I want to get to the bottom of this ethanol killing my mpg
 

Ok I have 493,000 miles on my 88 cherokee. I have 220,000 miles on my Clubwagon 74,000 on my WV thing 172,000 on my Voyager and on and on. My commute is 110 miles round trip NOT counting extra driving around.

in a few weeks (making payments) I will have a 94 metro xfi

So I have a pretty damned good idea on fuel economy. I have been taking mpg readings for 20 years over more than a million miles of driving. (I wish I recorded it all in one place etc.. would be interesting)

anyway since ethanol I have seen a 15-25 % drop in fuel economy across ALL of my vehicles. So has my father and so has my mother.

in the MILLION PLUS miles including 400,000 miles on my cherokee (it had 92,000 when I got it) I have NEVER ONCE IN TWENTY YEARS REPLACED A FUEL PUMP. neither has my dad neither has my mom.

Since ethanol EVERY SINGLE CAR WE HAVE HAS HAD ITS FUEL PUMP DIE. Every single one no exception. Ok except the VW thing but only cause it has not driven in 4 years so it has never tasted ethanol.

thats 7 Fuel pumps in an 8 month period. anyone who says thats coincidence is a moron :-) hehe (just joking but you get the idea)

I have also had to replace 5 O2 sensors something else I have NEVER had to replace in a million plus miles and 14 years of driving.

SO I want to do some tests WITHOUT ethanol to confirm my MPG returns without the ethanol. alas its illegal to sell gas in pa and nj without ethanol.

I got an ethanol test kit and now I only buy gas from stations with the lowest actual ethanol levels. Wawa is good 7-8% so is sunoco 8%

My cherokee used to get a SOLID 22mpg and thats lifted mud tires skid plates tire on the roof the works. I have 493,000 miles on this truck I KNOW what its mpg is.

I just put a new engine in it. (bought a $900 beater on ebay with a virgin engine 119,000 miles) swapped them runs like new again.

On the first run I got 21mpg on 3 year old gas! first fill up 17mpg second fill up 13mpg !! next 5 fill ups 13-14mpg O2 dies 8-10mpg replace O2 back up to 13-14 mpg

I get gas at wawa instead of el cheapo gas station mpg is now 17-19 mpg. Go back to el cheapo 13-14 mpg

I measure the ethanol. 8% wawa 11% el cheapo.

Then the idea hits me. My dads old motor home has 35+ gallons of more than 4 year old gas in it IE pre ethanol.

I siphon out 15 gallons to fillup the cherokee 19mpg!

I siphon out 14 gallons to fillup again 22mpg!

I am out of old gas and have to use ethanol gas again 19mpg

next fill up 17mpg

To this day I have to fight tooth and nail to get past 17mpg on a truck that historically got 22mpg DAILY.

SO I want to do more tests but HOW to get non ethanol gas? any suggestions?

I know how to REMOVE the ethanol. just add water till all the alcohol seperates from the gas then pour off the gas.

problem is ethanol is an octane booster so the gas you will be left with will be about 84 octane which I am thinking might not be good for the engines?

what do you think? ALSO

another idea. RACING fuel is pure gas. What kind of "mixture" ration of 84octane de ethanoled gas and racing fuel would i need to use to get the right roughly 87octane the engine expects?

I want to "make" about 200 gallons of non ethanol gas to do some REAL A B A B A testing to see if the ethanol REALLY is having that much of an impact.

suggestions? is there anywhere close by (100miles or so) from SE PA where I can get NON ethanol regular gas? delaware? maryland? NY?

Thanks!

I think your testing will not be as accurate as the testing that has already been done under controlled conditions.

well alas there are 2 problems with that perspective.

#1 it flies in the face of my actual experience (though maybe it would confirm its NOT ethanol causing my problems but what else would cause 7 vehicles to all lose 15-25% of there fuel economy ALL AT ONCE ?) Though its hard for me to ignore that I got NORMAL FUEL ECONOMY on 4 year old gas in my pops motorhome tank over The Ethanol laced gas we are using today.

