Ethanol/Gasoline Mix Crisis

[Buck 1]

I am about 135 miles from Lancaster, but also am losing mpg on the 10% ethanol. Here only Sunoco sells it. I've noticed an increase of 2-4 mpg running Shell or Exxon. They repeatedly give me the best mpg with the 87 octane. Also, if I run a tank of 89% from Shell or Exxon my mpg goes up. Stay away from the 10% ethanol if you can ..............

[soxfan81]

I just read that they are trying to mandate E20 in every gas station.

[bridge]

Originally Posted by soxfan81

I just read that they are trying to mandate E20 in every gas station.

So the titration off longer chain hydrocarbons begins...we'll probably be at E50 by 2020. The big three is going to have to start making products with larger gas tanks. It's the Brazilian role-out model.

[soxfan81]

Originally Posted by bridge

So the titration off longer chain hydrocarbons begins...we'll probably be at E50 by 2020. The big three is going to have to start making products with larger gas tanks. It's the Brazilian role-out model.

Not trying get this to a 5 page thread by lunch tomorrow. But I just did a google search on blended gas and I was passing on the info. I think I will just get a toranado fuel saver LOL.

[dfishrmn88]

Originally Posted by F0rdzTuff

Yep, what he said...Winter fuel gets less mpg's than summer fuels.

What states are using Winter Blend gas? I live in Texas and we rarely get below freezing, do we still have Winter gas for 40ish temperatures?

[tomclem]

I live in Georgia and most all the Shell stations here are using either a 10% or 15% mixture of ethanol to gas, I can't remember which one. I'm definitley going to do a mileage check with this mixture crapola.

[efx4]

I do alot of camping in Lancaster County, and where I go is very hilly, and that can cause higher fuel consumption. I also get much worse fuel econ. w/ winter blend fuel, and warming my truck up in the cold mornings makes it worse. And yes I have noticed a decline in gas mileage w/ the 10% blend we use in South Jersey. Ethanol has less BTU's than gas so there is less efficiency (spelling?) in the combustion process causing a decrease in fuel economy. Do we need to burn more fuel for cleaner air, or do we use less fuel and pollute the air more? I can't see why we shouldn't have a cleaner burning engine and better fuel economy. Hopefully we will get the best of both worlds someday, but in the meantime, there seams to be a trade-off more times then not.

[bridge]

Originally Posted by dfishrmn88

What states are using Winter Blend gas? I live in Texas and we rarely get below freezing, do we still have Winter gas for 40ish temperatures?

I don't think we get the winter blend here...my mileage constantly sux around 12-13mpg. Of course I'm in Harris county where have to use reformulated, oxygenated gas year round. When you get more than 2 counties out you can get the unformulated and thus better mpg. I don't think Austin requires it yet...I may be wrong, but I think only Houston and DFW (and surrounding counties) require it thus far.

[Ds7776]

These engines including E85 are not made to burn ethanol because ethanol needs a higher compression than gas if you have a ethanol only engine and put gas in it youll blow up the engine. Ethanol does have more power and will get better mileage if its burnt correctly my 390 in my F100 loves 10% mix and gets better mileage. If you dont believe me check out Nascar and formula racing they are using ethanol, and quote go farther on the fuel with increased power.

[1saxman]

Originally Posted by fzrider998

The MTBE thing sounds worse than ethanol, so maybe I shouldn't complain. I guess after seeing a 20% increase in fuel mileage for daily driving, I just got pushed over the edge. Gotta love poly-tics, affects our pocketbook in so many ways.

Hey, Osama...errr...Obama is going to fix it though...

Thanks for listening, guys...

Cheers.

Sir! How dare you call Mr. Abomber a name! The very idea!

[bridge]

Originally Posted by Ds7776

If you dont believe me check out Nascar and formula racing they are using ethanol, and quote go farther on the fuel with increased power.

Just did a little quick research and according to NASCAR's website they use 110 octane LEADED fuel. They are suppose to start using an unleaded fuel developed by Sunoco soon if not already.

Ethanol has less NRG than gasoline. This has been discussed in-depth here and in just about every second year organic chemistry class or P-chem class.

[irishammer]

NASCAR to Use Unleaded Fuel in 2008

According to this they already do...

[V8EXPLR]

As you can tell by my sig, I have a Flex-Fuel 5.4L F150. I'll provide my experience in using E85, 10% Ethanol and 87 & 93 Octane. This is all based on stop and go city driving, I rarely ever get on the freeway.

