There has been some discussion on these threads about the reduced mileage of ethanol tainted fuel. I thought I would give you some real life numbers from my route. I drive a late model Toyota Corolla daily about 60% hiway and 40% stop and go with a/c on. I fill up twice a week and did about 21000 miles in the last 12 months. I fill up at Phillips, Kum/Go and QT. I admit, I drive the car hard.
Lately I've noticed they have 10% ethanol stickers on the pumps. The results are that it has made no difference in mileage. No matter where I fill up, no matter what the content of ethanol this little car has averaged 30 mpg consistently. That also is corroborated by the other 2dozen drivers in our fleet. Only when the air filter needed changed did it drop to 26mpg.
So, even though I expected a difference, there was none. Just wanted to give some real life results.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There has been some discussion on these threads about the reduced mileage of ethanol tainted fuel. I thought I would give you some real life numbers from my route. I drive a late model Toyota Corolla daily about 60% hiway and 40% stop and go with a/c on. I fill up twice a week and did about 21000 miles in the last 12 months. I fill up at Phillips, Kum/Go and QT. I admit, I drive the car hard.
Lately I've noticed they have 10% ethanol stickers on the pumps. The results are that it has made no difference in mileage. No matter where I fill up, no matter what the content of ethanol this little car has averaged 30 mpg consistently. That also is corroborated by the other 2dozen drivers in our fleet. Only when the air filter needed changed did it drop to 26mpg.
So, even though I expected a difference, there was none. Just wanted to give some real life results.
It could be that all the gasoline you used had ethanol in it, only the pumps did not have the stickers on them that would explain the same mileage. I have heard that they blend ethanol in just about all gasoline now. Basic Science 101 says ethanol/alcohol has less BTU's than gasoline. There's less "bang" per gallon in ethanol. Perhaps if you ran 100 percent gasoline you'd have got 35 miles per gallon, this is just my guess. I have noticed on my old heap that with ethanol fuel it has less power. Ethanol also makes more carbon inside the engine. I live in Ohio so our laws are not exactly like that of Oklahmoa's as for gasoline standards and requirements.
I know for a fact my vehicles got reduced gas mileage pre-ethanol compared to post ethanol. To the tune of about 8 percent.
QT and most other gas stations have been putting a blend in the gas for over a year now..so you would not have noticed any difference because you were already getting lousy gas mileage...
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
QT and most other gas stations have been putting a blend in the gas for over a year now..so you would not have noticed any difference because you were already getting lousy gas mileage...
x2, the ethanol sticker law went into effect July 1. Try Sinclair or Shell gas. My Jeep went from high 13's to low 15's by switching over.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I live in Ohio so our laws are not exactly like that of Oklahmoa's as for gasoline standards and requirements.
Yes, many stations in Ohio sell E85 which you don't find in Oklahoma and many cities in Ohio like Cleveland are E10 exclusively.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I live in Ohio so our laws are not exactly like that of Oklahmoa's as for gasoline standards and requirements.
Yes, many stations in Ohio sell E85 which you don't find in Oklahoma and many cities in Ohio like Cleveland are E10 exclusively.
There are two stations in the metro that carry E85. A Kum N Go in Owasso and a Shell station in Glenpool. I have a FlexFuel vehicle, but haven't tried it yet.
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
QT and most other gas stations have been putting a blend in the gas for over a year now..so you would not have noticed any difference because you were already getting lousy gas mileage...
That is exactly what I understand. They no longer have to put stickers on the pump to tell you it's a blended gasoline, so you go to a pump without the stickers and fuel up thinking your getting 100% gasoline when it's not. That way people don't notice the mileage drop... E-85 fuel can be more expensive to use than gasoline in those flex~fuel vehicles it costs a bit less but your mileage and power are way down. Instead of getting 27 miles per gallon on gasoline at $4.00 a gallon your getting only about 19 or 20 miles per gallon on E-85 at $3.75 a gallon.[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
QT and most other gas stations have been putting a blend in the gas for over a year now..so you would not have noticed any difference because you were already getting lousy gas mileage...
That is exactly what I understand. They no longer have to put stickers on the pump to tell you it's a blended gasoline, so you go to a pump without the stickers and fuel up thinking your getting 100% gasoline when it's not. That way people don't notice the mileage drop... E-85 fuel can be more expensive to use than gasoline in those flex~fuel vehicles it costs a bit less but your mileage and power are way down. Instead of getting 27 miles per gallon on gasoline at $4.00 a gallon your getting only about 19 or 20 miles per gallon on E-85 at $3.75 a gallon.[xx(]
You've got it backwards. They have been putting E10 in their gas since the middle of last year without disclosing it. On July 1, the state mandated that it had to be disclosed.
