MPG difference btw. E10 and E0 gasoline?

[kennybobby]

i have a problem with their conclusion #2, that ethanol E20 produced higher torque at all speeds,etc. This statement makes me think that they don't know how an eddy current dyno operates or how to interpret the results.

My point is that an engine does not produce torque based upon its speed, but that the speed an engine turns is a function of the torque load on the shaft, the throttle opening, the spark advance, the fuel pulsewidth timing, etc. Speed is not an independent variable, but a result that depends upon the input conditions. Torque is the load on the engine and is not a function of speed.

On an eddy current dyno you set the torque load and it remains fixed at that torque regardless of speed. The engine throttle, fuel, spark, etc. are then adjusted to a set point, and then the speed is measured. Adjust to new set point, measure speed again. Collect data and plot torque on x-axis and speed on y-axis with family of curves for the different throttle openings, fuel timing, ignition, etc. They did not appear to do this in their testing.

[TruckFan]

I get about +1 MPG with non ethanol gas when it's available. Pretty significant seeing as this brings me from about 9.5MPG to 10.5 MPG.

[TruckFan]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

I had a 2002 FFV suburban, over the years of my wife driving it most of the time it got 15.0 with E10, 12.5 with E85(records on Fuelly) Didn't use E85 till later in it's live, if I deleted the early 18-19 E10 tanks, not sure that 15 mpg would hold up.

David

We've got a 2003 Suburban 5.3 which has averaged 15.1MPG over its 185k mile life running on primarily e10. The few times it's had non-ethanol fuel run through it MPG increases by about 10%. Highway MPG has always been good with that car. It's not hard to consistently get 20MPG on e10 on trips loaded down with stuff running 55-70 mph. It goes down to about 19 MPG with the luggage carrier on top, and about 14 mpg towing a 4k lb dual axle trailer. It's been a good one.

I know what you mean about the e85. It usually really bashes MPG. But then again in many cases cost per mile is cheaper with it. Then you have the downfall of filling up more often too. In a Suburban like you're talking about, that's about 75 miles less to the tank running on e85. Not a big deal as long as you live in a populated area. I've talked to people out in the west (Wyoming, Utah) who won't run e85 because getting less miles to the tank can be a bigger danger when you can run roads for hours without ever passing a gas station.

I've rambled...

[yoyoyoda]

I knew ethanol was trouble. This just affirms it.

I've been noticing slightly rougher operation of my 5SFE engine while on E10.
I've noticed that it has reduced power output too.

I filled up one day with premo and it just felt better (had slightly more cajones at lower rpm/off from stop), the only difference however is in 1st gear, no other gears or speeds show an improvement, once it shifts up to 2nd the difference disappears.

It just feels wrong to me, I wrongly assumed/thought that I was doing something good for the environment while running on 10% ethanol, lower emissions, flowers out the tailpipe, etc.

I'll be running only 95 primo from now on methinks.

This is the typical Aussie viewpoint on fuel: http://theoldbloke.homestead.com/ethanol.html

This is what our pumps look like: (Not usually burnt out cars and firemen at them tho)

[TruckFan]

I'm surprised that some of you all still have good access to non-ethanol blend fuel. Around here pretty much everything has been e10 for about a decade. I can find it a few places out into the country a bit, but I don't see it often. Oh, marinas also have it since it's better not to have ethanol in boats where fuel sits for a while. They tack close to a dollar onto the price though (about $4.60 for 93 octane).

[wdb]

Originally Posted by TruckFan

They tack close to a dollar onto the price though (about $4.60 for 93 octane).

That's the story in this part of the boondocks too. There's a local mom-n-pop luring folks in with E0, but it ain't cheap. I use it for the small engines (mower, snow blower, etc.) because it holds up well over time, and I ran a few tanks in my STi just for grins. The STi is noticeably less spunky on E0 91 octane than it is on Sunoco E(up to)10 93. But then it's turbocharged, and the STi folks who can get it seem to lovelovelove E85, so there may be something twisty going on there.

[cowmeat]

We have the "no ethanol" available in central Florida since so many people use it in their boats here, so I decided to try a tankful in my Festiva, even though it was about 60 cents a gallon more than E10.
After a 400 mile tank with negligible results, so I went back to regular unleaded after that. I have it documented somewhere back in my Fuelly.com records, but I definitely remember that I was not impressed.

[TruckFan]

I really hope we don't see anything more than e10 become mainstream soon. Older cars just can't handle but so much ethanol in fuel systems and engines that aren't meant for it.

[D.O.G.]

Here's a comparison from 2012.

Unleaded vs E10—the comparison test | carsguide.com.au

NSW gov. has been going to end ULP (E0) availability since 2012, but the date gets delayed ... and delayed ... and delayed.
Now, after only having one local (small) service station selling ULP for a few years, two big chain service stations have started selling ULP again. I'm hoping it's a sign that ULP will continue for years to come.

The list of (Australian market) E10 compatible cars only lists Mazdas from 2005 onwards, so I shouldn't use it in Baa anyway.

[litesong]

I have 3 NA cars with many years of data with 87 octane 10% ethanol blends(E10), & many years of data with 87 octane 100% gasoline (E0). All 3 cars show mpg increases for E0 of 8%, 7% & 5%. All engines run smoother, quieter & with a trace extra low rpm torque, such that less downshifting is needed to ascend hills. 87 octane E0 is comprised of gasoline molecules averaging 87 octane(duh!). 87 octane E10 has ethanol molecules that average 114 octane of which 87 octane gasoline engines, as coming from the factory, are NOT designed to burn efficiently. ALSO, the gasoline molecules must average 84 octane, IF an average octane of 87 is to be created, while blending 10% ethanol. Yeah, even the 84 octane gasoline molecules aren't right for an 87 octane gasoline engine.

There is a difference of 3 percentage points in gasoline molecules, comparing 87 octane E10 to 87 octane E0, which doesn't include the ethanol difference. If your 87 octane gasoline engine isn't performing right with octane 87 E10..... try some 87 octane E0!!!

This is simple: gasoline engine engineers designed 87 octane gasoline engines to run best with 87 octane 100% E0. Ethanol engine engineers designed 114 octane ethanol engines to run best with 114 octane 100% ethanol. Ethanol/gasoline blends run neither gasoline or ethanol engines best.