E85 is a funny fuel that isn't always 85% Ethanol. The two stations I frequent here in Denver, one states a minimum of 70% Ethanol while the other states a minimum of 80% Ethanol. I notice when running E85, the shop with the min. of 70% Ethanol I average 10-12mpgs. When I use the station that states a min. of 80% Ethanol, I average 11-13mpgs. I like the 2nd shop better as they acutally mix their own fuel and is a more reputable station, plus who knows the quality of gasoline each station uses to mix in with the Ethanol. The shop with the 80% min. mix is always about 10 cents per gallon higher than the other E85 station.

When running gasoline in the F150, the 10% ethonal (winter mix) gets me anywhere from 11-13 mpgs, 87 Octane gets me roughly 12-14 mpgs and the 93 octane has a larger range getting me from 12-15 mpgs. When running gasoline, I will only use Conoco/Philips or Shell which are basically the best fuels we have in the Denver Metro area anymore. Prior to all of them being removed, I would only shop at BP Amoco which provided me the best mpgs around.

Now I've owned by F150 since 12/06 and have roughly 13K miles on it. All the mpg ratings vary depending on driving style and being in CO, we have many hills/mountains to contend with, which greatly impact the results.

Personally, I basically only use the supposed E85 anymore. It is rated at 105 octane, providing a lot cleaner burn and throttle response is better (seat of the pants feel). MPG's are down with E85 in comparison to Gasoline, but I also purchase it for roughly $1.10-$1.30 less than 87 octane. Now I have never ran 85 octane in any vehicle I've owned and don't plan to, only 87 or higher.

So in comparing E85 to 87 octane, I get roughly a 2mpg decrease using E85 which is around 60 miles decrease per tank (30 gallon tank). Comparing the prices, the E85 is currently $2.49 and 87 is currently $3.59, taking roughly $75 to fill up with E85 and $108 with 87, making a $33 difference per tank. I never go below 1/4 tank, so these results are based on a complete fill up. Now that $33 is almost the cost of an additional 1/2 tank of E85 (roughly 150-180miles) which clearly makes up the 60 miles I lost in comparison to using 87.

So to me, E85 is a better option, but may not be for everyone. I feel the cleaner burn, better throttle response and lower cost per fill up as an advantage, even if I have to fill up a little more often. Just my thoughts and experience.

[bob schulz]

This ethanol thing started when an oxygenate was considered by politicians with the help of radical environmentalist activist self-proclaimed experts in the field to be necessary as a fuel additive, or we would all die from air polution, many years ago.

The science was not complete then and is not today clear as to how our atmosphere is effected by the chemical compounds released by the combustion of ethanol. A seminal study was done at Cornell University concerning the amount of energy needed to produce a single gallon of ethanol, the amount of ecological degradation to the quality of our waterways from the extended use of fertilizers, and the depletion of deep aquifers used by the ethanol plants, to prolduce this stuff, in, I believe, the early ninties.

Politicians, not to be deterred by common sense, however, ploughed ahead full speed to the tunes of environmental alarmists/global warming freaks. And today, both sides of the political aisles, city, county, state, and federal governments, believe in the junk science by which we have now been mandated to fill our gas tanks.

People around the world are seeing basic food shortages as morons continue whipping us toward the edge of our economic and cultural demise. It's as if the rapture has already occurred, no one noticed, and the world in which we now live resembles a sort of crazy hell where up is down, right is wrong, good is bad, and so on.

If it takes more energy to produce a single unit of a fuel than energy contained therein, if this fuel is then produces chemical compounds with atmospheric effects unknown, common sense should require second thoughts, a reevaluation of what was formerly believed to be true.

Lesson to be learned? Stop voting for the Marxist model. Big brother is not staffed by experts. To a large extent, these people, politicians are much stupider than the common citizen. Did not mean to lecture. Just tired of being led by hacks.

There are less British Thermal Units of energy in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of regular gasoline, and likely less perilous chemical compounds after combustion. But no one knows because no one actually has definitively done the research.

[Groovy Chick]

I hate to be the one to bring bad tidings, but your fuel is allowed to be up to 10% ethanol, and it doesn't even have to be labeled. That's just so wrong.

Blessings,
Corey
Mrs. Power Hungry Performance.