Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-30-2011, 03:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryland View Post
I tend to see a 10% drop in mileage, a friend of mine with a chevy half ton truck sees a 15% to 20% drop in mileage, my parents in their Geo Metro see a 10% to 15% drop as well, enough to make it worth spending the extra money on non E10.
But when the ethanol price break is a bigger percentage than the ethanol fe penalty, you come out ahead.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-30-2011, 05:07 PM   #12 (permalink)
OCD Master EcoModder
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern CT, USA
Posts: 1,936

Outasight - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.18 mpg (US)
Thanks: 431
Thanked 396 Times in 264 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
But when the ethanol price break is a bigger percentage than the ethanol fe penalty, you come out ahead.
But the price break is only there because ethanol is subsidized. Well, oil is subsidized also, if you consider the costs of our armed forces in various parts of the world protecting our "interests". I admit that I digress.
__________________
Coast long and prosper.
Driving '00 Honda Insight, acquired Feb 2016.


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 06:08 PM   #13 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
I don't care about subsidies as I have no control over them anyway.

Feel free to boycott everything that has a subsidy. I think you'll be surprised at the variety of things you'll have to forego.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 06:33 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: WI
Posts: 473
Thanks: 157
Thanked 77 Times in 55 Posts
My experience with my cycle has been that going from E10 87 octane to 91 w/o I see a 4% increase in mileage. My hwy mileage went from a consistent 53 to 55 with the switch. I recently found 87 octane (recommended) w/o Ethanol, and hope to see additional improvements.

87 w/o Ethanol is $ .10 more per gal.


Jay
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 10:30 PM   #15 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
...higher (due to breathing the 'fumes'?) mathematics:

MPG: 4% = 4/100

COST: 10¢ = 10/100

...so, it's costing you more than it's improving your FE.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 11:34 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: WI
Posts: 473
Thanks: 157
Thanked 77 Times in 55 Posts
Well it doesn't matter to me if it costs slightly more, because I don't run E10 in my cycle if I don't have to, but...

Mileage w/ Ethanol = 53
Mileage w/o Ethanol = 55
= 4% increase w/o Ethanol

87 w Ethanol = $3.65 (+ 4% = $3.79)
87 w/o Ethanol = $3.75 (3% more)

So according to my math I'm ahead.

EDIT: What's "due to breathing the fumes" supposed to mean?

Jay

Last edited by jkv357; 07-30-2011 at 11:56 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 10:02 AM   #17 (permalink)
toc
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 179

Sonata97 - '97 Hyundai Sonata GL
90 day: 25.96 mpg (US)

Pulsar - '03 Nissan Pulsar ST
Team Nissan
90 day: 36.09 mpg (US)

Lancer - '04 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 31.11 mpg (US)

Lancer 2.0 - '09 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 27.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
E10 is ultimately bad.
It contains less energy than is used to produce it.

The production of it takes up valuable farming land - land which otherwise would produce food, a far more useful commodity.

The burning of ethanol produces far worser gases than that of 91, 95 or 98RON ULP.

The outcome of using E10 is that you will end up needing more fuel to travel the same distance (less energy content, less energy can be derived from it, you can't break the laws of thermodynamics)

The price of E10 may be cheaper per L, but on a kM/L basis, you should come out ahead in price terms by using 95 RON fuel (and it's better for your engine).

LPG is a cheaper fuel here in Australia, used in taxis as it's 'the cheapest' fuel, the trouble is you need more of it to get the same distance as ULP. It's significantly cheaper (50% cheaper), but we are depleting the resources faster than ever, and so using it for a fuel isn't the best of decisions.

I place Ethanol in the same LPG basket, sure, it might be cheaper to some extent (not cheap enough here for me), but if you look at the real costs of it, you are paying the difference through either the poorer quality air breathed in, to higher priced food due to lack of farming land / lack of interested farmers if Ethanol is more attractive to them.

I realise that this price specific points would apply to Australia and not necessarily in the USA, my point is that the number of L required to produce x KM is a consideration, I wouldn't buy 36L of E10 for 380kM if I can get 450kM from 36L of 95RON. I still wouldn't buy E10 if I could get 420kM - the food & environmental impacts will cost more than the savings.

Ethanol in fuels is madness, it's like saving 5c worth of fuel coasting in neutral, but getting a fine because you went downhill 10kM faster as a result of coasting.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 10:46 AM   #18 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,203

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Mitsubishi
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)

Daox's Volt - '13 Chevrolet Volt
Thanks: 2,501
Thanked 2,587 Times in 1,554 Posts
I'd be very interested in seeing any info you have to back up the ethanol info you just posted. I've talked with a few guys who have done E85 conversions with their vehicles and they basically say the exact opposite. I know they've done quite a bit of research on the topic so I'm curious if you have any studies, papers, or anything that backs up your info. I don't have any, so I can't say for sure one way or another and call it fact. I have always heard that ethanol burns "cleaner" than gasoline though.
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 10:55 AM   #19 (permalink)
toc
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 179

Sonata97 - '97 Hyundai Sonata GL
90 day: 25.96 mpg (US)

Pulsar - '03 Nissan Pulsar ST
Team Nissan
90 day: 36.09 mpg (US)

Lancer - '04 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 31.11 mpg (US)

Lancer 2.0 - '09 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 27.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
It's late here now, but sure, I'll get the information and update later on. I'm fairly sure - I've read each of those, in different places at one point or another in my online travels.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 12:18 PM   #20 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
02Sunfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 7

BlackSun - '02 Pontiac Sunfire SLX Coupe
90 day: 35.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Considering that ambient temperature and weather conditions are your biggest mileage variation factors, I would guess that it would be almost impossible to tell if E10 would actually raise/lower mileage compared to non-ethanol gasoline. You would never be able to repeat conditions.

__________________
Aiming for 40mpg in a quasi-econobucket with a fancy lid...
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 02Sunfire For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (07-31-2011)
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com