NOT A SINGLE ONE of our cars gets anywhere near the fuel economy we were getting just 2-3 years ago.

Also those tests were mostly done with NEWER CARS

also those people running their tests in control conditions? I don't see them buying my gasoline for me.

The way I see it ethanol is causing me to spend an extra $1248 dollars a year over what I would be paying if I got my usual MPG levels.

I don't need anything more. Thats enough evidence for me to want to do some more testing.

The only way I can do any testing is to get my hands on gasoline WITHOUT ethanol.

Got any suggestions for me? Got an usable suggestions for what else could be causing a 15-25% across the board consistent economy drop in 7 cars driven by 4 different people with years ranging from my 88 cherokee to my pops 98 windstar.

Got any suggestions as to why I can CHART fuel economy to the AMOUNT of ethanol in the gas? why I get better fuel economy on wawa's 7% ethanol over US Gas's 11% ethanol?

is there "something else" different about the gas I should know about?

We all know ethanol makes for worse mileage, theres less energy in it, so it takes more fuel to make the same power.
take my car as an example - we use 93 pump gas on this turbo engine, it gets about 30mpg. when i change to E85, i have to add around 20% or more fuel to get it back into shape again (but its really good for making tons of power on alot of boost) and it will get 15-18mpg if im lucky. - ethanol in gas burns clean-er. but we use alot more. there isnt much to prove. using 100% alcohol in a race car you will eat twice as much fuel as using race gas.
The EPA and things look at it as burning cleaner, better for the environment, but its not any better for our pocket.

stoich on gas is 14.7:1 air / fuel ratio - stoich on 85% ethanol is 9.8:1 - that alone should tell you
with the newer gas (whish is supposed to be 10% ethanol (E10) im finding that 14.7 will cause a lean missfire - and 14.0 seems to be a better "clean burn" now.

BTW if your going tokeep testing - race gas is leaded (unles you buy the high dollar unleaded race fuel) and will coat your o2 sensors and cause them to fail early.

It would be helpful if your charting was available for us to see. As it is, it appears you experience wide swings in fe tank-to-tank so analysis for fe change causes may be difficult/impossible.

Your claims look suspect to me because the ethanol fe drop you state does not match my and many others' experiences. I admit I do disregard the claims of those who have an obvious anti-ethanol agenda.

If there is a widespread IDENTIFIABLE fe drop in your region maybe there is something going on with the regional boutique fuel composition; maybe it is ethanol and maybe it is something other than ethanol.

Your fuel pump story also does not match my experience at all. I've been running old non flex-fuel vehicles (early '90's models) on E10 at a minimum and E85 at a maximum for several years and have not replaced a single fuel pump, sending unit, or even fuel filter.

P.S. E85 has proven to be easier on my pocket, either straight or blended with E10. It is often about 40 cents/gallon cheaper and any fe decline is more than offset by that.

same goes in my truck, but it has a VERy hard time starting on it, even with the fuel turned up to compensate.

The car i use it in is a 93 - i have had no fuel pump problems or anything else out of it.

but i meant as far as putting Ethanol in the gas, it makes it worse, and we use alot more for how much it costs.

I can't identify any fe loss at ethanol blends less than 50% vs E10.

My testing is pretty coarse but I've found agreement with those whose testing is presumably better than mine.

My modus operandi now is to occasionally use full-on E85 in the summer and only E10 in the winter- and proportional blends inbetween depending on temps- to manage cold start issues.

You might check nearby marinas that supply boat fuel for non-ethanol gas. Older boats have worse problems with E10 than older cars since E10 causes their fiberglass tanks to start dissolving so they are often the last bastions for non-ethanol gas in E10 regions.

...also, your local small airport sells 100 octane, low-lead, fuel but it ain't cheap.

...there's also new 94UL which is 100LL without the TEL.