Phillips, Kum/Go and QT all use ethanol? Who doesn't then? If so how could anyone have noticed any difference in mileage in the last year? And no else on the crew has noticed any difference either. The cars are about 4 years old.
I'm just reporting guys, don't care either way. But, 30mpg for this car under the aforementioned conditions is very good. Its about what the manufacturer rated it when new and it has 151k miles. If there was such a tremendous reduction in power wouldn't the mileage have suffered more?
My guess is that this kind of car simply does not require much in total btu to do its job. Unlike a v-8 or a high performance engine they simply don't need much to work well. I've had other cars (mgb, isuzu trooper) that had similar behaviour. They got the same mileage whether you put in premium or low octane regular.
There are some places in Tulsa that do have no ethanol..but you have to look for it...usually its about 10 cents more per gallon...
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Phillips, Kum/Go and QT all use ethanol? Who doesn't then? If so how could anyone have noticed any difference in mileage in the last year? And no else on the crew has noticed any difference either. The cars are about 4 years old.
I'm just reporting guys, don't care either way. But, 30mpg for this car under the aforementioned conditions is very good. Its about what the manufacturer rated it when new and it has 151k miles. If there was such a tremendous reduction in power wouldn't the mileage have suffered more?
My guess is that this kind of car simply does not require much in total btu to do its job. Unlike a v-8 or a high performance engine they simply don't need much to work well. I've had other cars (mgb, isuzu trooper) that had similar behaviour. They got the same mileage whether you put in premium or low octane regular.
The Sinclair at 41st & Union does not have ethanol in it. Not sure if that's system-wide. Anyone know about Shell?
I've been filling the bike at QT, I'm getting 45 MPG. I've also filled at the Sinclair I mentioned and have not noticed a difference, getting 45 or 50 MPG- at those numbers the extra 5 miles seems irrelevant. [;)] Biggest diff seems to be if I'm riding the expressways or idling at stoplights.
I did notice a drop about a year ago with my truck of about 9-11%. I've fueled at QT for years.
The Shell at 101st & Sheridan has stickers on the pumps.
quote:
The Sinclair at 41st & Union does not have ethanol in it. Not sure if that's system-wide. Anyone know about Shell?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My guess is that this kind of car simply does not require much in total btu to do its job. Unlike a v-8 or a high performance engine they simply don't need much to work well. I've had other cars (mgb, isuzu trooper) that had similar behaviour. They got the same mileage whether you put in premium or low octane regular.
You ought to actually notice more of a difference on a 30mpg engine than a 15mpg one.
If a car does not require premium (Just a guess but I'd say an MGB and a Trooper probably do not) putting premium in does nothing except take more $ from you.
My list of no-ethanol stations:
Paradise Bay car wash NW corner 71st/mingo same price as QT
Phillips Food Plaza 12500'ish e 31st. QT price + .10
Tigers Express SE Corner 81st/177th QT Price +.10
Phillips food Mart NW corner 81st/161st QT Price +.10
Oh and I've asked at the Fiesta mart at 21st and garnett and the one at 91st and delaware and they say they do have ethanol. Don't let the sinclair sign fool you. Also saw flying-J mentioned in one of these threads before, I asked there once (mid-may maybe) and they said they just started getting E10. (And they charge more than QT and everyone else for it too!)
From my findings (I drive 600 miles per week) I get about 23mpg on no ethanol and 20 with ethanol. The 10 cents extra at some of those places actually does save money.
I have a V6 Mountaineer that went from 23 highway to 19.5 highway and went from 18.5 city to 16.5 city. Always use Quik Trip gas.
10% ethanol mix will not make a drastic difference in mileage, about 3% so you can chalk up 3% variances in MPG to a variety of things including different driving conditions for any given tank. Ethanol contains about 30 to 35% less energy than gasoline on a per gallon basis. So if you ran E85 you would notice a substantial difference in your mileage.
Off topic....
Does anyone know how/where to report a pump/station that is over-reporting how much fuel you're getting? I put 13.22 gallons in my 13.2 gallon tank and it was not totally empty when I started. I mentioned it to my husband and he said thought the same thing last time he fueled up at that station. He did it again yesterday, and we're pretty sure there's a discrepancy.
I've looked all over the Corporation Commission website, but if it's there, they don't make it easy to find.
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
There are some places in Tulsa that do have no ethanol..but you have to look for it...usually its about 10 cents more per gallon...
wrong. 71st/mingo is 100% gas and no up charge. You only get upcharged by a**hole places in midtown like 41st/yale shell.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaMINI
Off topic....
Does anyone know how/where to report a pump/station that is over-reporting how much fuel you're getting? I put 13.22 gallons in my 13.2 gallon tank and it was not totally empty when I started. I mentioned it to my husband and he said thought the same thing last time he fueled up at that station. He did it again yesterday, and we're pretty sure there's a discrepancy.
