B

blandess

Active Member
Hello All,
i just read an article in AOPA Pilot about the ongoing debate of the future of 100LL. I have a question that came to me on the way to work this morning and would like all your input. My former supervisor built a 550hp Factory Five GTM, normally aspirated. Chevy's ZR1 'Vette puts out 638 supercharged horsepower, Ferrari has 612hp V12's...all on pump gas... :confused:

Imagine driving one of these cars to Flagstaff, AZ (7000' MSL), or somewhere like it, and smashing the pedal. I can reasonably assume it will pin you to your seat. I understand that these cars are not operated on the brink of redline all the time as in aircraft engines but HOW do engineers say that the high compression twin-turbo Columbia's, Cirrus', Mooney's etc. are prone to detonation when those engines don't generate half as much power as the above mentioned engines?

My apologies for the lack of RV subjects but if 100LL goes away I would like to know there will be some kind of fuel to propel the beast. Oh, one more thing while I'm ranting...what about turbines in an RV? I remember a company that had one in a -4 but went under. There will probably always be jet fuel so why not have a small one in an RV?

Phew...I feel better... :)
 
blandess said:
Hello All,
i just read an article in AOPA Pilot about the ongoing debate of the future of 100LL. I have a question that came to me on the way to work this morning and would like all your input. My former supervisor built a 550hp Factory Five GTM, normally aspirated. Chevy's ZR1 'Vette puts out 638 supercharged horsepower, Ferrari has 612hp V12's...all on pump gas... :confused:

Imagine driving one of these cars to Flagstaff, AZ (7000' MSL), or somewhere like it, and smashing the pedal. I can reasonably assume it will pin you to your seat. I understand that these cars are not operated on the brink of redline all the time as in aircraft engines but HOW do engineers say that the high compression twin-turbo Columbia's, Cirrus', Mooney's etc. are prone to detonation when those engines don't generate half as much power as the above mentioned engines?

My apologies for the lack of RV subjects but if 100LL goes away I would like to know there will be some kind of fuel to propel the beast. Oh, one more thing while I'm ranting...what about turbines in an RV? I remember a company that had one in a -4 but went under. There will probably always be jet fuel so why not have a small one in an RV?

Phew...I feel better... :)
Click to expand...


I'll give it a stab...

Our engines have very large cylinder volumes and operate at low RPM. In a large cylinder the flame front takes more time to travel the length and breadth of the cylinder than on a small cylinder like in most auto engines. Which means the compressed air/fuel mixture in the most distant corners of the combustion chamber has to wait for a relatively long time before the flame front gets there. Hold a heated, compressed, fuel/air mixture at that temperature and pressure for too long and it detonates. This is also related to the fact that the cylinder pressure is ever-increasing until the pretty late in the combustion process, so your 8:5:1 compression cylinder may be (effectively) 12:1 before the flame front reaches the fuel/air mix in the far corner of the cylinder

To avoid the problem, you either spin the engine faster while making the same amount of power, reduce the cylinder volume but add cylinders, increase the cylinder volume while decreasing compression, or you increase the octane rating.

And since we want to maximize the low RPM torque from our engines, we want slow turning engines with large cylinder volumes. Which, unfortunately, are more sensitive to octane or lack thereof.

As to the turbine issue, nobody has developed a small, inexpensive, fuel efficient turbine. And due to the engineering and production realities, I doubt you'll ever see an inexpensive, fuel efficient (at our altitudes) turbine. Small, we can do...
 
Last edited:
...HOW do engineers say that the high compression twin-turbo Columbia's, Cirrus', Mooney's etc. are prone to detonation when those engines don't generate half as much power as the above mentioned engines?
Click to expand...

Simple. They flap their lips up and down, moving their tongue as needed. :D

This is a complicated subject, but in a nutshell, a twin-turbo Continental or Lycoming is probably putting out a higher BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) during the firing event than a Chevy ZR1. Couple that with firing event twice as long (less than half the RPM) and a combustion surface temperature twice as high (air cooled), and you need 100LL.

If you wound the twin-turbo Continental to 6000RPM, you would have well over 600hp. Until it broke. :cool:
 
Let's think about what automotive engines have:

* Good fuel distribution between cylinders using multi-point or direct injection
* Good fuel/air mixture control using mass air flow (MAF) sensors. Continuously controled via the ECU.
* Multiple fuel mappings, controlled by the ECU
* Variable spark timing, continuously controlled by the ECU
* Variable valve timing, either step-type of continuously variable, controlled by the ECU
* Knock sensors, giving feedback to the ECU
* Electronic ignition

Most airplane engines don't have any of these (if your does, great).