I've heard of 100 low lead, which has an insanely large amount of lead in it still. Not heard of no-lead in the 100 octane variety in small airport use, but I don't get out to the airport.

...oops, you're correct! It's 100LL, but as of 2008, new 94UL (unleaded = UL) fuel has been available...at some airports.

...insanely amounts?

80/87 (red) = 0.5 ml TEL per gallon.
100LL (blue) = 1.2-2.0 ml TEL per gallon.
100/130 (green) = 3.0-4.0 ml TEL per gallon.
115/145 (purple) = 4.6 ml TEL per gallon.

...planes I flew in used 115/145, called 'grape juice' due to purple coloring.

2 grams per gallon = your typical piper cub spitting out a POUND of lead for every 56 hours of operation. I'll stick with insane :)

...I think you're assuming all that "ml"-volume is Pb, which ain't so! At the molecular-level, the percentage of Pb is quite a bit less than 100%, but (admittedly) not insignificant.

TEL = C(8)_H(20)_Pb or ((CH3.CH2)4)Pb

...the Pb is about 64% of the total molecular weight.

Once upon a time I was a lineman at an airport. I tried 100LL in my car. It totally killed the cat, and rather quickly too. Don't try it with anything that has a cat.

Yes, TEL, not pb, per EAA - Avgas Specifications
updating wikipedia...

You run E85 in a regular engine?

Me? Yes.

How?

There isn't much to get to the bottom of in regards to lower mpg on ethanol. It is there to burn cleaner or "burn a more politicially correct mix" it has less energy (btu's) just as gas has less energy than diesel.

Some states like Minnesota give you a break on the price of E85 to encourage use which results in the miles per dollar coming out close to the same. Flex fuel epa numbers show lower mpg for the same vehicle on E85 vs regular grade gas.

The Impala numbers being a good example
http://www.greenfamilycar.com/index05.htm

Of the "green" fuels B100 has a very high CN number and is in many places also sold with price support. So the folks that have a need for diesel have nothing to lose using it.

1. Find an E85 pump.
2. Pump it in.

When I blend 50/50 it definitely saves me money cuz fe doesn't drop noticeably and it's about 40 cents/gallon cheaper. :thumbup:

When E85 is the same price as regular I don't mess with it.

...blending his own blend of blended fuel!

Not only that, but we have new blending pumps in our town, where you can select E10, E20, E30, and so on.

I run E85 in my s10 and my Tempo. Both have custom ECU firmware and the S10 has an updated fuel injector assembly (no more lame poppets) - running E85 in the S10 pushes me up to +24 fuel trim but that's still within range, no CEL.

They love it. There is a drop in MPG when using E85 vs. straight gasoline and a huge increase in HP. I notice no drop in MPG when using "oxygenated" gas vs. "100% gasoline" .

No fuel pump replacement yet...

My F150 seems to like E85 even better than my Tempo. Neither have been modded for E85 one iota so they'll throw CELs when they max out the fuel trim. One difference is when the fuel trim gets back "in range" the CEL goes out right away on the truck, but it stays on in the Tempo until I do a key off/key on cycle. The CEL seems to come on less in the truck anyway on E85 so I suspect it is programmed to be able to go a skosh richer than the car.

You can always dose your gas with 4 oz/10 gallons of TC-W3 2-cycle oil or Marvel Mystery Oil. Some people have shown gains in FE with those additives. They are supposed to restore lubricity to the fuel. And they're pretty cheap per tank.

I do know MMO works quite well at quieting down your fuel system, running it in my car right now. No data on increased FE yet.

Hey maybe its not the ethanol. I am by no means close minded on the issue but all the data I DO HAVE conclusively says it is.

My Tank to Tank FE readings are rock solid. That was a point I was trying to make. I went over 200,000 miles in the cherokee with hardly ever more than 2mpg change in FE. usually less than 1mpg difference tank to tank.