I've looked all over the Corporation Commission website, but if it's there, they don't make it easy to find.
It must be remembered that the fuel tank is not exactly a certain size, they do make them a bit oversize. Your fuel gage may not be 100 percent accurate, also running a vehicle till the fuel tank is almost dry is very hard on the fuel pump on fuel injected vehicles and it can shorten a fuel pumps life. A test I do is pump in one gallon to what it says on the dial then I look at the price and it should match, (unless if the price is off it throws the gallon amount off too). The most easy way to figure out what's going on is to try doing that at another station and see if it does the same thing, but running low like that is hard on the fuel pump.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
There are some places in Tulsa that do have no ethanol..but you have to look for it...usually its about 10 cents more per gallon...
wrong. 71st/mingo is 100% gas and no up charge. You only get upcharged by a**hole places in midtown like 41st/yale shell.
[V]
There's that midtown anti-bias....
quote:
Originally posted by John Redcorn
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My guess is that this kind of car simply does not require much in total btu to do its job. Unlike a v-8 or a high performance engine they simply don't need much to work well. I've had other cars (mgb, isuzu trooper) that had similar behaviour. They got the same mileage whether you put in premium or low octane regular.
You ought to actually notice more of a difference on a 30mpg engine than a 15mpg one.
If a car does not require premium (Just a guess but I'd say an MGB and a Trooper probably do not) putting premium in does nothing except take more $ from you.
From my findings (I drive 600 miles per week) I get about 23mpg on no ethanol and 20 with ethanol. The 10 cents extra at some of those places actually does save money.
What I mean is that the 4cylinder motor in my Trooper, MGB, Corolla probably does not even need the octane of regular pump gas. So when a reduced energy ethanol is presented it makes very little difference. Most likely the motors are low compression, retarded timing etc. Whereas a Detroit v-8/v-6 has its lineage in higher compression, larger displacement and techological tweaking. They need the higher quality fuel. Just surmising.
Here's another reason some of you may be finding lower performance. Octane fraud. A friend of mine depends on high performance racing engines in his business. After experiencing detonation which ruined some $10K engines he started carrying a test kit with him to gasoline stations. He often finds that pump gas labeled 92 octane is actually closer to 86 whereupon he reports the discrepancy to the Corporation Commission and they fine the station. Its probably very common.
Tulsa Mini, as far as accuracy of gas station pumps. Look at the stickers on the pump showing when they were last tested. I have found that I sometimes can get 6 gallons in a 5 gallon gas container. Imagine. These off brand gas stations display a slightly smaller price per gallon but more than make up for it with the fraudulent pump metering. Of course gasoline volume varies with temperature but the underground tanks should keep it stable.
Its a crooked world, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by John Redcorn
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My guess is that this kind of car simply does not require much in total btu to do its job. Unlike a v-8 or a high performance engine they simply don't need much to work well. I've had other cars (mgb, isuzu trooper) that had similar behaviour. They got the same mileage whether you put in premium or low octane regular.
You ought to actually notice more of a difference on a 30mpg engine than a 15mpg one.
If a car does not require premium (Just a guess but I'd say an MGB and a Trooper probably do not) putting premium in does nothing except take more $ from you.
From my findings (I drive 600 miles per week) I get about 23mpg on no ethanol and 20 with ethanol. The 10 cents extra at some of those places actually does save money.
What I mean is that the 4cylinder motor in my Trooper, MGB, Corolla probably does not even need the octane of regular pump gas. So when a reduced energy ethanol is presented it makes very little difference. Most likely the motors are low compression, retarded timing etc. Whereas a Detroit v-8/v-6 has its lineage in higher compression, larger displacement and techological tweaking. They need the higher quality fuel. Just surmising.
Here's another reason some of you may be finding lower performance. Octane fraud. A friend of mine depends on high performance racing engines in his business. After experiencing detonation which ruined some $10K engines he started carrying a test kit with him to gasoline stations. He often finds that pump gas labeled 92 octane is actually closer to 86 whereupon he reports the discrepancy to the Corporation Commission and they fine the station. Its probably very common.
Tulsa Mini, as far as accuracy of gas station pumps. Look at the stickers on the pump showing when they were last tested. I have found that I sometimes can get 6 gallons in a 5 gallon gas container. Imagine. These off brand gas stations display a slightly smaller price per gallon but more than make up for it with the fraudulent pump metering. Of course gasoline volume varies with temperature but the underground tanks should keep it stable.
Its a crooked world, eh?
You're still not understanding.
Octane is NOT a measure of performance. It IS, however, a measure of how well a fuel is resistant to pre-ignition, also called auto-ignition and knocking.
Technically, Ethanol has a higher octane than petroleum based fuel. Does that mean that it has higher energy output per unit? Absolutely not.
Let's not confuse the general public on octane rating versus volumetric power of a unit of fuel.