TODR
 
Geico266 said:
I've been running 92 octane fuel in my planes for years and hundreds of hours. No problems.
Click to expand...

With or without ethanol, Larry?

I'd like to consider mogas in the IO360 but all pump gas around here has ethanol. The one component in the current fuel system I am not sure about with regard to ethanol is the engine drive fuel pump. With the Subby it did not matter. I ran fuel with ethanol for 4 years and it was ok.
 
I have access to 92 octane no lead around here.

If you have a 100 / 500 gallon tank you might want to call the distributor and see if you can buy bulk without ethanol. The distributors cannot send ethanol through the pipeline system so if you may be able to buy gas before ethanol is added. It's worth a phone call. Call a bulk supplier and tell him what you are doing. Just an idea.

There are a couple of VAF guys that run ethanol gas with no problems, but I personally cannot recommend it because I have no experience with it.
 
Our typical RV engines ( without turbos) only need 100LL during the first few minutes while we climb up to 5000 feet or so, after that unleaded would work great.

How about a small tank used for take off only, and a larger tank or two of common gas for cruise and descent?

Ok, more pilot workload, more chance of problems, and it does not solve the problem for the users of the bulk of 100LL, which are the big bore Continental and Lycomings used on aircraft like the Navajos, Cessna Turbo 210s, etc.

Sooner or later we will be faced with fuel changes, there is no doubt about that.
 
OK here we go

No need to drag it all back up here as this has been discussed at length.

But the bottom line is your Lyc with reasonable CR (8.5:1 is the accepted upper limit) will be perfectly fine on premium grade unleaded with or without ethanol.

It will NEVER need 100LL.

Now here is the health warning..with the standard fuel pump setup it will be more prone to vapour lock issues, and there is some debate about phase seperation but I have never expereinced to 15,500ft at least.

I have developed and electric only wingroot mounted pump setup and dispensed with the mecahnical fuel pump.

Lots of info in the archives on how to make one if your interested.

other than that the engine will run lean of peak and you can use electronic ignitions to advance the spark at altitude and get some really good economy.

My IO360 has not seen 1ooLL for a couple of hundred hours

Frank
 
Oh and

I honestly don't know if the (ghastly) mechanical fuel pump will tolerate ethanol or not..Purely personally i think they should go to the same place my vacuum pump went..I.e the trash can...:)

Frank
 
Frank! I should have remembered you are the one running ethanol laced MOGAS! Sorry!

I know we have discussed this many times, but this thread is as good a place as any to give us an update. Any issues at all? Leaks? Bad seals? Nothing? Is this the 89 octane flavor?
 
Last edited:
Ted Johns said:
If you wound the twin-turbo Continental to 6000RPM, you would have well over 600hp. Until it broke. :cool:
Click to expand...

Twin turbo 550s are already making close to 800 hp (1300+ lb./ft. torque) at only 3100 rpm at Reno. Just takes 75 inches of manifold pressure to do it!:cool: 100LL plus a LOT of ADI.
 
rv6ejguy said:
Twin turbo 550s are already making close to 800 hp (1300+ lb./ft. torque) at only 3100 rpm at Reno. Just takes 75 inches of manifold pressure to do it!:cool: 100LL plus a LOT of ADI.
Click to expand...

A lot of those guys aren't running 100LL either - they are running specialty race fuels. When you're running 75 (and in some cases up around 90) inches of boost, with induction temperatures around 85C, 100LL won't cut it even with ADI.
 
Oh no problem

Geico266 said:
Frank! I should have remembered you are the one running ethanol laces MOGAS! Sorry!

I know we have discussed this many times, but this thread is as good a place as any to give us an update. Any issues at all? Leaks? Bad seals? Nothing? Is this the 89 octane flavor?
Click to expand...

Nope no problems at all Larry, just as before it won't lean out quite so far..Straight mogas leans to about 6.8 GPH at 24 sq (I run it at about 7GPH).. The E10 I run at around 7.GPH at 24 sq...Still well lean of peak so no issues with being close to peak which is about 8.1 GPH.

