Archives

I've seen many post backing the use of ethanol, so I thought I'd run my experience with those at Cleanmpg.

Let me explain what E10 does to my mileage in my FEH. When I fill up with 14 gallons of E10, I get 1.4 (10%) of ethanol. Normally, I can get at least 658 miles (47mpg) with 14 gallons of straight gas this time of year without any problems. With the 14 gallons of E10, I have to work hard to get 574 miles (41mpg) with E10. After that tank, I get straight gas for three tanks after, but my long term fuel trim is still screwed up and I'm still getting ~41mpg. Let say the forth tank gets things back to normal even though things haven't cleared up completely.

If I'd continued to maintain 47mpg for the 1st and 3 additional tanks, I would have gone 2632 miles on 56 gallons. Instead, the E10 dropped my miles traveled to 2296 miles on 54.6 gallons of straight gas and 1.4 gallons of Ethanol. This means I lost 336 miles with the same volume of fuel. Now, if I had totally eliminated that 10% ethanol (1.4 gallons) to 12.6 gallons of straight gas, I would have traveled 2369 miles at 47mpg. This means if I had not added the volume of ethanol (1.4 gallons) and the additional 1.4 gallons times 3 more tanks (4.2 gallons) to make the 14 gallon fills of straight gas in the tank after, I still would have gone further. In other words, I would have went 2369 mile on 50.4 gallons (4X12.6) of straight gas. By adding 1.4 gallons of Ethanol, I only went 2296 (73 miles less) on 54.6 gallons of straight gas. The Ethanol caused me to burn 4.2 gallons more of straight gas to go 73 miles less. How does that protect the environment?

The bottom line is I think E10 is a scam to make you use more gas than you would without it. So, big oil has found a way to get the public to burn more gas and destroy our environment even more. I don't care if I got the ethanol free, I still think E10 is a scam big oil has put together to make more money.

If I had let my long term fuel trim adjust to the ethanol, I'm not sure it would adjust to anything better than 41mpg tanks. Also, some people say they have a choice of paying less for E10 than regular 87 octane. I don't even know because the pumps are not marked E10 and the price is the same here in FL.

GaryG

Technically, selling E10 has precisely zero to do with trying to reduce oil consumption. Instead it has everything to do with replacing other oxygenates (specifically MTBE) in order to improve air quality without posing as much of a contamination risk to ground water. It's also an effective booster of octane rating given that its own octane rating is very high (~110 IIRC?).

Which is not to say I think ethanol is a good choice of a motor fuel. I just don't think it's some kind of conspiracy to make you use more oil.

I had a discussion similar to this with several people a couple of years ago when E85 first went on sale here in our little town. People were even putting the stuff in their non-flexfuel vehicles because it was "cheaper." I told them that they were screwing themselves over in several different ways by doing that. First, it takes more of the E85 to go the same distance and it wasn't enough cheaper to make up for that. Second, they were running the risk of damaging their tanks/fuel delivery systems. I just don't see where the benefit of ethanol is. My $.02 worth.

I had a discussion similar to this with several people a couple of years ago when E85 first went on sale here in our little town. People were even putting the stuff in their non-flexfuel vehicles because it was "cheaper." I told them that they were screwing themselves over in several different ways by doing that. First, it takes more of the E85 to go the same distance and it wasn't enough cheaper to make up for that. Second, they were running the risk of damaging their tanks/fuel delivery systems. I just don't see where the benefit of ethanol is. My $.02 worth.

I agree, but my question is, has anyone experienced a reduced amount of regular gas burned when using ethanol. I only see an increase of burning regular gas when I add E10 ethanol. Who cares that ethanol burns cleaner if it requires more straight gas to burn it?

GaryG

I think the blend fuels will do real good in higher compression ratio motors. I honestly think it would have done very well in my R-18 Civic. But in lower compression engines its a waste.

I remember these fuels before in my life time. The pumps with the corn on them. Its all about the money. Its all about the marketing. If they wanted to burn eth. All they have to do is build a ice to use it right.

I think the blend fuels will do real good in higher compression ratio motors. I honestly think it would have done very well in my R-18 Civic. But in lower compression engines its a waste.