I say the same thing in the thread regarding Quiktrip and it's use of E10.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by John Redcorn
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My guess is that this kind of car simply does not require much in total btu to do its job. Unlike a v-8 or a high performance engine they simply don't need much to work well. I've had other cars (mgb, isuzu trooper) that had similar behaviour. They got the same mileage whether you put in premium or low octane regular.
You ought to actually notice more of a difference on a 30mpg engine than a 15mpg one.
If a car does not require premium (Just a guess but I'd say an MGB and a Trooper probably do not) putting premium in does nothing except take more $ from you.
From my findings (I drive 600 miles per week) I get about 23mpg on no ethanol and 20 with ethanol. The 10 cents extra at some of those places actually does save money.
What I mean is that the 4cylinder motor in my Trooper, MGB, Corolla probably does not even need the octane of regular pump gas. So when a reduced energy ethanol is presented it makes very little difference. Most likely the motors are low compression, retarded timing etc. Whereas a Detroit v-8/v-6 has its lineage in higher compression, larger displacement and techological tweaking. They need the higher quality fuel. Just surmising.
Here's another reason some of you may be finding lower performance. Octane fraud. A friend of mine depends on high performance racing engines in his business. After experiencing detonation which ruined some $10K engines he started carrying a test kit with him to gasoline stations. He often finds that pump gas labeled 92 octane is actually closer to 86 whereupon he reports the discrepancy to the Corporation Commission and they fine the station. Its probably very common.
Tulsa Mini, as far as accuracy of gas station pumps. Look at the stickers on the pump showing when they were last tested. I have found that I sometimes can get 6 gallons in a 5 gallon gas container. Imagine. These off brand gas stations display a slightly smaller price per gallon but more than make up for it with the fraudulent pump metering. Of course gasoline volume varies with temperature but the underground tanks should keep it stable.
Its a crooked world, eh?
You're still not understanding.
Octane is NOT a measure of performance. It IS, however, a measure of how well a fuel is resistant to pre-ignition, also called auto-ignition and knocking.
Technically, Ethanol has a higher octane than petroleum based fuel. Does that mean that it has higher energy output per unit? Absolutely not.
Let's not confuse the general public on octane rating versus volumetric power of a unit of fuel.
I say the same thing in the thread regarding Quiktrip and it's use of E10.
Thats correct, higher octane fuel doesn't offer any substantial increase or decrease in its BTU value. It's a rating based on how slowly and evenly the fuel burns in the combustion chamber of the vehicle. Higher octane burns slightly slow which allows for a more even burn over the surface of the piston and reduces carbon buildup, reduces knocking/pinging and as a result on cars recommending premium fuel, you typically see a 3 to 5% bump in horsepower. This is NOT because the gasoline alone provides the power bump. The less detonation/knocking/pinging in the motor the more advanced the timing on the motor can be set by the onboard computer which results in a slightly leaner (more optimal air fuel ratio) fuel ratio which in turn causes a small increase in power.
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
No, no, no. You must read his posts and accept his theory. All other experience is folly.
Sorry, OUgrad, the whole purpose of this thread was to provide real life experience with ethanol, not theory. If it only amounts to .9 mpg change then all the pissing and moaning about it is nonsense. But that's just my theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
E10 is only 10% ethanol. You shouldn't see a drastic change in mileage running E10. E85 makes a huge difference. There could be some other additives causing mileage to drop. Or it could be their driving habbits or they may not have a clue what they're talking about. I have been keeping track with an excel spreadsheet comparing the differences over numerous tanks of gas to help compensate for driving differences or perhaps differences in weather conditions. What I've found up to now is on gasoline that is 10% ethanol I am averaging 25.7 MPG on regular gasoline I am averaging 26.2 MPG. Now there is a caveat, so far I have done 6 tanks of E10 and 2 tanks of regular gasoline so the results up till now are not very conclusive, but hopefully within the next 8 to 12 weeks I will have more concise data.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
No, no, no. You must read his posts and accept his theory. All other experience is folly.
Sorry, Hoss, the whole purpose of this thread was to provide real life experience with ethanol, not theory. Perhaps you didn't read the original sentence of the first post. If it only amounts to .9 mpg change then all the pissing and moaning about it is nonsense. But that's just my theory.
Yeah, I get the hint...
The problem I have is that there are so many people out there wanting the world to change to a cleaner burning fuel, but corn based ethanol damn sure isn't it. It wastes more energy producing it than just producing and refining regular petroleum. PLUS, it has driven the cost of corn from 3 dollars a bushel to almost 8 dollars in two years.
It doesn't really bother me maintenance wise, as I've said probably a hundred times in here, I drive a FlexFuel vehicle, badge and all
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oilerfan/2152350361/in/set-72157603569564770/
But I hate what QT did and other retailers who decided not to disclose to their consumers that their vehicles were not getting what was advertised.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
No, no, no. You must read his posts and accept his theory. All other experience is folly.
