Archives

Ok, I have a 2.2L 2000 Sonoma pickup extended cab with a 5 speed tranny. I don't know where people get their info about 30+% worse mileage off of e85. When using e85 over regular and driving between 55-70mph, my loss is only 10% - 15% tops. I guess it is possible that mileage gets exponentially worse when you dive fast. Anybody else have a similar vehicle? On e85 I average around 20 - 22mpg with mixed highway / city driving.

Hi Smurfn--

It is possible you're just alternating out E10 and E85 blends? When I use E10 in my car I lose 15%, (so the 15% loss from E10 is just added to the additional 15% loss you get with E85 thus making the 30%?) Where do you live, I am curious? Some areas have mandated E10 and you might not even know what fuel you're getting since some states don't have ethanol labeling laws. I have a link in my sig to an ongoing E10 vs. regular gas test or you can check my mileage logs (you can see, at first the upward line as I got better at hypermiling, and then the variations when I used E10 vs. regular gas).

With regards to speed, speed destroys fuel economy very quickly. Wind resistance becomes the dominant limiting factor above 50 MPH or so since wind resistance is measured as a square factor of speed. Just to test stick your hand out the window at 55 MPH vs. 75 MPH. It's easily twice as much resistance.

And welcome to CleanMPG. :)

Well, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I did not even think about that. Here in the chicago area, we have had nothing but E10 here for years. I have actually forgotten that other places in the country still have 100% gasoline.

In the short time I have been looking around this site, I have noticed the animosity towards ethanol, some of it defiantly founded, and some unfounded.

1. Even in light of realizing I have been comparing E10 to E85 instead of E85 to 100% gasoline, that still does not account for the wild claims of over 30% loss in mileage. I really only lose 1-2 mpg when going from E10 to E85. (An 850% increase in ethanol content) I really cant see a flex fuel vehicle losing much from the measly 10 percent if I only lose a couple miles to the gallon from 75 percent more. I think the REALLY high loss numbers come from people who's best interest is to see ethanol fail. (Showing loss numbers from vehicles not tuned for ethanol.)

2.People keep complaining about ethanol mandates, but do you realize a big part of the mandate (at least in metro areas) is to substitute for MTBE, and I know I don't want that crap in the air i breath, or in my groundwater. A 10% blend helps the the fuel burn cleaner and reduce smog.

3. I will admit, corn ethanol is stupid, but once cellulosic ethanol becomes viable, and if we could fend off the lobbyists and allow sugar ethanol imports,(maybe from cuba if our government ever gets it head out of its ass.) it suddenly becomes much more economically viable. (I would much ratehr import from the Caribbean and south American countries than the middle east and the Niger River delta. As far as high food prices and starving the world, what about our infatuation with beef? I wouldn't be surprised if beef production has a far more negative impact on prices of NECESSARY foods than bio fuels.

The best I can see corn ethanol doing is opening the door and helping us lay out the infrastructure for more efficient ethanol.

What I don't get is why most flex fuel vehicles are giant gas hogs. Why not make a flex fuel aveo?


Ok, I will stop ranting..... I hope I haven't annoyed too many people. I guess I wanted to point out that; while the current ways we use ethanol may be VERY flawed, there is some good that could come from it if our government wasn't so damn stupid. I will agree, subsidies for corn ethanol defiantly need to stop.

And just because, having an ethanol blend in your tank may lower that number you like to brag about, it's not all bad. Ultimately, ethanol or not motor vehicles need to be more efficient. No amount of drilling or bio-fuels will fix this problem alone. Increasing efficiency is the most effective road to energy security. And from what I have seen in the short time I have been here, you guys are the best! :flag:

Hi Smurfn--

Chicago? That's the center of E10 and RFG hell. Northern Kentucky imports that corn $hit from Chicago so we're operating on the same stuff. With regards to a greater than 30% drop, all I can say is Ymmv because there's a lot of variables involved. I'm only now putting a lot of faith in my test of E10 vs. regular gas since I've now run thousands of miles and the difference is clear.

I think ethanol could also be a viable domestic solution to our energy problem and I'd support it if they didn't mandate it into my gasoline powered car. :mad:

Maybe a flex-fuel vehicle is better tuned for ethanol? My theory (unfounded, just a thought) is the extra oxygenation in the ethanol messes with the O2 sensor causing the computer to dump more fuel into the engine. Because I use GPH (gallons per hour) on my Sg to hypermile I can immediately tell what I have in my car because suddenly it hogs 15% more gas to climb the same hills. That's what I'm thinking, at any rate.

Fair enough. Yes, my truck being flex fuel probably helps at least a little. I am equiped with a sensor that detects the ethanol in the mixture and adjusts fuel and spark / timing curves accordingly.

The problem lies in the tunning, and I supose if oxygenates are going to be used at all, there should be a standard, and all cars should be tunned properly to deal with it.

I will have to actually fill up with regular gasoline next time I get the chance and see if there is a big difference or not, I will be interested to find out the difference.

I have had my 2000 FFV Taurus since June 2, but this past weekend was the first mileage check with a full fill-up. I have not used ethanol in it. I will experiment with it, but not for awhile, and when I do I will gradually introduce the car to E85- I won't go fill up with, but will gradually increase the proportion over a few tanks.

I have read about FFV mileage in other forums about the Taurus, and the MPG drop is not as drastic as is often written about. I know someone with an FFV Explorer that he's run E85 in forever, and he says the loss is 10% or less.

Yes, I think all th huge mileage loss claims are from engines that are not tuned to take advantage of the higher octane. An engine can run alot more timming with 105+ octane.

Why gradual? It will be harder to see the true difference in fuel economy. My suggestion is to see what you get on several full fill ups with regular, and then several full tanks of E85. Don't worry about shocking anything, Flex fuel vehicles are designed to take ANY mixture of ethanol upto 85% at anytime.

I theory I agree with you, but in practice there have been many cases where a CEL gets thrown if a car is filled up with E85 after never having used it. There is also the issue of the detergent qualities of E85 stirring up a bunch of crud. I still plan to take the gradual approach, and then change my fuel filter before/if I start running E85 on a regular basis.

I supose that would be the safe way to do it particularly if it has never been run on the stuff. I have been running e85 almost exclusivly for over 3 years now, and have changed the fuel filter twice in that time. (Over 50,000 miles of driving)

Sweet, my sig works! I wish there was an EPA rating when using E85:mad: o well... I will get closer in time.

Sweet, my sig works! I wish there was an EPA rating when using E85:mad: o well... I will get closer in time.

Hi Smurfn--

If you look up your vehicle on www.fueleconomy.gov it may have an estimate for E85.

The number on that sight are much lower than the window sticker addertised numbers. I assume that is to account to the short commings of the original test?

Is this lower number the one people are using for comparison on their signatures? I hope not. That would make all of these huge gains a bit less impressive.


It says: Gasoline - 19/25
E85 - 14/18

Guess I'm not doing too bad using this one

The number on that sight are much lower than the window sticker addertised numbers. I assume that is to account to the short commings of the original test?

Is this lower number the one people are using for comparison on their signatures? I hope not. That would make all of these huge gains a bit less impressive.


It says: Gasoline - 19/25
E85 - 14/18

Guess I'm not doing too bad using this one

For the longest time we used the old ('85-'07) ratings for the cars and used them even as the tests were revised. The parameters for skilled, expert, and elite hypermilers were changed for '08 cars.

Thing is, more and more people are joining with older cars but using the new ratings so we might eventually have to make a move to the new '08 ratings for all cars. (More work for Sean, I daresay...)