I tried E10 several years ago in my '94 (5.0 5-sp MFI box-stock 49-state OBDI) and saw about a 30% decrease in mileage. I also had a '94 G30 Chevy and had a similar mileage decrease with E10. I am currently driving a '96 Suzuki Sidekick Sport (1.8L MFI (I think; it may be SFI) OBDII) and am seeing between a 5% and 10% loss on E10.

I noticed with the truck that the inside of the tail pipe turned black on E10 but cleared up with E0. That led me to speculate that the ethanol skewed the exhaust gas composition due to its oxygen content and the PCM richened the mix to compensate for what the HO2S was reporting as an overly lean condition. Since the van was of a similar vintage I thought that it may have been fooled as well, but since the Suzi is just enough newer to have OBDII, along with all that implies, it may handle E10 better since it can monitor more of the vehicle's operational parameters.

Am I way off on this surmise (or, if you prefer, "SWAG"), or is there something else I am missing?

 

Ethanol blended fuels are a scam.. avoid at all costs. The only use it has is to ward off moisture which can cause fuel line freezing in winter climates. I have an 04 Subaru that doesn't seem to experience any problem with running E10 but I still see a milage impact similar to my truck. Ethically.. diverting land from producing food crops to fuel cars is just WRONG on all levels IMO, but that's besides the point.

 

The reason why the fuel economy goes down is that Ethanol has a lower BTU content than 100% straight gas. My 94 F150 gets 21 on the highway with E10, but the fact that I've got a 4.9L, 5 speed manual, and 2.73s makes me really wish I could get E0 to see what it would get.

 

I have experienced an across the board decrease in fuel mileage of ~10-15% when forced to use E10.

Current fleet:

2004 Dodge Intrepid w/3.5L
2004 Ford Excursion w/6.8L
2005 Dodge Stratus w/3.0L
2006 Ford Mustang GT w/4.6L

Previous vehicles:

1992 F350 w/5.8L
1993 Ford Lightning w/5.8L (X2)
1997 Ford Mustang GT w/4.6L

and a slew of others I did comparisons with ethanol blended fuel since 1980.....

 

Yeah, ethanol fuels are not good for older stuff. Worse economy, and depending on the percentage it can be bad for parts of the fuel system. Just about everything around here is E10 or better. Very few places carry non ethanol fuel.

False... Ethanol actually can get water in it. Gas and water don't mix well (as you may have seen, it creates a film on water if you've spilled gas), but ethanol will mix. If left sitting, ethanol fuel will get moisture in it. It has been a HUGE problem here for local watermen with 2-stroke outboards. It killed quite a few 2-strokes due to water getting in the fuel if fuel sat in a tank for a few months in the off-season. You can use products like Sta-Bil and Seafoam to help prevent moisture from getting into the fuel. This doesn't help economy though.

 

I've noticed about a 10% difference in MPG with my 460. I gained 15% back from there by adding acetone to my fuel in a 1:480 acetone to gas ratio.

See about 15-20% difference in the 2003 Suburban 5.3l.

 

Sorry.. you're gonna have to do some research on this to see where you're wrong. Ethanol has long been used in winter gas mixtures to prevent fuel line freezing, just do a search for gas line antifreeze and see what you find.

 

I realize that it drops the freezing point because it's like alcohol. That's true. BUT, it also gets moisture into it if it sits for very much time without being totally sealed off.

 

Water won't mix with gasoline. Water will mix with alcohol, and quite well. Alcohol will mix with gasoline -- as long as there isn't too much water dissolved in it; if there is, the excess water will drop out and form a layer under the gas.

Alcohol also holds onto water with a death grip. One cannot distill ethanol to more than 96.5% (if memory serves) at atmospheric pressure; that last 3.5% water will not come out without either chemical drying or distilling at other than atmospheric pressure. (I don't remember if it needs to be distilled under pressure or vacuum.) And if ethanol is exposed to the air once it has been chemically or otherwise dried, it will absorb water until it reaches (at least) 3.5% water content.

I find it interesting that the consensus seems to be a 10% loss in mileage for E10 vs. E0. That's about where I am with the Suzuki, while I got much worse with the truck and the van.

 

The "lose" of mileage is irrelevant, its the cost per mile that matters.....

All you ethanol haters just keep hating cuz when your paying over $4.50 a gallon I'll be laughing all the way to the pump with my under $3.00 ethanol.

Everyone uses the "We shouldn't use food for fuel" argument....Well explain this, Corn on the Chicago Board of Trade closed today @ $4.43, that's almost HALF what it was one year ago, yet ethanol production rose by almost 20% last year so.......Apparently diverting all that "food" to fuel causes a market crash....When was the last time YOU ate corn for supper??

FWIW I even burn E30 in my lawn mower and it runs great.

Diesel Rod

 

Since you put it that way . . .

E10 is $3.099 here; E0 is $3.249. The price difference, expressed as a percentage, is ($E0 - $E10)/$E0. For me, that difference, expressed as a percentage, is (3.249 - 3.099)/3.249. I see that as a difference of 4.62 percent.

If I get 22 MPG out of my Suzuki on E0 and 20.5 on E10, that is 1.5 miles per gallon fewer. Using the same formula, that is a loss of 6.82 percent -- almost half again what I save per gallon. To put it another way, I burn 14.77 cents worth of E0 per mile while I burn 15.11 cents worth of E10 per mile. On E10, each mile costs me an additional 2.3 percent. At these prices, each percentage point lower economy costs me an additional 0.3 percentage points per mile.

I originally tried E10 in my '94 when the relative prices were 0.999 and 1.099 -- or right at a difference of 9%. It cost me 7.33 cents per mile for fuel, using E0, and 8.67 cents per mile using E10. That is a 16% difference per mile -- almost twice the savings per gallon at the pump. At today's prices, E0 in my '94 would cost me 21.66 cents per mile while E10 would cost me 26.95 cents per mile. That's almost 25 percent more.

That makes that 4.62 percent savings at the pump look pretty sick, doesn't it?

 

I'm not a fan of the stuff or the reformulated gas we have to use in the emission control counties here.

 

I've recently paid $2.96 for E10 (in the new 2013 car that sees no difference, built for it) and it was $3.01 at a nearby station for regular gas without ethanol. Basically no price difference. I'll chose the no ethanol an any vehicle that will see an MPG difference.

Don't know how you see such a difference in prices. The only place I see non-ethanol fuel at a high price is at marinas that charge around $3.85 for 93 octane. But people have to pay that if they have a big boat that stays in the water, so they can get their price.

 

Non-ethanol fuel is $4/gal for 91, and I need to drive 15 miles to the next county to get it (illegal to sell in my county). The E10 fuel is $3.27 for 87, $3.37 for 89, and $3.78 for 93. My Mazda and F250 don't seem to like the low grade E10 as much, my Mazda pings and has a rougher idle than when I fill it with the 91. My Subaru though (2009) doesn't seem to notice between E0 91 and E10 93.

 

Actually, BBF350 AND Conanski are BOTH correct!!
Alcohol DOES attract water, but THEN.... it carries it OUT of the engine, by BURNING it.
so BOTH of your arguments are correct... each is stating about half the total equation.
"HEET" anti gas line treatment, is ALCOHOL.... it ATTRACTS the water to it, bonds.. then CARRIES it out, via burning in the cylinders, to prevent water build up and gas line freezing... so if you burn E10 etc.. you should really NOT need to use HEET in the Winter.
all things being equal.

Now.. PEACE BROTHERS!~ LOL!