Sorry, OUgrad, the whole purpose of this thread was to provide real life experience with ethanol, not theory. If it only amounts to .9 mpg change then all the pissing and moaning about it is nonsense. But that's just my theory.
There's tons of real life experience and studies done on ethanol. E10 doesn't cause a substantial difference in mileage which is why one of the posters has seen little difference in their MPG.
I think using ethanol as a fuel is retarded, its expensive, less efficient, dirtier than gasoline and we're burning our food so we can drive. I'm not defending ethanol but the fact is 10% ethanol should pose no major isseus with MPG. If it does you might consider a tune because of the way ethanol burns in the combustion chamber you could see a difference if you have one or more fouled injectors or plugs.
Ethanol also tends to make a bigger mileage difference on larger, bigger bore motors that are very knock sensitive. Ethanol has a higher resistence to knock and in some cases on board computers can get a little more aggressive with the timing resulting in a slight mileage decrease under acceleration. At a constant speed the mileage drop off should be roughly the equivelent of the energy difference in a properly running vehicle.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
No, no, no. You must read his posts and accept his theory. All other experience is folly.
Sorry, OUgrad, the whole purpose of this thread was to provide real life experience with ethanol, not theory. If it only amounts to .9 mpg change then all the pissing and moaning about it is nonsense. But that's just my theory.
There's tons of real life experience and studies done on ethanol. E10 doesn't cause a substantial difference in mileage which is why one of the posters has seen little difference in their MPG.
I think using ethanol as a fuel is retarded, its expensive, less efficient, dirtier than gasoline and we're burning our food so we can drive. I'm not defending ethanol but the fact is 10% ethanol should pose no major isseus with MPG. If it does you might consider a tune because of the way ethanol burns in the combustion chamber you could see a difference if you have one or more fouled injectors or plugs.
Ethanol also tends to make a bigger mileage difference on larger, bigger bore motors that are very knock sensitive. Ethanol has a higher resistence to knock and in some cases on board computers can get a little more aggressive with the timing resulting in a slight mileage decrease under acceleration. At a constant speed the mileage drop off should be roughly the equivelent of the energy difference in a properly running vehicle.
As I've stated though, my auto is set to run on it, knows when it's in the tank, the computer adjusts for it. It's a FlexFuel vehicle.
Doesn't mean it gets the same mileage as gasoline. My difference based on a test was around 21 MPG using E10, about 25 MPG using gasoline.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I understand now. I was using octane as a measure of energy when it is really a measure of one aspect of performance. What I don't understand is how come my little Corolla is doing so well running on this low btu fuel. Its mpg rating was 38/28 and I'm driving it pretty hard stop/go and still getting 30 consistently. Ethanol doesn't seem to bother this car much where it does seem to affect the detroit v-8's & v-6's.
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
That isn't happening to more than two-thirds of the people I talk to. It's closer to 8 to 15 percent change for the worse.
No, no, no. You must read his posts and accept his theory. All other experience is folly.
Sorry, OUgrad, the whole purpose of this thread was to provide real life experience with ethanol, not theory. If it only amounts to .9 mpg change then all the pissing and moaning about it is nonsense. But that's just my theory.
There's tons of real life experience and studies done on ethanol. E10 doesn't cause a substantial difference in mileage which is why one of the posters has seen little difference in their MPG.
I think using ethanol as a fuel is retarded, its expensive, less efficient, dirtier than gasoline and we're burning our food so we can drive. I'm not defending ethanol but the fact is 10% ethanol should pose no major isseus with MPG. If it does you might consider a tune because of the way ethanol burns in the combustion chamber you could see a difference if you have one or more fouled injectors or plugs.
Ethanol also tends to make a bigger mileage difference on larger, bigger bore motors that are very knock sensitive. Ethanol has a higher resistence to knock and in some cases on board computers can get a little more aggressive with the timing resulting in a slight mileage decrease under acceleration. At a constant speed the mileage drop off should be roughly the equivelent of the energy difference in a properly running vehicle.
As I've stated though, my auto is set to run on it, knows when it's in the tank, the computer adjusts for it. It's a FlexFuel vehicle.
Doesn't mean it gets the same mileage as gasoline. My difference based on a test was around 21 MPG using E10, about 25 MPG using gasoline.
Flexfuel means it can run on E85 in addition to Gasoline and any E rating inbetween. If you're getting 21mpg on E10 vs 25 mpg on regular gas I'd want to know whats up. I dont know what type of vehicle you drive but my buddy has a chevy silverado with a 6.2L, it is also a flex fuel. On E10 he's noticed basically no mileage difference that he could tell (though he's not quit as anal as I am) but when he runs E85 he does notice a significant difference. In fact he told me when he drove from OKC to pryor he got a whopping 15mpg on the highway with E85. He was pissed...He normally gets 20 to 21 on the highway.
