ethanol to improve octane rating as well as because they are likely to be required to.

Fuel systems not designed to carry ethanol can be damaged. All modern car makers selling into this market are required to have ethanol compatible fuel systems.

Making ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil is about one eighth the cost of doing so from corn in the US. Making fuel from food is such a dumb idea it is hard to understand why we are doing it. Mind you, during the age of horse power more food was produced for the "engines" than is the case today. Mind you those engines produced a lot of free fertilizer.

 

The thing that nobody seems to understand about ethanol fuels is that, even after the incentives that companies get to make ethanol cheaper than traditional gasoline, there is a further driver for the fuel company to use ethanol. Ethanol has much less energy than a traditional blend of fuel, around 2/3 in fact. Therefore you need to buy more fuel to travel the same distance.

So, traditional blends look to be around 34 mj/liter, ethanol is 24 mj/liter. So, E85 = 38*0.85 + 24*0.15 = 35.9 mj/liter. Therefore you're getting between 5-6% less energy for your money. In other words, if cost is the same for the fuel you're paying 5-6% more to go a mile. And that doesn't count the cost of the tax incentive program to artificially support the ethanol production.

Just say no if you possibly can. There is no conservation value to using ethanol in fuel.


Saw this while searching too, I've never tried it, but it seems a reasonable test to see if there's ethanol in your fuel.

1. Pour a small amount of water into a narrow jar (an olive jar works great) and mark the water level with a Sharpie.
2. Add the fuel to around a 10:1 fuel:water ratio.
3. Shake well, let settle for a few minutes.
4. See if the water level has risen above the mark. If it has risen, it has combined with ethanol from the fuel.

 

And....Ethanol is more harmful to the environment than 100% gasoline emissions.

 

No Jaguar is approved or intended to run on E85 or E15.

The spec is E10 which has 97% of the energy of 'pure' gas. It's pretty difficult to see a 3% variation in fuel consumption from one tank to another. On a great day, I can get 30 MPG (US gallons) average on mine. A 3% reduction would give me 29.1 MPG.

Not defending the legitimacy of ethanol in any way- it's the biggest boondoggle I've ever seen in the auto industry.

 

Fair enough, you won't notice it, but your fuel bill will be 3-5% higher at the end of the year. And you're taxed to supply the subsidy.