No seal issues, Remember of course I don't have a mechanical pump and I did swap the fuel drail o rings to flourosilicone, but the original Vans o rings wern't leaking yet.

I have only ever run Premium 91 octane or above..RocketBob has run 87 but I'm not sure if his timing is fixed to 25BTDC?..Mine is dual Pmags so I run 38btdc at altiude.

But so far so good.

Frank
 
airguy said:
A lot of those guys aren't running 100LL either - they are running specialty race fuels. When you're running 75 (and in some cases up around 90) inches of boost, with induction temperatures around 85C, 100LL won't cut it even with ADI.
Click to expand...

A few Sport Class guys are running VP but others including Dacey are still running 100LL. Sharp and DG were pushing well over 800hp in 2008. CDTs are usually way over 85C before adding ADI. Some are looking at improved intercooler performance for this year.

The fast Unlimited guys are all running custom brew or VP to my knowledge and up to 145 inches at times.

It is surprising what you can do with mogas in an engine with good chambers and modern electronic controls, especially so with direct injection.
 
rv6ejguy said:
...It is surprising what you can do with mogas in an engine with good chambers and modern electronic controls, especially so with direct injection.
Click to expand...

Lycoming is moving forward with the iE2 series of engines. They probably have it figured out that 100LL will not be around much longer. It would not be a surprise to see an iE2 engine along with the 0233 on display at OSH.
 
Some of the prototype iE2 stuff was on display at Reno last year. I was impressed and that is what is needed to move turbocharged certified engines into a lower octane, unleaded fuel diet while retaining reliability and power.

Lycoming has seen the writing on the wall for some time now and have not been sitting still on solutions.
 
rv6ejguy said:
Twin turbo 550s are already making close to 800 hp (1300+ lb./ft. torque) at only 3100 rpm at Reno. Just takes 75 inches of manifold pressure to do it!:cool: 100LL plus a LOT of ADI.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just trying to compare apples to apples, in the automotive sense. Wonder what a ZR1 would put out on 75 inches of boost? :eek:
 
blandess said:
Hello All,
i just read an article in AOPA Pilot about the ongoing debate of the future of 100LL. I have a question that came to me on the way to work this morning and would like all your input. My former supervisor built a 550hp Factory Five GTM, normally aspirated. Chevy's ZR1 'Vette puts out 638 supercharged horsepower, Ferrari has 612hp V12's...all on pump gas... :confused:
Click to expand...

Simple, aircraft engines are air cooled which is why they are much more prone to deto. The new car engines have very effective water cooling pumping though aluminum heads. That is most of it, the rest of it is the knock sensors, injection and everything else.

schu
 
Hopefully the Swift fuel claims for their 100LL substitute will prove factual and economically viable.
 
For those with serious concerns about ethanol, here's a recent post from another group about a source of E-free fuel. Since a lot of boats these days have fiberglass fuel tanks, this may be available in a lot of states.

If you have a tank of your own, it might be worth calling local fuel distributors to see if they can deliver 'boat gas'.

Charlie
(91 octane e-free Shell mogas in a 160 hp -4 for several years)

I was listening to a local central Florida auto mechanics radio show today when the speaker
stated that the only place that still sells ethanol free gas in this area is at some of the boat
marinas. He referred to Marine grade gasoline. A quick web search tuned up these links:


http://www.valvtect.com/marine_fules.asp

http://www.willowbankyc.com/newsletters/Valvtect.pdf

Along with some local marinas that offer ethanol free gas. Is anyone familiar with these fuels

or thoughts on using it in our rotary engines. I notice that the Valvtect site talks about

additives for prolonged high power settings.
 
Is it possible to take the ethanol out of mogas?

Is it possible to take the ethanol out of mogas? The simple test for ethanol in mogas is to pour in a measured amount water and then see if the volume of the water/ethanol solution now at the bottom of the container is greater than the amount of water that you started with. Basically, the water pulls the ethanol out of the gasoline. So my question is, how much ethanol does the water pull out of the mogas? 100%? 95%?

Bill Swatling
RV-7 forward fuselage
 
By doing so you are also saturating the gasoline with water - which is exactly the problem that people are trying to avoid with the ethanol.

Yes, you could remove the ethanol, but you've gone directly to the same problem that you were trying to get rid - water in the fuel.
 