I remember these fuels before in my life time. The pumps with the corn on them. Its all about the money. Its all about the marketing. If they wanted to burn eth. All they have to do is build a ice to use it right.

You and I are thinking on the same level. Race engines are now being built to take advantage of ethanol, but I think it's a way to convince people to use that crap in our low compression engines.

I know how to get the most out of my FEH, and ethanol is poison to my pocketbook today!

GaryG

Who cares that ethanol burns cleaner if it requires more straight gas to burn it?


Just to play a little Devil's Advocate, the same could be said of many emissions-related technologies. For example, what if a Prius could start up and go directly into Stage 4 rather than burning all that gas to warm up the catalytic convertor? That would save quite a bit of fuel at the expense of air quality. Not to mention they could have given me a real 12gal tank and probably a reliable 750mi range driving exactly the way I drive now. How about the Insight? Only the MT version got lean burn, and only with the addition of expensive ($1000+) catalytic convertors to scrub some of the elevated NOx emissions. Imagine if Honda didn't have to spend the money and could make lean-burn engines standard across the fleet! How much gas would be saved? I imagine their fleet average would go up quite a bit, albeit at the expense of air quality.

Of course your point isn't lost to me. It just depends on your perspective. I'm sure Los Angelinos who remember the smog are more than happy to burn a few extra gallons in order to have breathable air. I've been to cities (namely Athens, Greece) with the exact same pollution issues but without the emissions standards that we have. All I can say for that is "Yuck." There's nothing fun about feeling short of breath because you can hardly stand to inhale.

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate, the same could be said of many emissions-related technologies. For example, what if a Prius could start up and go directly into Stage 4 rather than burning all that gas to warm up the catalytic convertor? That would save quite a bit of fuel at the expense of air quality. Not to mention they could have given me a real 12gal tank and probably a reliable 750mi range driving exactly the way I drive now. How about the Insight? Only the MT version got lean burn, and only with the addition of expensive ($1000+) catalytic convertors to scrub some of the elevated NOx emissions. Imagine if Honda didn't have to spend the money and could make lean-burn engines standard across the fleet! How much gas would be saved? I imagine their fleet average would go up quite a bit, albeit at the expense of air quality.

Of course your point isn't lost to me. It just depends on your perspective. I'm sure Los Angelinos who remember the smog are more than happy to burn a few extra gallons in order to have breathable air. I've been to cities (namely Athens, Greece) with the exact same pollution issues but without the emissions standards that we have. All I can say for that is "Yuck." There's nothing fun about feeling short of breath because you can hardly stand to inhale.

Tim, are you saying that ethanol in some way makes the remaining gas content burn cleaner? What I was saying in my original post was ethanol caused me to burn much more straight gas to go the same distance without it. Over a year ago, after the E10 ethanol was gone, it took three tanks of straight gas to clear up my long term fuel trim maps to get my average 47-53mpg tanks back.

I assumed that E10 would only give me 10% cleaner air, not 100% for the entire tank. Also, since my long term fuel trims must recover, I must be putting out more smog than normal during those three tanks of regular gas. Mark Smith, a certified tech and member here and GH, confirmed that the fuel trim maps on Fords take a long time to reprogram. I think the fact that the FEH is so heavy and with the small low torque Atkinson engine can't handle the 34% drop in energy ethanol lacks than gas. This is why I,m interested in how ethanol effects the Honda and Toyota Hybrids.

Now that it's cooled down a little here in FL, I should be getting greater than 50mpg days. My tank average right now with 400 miles is at 41.1mpg. This is the lowest tank average I've gotten in years.

