Thought I'd share recent mpg experiences with my 2013 awd RDX. I drive about 300 miles several times a month in the mountains of Idaho; it's about twists and turns, uphill and downhill, speeds between 40-70 mph. Using 91 octane gasoline containing "up to 10% ethanol" (that's what it says on the pump) I get about 31 mpg on the 300-mile highway trip.

With non-ethanol 91 octane gasoline (pure gas) the MPG is significantly better - a bit over 35 mpg. This happens consistently - every time I find non-ethanol fuel to fill up. The non-ethanol fuel costs about 5% more, but it's probably cost-effective in view of the 10%+ increase in economy.

Those of you who can find non-ethanol fuels in your neighborhood, go for it.

 

I wish they'd get rid of ethanol.

 

I'll second that! It's not an ideal fuel in any respect.

 

Except for the years of politics involved and plenty of money changing hands, 'they' could certainly relax the requirements for 10% ethanol. Somehow, I don't think we'll see improvement in that area.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/...n-the-way.html

E-15 on the way and the trouble with it.

 

Non-ethanol gasoline isn't impossible to find, but it's not as common as I'd like. Check this website for your location:

http://pure-gas.org/

woody

 

It is impossible in southern Cali

 

That's terrible...looks like southern NV isn't any better. Wonder why? Non-ethanol gas appears to be more available in most other states.

 

Only a handful of stations in the entire state of Texas, none central. Looks like my hometown of Columbia, SC has quite a few...IF we ever make that drive! I might mention it to my brother; but I'm sure my brother in law back there has some strong political opinions on the matter...never mind the mileage!

 

My local station just installed a new pump with non ethanol gas. I use it in my lawn equipment and prior to its availability the ethanol clogged my weed wacker carburetor so bad it had the be replaced. Wondering what it's doing to our cars.

 

While non-ethanol fuels will technically get better mileage, 10% is impossible.


Also, in MD/VA, the price difference between 89 and 91/93 octane is about 70 cents for E10 (10% ethanol) and you can add 55 cents for "E0".


The station in Leonardtown MD I drove by yesterday had 87 E10 for $2.39.9, E87 E0 for $2.99.9. The WaWa (brand name for those of you not familiar with the regional large station chains) a few blocks away was $1.99.9 and an Exxon a few miles down was $1.94.9 - both for E10 87. 91 at each station was $2.75.9. That would make the E0 91(had it been available at the first station) about $2.39.9 plus 75 cents or 3.14.9 plus 55 cents or $3.70.9. The 91 E0 may well cost more than the 55 cent premium as well.


Accordingly, that E0 doesn't cost you 10% more but more than 30% more than E0.


I don't like flushing money down the toilet. Do you?

 

A 3 to 4% increase in gas mileage can be expected when using E0. I can't make a cute link so here is the website


https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml


Accordingly, buy E0 if it costs about the same as E10. Anything more and it isn't worth it.

 

when I use non ethanol fuel in my CL-S I get 34mpg at70

 

I prefer non ethanol for my Vintage rides and since I don't drive them everyday the extra cost is worth it, IMO. Just trying to protect the internals.

 

E10 is really only intended for modern cars. Boats, water equipment and similar stuff would benefit from E0.