E0 91 octane versus E10 87 octane

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Doesn't that suck my data supports your position, and my selection of your data supports mine.

ha ha ha Well, I do see how your long term data supports my position. My initial Elantra data never was meant to compare E0 & E10, since(as you note), my E10 use was too sparse. For years, the E0/E10 price gap has increased here, specially during fuel price drops. & since the collapsed E10 prices last year, E0 has been as much as 20% (even 40%) more expensive than E10 in our region. I've had to use E10. Since oil companies are offering more E0(E0 listings have increased to 9253 sources), I think oil companies have to pay more EPA penalties(thus the far greater E0 price). However, states like Oklahoma still have good E0 prices. I hate filling at gas stations & miss the greater range & 400+ miles per tank as often as I used to with E0(a trace smoother idle, quieter & a bit greater low rpm torque, too).

Just add your E0 data to your continuing E0 long term data. As I said already, short term data is fun, but long term data is for......believing. I think you must be a careful driver. There are hints that E0 shows its greatest increase over 10% ethanol blends for careful drivers who don't push their engines hard.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

I still believe Same day data best, short time (weeks) is next best, year long worst, parts fail slowly.

For one of my past cars, I had long term E10 mpg records. When I finally got into E0, the car had 40,000+(?) more miles, when tested with E0(on up to 100,000 miles). The other two cars also had initial E10 mpg records, when I switched to E0 for later long term mpg records. As stated often, E0 showed 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than E10 for the 3 cars.

[roosterk0031]

Since I exported my fuel log to a spreadsheet yesterday it's easy to play with, I further narrowed the seasonal windows to remove spring and fall.

Summers (May-August) E10 average 41.75 mpg over 11,213 miles, E0 43.35 of 11,366 miles. 3.7% loss in mpg E0 to E10

Winters (Nov-Feb) E10 averaged 38.06 mpg over 16,198 miles, E0 39.85 over 4,549 miles. 4.4% loss.

Spring (March & April) E10 39.5 over 5981 miles, E0 40.2 over 5232 miles (1.7%)

Fall (Sept & October) E10 40.67 over 8163, E0 44.2 over 6220 miles (8%).

So it seem the other 3 seasons are good at the 4ish percent, but for some reason the fall pulls the overall down to 6%.

Still planning on doing a test this weekend, but it's going to be E0 vs some blend since unless I run it empty I won't be able to get E10 in it. I'll start with about half tank of E0, make the A runs, top off with E85 and make the B runs. Next time I'll start with E10 in the tank, make the B runs with another blend and get 4 points to graph.

Follow that up with second set of A runs the 3rd weekend.

[roosterk0031]

Just noticed my highest average came in the Fall with E0, Fall E10 dropped a 1 mpg vs Summer but Fall E0 picked up almost 1 mpg vs Summer making the biggest gap between the two fuels. Looks like my best tank ever was in the fall with E0 at 47.


So last tweak of the spread sheet, removed September and October from E0 and E10 logs, Over 17,000 miles E0 netted 41.29 mpg, over 33,000 E10 netted 39.48. 4.4% loss, not sure what the real % should be, found one source moments ago that gave BTU content of each and it came out to 3.4%, the number I found a long time ago said 3.6% so its somewhere in that range(guessing it came from the North Dakota study).

Also another source stating winter gas is 1.7% lower than summer gas.

[litesong]

With total E0 sources listed at pure- gas. org, at 9174, only 9% more will see 10,000!!!! – litesong, Everett, WA (April 7, 2015).......Presently, at 9261 E0 source listings, pure-gas.org only needs 8% more to reach 10,000!!! – litesong, Everett, WA (April 30, 2015)

[roosterk0031]

3538 Stations selling E85. 117 new in April 2015

E85 Prices

Average US E0 pure Gas $2.74, E85 $ 1.98,

My local E85 is $1.58, pure gas this morning was $2.79. I think that's cheap enough to cover the 20-30% mileage loss.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by litesong

Presently, at 9261 E0 source listings, pure-gas.org only needs 8% more to reach 10,000!!!