4mpg is a LOT for E10.
FWIW, I agree with you OUgrad. Plain stupid to use food as fuel. When I told a farmer from Iowa that, he said that particular type of corn was feed for stock and never intended for human consumption. So any increase in the cost of corn and its derivatives should only show up in beef prices but for some reason is affecting the prices of anything using corn syrup.
In theory, using any sort of alternative to petroleum we can come up with, would be a good idea.
Theoretically: Replace 10% of the automobile fuel supply with ethanol, and we use 10% less imported oil to produce said fuel.
In reality: It takes energy to create the ethanol from corn, and we get THAT energy from Petroleum. Various sources claim that it actually takes more than is being saved just to produce it. I'm sure these claims take it to a complicated extreme of adding up the petroleum used at the ethanol plants, petroleum used to transport the ethanol (as it corrodes pipelines and thus is not commonly delivered that way), petroleum in the fertilizer and other farming equipment, etc. So this eats up at very least PART of the pie-in-the-sky petroleum savings, if not ALL or MORE.
So, at most, the petroleum savings are very small, argueably non-existant. That would not be enough to justify burning up our food supply. The "free market" that people like to badmouth over price spikes, is not really free, it is manipulated by the government. It is when you throw in subsidies, and encourage the use of corn ethanol for fuel under the guise of "alternative energy" with the feel-good fuzzies people are trained by the media to have in association - These subsidies and market manipulations make the otherwise illogical use for something turn into the most profitable one. So we are burning corn, and it is a bonanza in profits for everyone involved except the consumer and taxpayer. The manipulated market has financial incentive to grow corn instead of other food items. More farmland is used growing corn, much of which is not going into the food supply. What little farmland is left, produces food with sharp price increases due to the the increased scarcity. Why grow grain when you can grow corn which is now like having an oil-field on your farm? And no one will want to grow grain unless the price for grain skyrockets to a price point that grain farmers can be close in income to the other farmers growing fuel. This isn't the free market failing, it is the free market reacting to illogical manipulation thanks to corrupt leadership in a way too powerful federal government.
We are lucky enough right now that our monetary system still dominates and moves the world economy. We can still get food even if we are not producing it, because we can print more dollars. If the tables ever turn, the world loses confidence in the dollar, we will be in a bad spot if we let our own food supply slip away from what it was, and still for the time being, is. There may come a day when we cannot be so foolish in our use of resources. A simple version of what I said is, it may not always be as easy to import whatever shortfalls we have in our food supply.
Just as our manufacturing base left the country over the past few decades, what we are seeing now with Ethanol, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. is our breadbasket starting to leave, as we import more and more food, and we burn more and more of what we still grow at home. After being the world's largest exporter of food, we turned into a net food importer in 2005. There is no reason for this with the abundance of resources our nation is blessed with.
I don't care if the ethanol performance is negligible, I simply want NO PART in anything to do with supporting this corrupt government/corporate profit bonanza and the destruction of our food supply.
Corn Ethanol, a pipe-dream that corrodes pipes.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
FWIW, I agree with you OUgrad. Plain stupid to use food as fuel. When I told a farmer from Iowa that, he said that particular type of corn was feed for stock and never intended for human consumption. So any increase in the cost of corn and its derivatives should only show up in beef prices but for some reason is affecting the prices of anything using corn syrup.
If they are feeding livestock with it, taking it away from the market and burning it for fuel still has the same net effect on the food supply. Food for our food is still our food supply. The other type for human consumption would also be effected in any scenario where farmers grow less of it, and more of the ethanol friendly kind due to them selling the latter for much higher prices. As a result, the market increases the price for the former to keep it feasible for enough to still be grown.
One more thing that piqued my interest was when I saw that QuikTrip now has stores in Iowa. (Guessing) They must be doing direct business with Ethanol producers, and have some resulting goodwill with Iowans.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
FWIW, I agree with you OUgrad. Plain stupid to use food as fuel. When I told a farmer from Iowa that, he said that particular type of corn was feed for stock and never intended for human consumption. So any increase in the cost of corn and its derivatives should only show up in beef prices but for some reason is affecting the prices of anything using corn syrup.
The farmer is correct it is feed stock. The problem is the amount of acreage that has been converted from wheat, corn, soybeans etc to grow this feedstock. The US for the first time ever had to import wheat this year. We normally export wheat...however the government subsidies for ethanol and record corn prices mean that farmers are growing corn or lower quality feedstock corn whenever they can so we can "lessen" our dependance on foreign oil. It's another perfect example of government intervention gone bad. Now we pay substantially more for almost everything in the grocery store so some politicians can feel good about "ethanol".
