I can do the math, thank you. I can read too.
Did you notice the language towards the bottom of page 3 - 1 where it says "Fuel economy decreased (7.7% on average), consistent with the energy density reduction associated with ethanol blending (in limited tests, this trend was observed to continue to E30)."
This is on at the newest, 2007 vehicles. We have come a long way in computing and tuning since 2007. We have REALLY come a long way since 1999! Like I said; 3 to 4% is the norm now. Look it up.
You said:
JaxDad wrote:
In the case of E15 then you would be losing ~15% of the energy per gallon.
It's ludicrous to think if you put 15% alkie in gasoline you will lose 15% mileage. That would give ethanol no energy content and that is just plain silly.Notice the words "on average", as in across all of the vehicles ranging from 1999 to 2007 and almost all of which are 4 or 6 cylinder small and mid-size cars. Of the 16 vehicles tested, only TWO are V8 pickups. Both 1/2 ton units with small V8's. Some were then better and some were worse, I'm guessing the older and bigger engines were MUCH worse.
I'm guessing you're correct not because of a bigger engine but because of old tuning then. Like I said, we have come a long way since that study. As for your "alkie" comment, the ~15% reduction I stated should have been explained, it it is 10% for the blended value and other parasitic losses that add another 5% in 'the real world' and of course it incorporates the energy value of the Ethanol.
The other parasitic losses include things like water ('alkie' is very hygroscopic and contains a lot of water by volume which has no energy and reduces the energy produced), reduced performance because of ECM 'adjustments' to try to correct the mixture, etc., and few vehicles are properly tuned, clean and performing perfectly.
You can say people lose 15% all you want but that does not make it true. Like I said, it's silly to think adding 15% of any "fuel" will give you a 15% reduction in mileage.Further to all of that, the vehicles we are talking about here, maxed out TV's and M/H's are running hot, under heavy throttle and not exactly peaking on the efficiency scale.
You would be 100% wrong on that statement. I run gasoline in my race engine. I race in the same class as people that run alkie. When it is hot out they make a TON more power than us. When it is cold out, we make around the same about of power but they make a bit more torque so they can get off of the turn a little faster. So as you can see, running hot and under heavy throttle is just what is made for alcohol fuel.Finally, that test, is just that, a TEST, under perfect conditions, using perfect lab-grade fuels and likely vehicles that have been 'gone over', no ugly plugs, dirty air cleaners, etc., etc.
There are a ton more tests out there in real world conditions that show the same to 4% lose that I keep telling you about.
Toyota and Ford even says 3%.Or are they lying too? :R Must be a conspiracy. :R I have more and I will post them if you want?
Speaking of doing the math, lets say you take a car that gets 24 MPG and drive it 1,000 miles on E0 fuel, total gas burned 41.67 gallons.
Then you take the same car and drive that 1,000 miles on E15 gasoline, but it losses 15% on the mileage so now it only gets 20.4 MPG, total fuel burned is now 49.02 gallons, 85% of which is gasoline, or 41.67 gallons.
In both cases you burned 41.67 gallons, except with the E15 fuel you ALSO burned an additional 7.35 gallons of Ethanol on top.
So then you've actually burned more fuel and created more pollution than you did before we had this "new improved, less polluting gasoline".
Oh, and we've spent a lot more on fuel and food costs along the way.
Government logic at it's finest.
I can tell by that statement you have never ran a smog machine in your life. I have. The reduction in CO's is VERY large by adding a small % of alcohol in the gasoline. 20 to 25%. And then there is the reduction of HC's; around 5% or so.
It shows on the smog machine and these reductions are large.
Like I said above, I'm no alkie fan. But facts are facts and smog machines don't lie.
