Vlad_Type_S

iTrader: (3)

There are a ton of MPG threads on here and this is not my intent on creating this thread. I used to live in the lovely Fox Valley, WI. Available there is 91 octane fuel with NO ethanol: 100% pure gas. I now live in Chicago where we typically have 93 octane fuel with "up to" 10% ethanol. Even though 5% can comprise "up to" 10%, I'm quite sure it's something like 9.99% or so, so I'm not letting that terminology fool me.

Anyway, I used to drive between Chicago and Appleton every weekend. All this highway mileage piled up very quickly (probably on the order of 10-15k after over a year) and I had quite a steady sample of highway MPG: 31. After moving to Chicago, my highway MPG dropped to a steady 27 after a year of sampling it. While it is common knowledge that the accuracy of the MID is to be taken with a grain of salt, I like to think of this metric as similar to those body fat % meters: they are not accurate on their own, BUT they tend to be consistently inaccurate over the range and so you can accurately measure differences, not absolutes. So while the 31 and 27 MPG may not be accurate, I'm very confident that there is a difference of ~4 MPG between 93 octane/10% ethanol and 91 octane/0% ethanol.

I was back there this weekend and filled my baby up with some environmental durty drank! It got me thinking about the efficiency of ethanol. The purpose of me starting this thread is to ask about your experiences with different fuels. Anyone else run different ethanol content fuels and notice a significant difference? I know that ethanol contains less combustible energy than gasoline, but I didn't think it was 4 MPG worth!! What are your thoughts?

JTS97Z28

iTrader: (4)

Well first off I havent seen ethanol free fuels in the Chicago area for well over a decade now. I dont have a comparison or anything, but all my cars have done very well on fuel using whats available here around Chicago. Infact, my 07 Type S averages 24mpg out here in the suburbs without ever touching a highway. I cant imagine it being much better using anything else. I just dont see non-ethanol fuel being anywhere near 4mpg better. Maybe 1 I could see ai suppose. I hand calculate my mileage after each fillup at the same exact pump at the same station so I know my 24mpg calculations are as accurate as possible without getting super scientific. So if what your saying is correct, my Type S should get 28mpg with NO highway. There is simply no way it can achieve those numbers.
My good friend recently moved from the Chicago suburbs to Tucson AZ where he said fuel is ethanol free with his 2011 Cadillac CTS-V. He originally claimed improved fuel economy, but I think it was mostly due to living in the middle of absolute nowhere so his improvements were only from the lack of any stop and go driving. So im not saying ethanol free fuels dont help fuel economy, but I think it is MUCH less than some people claim.
It would be cool to be able to measure any differences, but unless someone knows of a place to get ethanol free fuel around me in Naperville IL, then I dont see that being a possibility.

James

ATLS_666

Shell v power has no ethanol

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

This conversation is old hat , but it's fun to talk about anyway. It's this easy:

1st - Yes, many have experienced this phenomenon, that is, a consistent 10% decrease in MPG from the 10% etOH in gasoline. From a chemical standpoint, etOH contains only a fraction of the energy that is found is gasoline. Therefore, via simply chemistry, you're going to suffer an equal mileage loss equivilant to the reduced energy potential from added etOH. Usually it's less than 10% since etOH contains some energy (just not nearly as much as gasoline). So while it burns much cleaner than gasoline, you're simply having to use more gasoline to get the same result yielding no actual pollution reduction.

2nd - The reason etOh is in gasoline is NOT because it's somehow better for the environment. After accounting for milage loss, we're breaking even (actually, not even that, see "3rd"). etOH is in gasoline because of the ethanol/corn lobby convincing the government to add it.

3rd - Adding etOH is actually worse for the environment because of the energy (in the form of fossil fuels - coal and oil) required to manufacture ethanol.

It's a lose/lose for the american consumer but a great way for government lobbiests to line their pockets. It's a steaming pile of horse

pohljm

highway driving in Chicago isnt the same as in WI.

vietxquangstah

iTrader: (7)

Shell gas station here says there ethanol in the gas.

05_NBP_TL

iTrader: (1)

My local shell gas station has ethonal in it (up to 10%).

But there are two gas stations that I stop by IF traveling that way that are ethanol free 91 octane. Not going to drive out of my way for them (30 minutes away), but I do occasionally drive that route and I will fill up when passing thru.

Vlad_Type_S

iTrader: (3)

I had a feeling that I was missing something lol. I wasn't aware of the politics of this. Wow. Yeah my measurement technique isn't very scientific I suppose. And to your point pohljm, highway driving here is different. But my commute is basically the entire stretch of 294N from 90 to 94: this stretch very rarely has any traffic. And these FIBs (Fuckin' Illinois Bastards, as the cheeseheads call us) fly down going at least 75, usually much faster. This is the stretch of road that I was measuring it: I was trying to keep conditions as similar as possible. Same speed, usually 73 and no extra weight. I guess 4MPG is too large, but if you're talking a 10% reduction, 30->27 is a perfect fit, so I suppose this is no surprise.