I am writing a story on this subject for Urban Tulsa Weekly. If anyone would be willing to be quoted concerning their experiences with ethanol blended gasoline in the Tulsa area, please contact me at daniellezm at sbcglobal dot net or call me at the UTW office at 592-5550. I will be in the office until 5 today and from 8-12 tomorrow.
I understand in new late model cars if the car requires top grade gasoline and you put in lower cheap cut-rate gasoline, your fuel mileage will drop. The reason is the computer retards the timing when you use cheap fuels to prevent "spark knock" thus gas mileage drops too. When you use the good expensive gasoline the computer is able to advance the timing so you get better performace and gas mileage increases. The cheap gasoline will not hurt the engine or do anything bad, the engine will just not run as well and mileage will drop a bit. With older cars it has no effect,- with the old distributor bolt timing adjustment. The gas mileage will be the same on any fuels from what I understand.[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
FWIW, I agree with you OUgrad. Plain stupid to use food as fuel. When I told a farmer from Iowa that, he said that particular type of corn was feed for stock and never intended for human consumption. So any increase in the cost of corn and its derivatives should only show up in beef prices but for some reason is affecting the prices of anything using corn syrup.
I probably should know this since we had a family farm in northern Nebraska till about 16 years ago, but, I was always told there's sweet corn that people eat and feed corn which was used for feed, milling, corn sweeteners, etc. IOW- I've always been under the impression there were two general varieties with many sub-varieties or species grouped either in "field" or "sweet".
At any rate, YT had mentioned the amount of petroleum it requires to make methanol. In reality, none. Every existing or planned ethanol plant I'm aware of burns natural gas or biomass. Most plants in existence or being built have great access to natural gas. Fuel oil is incredibly expensive, anyone who has dual capability and plenty of gas is burning it right now in every industry. Fuel oil's (#2 grade) net cost per million Btu is about 2 to 2.5 times or so that of NG right now.
There is an exception of a plant we are working with on the east coast which is being built next to a landfill to take advantage of methane gas produced under the landfill. This plant is going to use other cellulose structures than corn- thank God.
The gas station in Jenks on Main & Elm/Peoria has a sign that says no ethanol.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
FWIW, I agree with you OUgrad. Plain stupid to use food as fuel. When I told a farmer from Iowa that, he said that particular type of corn was feed for stock and never intended for human consumption. So any increase in the cost of corn and its derivatives should only show up in beef prices but for some reason is affecting the prices of anything using corn syrup.
I probably should know this since we had a family farm in northern Nebraska till about 16 years ago, but, I was always told there's sweet corn that people eat and feed corn which was used for feed, milling, corn sweeteners, etc. IOW- I've always been under the impression there were two general varieties with many sub-varieties or species grouped either in "field" or "sweet".
At any rate, YT had mentioned the amount of petroleum it requires to make methanol. In reality, none. Every existing or planned ethanol plant I'm aware of burns natural gas or biomass. Most plants in existence or being built have great access to natural gas. Fuel oil is incredibly expensive, anyone who has dual capability and plenty of gas is burning it right now in every industry. Fuel oil's (#2 grade) net cost per million Btu is about 2 to 2.5 times or so that of NG right now.
There is an exception of a plant we are working with on the east coast which is being built next to a landfill to take advantage of methane gas produced under the landfill. This plant is going to use other cellulose structures than corn- thank God.
You're right it doesn't necessarily take petroleum to make ethanol when people refer to it takes x amount of oil to make ethanol they're typically referring to an equivelant energy amount rated in BTU's. Not all ethanol is a waste, and corn based ethanol is far more efficient than it used to be but I believe for every 100,000 BTU's you get out, you have to sink in 75,000 BTU's netting you a mere 25,000 BTU's. If someone has more up to date numbers on that i"d like to see them as I"m not quite sure what it is anymore.
Well, that is one instance where I would feel good to be wrong. So at least hopefully, by using ethanol as a "filler", we reduce foreign petroleum imports by a certain level.
I mentioned before though, that they probably took their theory on petroleum's involvement in the production of ethanol in all aspects from the fertilizing of the farmlands, to transport, etc. Probably taking it a little too far.
I still can't look past the whole burning up the food supply problem it poses though.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Well, that is one instance where I would feel good to be wrong. So at least hopefully, by using ethanol as a "filler", we reduce foreign petroleum imports by a certain level.
I mentioned before though, that they probably took their theory on petroleum's involvement in the production of ethanol in all aspects from the fertilizing of the farmlands, to transport, etc. Probably taking it a little too far.
I still can't look past the whole burning up the food supply problem it poses though.
I agree YT.
My boss is a proponent for rebuilding the sugar industry along the Gulf Coast which has gone largely overseas and use that for ethanol production as they are doing in Brazil. It wouldn't be robbing food stocks and might bring some agricultural prosperity to the region.