In my van over 50,000 miles rock solid 18-19mpg (I drive the same route the same time the same way 3-6 times a week)

I also had that freakish incident when we started ethanol here where I would hunt down the non eth gas stations and always be back up to 18+mpg

The trick is how to I prove its ethanol OR prove its NOT ethanol. the only way I know to do this is to really really test it IE get some non ethanol gas.

Clearly the year of the vehicle is not the issue since you guys are using 90 and 93 vehicles without a problem.

as for the fuel pumps. What else could cause ALL of them to fail in such a short time? and I do mean ALL of them. the only vehicle I have no replaced the pump on is the Thing and thats largely because I have not driven it in 3 years

Suggestions?

Have you tried lean burn with E85? You don't even need a different oxygen sensor. Just program the firmware to lean out the mixture at constant throttle and periodically switch back to stoichiometric in order to check the ratio with the oxygen sensor.

Gallons aint gallons
 

I just wanted to check with the OP, are you sure you're getting a gallon for every gallon you're charged for.

Here in oz there were a few tests done on random service stations and a few were found to have pump which supplied just less than a litre for every litre the pumps said that it pumped.

Might be worth checking, some of those cheaper stations need to do everything they can to stay afloat.

The difference I am seeing is pretty big and when I have filled say a 5 gallon tank it seemed pretty accurate.

also here E85 is more expensive than Regular. $2.01 for Regular $2.19 for E85

great topic
 

Good posts, this is a hot-button issue of mine. I think Ethanol is getting a bad rap at the way it's being introduced. It's a flat different fuel than gasoline, same as diesel (from gas). I hate flex fuel engines because they get crappy gas mileage on ethanol. It'd be like making an engine to run on gas or kerosene, it might be OK on one, but it will always suck on the other. They're just different.

I was bummed in your first post when you installed a new engine. I was bummed you just installed a new engine rather than doing a rebuild or a custom build (I understand the cost problem though). Ethanol has amazingly high octane ratings, much like the leaded gas. For emissions our compression ratios have come way down from the 13:1 in '73 to a more 8-9.5:1 from then to now, though it is going back up. Since ethanol has 20% less power per same quantity of gas, when you run it, your computer simply pumps 20% more fuel into your engine (that's very simplified). This is where the fuel mileage reduction comes in, more intake means worse FE, and more exhaust means hotter manifold temps.

If you want to truly resolve the issue, you would need to build the engine to only run a specific version of ethanol, E85 is great for cooler climates, E100 doesn't start in the cold so they add gas which is much better for this. You would need a higher compression ratio to fully take advantage of the higher octane. An ethanol specific cam would be nice. But the main issue would be having a custom tune done (this is where carbs are nice for me).

Great points, you are fully hitting the bullseye on my problem with the flex fuel thing going on. Alternative fuels are just not gas. Ethanol is not a miracle fuel. But we need to get off gas, so whatever path we decide on I wish we'd just commit and go with it. The so-so approach on anything is not helping public perception, IMO.

Oh, side tidbit... In, I believe, 1985 they started mandating some ethanol be mixed into gas (formerly known as gasohol). Which is like 5-10% ethanol anyway. This has become our modern gas. As they use ethanol as an octane booster now.

Relevance... cars before this date ran traditional rubber which is eaten up by ethanol because it's very acidic compared to gas. Cars after this date ran synthetic rubber hoses which are not eaten up as bad. Your fuel pump is a rubber bladder (like a power brake booster). The older ones will, and most regular ones go out because this acidic property deteriorates them over time. BUT this isn't horrible because on metal it's great. After running gas for a long time all the small passages get plugged with gunk and need to be replaced, but ethanol will clean all that out. If you don't want to replace hoses and pumps all the time, make sure your fuel path is running things that can handle alchohol or gas.

This has been said before, but i'm saying it again. Any gas/fuel that we are not importing is good. I don't want to support oil bearing countries. They have 3 things: sand, camels, and oil. If we stop paying them for oil, they will die/not be able to fund terrorism*.