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

3538 Stations selling E85.

Tho EPA & "ethanol in gasoline" federal & state gov't de-regulated, lawed, & restricted, E0 grassroots sources way out-weigh EPA & "ethanol in gasoline" mandated, encouraged, propagandized, & gasoline engine-forced E85 sources.

Despite decades of one-sided gov't & business interference, "American grassroots know-how" know that ethanol does not belong in a gasoline engine, but in an ethanol engine. Yeah, ethanol engine engineers know how to build ethanol engines to run on 100% ethanol & gasoline engine engineers know how to build gasoline engines to run on 100% gasoline. Ethanol, needing high 114 octane, high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines, can NOT burn efficiently in low 87 octane, low compression ratio (9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines.

[roosterk0031]

Frankly I don't understand or care about your cut and paste argument, ethanol was required in some areas to replace MTBE that was poisoning ground water and provide cleaner air.

Did check out puregas website, saw they had 430 stations listed in MN, but that fuel is for off-road use only(not clearly mentioned on the site). And they say on the front page don't delete station that only sale fuel for off-road purposes. The voters of MN elected officials and they voted that all on-road fuel has to have 10% ethanol. Their choice not yours or mine, I perfer the option.

Having never ventured outside the midwest states on E85prices till today. I was surprised how few stations out there have E85, I think it was 11 in Wasington. Iowa has 230. No one is reporting prices in Washington I was just curious what E85 is running for out there.

I really only have 2 reason I like ethanol and E85, #1 if it save me money per mile. And #2 it keeps US dollars in US.

Not being a global warming believer I don't have a care about CO in the air, but if I'm wrong it helps there for my kids.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Frankly I don't understand or care......

Yes, we understand that.

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

....ethanol was required in some areas to replace MTBE....

Modern oil refining & vehicle emissions improvements, now have gasoline vehicles testing with E0(no ethanol, no MTBE), given excellent emissions reports, even to vehicles with 100,000 miles.

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Did check out puregas website, saw they had 430 stations listed in MN....but that fuel is for off-road use only

MN has 460(not 430) E0 sources. So many, that coupled with Wisconsin E0 sources(764+ 460= 1224), by far they have the most E0 sources of any two bordering state pairings in the country. Wisconsin E0 sources blend into Minnesota E0 sources with no ability to detect the border between the states. A bulging thick triangle(& beyond) of very concentrated E0 sources cover Green Bay, WI, south to west of Milwaukee, WI, & west, past Minneapolis, MN. Many many E0 sources line major freeways in WI & MN, & Minneapolis has the most crowded E0 sources of nearly all cities in the country. Enforcement of any pro- "ethanol in gasoline industry" law, is lax or non-existent. Possibly you mistake the MN law, eliminating required labeling of gas tanks as to whether they are 10% ethanol blends or 100% ethanol-free gasoline?

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

I was surprised how few stations out(west?) there have E85, I think it was 11 in Wasington(sic)...... it(ethanol?) keeps US dollars in US. Not being a global warming believer I don't have a care about CO in the air.....

Yeah, Washington state & many others hate E85. Ethanol keeps no U.S. dollars in the U.S. The "ethanol in gasoline industry" uses more oil (to produce ethanol, transport it to blenders, then transport it to gas stations, supports "ethanol in gasoline" propaganda & industry, then wastes ethanol burning inefficiently in gasoline engines) than ethanol can ever save.

CO2(not CO), plus methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, & other man-made, infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs, plus positive(bad) feedbacks, plus increased atmospheric infra-red energy absorbing, phase-change water vapor(controlled by man-made non-phase change GHGs), plus positive(bad) feedbacks, cause AGW.

[tyronasauras]

data point: 1,350 mi trip to Fl E0 31.31 mpg Return 30.15 w E10 .... So about a 3.75% reduction in MPG. Had a bit more weight, but should have hurt too much on the highway.