My bad for resurrecting a dead subject!!!

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

^ Yup. It's no plain mystery. There's a station up by the University of Utah I used to go to regularly that sold ethanol-free fuel. I'd typically get a 1-2mpg increase when I filled up there. Occasionally even 3mpg. It's too far out of my way to go there now that I'm finished with school. The old-timers will swear you'll get more power out of 100% gasoline as well. I can't say I ever noticed more power from the butt-dyno. But the mileage difference was clearly apparent.

JTS97Z28

iTrader: (4)

So is it true that Shell V Power is ethanol free? I never heard of and every Shell station I fill up says "contains up to 10% ethanol". It's just a basic sticker stuck on the pump and doesn't specify which grade, I just assumed it means all grades may contain up to 10% ethanol.

nttstt444

iTrader: (1)

I have always used Shell V-power 91 in the TL and previous vehicles. Its an extremely rare occurrence that I use anything else. But all the Shell pumps around where I live have the "may contain up to 10% ethanol" sticker on them as well. Ever since MTBE was phased out iv always heard rumors that the premium shell was ethanol free but I have never really known for sure. I also have never known if that sticker refers to just the regular unleaded or all 3 grades.

you8myrice

Shells in my area have no ethanol in 91 and up to 10% in 87

mau108

Shells in Canada for the most part have their 91 octane that is e free.

All other stations and grades of Shell have up to 10% ethanol.

My trips down to the US when filling up the rentals shell there all have up to 10% e

tihomirbg

iTrader: (1)

I don't know if this is of how much ethanol each have but i find the gas from Mobil to last longer and get better mpg than Shell V power. Then again this might be of different driving style each time i fill up

ALarsh

I actually just got in from a trip through the Fox Valley. I saw 32 MPG after filling up with 91 w/o ethanol. I was getting 28 to 29 with ethanol. Ethanol sucks.

1995hoo

It depends on where you are.

I saw a gas station a couple of weeks ago that had a price for regular 87-octane and then a higher price right underneath for "regular (no ethanol)." I can't for the life of me remember where that was, though. I suspect it was somewhere in Maryland or West Virginia on our trip to Pennsylvania two weeks ago because I don't know of any gas station in the DC area that sells gas without the ethanol.

DMZ

Maybe that's part of the reason I have the BEST throttle response on V-Power versus any other brand.


.
.

bigballer8526

I live like 10 miles north of you on 59. No, all our gas has ethanol.

I hate cars

Agreed. As usual, a small group of people get rich, we all pay the price, it's the new American way.

Ethanol has about 1/2 the energy content of gasoline so you have to burn twice as much to get the same power. Or said another way you get 1/2 the mpg. The plus is it's led to huge OEM fuel injectors. In the old days, injectors capable of supporting 800hp with only 6 of them idled terribly and had bad street manners; they were not linear through their flow range and did not like the super short pulsewidth required at idle.

Now we have large injectors as OEM equipment on many flex fuel cars that have great street manners and are used as aftermarket injectors on many high hp gasoline engines. Many flex fuel cars also have huge gas tanks which is nice when you run it on gasoline. Some of our work vehicles have 35 gallon tanks where they used to hold 22-ish gallons.

But yeah, if the car has not been optimized for this fuel, mileage sucks. If these a**holes did not lower the octane of the gasoline mixed with ethanol we would have higher octane with 10% ethanol but of course they use a lower octane gasoline and bring the octane back up with the ethanol mix. The ECU would see little to no knock retard and it would advance timing slightly, making up for part of the mpg loss but that's too much to ask for.

As is typical for the government, they do a piss poor job of "research", not that they actually care about what's better for us or the environment. Sure, the ethanol mix is ever so slightly cleaner through the tailpipe which is the selling point to the general public. However, you're burning a larger volume of it due to the lower BTU content. It also takes a ton of hydrocarbon fuel to produce Ethanol. In the end it's worse for the environment but hey, it's cleaner out the tailpipe and leaving out all of the other facts makes it easy to sell to the public. Kind of like electric cars. They have "zero emissions". I guess that's true, the car puts out no emissions.... but the coal burning power plant 100 miles away that supplied the energy puts out a whole hell of a lot more pollutants than a modern ULEV or PZEV car does for the same power.

My TL with the 3rd cat removed had it's first official smog test which is it's second test. The first one when it had a few thousand miles on it had almost zero hydrocarbons. This last one with 120,000 miles had absolutely zero hydrocarbons. While that's not the only pollutant we're concerned with, show me a coal burning power plant that puts out that low of emissions for a given power output. Ethanol mix in the fuel is not needed nor is it good for the car or the environment. If they actually cared about mpg they would have left the gasoline's octane the same and let the car manufacturers take advantage of the 95-96 octane with more ignition timing to get back some of the losses.

