- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Non-ethonol gas vs. 10% ethanol gas
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:35 pm
I have a '95 Jeep Grand Cherokee I drive occasionally with a 5.2L V-8. Out of curiosity, I decided to test ethanol fuel vs. ethanol free through two tanks, holding driving conditions near constant (90% highway to/from work). I tuned up the jeep prior, ran two rounds of Lucas fuel system cleaner, and changed the fuel filter.
The two tanks of ethanol containing gas averaged 13.8 MPG. The two tanks of non-ethanol gas averaged 16.7, a 2.9 MPG increase. At an average of $2.19/gallon ($0.159/mile - 303 mile range) for ethanol vs. a $2.49/gallon ($0.149/mile 367 mile range) non-ethanol cost in a 22 gallon fill-up, I save $3.03 per 22 gallon fill up using non-ethanol.
But the improvements in idle, acceleration, and lower rpm at highway cruise outweigh the cost saving benefits. According to my trial, if you have an older vehicle, it pays to use non-ethanol fuel.
I know, CSB, but maybe someone will be interested.
The two tanks of ethanol containing gas averaged 13.8 MPG. The two tanks of non-ethanol gas averaged 16.7, a 2.9 MPG increase. At an average of $2.19/gallon ($0.159/mile - 303 mile range) for ethanol vs. a $2.49/gallon ($0.149/mile 367 mile range) non-ethanol cost in a 22 gallon fill-up, I save $3.03 per 22 gallon fill up using non-ethanol.
But the improvements in idle, acceleration, and lower rpm at highway cruise outweigh the cost saving benefits. According to my trial, if you have an older vehicle, it pays to use non-ethanol fuel.
I know, CSB, but maybe someone will be interested.
This post was edited on 9/21/16 at 8:36 pm
15
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:36 pm to AUbagman
Said the same thing a few months ago, even made a post about it. The MPG's on my canned challenger RT(5.7 Hemi) increased tremendously
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:37 pm to AUbagman
Ethanol is a massive fraud perpetrated by the Fed gov paying off the Midwest corn lobby. It is all BS as it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is derived from it.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:37 pm to AUbagman
I noticed a major difference when using gasoline with 10% ethanol versus flex fuel. That flex fuel is 20 cents cheaper per gallon but the gas mileage is much worse
This post was edited on 9/21/16 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:39 pm to AUbagman
Always considered this. Might try it now
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:48 pm to AUbagman
Ethanol is one more example of how Bush 43 was a shitty president that sold out to big corn.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:48 pm to AUbagman
Where do you get gas with no ethanol?
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:49 pm to AUbagman
Whataburger
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:50 pm to AUbagman
If available always run 100% gasoline. Ethanol is the devil and is making our food cost more.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:51 pm to iron banks
Ethanol is also one of the reasons the air in urban Brazil is so polluted.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:52 pm to MNCscripper
quote:
I noticed a major difference when using gasoline with 10% ethanol versus flex fuel.
Well no shite dude, flex fuel is anywhere from 50 to 85% ethanol.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:52 pm to Tiger Ree
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:53 pm to AUbagman
I get 3 mpg better on my suv steady state driving on interstate. I've tested this through many tanks of each across 9 states.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:55 pm to PrivatePublic
I know baw, settle down and get you a Snickers
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:56 pm to AUbagman
I tried it for a tank or two, but I did not notice a difference. Perhaps I did not maintain a constant driving sample?
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:57 pm to Tiger Ree
quote:
Where do you get gas with no ethanol?
There are probably 4 gas stations within a 3 mile radius of my home that carry it. It might just be an Alabama thing?
But it's pretty easy to find here.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 8:58 pm to AUbagman
I ran 100 Octane in my car this past week--HOLY COW!! Motor was on steroids!
I did let almost all the 93 octane run empty first and then bought 15 gallons of 100 octane--it was clear as vodka!
And yes--ethanol is the devil.
I did let almost all the 93 octane run empty first and then bought 15 gallons of 100 octane--it was clear as vodka!
And yes--ethanol is the devil.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 9:03 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
I tried it for a tank or two, but I did not notice a difference. Perhaps I did not maintain a constant driving sample?
What year is your vehicle? I don't know when auto manufacturers started accounting for ethanol, but I'm guessing around 2007, so it's doubtful there would be a cost saving benefit for newer vehicles that are tuned to run off of ethanol containing gas. From my understanding, it has to do with the air/fuel ratio, so older vehicles that aren't tuned to the higher octane content of ethanol require more ethanol containing gas to achieve the same power output.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 9:11 pm to AUbagman
While newer vehicles are better equipped to run E10 that doesn't mean they will not run better on 100% gasoline. Ethanol is not as efficient (power dense) as gasoline. That means it takes more ethanol to make the same power as gasoline. Now, E85 is capable of making more power (higher octane & burns cooler) but the flow rates are greatly increased over what the gasoline flow rate would be. That's why you see these GTR's running massive power setups with E85 but they can only get 100 miles per tank.
Posted on 9/21/16 at 9:14 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
So would I be correct in thinking newer vehicles are less likely to achieve the cost saving benefits? Also, If I'm not mistaken, ethanol is hell on fuel systems that aren't designed to operate gas containing it (erosion).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News