When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I would think that if you replace 10% of a liquid with another liquid that has only 66% of the energy that the resulting mix would have 96.6% of the energy and therefore you would only lose 3.4% in mileage. Look at it this way, even if you replace the 10% with a liquid that gave you NO energy, the resulting mix would be 90% and you would lose 10% in mileage, so how do you lose 13%????
I didn't do the testing myself but after researching the topic at various sites the consensus of the mileage loss was about 13%. The loss from actually burning it in an engine must be different than the math calculations.
As tjwong says "Most of my customers are reporting a loss of up to 4 MPG since Oregon has shoved E10 down our throats:"
27mpg minus 13% equals 23.49mpg which is very close to the 4mpg he reports. So I would say 13% is pretty close but why argue over a few percent. Can't we all agree that ethanol is a bad idea and it does not belong in our gas?
Either way Americans deserve a choice when they pull into a station. One pump with, another without. Problem solved.
Either way Americans deserve a choice when they pull into a station. One pump with, another without. Problem solved.
The purpose of E-10 other than to help reduce the amount of gas we buy was it can be dispensed and housed in existing UST's. It can also be pumped through a normal dispenser without any expensive modifications.
Unlike E-85 which requires seperate UST's and dispensers. BTW wbear I like your avatar!
Last edited by lilthrift; Sep 6, 2008 at 09:22 PM.
Have had 10% eth in NE for about 5+ years. I see no difference in performance or much in mileage. Just got back from a 650 miles r/t/ from Ct to VT and got right around 30 mpg - 80% at 70-75 mph, 20% country roads at 35 to 55 mph
(snip)
Can't we all agree that ethanol is a bad idea and it does not belong in our gas?
Either way Americans deserve a choice when they pull into a station. One pump with, another without. Problem solved.
I'd respectfully disagree. I've been using ethanol for 15+ years, and have never seen anywhere near that kind of decrease in mpg, nor any other problems.
I'm using ethanol blend in my c6 right now, and today knocked down 26mpg avg on a 250 mile trip at about 80mph average. I dont think that's a decrease over stock.
Every 10 gallons of eth blend gas I buy includes 1 gallon of USA-sourced ethanol.... thats 1 less gallon of gas made from foriegn oil. I like that. Its not about cost savings -- its about less dependence on foreign oil.
One gallon of ethanol has 66% of the energy of a gallon of straight gas. That's why when you water down a gallon of gas with 10% ethanol the vehicle gets about 13% less fuel mileage. Ethanol may have a higher octane rating than gas but does that make up for the difference in the energy and enable the engine to produce more power? I don't think so.
I love alcohol in my beer but I'll choose to keep it out of my Vette. I can still buy straight gas in my area. Thank God for the freedom of choice.
Your math is off there... 3.4% loss in mpg is all anyone should experience if E85 only gives 66% as much energy as gasoline and is mixed at a 10% ratio.
Reducing dependence on foreign oil by using ehtanol only works IF you don't suffer 10% in efficiency loss through worse MPG. If you get 10% less MPG, then you need 10% more gas. You now have the added 'benefit' of using the same number of gallons of 100% gas and the additional wasteful step of producing, distributing, and mixing the ethanol. Adding complexity is not efficient.
So, the big question is, does 100% gas and 90/10 gas/ethanol yield the same MPG?
I've never seen anywhere near a 10% loss of mpg. I haven't done scientific comparisons, but my mileage seems pretty consistent with the factory ratings... and I haven't noticed a change when having to use non-eth fuel. If the drop is only 3%, I doubt I would notice it, since thats only about a 1mpg change... within the normal fluctuation.
Originally Posted by SnapperDragon
Reducing dependence on foreign oil by using ehtanol only works IF you don't suffer 10% in efficiency loss through worse MPG. If you get 10% less MPG, then you need 10% more gas. You now have the added 'benefit' of using the same number of gallons of 100% gas and the additional wasteful step of producing, distributing, and mixing the ethanol. Adding complexity is not efficient.
So, the big question is, does 100% gas and 90/10 gas/ethanol yield the same MPG?
Your math is off there... 3.4% loss in mpg is all anyone should experience if E85 only gives 66% as much energy as gasoline and is mixed at a 10% ratio.
I got that 66% figure from a pro ethanol web site. I'm not sure that loss was calculated by actual testing in an internal combustion engine. As always figures can be misleading.
I guess we need some more feedback from testing by forum members in addition to whats been already posted here.`At 27 mpg 3.4% would only be a loss of less than 1 mpg. That just seems kind of low to me.
I just feel that what ever the reason a person does not want ethanol in their gas Americans should be given a choice. We haven't even discussed fuel mixed with oil to run in 2 cycle engines.
Again one pump with, one pump without. The paying customer gets to choose.
Anybody can say anything and believe anything they want. My experience is that I've lost 3.5 mpg in the vette, 26.5 vs 29.5, and 2mpg in my srt8 gr cherokee, 15 vs 17 mpg. Went to Mike Norris to check tune and lost 5 hp. No big deal on hp but please don't believe e10 makes more power. Ethenol is crap that saves nothing and costs you money so don't believe for a minute we're buying less oil.
I didn't do the testing myself but after researching the topic at various sites the consensus of the mileage loss was about 13%. The loss from actually burning it in an engine must be different than the math calculations.
As tjwong says "Most of my customers are reporting a loss of up to 4 MPG since Oregon has shoved E10 down our throats:"
27mpg minus 13% equals 23.49mpg which is very close to the 4mpg he reports. So I would say 13% is pretty close but why argue over a few percent. Can't we all agree that ethanol is a bad idea and it does not belong in our gas?
Either way Americans deserve a choice when they pull into a station. One pump with, another without. Problem solved.
The trouble with what people report is that your mileage can vary 13% on the same exact fuel. It's too dependent on many variables like acceleration rate, stop and go traffic, grade, etc. Heck I drive the exact same route to work every day and my mileage varies by more than 13%.
I'll stick to the scientific data that shows that Ethanol has 66% of the lower heating value per volume compared to gasoline. I found one website that stated that experiments were run and that E10 lowered the mileage by only 1.5%. I'm still sticking with 3.6% worse, but no where around 13%. As far as ethanol making it burn worse, I really doubt that, ethanol is an excellent fuel, just ask any Indycar team.
As far as Tom Wong, he's just repeating what his customers report. But once Tom runs his own experiments, I'll trust those results, he's one very sharp person.
All, there was a very interesting message posted under another thread simply called "Gas mileage". Apparently, this was a service bulletin from GM, about various ways to increase gas mileage and what to do and not to do. They touched on the subject of Ethanol and E85. Although they never said Ethanol was bad for a GM car, they did say E85 was never to be used on any GM car. There is also some other interesting information there that you may all want to read over. From what I am reading, it sounds like you should simply use common sense. Just drive smoothly, keep tires inflated, change the air filter as needed and do not use any additives in the gas or oil. They said most of them don't even work. Just some other info for you to ponder.