Another problem with ethanol is it can cause the car to run leaner. The ECU has a target AFR to hit under various conditions and it uses the 02 sensors to make sure it's hitting that target. Introduce the ethanol mix without changing the target and you end up with a lean condition...... Say it's shooting for 14.7:1, stoich for gasoline and it hits the target AFR as it should. The ECU and 02 sensors are doing their job just fine. The problem is, 14.7 is very lean for ethanol. With only a 10% mix the car still runs and it runs acceptable but it most definitely is not going to run at it's best.

I'm going off topic but I believe diesel is the best thing we currently have, at least in the near future. Emissions are now low. They no longer sound like a diesel or smell like a diesel or have NVH like a diesel. My friend's Jetta TDI gets 44mpg in town and that's not driving it easy. He's hit 59-60mpg on the freeway a couple times driving it nicely. No batteries and no coal burning power plants to supply the power.

I hate cars

My car has been run on Shell and Chevron since it was driven off the lot in '05. The two have very good but very different additive chemistries; they clean in two different ways. I figured alternating between the two should be good. Sure enough, the piston tops are nearly spotless, shiny in most places. The intake valves look like the engine has never been started up, they look brand new. I'm extremely happy with this combo.

I can't say my car runs better on either one. I'm pretty sure ethanol or no ethanol depends more on your region than the brand of gasoline.

JTS97Z28

iTrader: (4)

^^^thats good to know thanks for the info.

Vlad_Type_S

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for that response IHC! I always enjoy reading your insight!

However, some years ago I recall reading a publication about the true emissions of the Tesla Roadster. Of course, the car itself produces nil, but to your point, there are many more polluting ways that electricity itself is generated. They presented a figure that compared the emissions of gasoline vehicles. I don't recall what the metric was, but I do recall that it was very thorough and examined various pollutants by mass to create a level rating system for each vehicle; I think the figure was expressed as pollutants per mile. They used national averages of power sources to determine the emissions generated from driving a Roadster and even though burning coal and oil is very inefficient as you have stated, it was still leaps ahead of any gasoline powered automobile due to the increase of various energy sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc. I perceived that as a very honest approach since they could easily market the vehicle as zero emissions, but they took the time to analyze the pollutants of creating the electricity that the vehicle actually uses.

I wish I still had a link to that publication, but they present a much simpler version of such an explanation on their website about the Model S: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity

Also, I recently read a fascinating article about the true emissions claims made against the Model S. Unfortunately I am not convinced that driving an electric vehicle pollutes more than a gasoline vehicle, especially in the same class. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...re-than-an-suv

Jackass

As others have stated, it depends on where you are. The gasoline formulas are regulated at the state and sometimes local level in the US. In MO stations are not required to declare they have Ethanol in them although state law requires E10 for under 91 octane. 91 octane and higher is NOT required to have Ethanol, but it may....it doesn't have to be labeled.

For what its worth, I see a MPG difference between 91 and 93 octane of what I assume is E10. QT doesn't publish if their premium is Ethanol free or not, but I can fill up in a KC QT with 91 octane and then fill up in a Columbia QT with 93 octane and my MPG will go up a tad.

Scottwax

Ethanol is all about keeping farmers and environmentalists happy with no regard to how it affects everyone else. And in the DFW area, I believe all gas contains 10% ethanol, even Top Tier rated gas.

At least we get 93 octane premium here.

dannyz

Good discussion. Here's a resource for those looking to find stations in their area selling pure gas without ethanol: http://pure-gas.org/ I've found pure gas stations with this site.

If I can find pure gas, and it's not ridiculously priced, I much prefer it. For older fuel-injected cars (pre late 90s), ethanol gas can be seriously destructive to fuel injectors and fuel systems. Early injectors were not designed to deal with the corrosive effects of ethanol alcohol (and the water it attracts), so expensive failure is common. Ethanol is hydrophillic, meaning that it attracts water molecules (including from water vapor in the atmosphere and condensation found in fuel systems). This can also cause real problems for modern cars as well.

Ethyl Alcohol acts as to raise the effective octane (raises predetonation ping resistance) when mixed with gasoline, not because of the quality of the gasoline's octane hydroxl units, but because of the volatility characteristics of alcohol--which means you're paying a higher pump price for an inferior product.

Ethanol is a frustrating ripoff of consumers, with the corn lobby making billions (along with the politicians they support to pass fuel laws). We get worse gas mileage, pay a premium at the pump, and can experience fuel system problems. They are now experimenting with E15 in very select places, which from my research, does not appear safe for our TLs or most non-flex fuel cars.

nfnsquared

Meh, just got 31 mpg on a 252 mile run today, avg MPH=65 while running 93 octane E10.

ND has had E10 for a few years now. I honestly cannot tell a difference. Still average 30-31 mpg highway...