Archives

The EPA ratings are based on ethanol-free fuel. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121667799189771637.html?mod=yahoo_itp)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Miata_on_EPA_Dynamometer.jpgJonathan Welsh - WSJ - July 22, 2008

Mazda Miata undergoing EPA Fuel Economy testing in NY.

Simple news you can use. -- Ed.

Q: Do the mileage figures printed on new car stickers reflect use of ethanol-blended gasoline, the only fuel now available for most or all consumers, or whether the sticker mileage claims are based on using 100% gasoline. If the latter, does the government intend to mandate the use of gasohol to create more realistic mileage numbers? -- W. Hayes, Dover, Mass.

A: The fuel-economy ratings on new-car window stickers are calculated using pure or "straight" gasoline, not the commonly used 10%-ethanol blend called E10. I can't recall the last time I filled up using gasoline that wasn't blended in this way.

Fuel economy decreases by about 2% for vehicles running on E10, so a car rated at 25 miles per gallon will actually travel about 24.5 miles. Of course, the negative effect of blended fuel is tiny compared with the effects of changing one's driving style and keeping the car in top shape. Still, a loss is a loss. While E10, and E15, and may reduce overall oil consumption, it isn't helping individual vehicle fuel economy… http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121667799189771637.html?mod=yahoo_itp

It would be too costly for the epa to test all the vehicles on all the different ethanol formulas across the country so they test it with pure gasoline which is still available in many parts of the country.

Where??? All I see is this gasoline may contain up to 10% ethanol.:(

There is no ethanol gasoline where I live here in Louisiana. They are looking to try to produce ethanol here using the sugar cane stalks. Sugarcane farmers are hoping it takes off so they can increase their acreage of sugarcane. They've dropped back due to cheaper sugar imports.

I've not seen it here in NC either, based on trips in Eastern (Raleigh) and Central (Winston-Salem) NC. I'm going to have to fill up the Sedona near Philly, so I might have to deal with this towards the end of the month though :(.

Where??? All I see is this gasoline may contain up to 10% ethanol.:(

Hi Shan--

"May contain up to 10% Ethanol" is best translated as "Contains at least 10% ethanol at all times". :(

I've not seen it here in NC either, based on trips in Eastern (Raleigh) and Central (Winston-Salem) NC. I'm going to have to fill up the Sedona near Philly, so I might have to deal with this towards the end of the month though :(.

NC is one of the 13 states (14 if you include DC) that doesn't required E10 labeling on their pumps, One of the reasons (in addition to the higher price) why I try to avoid buying gas in NC.

Website about E10 labeling
http://www.fuel-testers.com/state_guide_ethanol_laws.html

We still have regular gas here in Nebraska, its just 10-12 cents higher per gallon than E-10

There isn't any reason that the EPA ratings should reflect what the 'average' driver gets out of a car. They should be used to compare different cars based on a standard set of rules. It was stupid for them to change the numbers last year, or even change the test. Perhaps what they should have done was made a 0-100 scale and just assign a number based on economy and eliminate the MPG units...

it's creeping in Tallahassee, it appears only the Shell and Circle K stations have been tainted, not to mention the lone Inland E85 station. The article is misleading, because everything I have heard points to a 10-15% decrease in FE, not the 2% the article claims... :angry:

We just went to E10 in east Texas. Of course, we had MTBE before that, which is about halfway to ethanol in terms of the mileage hit.

2 tanks in, and I haven't noticed any mileage drop from it.

What does it mean on the website for Tx, it says 1% or higher? Does that mean that all gas in TX is 1%ethanol, or more, or it has to have a label if it has 1% or more?

it has to have a label if it has 1% or more?

That's my understanding of it.

I'm not too worried about the EPA ratings being based on pure gas, even though we're E10 here. After all, the 2008+ EPA ratings are now ridiculously low. Even an average driver can now beat the EPA, burning E10.

Fuel economy decreases by about 2% for vehicles running on E10, so a car rated at 25 miles per gallon will actually travel about 24.5 miles.What's his source for that claim? E10 may only have 2% lower energy content, but that doesn't automatically mean the mileage hit is only 2%. There's a pretty solid body of evidence that E10 causes most engines to burn less efficiently, with real world FE hit somewhere in the 5-15% range.

We're stuck with E10 year-round here, as of this year, and it'll phase into the rest of the state by year-end. Funny thing about this is that our (E10) gas is suddenly 30c cheaper than Washington's (pure). It always used to be 10-20c more than WA because all our gas is refined in Seattle and piped down here. Now that we're blending in 10% ethanol, it's cheaper. Of course we're getting what we pay for.

E10 has about 3% less energy per gallon.

From this EPA PDF (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-3.pdf), which cites many studies on the subject. Here are a few:
In general, the results of this practical on-the-road study were consistent with the
predictions (based on both laboratory and on-road studies, as well as the energy content of
the fuels tested) that were set out in the RFG regulations.

The average change in fuel economy when RFG was compared to conventional gasoline was a 2.8% reduction in miles
per gallon when using RFG.
The analysis concluded that fuel economy is reduced by
2% to 3% during the winter season and 1% to 2% during the summer season.
10% ethanol blended fuel. Each car
accumulated 20,000 miles of test data. The results of this study show a fuel economy loss
due to the use of the ethanol blend of 3.3% for the summer season, 2.4% for the winter
season, and 2.8% overall.

When we switched over to E10 last month, prices stayed the same. :(