Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
BTU content does NOT directly translate to BSFC! You say ethanol has 33% less energy BUT I challenge you or anyone else to prove that results in an exactly 33% fe reduction. Cuz it DOESN'T. Ethanol is an oxygenated fuel and burns a bit differently.
|
I have a '97 Merc Villager that gets between 20-21 mpg. When I ran e-85, I managed 17+ mpg (17.4 I think). My algebra is a bit rough, but e-100 would have netted 13.2 mpg, so 17 mpg isn't bad.
I ran e-85 in my 98 Maxima (remember, neither one is an official "flex fuel" vehicle, just fuel injected.) I got 22 mpg, when I was getting about 25 mpg. This figure is a bit unreliable since I was stuck in a bad traffic jam for a while on this and I was running the AC pretty heavy. Again, nowhere near the 33% reduction; it was actually a decent tank. I had a vacuum leak at the time, and that made things a bit rough in that it kept dying on me. AND I wasn't on an economy run, more like a lets get our butts home ASAP run.
While it may have less energy to burn, it does burn a bit differently, and may offset its lower energy content with a slightly more efficient burn per available BTU.