*denotes I understand that not all countries with oil houses terrorism.

but it sure is helping line the pockets of the CORN industry which is actually where a lot of this "pressure" for ethanol is coming from.

sadly it has nothing to do with alternative fuels or being green so much as whose pockets get "lined" with cash.

The only alternative fuel that is CONSUMER friendly is Pure Electric cars.

Every other alternative currently in existence that I know of EXCEPT MAYBE bio diesel (which is not very green) sacrifices consumer benefits for corporate benefits.

Hydrogen is the worst. its a double slap in the face. It can use electricity like EV's but has ZERO consumer benefits besides being cleaner. its 100% a corporate friendly fuel.

That is true, would need some serious infrastructure changes to get everyone plugged in, but very convenient otherwise.

The road tax guys are probably scratching their heads over it, but who really cares besides the road tax guys?

Not really. we already have electricity EVERYWHERE. Just plug in.

My boss has already said if I manage to get an electric car he will have me a high amp 220v outlet within 48 hours. It would only cost him "maybe" $100 bucks to install an outlet up front for me.

The car would be fully charges a few hours after I got to work.

then I drive home and plug in.

The number of people who can go all electric (conveniently) is in no small part a question of capacity of the existing electrical generating and transmission system. Just because we have electricity everywhere, I don't think everyone can switch at once, but as more people switch the grid will need to be upgraded.

Plus, let's not forget that while electric vehicles may seem completely emissions free, you've simply moved the fossil fuel burning from your engine to a power plant. We can't complain about reducing our energy use (because we're using too much for the system) and then add all our cars. And the reason our power grid is so stressed is that we don't want to add power plants because they're not green.

Phasing inefficient lights to CFLs, phasing in more efficient appliances, habbits, etc is all great. It will help our present power grid cope with increased demand (from population) over the next few years without adding more plants. Or we can reduce our use, creating room for additional demand (cars), but we would still need to add more capacity. And it seems our present focus is on phasing out fossil fuel plants and replacing them with renewable resource plants. I don't see both happening at once, although both paths are very important.

...the COAL plants already exist.

...the RECHARGABLE cars (in reality) don't exist (yet).

...should we be putting our "eggs" into the alteady existing "poluting" infrastructure, or aiming for something that neither polutes nor yet truly exists?

...obviously a 'rhetorical' question on my part.

Several issues with all of those issue. I will try to address all of them

First dcd:

Incorrect. One of the common myths I hear is that but the grid can not handle the demand of people all suddenly plugging in electric cars.

This is a myth. First every GRID expert ie people from peco etc.. that has been asked have all 100% said NO issue bring it on no sweat.

Second the myth is also that total grid demand will go UP with electric conversion. This is incorrect Total grid demand will actually go DOWN.

Lets use the typical american car. 20mpg. to go 100miles you need 5 gallons of gasoline. While I have not and have no ability to I can say with 100% certaintly that we use MORE ELECTRICITY getting gasoline from the ground to your "fuel tank" than an EV1 or RAV4EV uses to drive 100 miles.

this means TOTAL GRID DEMAND actually goes DOWN not UP.

Second. The average person drives 11,000 miles a year. thats $120 a year in electricity $130 a year at commercial rates. since I HAVE numbers for commercial rates thats what I am going to use.

$130 a PER YEAR means $2.5 dollars per WEEK in electricity to recharge your electric car.

in WATTS this is 18,000 watts of electricity per week.

Now goto your basement of closet and pull out one of those 1500 watt space heaters.

Turn it on for 12.5 hours.

You just used MORE ELECTRICITY in 12.5 hours than your electric car will use in an ENTIRE WEEK.

Is that clear enough? you see most people do not realize JUST HOW STINKING efficient it is to move a car with electricity from a battery. Its insanely crazy efficient. very close to 90% efficient. 89% I believe is the number including losses in your wiring your charger your battery and the motor. ie GRID to WHEELS.

