Using ethanol free gas.

westend wrote:
Are those folks polled in areas where Ethanol added gas has recently been introduced? Is E10 new to some areas of the US and Canada?

There's no way to tell where the people responding are from.

AFAIK there's not been any new areas getting E10 that didn't previously have it in 5 years.

An interesting aside though, while the government doesn't like people talking about fuel spiking, an article from 2012 made this interesting statement;

"Suspicions that the industry is topping the tank with ethanol have arisen because of a dramatic surge of imports from the U.S., which rose 150 per cent last year to 1.1 billion litres, the equivalent of more than 10,000 rail tank cars."

It's interesting because fuel consumption stayed the same and no new areas required increased ethanol content.

So the $64 dollar question is where did the extra 365 million litres (96.5 million US gallons) of ethanol go if not into the gasoline supply chain?

Are those folks polled in areas where Ethanol added gas has recently been introduced? Is E10 new to some areas of the US and Canada? I don't keep track of Ethanol's introduction to different areas as in MN it has been mandated for many years. I kind of assumed it was used everywhere and has been that way for years. I haven't traveled out of State for many years and if I did, probably didn't pay attention.

Grit dog wrote:

gazingm42 wrote:
Yes it improving my mileage about 4 MPG. I jumped from 14 in the city to over 18.

Umm, no it didn't.
And unless you are storing the truck for a while, save your $ and don't bother with no E gas. It's not going to hurt anything in newer vehicles if used while fresh.
Same truck running 100% no E gas in AK, averaged 12-13 mpg commuting, sea level. In WA, similar commute, sea level, ethanol, avg 12-13 mpg.

Rick Jay wrote:
On all of our vehicles, I've noticed about a 10% decrease in real world mpg.

When we first got the motorhome, it was averaging about high 7's to low 8's for mpg. Once the E10 became all we could get, that range dropped to high 6's to low 7's.

I know what the math numbers (and the government) say, but every one of my vehicles disagrees with those numbers. A 10% decrease is what I observe.


Sure wish we could get real gas again.

~Rick

So are you saying these two members are lying, or they just don't know what they're talking about?

If you read the results of folks responding to fuel economy polls, the largest group is saying they are losing +10% on E10.

gazingm42 wrote:
Yes it improving my mileage about 4 MPG. I jumped from 14 in the city to over 18.

Umm, no it didn't.
And unless you are storing the truck for a while, save your $ and don't bother with no E gas. It's not going to hurt anything in newer vehicles if used while fresh.
Same truck running 100% no E gas in AK, averaged 12-13 mpg commuting, sea level. In WA, similar commute, sea level, ethanol, avg 12-13 mpg.

I have a hard time believing these huge fuel economy hits from the ethanol additive. Wish it wasn't there, feel it does have slight fuel economy hit. I think what is posted above is extreme worst case scenarios. Would like to test but availability is issue. Also my gut reaction is the economy I'm getting is in line with the machinery involved.

What I do think is a common and large impact on fuel economy which isn't often mentioned is air density issues. Between elevation and warm summer temperatures the air resistance can be more than 25 percent lighter than cold dense air at sea level. On a non aerodynamic RV this can be a big deal. For info look at aircraft density altitude charts.

B.O. Plenty wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
E free gas will give you about 4 to 5% difference in mileage.

If anybody tells you appreciably more their math is wrong or their testing is flawed.

E gas will always give you more power because of the O2 and cooling effect it give your engine.

Totally agree! How can eliminating the 10% alcohol give you an additional 6 mpg on the highway..I'm gonna have to throw the BS flag on that one.

B.O.

Because that 10% ethanol accounts for about 3 points of octane and when the ethanol has absorbed 0.5% of water (to the entire E10 volume) the gasoline can no longer hold the ethanol in solution and the now 'pregnant' (water-laden) alcohol settles to the bottom of the tank.

You now have fuel tank of ~84 octane gas with some very water-laden alcohol laying on the bottom.

Do you really think going from 87 to 84 octane and with NO oxygenators in it is only going to give you a 4 or 5% loss in mileage?

Even big reputable sources like Road & Track magazine call 6 to 10% 'typical' and that's with fresh fuel and no other issues.

Here in my neck of the woods, you can't get E0 at the pumps. If you want it, you have to have a fuel tank (likely an above ground tank, since it is exempt from a metric ton of regulations assuming non-commercial use), and a fuel supply company can sell you that.

There is a RaceTrac (sp) near me (Commerce, GA) and 100% gas is around $.85 more than E10. I use 100% in my Honda 2K and Weed eater only. No way at those prices is it cost effective to use 100% in my vehicle.
Marvin

We have a couple of Sinclair gas dealers who sell 100 % gas around here. Its 37 cents higher than E10.
I use the 100 percent in my 223 23 hp Grasshopper and GT1862 18 hp Cub Cadet.

I've used E85 and E10 and real gas in the wifes 5.3 1500 crew cab chevy 4x4 which can use E85. It takes several tanks of all gas to make the change over for accuracy. 100 percent gas gave another 1 to 1.5 mpg average over 5-6 tank refills.

There should be no subsidy for ethanol gas in the first place. And it should be taxed at the same rate as regular gasoline.

If a new power source can't compete on it's on with out taxpayer money, or borrowed government money, it shouldn't exist.

When gasoline get too expensive, then alternate sources become more economically viable.

tatest wrote:
Here it might cost 10 cents to 40 cents more per gallon, at 30 cents it doesn't save me money in improved MPG. So I don't seek out the stations that have it. Lately about $2.40 for E10 or less, $2.70 for no ethanol. One of my vehicles is flex fuel, and I actually save money running E85 if the price is at least 60 cents lower, but I lately been finding that only in a couple of corn belt states that totally forego road taxes on E85. The Federal subsidy for ethanol has been shrinking, and may not much longer even cover the higher production costs.

I do buy it for my small engines, but all of those together don't use more than four gallons a year, so at twice as much it might be worth it to avoid equipment trouble on the tiny two-strokes.