E0 91 octane versus E10 87 octane

[roosterk0031]

litesong's Profile | Fuelly

Picked 3 consecutive tank in Dec 2014 (5, 10 & 15% city driving) using ethanol over 891 miles you used 24.98 gallons for and average a 35.7 mpg.

Closest month I could find 3 consecutives using non-ethanol was Jan 2014 with similar (10, 10 & 15% city), over 1089 miles you used 29.4 gallons for 37 mpg.

1.3/37 = 3.5% loss in mileage.

The fuel log is there if anyone want to take a large sample size (or check my math) like say November thru April. That way the city driving factor should get cancelled out a little better, but avoid the warm weather advantage the complete Non-ethanol log has.

Per your logs 2015 annual reports E0 is $0.070/mile, E10 is $0.064 mile. Not much difference but E10's wins at 9.3% cheaper per mile. Not many mods can save 10% per mile.

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Interesting E50 is 96-97 octane, some E85 proponents would like E50 to be the standard due to the lower reduction in mileage than E85. I'd prefer every pump be a blender so I could choose the blend I like based on my cents/mile. E50 would be under $2 a gallon today.

I hate to admit it, but the learning curve for this wonderful idea is too steep for this country

No idea what it would take for the refiners to make 96 octane without ethanol, race gas down the street is $7 a gallon I think it's 104 octane. So a guess would be it would take a 50/50 blend of 104 and 85 to make 95, around $5 a gallon.

Now THAT would make mpg figures the #1 focal point of car manufacturers.

If 104 wasn't leaded here, I would mix it and 87 for a tank, just to see what would happen.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Dec 2014 (5, 10 & 15% city driving) using ethanol over 891 miles you used 24.98 gallons for and average a 35.7 mpg.

Jan 2014 with similar (10, 10 & 15% city), over 1089 miles you used 29.4 gallons for 37 mpg.

1.3/37 = 3.5% loss in mileage.

Chisel here, chisel there, chisel over that a way. I get 3.7% loss in mileage, when I don't chisel like you.... & that during ethanol use in a warmer December month than ethanol-free burning in a colder January month. Ya, you cherry-pick data & call your pickings not rotten. You're a 3-way chiseler.... & more. I do not accept your poor math, your 3 tank calculations, your comparisons of differing months, & your continuing twisted bias to get numbers you like.

& never did I use my Elantra to determine my years long comparison of 3 cars, obtaining 8%, 7%, & 5% difference between fake 10% ethanol blend & ethanol-free true gasoline.

You sneak around, biased & wrong.

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by litesong

Chisel here, chisel there, chisel over that a way. I get 3.7% loss in mileage, when I don't chisel like you....

1.3/37 = 3.5% loss in mileage.

Umm... His "chiseling" gave you an extra 0.2% of FE.

& that during ethanol use in a warmer December month than ethanol-free burning in a colder January month. Ya, you cherry-pick data & call your pickings not rotten. You're a 3-way chiseler.... & more. I do not accept your poor math, your 3 tank calculations, your comparisons of differing months, & your continuing twisted bias to get numbers you like.

& never did I use my Elantra to determine my years long comparison of 3 cars, obtaining 8%, 7%, & 5% difference between fake 10% ethanol blend & ethanol-free true gasoline.

You sneak around, biased & wrong.

Listen litesong, going after the data is fine. We draw the line when you start going after the person. I have already put a general warning in this thread, but I am giving another one more time, specifically for you.

Any more personal attacks and I'll use the banhammer without question.

If you disagree with the data presented, then prove this data wrong. Otherwise, be respectful and courteous. Thank you.

[roosterk0031]

If I was cherry picking I would have picked the 3 tanks of E0 before the ones I used as they were closer to the same date of the E10 tanks, but were listed at 20% city but would have left out that detail.

I just don't believe that a typical modern fuel injected engine designed to run 87 Octane fuel will lose much more than then BTU energy content of the fuel when running E10. Some studies actually show they do better than the BTU content.

"Previous assumptions held that ethanol’s lower energy content should always directly correlate with lower fuel economy for drivers. Those assumptions were found to be wrong. Instead, the new research strongly suggests that there is an “optimal blend level” of ethanol and gasoline—most likely E20 or E30 — at which cars will get better mileage than predicted based strictly on the fuel’s per-gallon Btu content."

http://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/cont...evel_Study.pdf

[litesong]

Originally Posted by BabyDiesel

Umm... His "chiseling" gave you an extra 0.2% of FE.
If you disagree with the data presented, then prove this data wrong. Otherwise, be respectful and courteous. Thank you.