If you can plug in your space heater in the winter without dramatically effecting the grid everyone plugging in an electric car will not even make the grid blink.

The idea that the grid is not ready is 100% pure unadulterated MYTH. in fact I would even go so far as to call it an outright deception a LIE.

No the grid does not need to be updated. NOW if you want "FAST CHARGING" ie you want to pull into a "gas" station and "recharge" your car in 8 minutes. OK that will require an upgrade to the wiring and trunk line feeding that gas station.

but for HOME charging absolutely ZERO changes need to be made. in fact the increase on your electric bill is so damned small you can IGNORE it as noise. the car is FREE to drive for all intents and purposes. Turn off a 75watt bulb for 10 days and you just saved enough to charge your car all month.

it is SO stinking cheap I can see businesses and employers installing Car Charging outlets to DRAW customers and employee's to them. The upgrade would cost VERY little money for the businesses and employers and add NOTHING to there bill compared to what they are already paying.

Next SleeperRT

THEY ARE completely emissions free. you are correct about transfering the pollution to the power plants.

this is another "myth" that needs explanation.

First while YES you are transfering pollution from your tail pipe to your local power plants its not an EVEN transfer. Not even close.

FIRST a gasoline engine is MAYBE 2% to 5% efficient. (people tally aroun 20% efficient but this is 20% of the energy converted to HEAT and ignores all the energy that goes right out the tailpipe never to be converted. the TOTAL energy available in gasoline sent to your tires is around 2-5% (a matter antimatter reaction would net you 100% or close to it)

An electric car is 89% efficient grid to wheels. that alone should tell you something massively important. whenyou pump 100watts into your car only 11watts is wasted.

To equate this to a gasoline car if you pumped 100 watts into the gas car 95-98 of those watts is WASTED.

so first your created FAR FAR less overall pollution simply by being INSANELY efficient.

NEXT single large power plants are far far more efficient and cleaner than thousands of cars. again dramatic reduction in pollution

NEXT only 54% of our nations power comes from coal

Need even MORE? :-) one BONUS of an electric power car is that its POWERED BY ELECTRICITY and ONLY electricity with no other medium (hydrogen) inbetween.

electricity is interesting in that you can MAKE IT in many different ways.

Nano solar is producing solar panels for 90cents a watt. (there cost is 30cents a watt so nice profit too)

this means that including the prices of a grid tie in converter allyou would need to do is tack $2700 onto the price of the car and you could INCLUDE the grid tie in and enough panels to more than 100% offset the electricity your car uses in a month.

ie you are not a power provider selling your watts back to the grid LOWERING the demand on the power plant.

this means after initial investment of the car and the solar panels you car is now

100% free to drive
100% pollution free
100% ZERO load on the grid

You see solar is not the greatest for powering your home because its very expensive but your CAR would need SO LITTLE power in comparison that almost anyone could afford the small modest panel to 100% offset the power their car needs.

Eventually as super caps becomes practical you won't need the power company at all. your solar array can "charge" the supercap bank in your garage or underneath your parking space. and then your car would "charge" off that pack.

Old Tele Man.

Your incorrect. there are RAV4EV's DRIVING on the road today. they get 80-110 miles to a charge. The battery pack has a life span in excess of 25 years for the average driver. They can BUILD those cars today for under $15,000 if they were forced to FULL retail no incentives no rebates no vouchers.

The tech really is that cheap. Its one of the reasons they tried to kill it. Its why they sold the critical NIMH patent to texaco/chevron. It scared the crap out of them.

They would actually have to WORK for their money.

...you (obviously) didn't notice the word "rhetorical" nor the humorous postion of my tongue buried deep in my cheek.

...I'm actually "FOR" plug-in hybrids...the american Electric Car died a too early death at the hands of early Ford and GM (when they were all separate companies!) companies.

...where's "Stanley Steamer" (not the 'carpet cleaner' however) when you need him/her?