...then take the water out.

well, after you have separated the ethanol from the mogas by adding water, then you would drain out the ethanol/water mixture and be left with ethanol-free mogas. I wouldn't want to do this in my airplane fuel tank, but I could do it in a different container as long as it had a drain at the low point.

I'm not sure what do with the water/ethanol mixture after that.

I guess I am proposing this as a solution to all of us that can't buy ethanol-free mogas anymore, but would like the benefits of lower cost and cleaner-burning fuel.

Bill Swatling.
 
Ethanol is also an octane booster so in a lot of fuels that use the ethanol blend, a suboctane base fuel is used otherwise the octane would be too high. If you remove the ethanol, you will be left with the suboctane fuel. This may not be good for your engine.
 
Maybe we could save avgas, at least

There's no doubt -- 100LL is going away, with or without a government mandate. The market is so tiny that it's already uneconomical for the oil companies to produce. At some point, they'll just quit messing around with it.

The only question is whether or not there will be AVGAS afterwards. If we leave it up to the government, the answer will be no. Then we'll all be forced to use the same dirty, stinky, inconsistent, unstable, ethanol-laced car gas in our airplanes that we use in our cars. We'll have more engine failures due to vapor lock and water contamination and fuel line corrosion and rubber deterioration. We'll all have ugly yellow stains on our wings. The accident rate will soar. But at least then we'll quit digging chunks of lead out of our spark plugs every 25 hours. And MAYBE we'll be able to buy the disgusting stuff at the airport instead of dragging it in from the local Git-N-Go one 5 gallon bomb at a time.

But if the owner/pilot community would pull its head out of its collective *** and lobby for it, maybe we could at least save AVGAS. Yes, it would only be 95 octane, since that's what's left when you take the lead out of 100LL. And yes, a handful of firebreathing Lancair and Mustang owners would have to truck their race fuel to the airport in 5 gallon bombs the way Cherokee drivers do today. But the vast majority of GA pilots could continue to enjoy an extremely clean, stable, high-quality, low vapor pressure fuel designed for airplanes instead of cars. And without lead, our engines would last longer and we could quit digging lead out of our spark plugs.

And oh, by the way -- since 95 octane unlead avgas is made the same way 93 octane car gas is -- at any refinery, delivered through a pipeline instead of a truck -- it would be about a dollar a gallon cheaper. Maybe poor boys like me could strap on their wings again.
 
jonbakerok said:
There's no doubt -- 100LL is going away, with or without a government mandate.
Click to expand...
The mandate is already here. EPA has tightened the ambient (outside) air lead standard by over a factor of 10x. This will have the effect of causing some areas near busy GA airports to probably exceed the standard. At that point, EPA and the States have fairly broad powers to eliminate the exceedance of the standard. Guess that that's going to entail?

TODR
 
While

I am no fan of E10 I must say that from my limited experience it really is not as bad as we like to think. We may have to redesign our fuel systems and jury is still out on the phase seperation deal (note I have not used it above 15,000' yet). Yes it costs more money to use than straight mogas but if E10 is the only thing available then we'd probably better start thinking of how we are going to use it.

A fuel system redesign is not that hard but we may have to get passed some historical issues..I.e running two electric fuel pumps in place of the mechanical pump, plus making sure that system materials are compatible.

But does ethanol really eat through the bottoms of fuel tanks and aluminium supply lines?...I seriously doubt it..at least in the life of the airplane.

But some care in redesigning the fuel system will be required..or at least the standard system is marginal at best using E10 and I don't know if the mechanical pump diaphram will with stand E10 or not.

Frank
 
Some progress from TCM.

Via AOPA:

Continental president gets the lead out en route to AirVenture
By Thomas B. Haines

Teledyne Continental Motors President Rhett Ross seems single-handedly determined to showcase how committed his company is to getting the lead out of avgas. As a demonstration of that commitment, Ross flew a turbocharged Cirrus SR22 from the company headquarters in Mobile, Ala., to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wis., at FL240 burning only UL94 avgas. UL94 is basically 100LL avgas without the lead component. With ASTM actively working the certification of UL94, TCM has shifted from testing the fuel to preparing its engines for its eventual introduction.

Ross claims that by mid-2010, TCM will have equipped its entire product line of engines to run on unleaded fuel.

Company pilot and engineer Keith Chatten accompanied Ross on the flight, the third extended flight for this standard production engine, which has now accumulated 20 hours on unleaded fuels. The flight followed an earlier test flight of 802 miles roundtrip from Mobile to Oshkosh conducted in two uninterrupted legs.