Of course, if you note where many ethanol plants are set up, they are in the corn belt. Transportation of corn to the plants is not terribly far since there are so many now.
Biggest thing we need to do is get away from the politics of alt fuels. Corn ethanol, we all seem to agree, is a farm subsidy. Algore has made a killing off of becoming a global warming expert while not possessing a degree in science. Hysteria takes us nowhere, it drives many people away with skepticism and cynicism.
We need to de-politicize and get real about this. Quit trying to buy votes from the heartland and do what is best for the entire country. Help incubate more practical crops and technology for alt fuels.
I follow the ethanol debates fairly closely. I have used ethanol my driving whole life (from Iowa, most stations there have had ethanol on the pump for 15+ years). It wasn't until the last 5 or 6 years that I started hearing the OTHER side. It does collect water, it has less energy, it may not be a net energy GAIN in production, and it's is heavily subsidized or not economical. Also, looking at MILES PER POLLUTION the argument is that ethanol increases pollution (via production costs plus lost efficiency).
In the long run, corn based ethanol is a loser.
Also, per the mileage, I am too lazy and my mileage to sporadic (I pull various boats, camp with my boy on long highway treks, and drive city most of the week) to track it accurately. So like and good sloth I found real world data on the net. In spite of the 3% theory, it appears reality is worse than that as combustion engines lose efficiency to ethanol in addition to the energy loss.
Most of these numbers are from "hypermilers," those annoying little balls of road rage finally come in handy!
15.9% (6 months of data)
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11342
12.8%
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?s=6db248b0a6bd8b7f496f4e42eb46fad7&t=4155
HOWEVER, newer small displacement engines see the 3% range because of gained efficiency with ethanol (run hotter or some damn thing):
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=1863
Also, E85 vehicles will get less gas mileage on E10 but may see improved mileage on E85 because their engine (o2 censor, injectors, etc.) are able to adjust for it.
I'm surprised, but I was unable to find a definitive study on this by the NTSB, EPA, AAA, or some other official sounding acronym.
The sad thing is we have plenty of oil in the world, the "crisis" is a political, man-made thing. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil. We have oil shale rock that can last 100 years. If they find a replacement for oil that new thing (what ever it turns out to be) will likely be used the same way as oil is today, it will be used political, and people will "adjust" the mfg. of it and control the price and we will be in the same boat as with oil. They know that people will need it and they will jack up the price of it and we'll have to pay it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I follow the ethanol debates fairly closely. I have used ethanol my driving whole life (from Iowa, most stations there have had ethanol on the pump for 15+ years). It wasn't until the last 5 or 6 years that I started hearing the OTHER side. It does collect water, it has less energy, it may not be a net energy GAIN in production, and it's is heavily subsidized or not economical. Also, looking at MILES PER POLLUTION the argument is that ethanol increases pollution (via production costs plus lost efficiency).
In the long run, corn based ethanol is a loser.
Also, per the mileage, I am too lazy and my mileage to sporadic (I pull various boats, camp with my boy on long highway treks, and drive city most of the week) to track it accurately. So like and good sloth I found real world data on the net. In spite of the 3% theory, it appears reality is worse than that as combustion engines lose efficiency to ethanol in addition to the energy loss.
Most of these numbers are from "hypermilers," those annoying little balls of road rage finally come in handy!
15.9% (6 months of data)
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11342
12.8%
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?s=6db248b0a6bd8b7f496f4e42eb46fad7&t=4155
HOWEVER, newer small displacement engines see the 3% range because of gained efficiency with ethanol (run hotter or some damn thing):
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=1863
Also, E85 vehicles will get less gas mileage on E10 but may see improved mileage on E85 because their engine (o2 censor, injectors, etc.) are able to adjust for it.
I'm surprised, but I was unable to find a definitive study on this by the NTSB, EPA, AAA, or some other official sounding acronym.
^Ya know, this would be a good post to end on. Explains somewhat why my fleet hasn't noticed a difference in performance while others have shown tremendous losses. The downsides outweigh the positives on corn ethanol. Sawgrass or other throwaway biomass would be a better option.
As a side note, this year my tomatoes didn't do well, my cucumbers got the blight and my peppers didn't set blooms. What happens when nature does that on a huge scale? Makes another crisis. But when the wind stops and the sun goes away, its all over anyway!
quote:
Did you read my post from earlier? If you're using gasoline with 10% ethanol that represents a 3% decrease in available BTU's which in theory would translate into a 3% decrease in mileage or roughly .9mpg in your case. It is very difficult to find a .9 mpg change from tank to tank.
And did you not read my eariler post?? Theory is great in the lab, but real world results are what matter. I went from high 13's to low 15's by not using 10% crapenol. That is a far cry from your theory. Changing the brand of gas was the only change I made.