Of course, I have proved Rooster's calculations wrong. Rooster admits to cherry-picking a warm December month for 10% ethanol blend tanks, & a cold January month for ethanol-free tanks. Immediately, that cancels Rooster's post entirely, due to bias. He never should have posted.

Separate from the biased separate months, you state that it is "only" 0.2% FE difference, which is due to at least two rounding errors, errors which rooster chose to keep, because they favored his argument. Again, bias!

Those rounding errors of 0.2% FE are a difference of 5.7% between rooster & me! Hey, we're discussing adding only 10% ethanol to gasoline here. Rounding errors alone can really fudge differences in 10% discussions. & the differing months REALLY biased these 10% discussions.

As we have been discussing here, I favor years long data, rooster favors short term data, which in this case, he cherry-picked at least three times to make biased conclusions.

[roosterk0031]

Just for fun I exported Cobalt XFE log to spreadsheet and sorted by E %, some cells didn't transfer well so lost some data but here's what made it.

E0 42.3 mpg over 27,000 miles
E10 39.7 mpg over 41,500 miles
E29-34 36.4 mpg over 5700
E35-42 36 over 4800
E45-55 37.2 over 7400


Based on BTU's and using the 42.2 baseline of E0
E10 should do 40.6
E30 should do 37.7
E40 36.2
E50 34.8

I kind of suspect my E0 base line might have a seasonal advantage. Most of my blending has been between September and April so will delete everything not between those months for all blends and see how it changes.

EDIT: Cleaned up log before exporting and got more data thru, and deleted some 40 mpg + high ethanol blends as errors.

[roosterk0031]

Seasonally narrowed E0 = 41.5 mpg over 15,000 miles,
E10 39 mpg over 30,000, (calculated 39.9)
E30 35.8 mpg over 4200 (calculated 38.4)
E40 35.8 mpg over 4400 (calculated 35.5)
E50 35.4 mpg over 3800 (calculated 34.1)

My car seems to do better than calculated with higher blends but miles driven are pretty small.

A better comparison is 3 tanks back to back 2012-10-4 3 tank of E10 was 43.66, a week or 2 before that I had a E0 3-tank of 43.95. 0.6% loss in mpg. Weather was mostly the same, my driving was the same, tires the same, the largest variable is accurate filling. Even if off by a half a mpg. and got 43 even it would be just over 2% loss.

There is also the variable of the BTU of E10 vs regular vs test gas so my adjustment factor for BTU's isn't perfect.

EDIT: Went back and looked at spreadsheet and had some obvious erroneous data in the higher ethanol blends and deleted them. Modified fuel log to try to make it export better and updated the info above.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Seasonally narrowed E0 = 41.5 mpg over 15,000 miles,
E10 39 mpg over 30,000, (calculated 39.9)

Thank you for your long term data.

Your long term data:
41.5 mpg/39.0 mph =1.0641, implies E0 mpg is 6.41% better than E10.

As I have stated often, my 3 cars(with factory settings) with years of E0 burnings & E10 usage, have E0 advantages of 8%, 7% & 5%. Yeah, your long term data are right in my long term mix......but NOT in your short term mix.

You believe short term data is more accurate than long term data. & when your long term data does NOT fall into your ideas of what must be true, you just look up short term new data & calculations(you did in your last post). Sometimes, you say things like, "oh, I changed my tires" or "my brakes were dragging".

Believe your long term data. Maintain your car well (which you do) & let your long term data run where it may. Your car needs no changes from its normal factory settings. But it will perform better.....by 8%, 7% & 5%, using 100% ethanol-free gasoline. Your vehicle over tens of thousands of miles performed 6.41% better with 100% ethanol-free gasoline.

Again, thank you for your long term data. Short term data can be fun. But long term data...... is something to believe.

[roosterk0031]

Doesn't that suck my data supports your position, and my selection of your data supports mine. It might be a few weeks but I'll switch to E0 and try to aim for being empty one of these weekends so I can do a same day AB test per my earlier post (3)- 5 mile runs each way with E0 close to empty fill up with E10 so I'll be close to to having a E10 tank full, I don't care about the weight disadavantge E10 will have as my route does have some hills, but I'll try my best to hold 55 mph regardless of fuel. It's all about science and I'm kind of OK being wrong(but think I'm right).

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

I'm going to waste my money buying E0 for the next few weeks, atleast you can waste(save) a little bit filling with a tank of E10 when it works out for you.

Even at 6% mpg loss E10 is still cheaper per mile, here anyway.

Good discussion, David