?Today?s flight demonstrated that our standard factory turbo is ready for future fuels and has the fuel economy necessary to benefit our customers,? Ross said. ?The engine was a joy to operate during this extended flight on UL94. With successful flights of both turbocharged and normally aspirated engines on unleaded fuels, we feel comfortable that TCM has solutions for the future and are now working to have them ready.?

TODR
 
But now they want E20!

The ethanol industry has found they can't make money on E10 and dozens of ethanol plants have closed, so they are lobbying Congress to mandate an E15 standard. (The "E20" in the title was an error, although they are already looking at E20 even though their E15 mandate hasn't been adopted, to my knowledge.)

I haven't heard much about this push lately, so maybe it got nowhere--one can hope.
 
Last edited:
Ethanol removal experiment

So I followed the procedure for testing for ethanol in mogas. Pour in a measured amount of water, mix with the fuel and then measure the amount of separated water/ethanol. If the amount of water is more than you started with, you know you have ethanol.

So I did that and the mogas tested positive for ethanol. I then drained the bad stuff and then repeated the test with that same mogas. The second time, the level of the water is unchanged. So there is no more ethanol in that mogas.

Now, how do I calculate the octane in the remaining de-ethanol-ed mogas? I know that the octane rating of ethanol is 116. In Georgia, premium unleaded is 93 octane, 10% ethanol. Is there a chemical engineer in the house?

Bill Swatling
 
We used to use an 85 octane unlead to mix with the ethanol to make the finished blend.
 
Last edited:
Now, how do I calculate the octane in the remaining de-ethanol-ed mogas? I know that the octane rating of ethanol is 116. In Georgia, premium unleaded is 93 octane, 10% ethanol. Is there a chemical engineer in the house?
Click to expand...

Simple ratiometric analysis. .9(x) + .1(116) = 93 Solve for (x).

93 - 11.6 = 81.4

81.4 / .9 = 90.44

The base stock is around 90.5 octane.

I have heard that leaded gasoline does not behave strictly linearly with respect to non lead octane boosters, that a small extra bump is to be expected. Since this is unleaded gasoline, ratiometric analysis should suffice.
:)
 
Legal for STC???

The Continental engine in my little Cessna says minimum octane avgas of 73 on the data plate. So if you start with 93 octane mogas and pull the ethanol out, it should still have plenty of octane.

I'm wondering if this would be legal to do, the STC says auto fuel with a minimum octane of 87 and no alcohol.
Today the difference in price is $2.40 a gallon. It would be worth the effort.
Any thoughts?
 
Messy

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Disposing of a bunch of water contaminated with ethanol, a wee bit of gasoline, and traces of who-knows-what may not be popular with the FBO or the SWMBO. I bet the EPA would frown on dumping it in the sewer.

:D
 
Andy, there is a local (Falcon, CO) campground fuel station that sells 87 octane with no alcohol. Check around and at bulk fuel/oil sellers near you.
 
I know some people who would take your water and ethanol if you can get the gasoline taste out of it. But the Feds might get after you for more than FAR violations.
 
Bill,

I am not sure it's a good idea to try removing ethanol as you describe. Suppose the water, which is heavier than ethanol or gasoline, finds a low spot--then you have water in your fuel. Or if the ethanol content is too low to absorb all the water and the water finds a low spot. Then you have water in your fuel. If you don't use enough water, you are left with some ethanol.

Also, gasoline reportedly absorbs somewhere around 10% water. Three years ago, a member of our EAA chapter took off in below freezing temps in his C-150 and on climbout, the engine quit. Accident investigators found ice in the fuel strainer. He says he did sump the tanks before takeoff. Whether water dissolved in gas would separate out as ice, I don't know, but it is a risk I wouldn't take. He spent 2 months in the hospital.

Unfortunately, the specific gravity of ethanol and gasoline is almost equal; otherwise you could centrifuge it out or let it settle.

I am no expert on this sort of stuff and I think it would be a good idea to consult real experts to find a way to separate the two liquids.

OTOH, the ethanol is added to the gas at the terminal--the end of the pipeline-- and as others have said, it is now used to boost octane. If you can use low octane gas, you might be able to get ethanol free gas at the terminal, wherever that is. Your local bulk distributor might tell you. You would need to buy in quantity, I am sure.
 
