Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums

RESULTS
1) The three vehicles averaged
1.5% lower mileage with E10,
2.2% lower mileage with E20,
5.1% lower mileage with E30,
and miles per gallon actually increased by an average of 1.7% when using E10AK made with the specially denatured ethanol. E10AK was the highest mileage fuel in two of three cars.
...

for me, if i'm not saving money, i'm not going to do it

The American motto... ;)

The American motto... ;)

There have been several economic booms and busts in that time, so it's never been about good times versus bad

I was more or less commenting about long term planning versus short term - not simple day to day pocket book issues.

I actually posted this because I thought it was interesting that E10 may not reduce mileage as much as people claim.

For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect (fuel economy) is small (~3%) when compared to conventional gasoline, and even smaller (1-2%) when compared to oxygenated and reformulated blends.

Based on EPA tests for all 2006 E85 models, the average fuel economy for E85 vehicles resulted 25.56% lower than unleaded gasoline.

1-2% compared to "oxygenated & reformulated blends" seems to fall in line with the study above. Since the energy content is only about 3.4% lower in E10, people claiming 10% or more reduction in fuel mileage with E10 really should be asked about their "methods".

I would expect mpg for Ethanol blends to slightly exceed what is predicted due to decreased pumping losses.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
As ethanol production and use has expanded from coast to coast in the United States,
increased public discussion and media attention has focused on various properties of
those blends versus standard unleaded gasoline. Among the most frequent matters for
debate has been the matter of fuel efficiency and the resulting effect on cost of vehicle
operation.

Quite often, opinion stated as fact has made its way into the public arena, in forms as
varied as Letters to the Editor claiming mileage losses of 15% or more, to an unscientific
test performed by a television station that showed a ten percent blend of ethanol
performed worse than unleaded, but provided more miles per gallon than premium. While
letters to the editor do evoke a certain amount of skepticism from readers, traditional
media reports often carry more weight. In the TV segment mentioned, the station clearly
stated that the test was unscientific. But the viewer was clearly left with the impression that
it was more costly to use ethanol-blended gasoline.

In a more subtle manner, ethanol’s efficiency has been brought into question as
representatives of the automotive and oil industries have stated at various times that a ten
percent blend of ethanol provides 3% less fuel efficiency. These comments were based
on the fact that a ten percent blend of ethanol has a BTU content 3% lower than gasoline,
and the assumption that the lower BTU content would result in 1-to-1 reduction in mileage
per gallon.

The ethanol industry has traditionally held the belief that ethanol’s properties as an
oxygenate would provide more complete burning of the base fuel, and offset some of the
BTU loss. Furthermore, since ethanol blends are traditionally less expensive than straight
gasoline, it stands to reason that if MPG of both types of fuel were similar, the ethanol
blend would be the better value in terms of cost per mile of operation.
When ACE responded to negative media accounts regarding ethanol blend fuel economy,
reporters typically asked for documentation of our statements. There appeared to be very
little information available. It was decided that ACE should commission a pilot study, to
determine whether there were variances in MPG between ethanol blends in gasoline.
Prior to ordering this pilot study, ACE was able to locate only one study on fuel economy
variances between ethanol-blended and non-ethanol-blended gasoline. A 1996 study by
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee compared several types of oxygenated
reformulated gasoline to conventional unleaded. The sample also used only 5.7% ethanol
as opposed to the more common 10% blend, and several of the ethanol fuel samples
used had wide variations in BTU content. The study used vehicles manufactured from
1979 to 1994, and the sample vehicles and drivers showed some very wide deviations
from expected results. Even so, the overall variance in those tests showed that ethanolblended
RFG provided 98% of the MPG performance of conventional unleaded gasoline.

CHOICE OF FUELS TO BE TESTED

In addition to questions about E10’s efficiency versus conventional gasoline, an effort was
underway in the State of Minnesota to pass legislation that would require 20% of the
state’s fuel be ethanol by 2010. While an E20 blend was not the target of the legislation, a
decision was made to test an E20 blend (20% ethanol, 80% gasoline) to gather
information that could be relevant to that legislative effort. The fuel would be tested in the
same unmodified, non-flexible fuel vehicle, with special attention paid to any operational
variations in the engine performance (“trouble” indicator lights, hesitation, etc.) in addition
to mileage differences.

Also, due to past studies that showed some differences between ethanol blends and
conventional gasoline were reduced as ethanol percentage approached 25 to 30%, an
E30 blend (30% ethanol, 70% gasoline) was also tested. As was the case with E10 and
E20, the fuel would be tested in the same unmodified, non-flex-fuel vehicle, with special
attention paid to any operational variations in the engine performance (“trouble” indicator
lights, hesitation, etc.) in addition to mileage differences.

Finally, in earlier meetings regarding the possible project, Allen Kasperson (the individual
contracted to perform the test) mentioned that he had denatured fuel with soy diesel and
isopentane, and that the original tests of Reid vapor pressure (RVP) had shown lower
RVP in blends made with ethanol denatured in that fashion. This fuel blend was added to
the list of fuels to be tested.

The thing I'm confused by is the 10% power loss. I was under the impression that Ethanol blended fuels increased output in E85 vehicles.

I'll e the first to tell you all that as a farmer, there's no way this country (much less it's FUBAR'd economy) could make the ethanol AND feed us, etc to totallay replace petroleum based fuels.
Ain't gonna happen, period.

But as a supplemental fuel, to help reduce emissions AND foreign oil dependence, yeah, it IS the future...

I think in the years to come we'll see alcohol plants distilling from most any organic materiel...and I'm all for it.
 
Gas here is as cheap as it's been in the last 5 years, but I'm not so naive to realize as soon as Obama runs his "relief" plan through, shiznit will go back up. What most people don't realize is..petroleum based products are  near everywhere...you use ammonia and fertilizer to grow corn crops for example...those don't come come from a tree or a lake..they come from petroleum (in part at least.)

My point is this: we as a nation, as a planet, have to investigate renewable resources..because if we don't...we may as well figure out to live on Mars...maybe that's a bit drastic, and past our lifetimes..but still.
We gotta take the least destructive path...maybe the Feds should offer bigger tax breaks on flex-fuel vehicles...?

I think ethanol is the worst idea you could come up with. You get less power, less gas mileage, and it cost the same as regular gas. Really your paying for less. Just because it burns cleaner doesn't mean you should use it. I was the dumb ass grinning at the pump every time it hit above $60. Gas is cheap now, but it will go up again. I got really pissed off when it went up by 6 cents. Everyone at work just said "its better then $4.30 a gallon". I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The less people use gas, the more it is going to cost. I don't know realistically why gas actually dropped in price since I started driving, but it won't last long. They know we'll pay $4 or more a gallon. So there gonna get back up to it. The more alcohol they put in it, the more you pay.

I think ethanol is the worst idea you could come up with. You get less power, less gas mileage, and it cost the same as regular gas. Really your paying for less. Just because it burns cleaner doesn't mean you should use it. I was the dumb ass grinning at the pump every time it hit above $60. Gas is cheap now, but it will go up again. I got really pissed off when it went up by 6 cents. Everyone at work just said "its better then $4.30 a gallon". I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The less people use gas, the more it is going to cost. I don't know realistically why gas actually dropped in price since I started driving, but it won't last long. They know we'll pay $4 or more a gallon. So there gonna get back up to it. The more alcohol they put in it, the more you pay.