Woah there!

Randy Walls said:
The Continental engine in my little Cessna says minimum octane avgas of 73 on the data plate. So if you start with 93 octane mogas and pull the ethanol out, it should still have plenty of octane.

I'm wondering if this would be legal to do, the STC says auto fuel with a minimum octane of 87 and no alcohol.
Today the difference in price is $2.40 a gallon. It would be worth the effort.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Mogas and aviation fuel are not measured the same way..I.e an 80 octane aviation fuel is nearer 87 octane motor fuel I believe.

You may be OK but its not a one for one measure.

Personally I just burn the ethanol in the engine..it works just fine..For my fuel system setup at least.

Frank
 
I run premium mogas and have for several years.

The local pump has a sticker that says it may contain up to 10 percent etoh.

I haven't had any problems.
 
Don,t know what the fuss is about. We have burned over 160,000 liters (40,000US Gals) so far in the last 22 years

Personnally I have been running mogas for 22 years and over 2000 hours in a Lyc 0-320 E2A.
Spark plugs like it and they stay clean. When I go on a long trip, I always have to clean up the spark plugs from using the 100LL.
No adverse effect on valves .....yet.
 
My experience has been the same as yours... No issues yet.
Flew C-182's off a farm strip for years on autogas. Engines went the distance and ran great. Fuel cells dried up though, but thats no issue for an RV. Ditto on the need for cleaning the motor up after running 100LL for a while...

DM


crmarte said:
Don,t know what the fuss is about. We have burned over 160,000 liters (40,000US Gals) so far in the last 22 years

Personnally I have been running mogas for 22 years and over 2000 hours in a Lyc 0-320 E2A.
Spark plugs like it and they stay clean. When I go on a long trip, I always have to clean up the spark plugs from using the 100LL.
No adverse effect on valves .....yet.
Click to expand...
 
RScott said:
The ethanol industry has found they can't make money on E10 and dozens of ethanol plants have closed, so they are lobbying Congress to mandate an E15 standard. (The "E20" in the title was an error, although they are already looking at E20 even though their E15 mandate hasn't been adopted, to my knowledge.)

I haven't heard much about this push lately, so maybe it got nowhere--one can hope.
Click to expand...

The comment period for the E15 waiver is closed and the EPA has until 1 December 2009 to approve or disapprove the waiver. If they do nothing, the waiver is approved.
 
Randy Walls said:
The Continental engine in my little Cessna says minimum octane avgas of 73 on the data plate. So if you start with 93 octane mogas and pull the ethanol out, it should still have plenty of octane.

I'm wondering if this would be legal to do, the STC says auto fuel with a minimum octane of 87 and no alcohol.
Today the difference in price is $2.40 a gallon. It would be worth the effort.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

For an STCd engine this would not be legal because you have no idea what the resulting fuel is. It will not be gasoline defined by ASTM D4814 as required by your STC.

In fact all of the posts about going to the terminal where E10 is mixed and asking to buy the fuel before ethanol is added will not work either. The assumption is that the product used for making E10 gasoline at the terminal is "finished" gasoline. It is not. It is a blending product refined especially for making E10, called BOB or Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending. BOB is not gasoline as we know it. An E15 waiver comment by the Director of the Division of Air Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stated:

"E10 is not simply ethanol added to finished gasoline. Since most gasoline at retail contains ethanol, the industry factors the addition of ethanol into the formulation of the petroleum-based portion of the final blend. The chemical properties of ethanol and its dilution impact allow refiners to produce a petroleum-based blendstock which when combined with a specified amount of ethanol (or other oxygenate) results in a final blend with the desired legal and market properties. The petroleum-based blendstock, in most cases, would not qualify as gasoline or be legal to sell as gasoline. For RFG this blendstock is RBOB. For conventional gasoline it is CBOB, and for California RFG it is CaRBOB.“

As the unintended consequences of the federal RFS mandate in EISA 2007 spreads across the entire country the only refinery product will be BOB and finished auto gasoline as we know it will disappear. If the E15 waiver is denied, and I believe that it will be, every drop of auto gasoline in the U.S. will be E10 by 2011 or 2012 at the latest, depending of the rate of decline of gasoline demand in this economy.

You had better hope that ASTM approves the 94 UL unleaded avgas soon and airports will order it. Mogas is going to disappear and so is 100 LL.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.