GaryG

Hi Gary:

___I know you have discussed this before but I have driven the FEH with and without E10 and back and the differences were not worth mentioning. I have seen the same with the Ranger and it uses the exact same ICE minus the late intake valve closing as the FEH. Here in the Chicago area, we are forced to use RFG based E10 year round and yes, there is an ~ 2 – 3% energy content loss per gallon and yes it does cause a 2 – 3% FE hit but the oxygenates do indeed help with smog forming emissions and as a fuel extender, it works for that too. 10% by volume and you lose 2 – 3% of your FE makes for a 7% gain when considering our foreign oil addiction. Some of that 7% is eaten up with the following of course … As for how it is derived, shipped and marketed, I have serious concerns.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Gary:

___I know you have discussed this before but I have driven the FEH with and without E10 and back and the differences were not worth mentioning. I have seen the same with the Ranger and it uses the exact same ICE minus the late intake valve closing as the FEH. Here in the Chicago area, we are forced to use RFG based E10 year round and yes, there is an ~ 2 – 3% energy content loss per gallon and yes it does cause a 2 – 3% FE hit but the oxygenates do indeed help with smog forming emissions and as a fuel extender, it works for that too. 10% by volume and you lose 2 – 3% of your FE makes for a 7% gain when considering our foreign oil addiction. Some of that 7% is eaten up with the following of course … As for how it is derived, shipped and marketed, I have serious concerns.

___Good Luck


___Wayne

I live in an E10 area and disagree that its effect on the FEH isn't any different than on Otto cycle engines. My GM 3.8L pushrod engine does take only about a 3% hit from E10, but the low DCR Miller-cycle FEH takes a greater than 10% hit from it. You can't drive one here and there with and without E10 and conclude that there isn't much difference. I can go out of the Phoenix metro area and get straight gas, but to truly gauge you need many tanks of both over varying conditions. Also, pumps that normally have straight gas and then get E10 can have calibration issues that further cloud the true MPG picture.

Hi Carl:

___I can only say I have seen south of 60 mpg in an FEH with a fresh fill of our own RFG based E10 from empty. I then drove it on a 95% highway run to Detroit in 40 degree temp for a 42.x mpg average IIRC? The Prius’ I have driven on this wicked brew we call RFG based E10 here in the Chicago area can pull 100 in the slow speed stuff at will and 65 + on the highway in the summer months. I have been forced to use this crap for hundreds of thousands of miles and I do not see a huge gain when I get the chance to get off of it. There is a few percent gain but it is just noticeable. Nothing like a 10% fall while on it or 10% gain while off of it.

___This is only my experience and while driving with some of the worst energy content gasoline in the world over my entire life and for some seriously stupid amount of miles :ccry: I have only been using Shell or BP for what seems like forever and that may have something to do with it but even lower tier stations are using the same without some magic elixir in an additive package vs. the no-name places I used to fill at.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Wayne and Carl, I've only got E10 3 times and it has dropped my mileage like clockwork throughout the tank and for three tanks of straight gas after. Even the '05 Escape Hybrid Powertrain Control/Emission Diagnosis Manual states: "Long term fuel trim corrections may change depending on the operating conditions of the engine (RPM and load), ambient air temperature, and fuel quality (% alcohol or oxygenates)."

It is my opinion that it is a combination of the lower energy and the changing of the fuel trim maps that cause this repeated 12% plus hit I get with my hypermiling style of driving with E10. Highway driving may not be as bad, but I don't use the highway all that much.

I just hit a 50mpg plus segment from a cold start to my 20 mile commute and filled up with E10 on the return. All I could get out of my FEH after the fill-up was barely 41mpg on my return home with a warm engine. Its been that way the past 400 miles. I get better mileage during the heat of the summer with the A/C running driving the same routes.

A big question to compare this with would be if Debbie Katz was running E10 when we did the MPG Challenge. If she was, E10 would be fine after the long term fuel trim adjusted to it. If she was running straight gas, we still have a big problem with ethanol in the FEH when we change fuel types. Debbie's FEH performed very close to my FEH.

I had started a thread on GH, and of course GPSman1 and I went at it as usual. He finally agreed with having a 6mpg hit on E10. Wayne, you remember we had this subject come up about 2 years ago and I think you gave up our findings. My mileage is as consistent as its ever been today, and I know when something is effecting my mileage even more now than 2 years ago.

GaryG

Hi Gary:

___I cannot argue with your own experiences either. Debbie’s FEH was loaded with RFG based E10 so there was no help there.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Gary:

___I cannot argue with your own experiences either. Debbie’s FEH was loaded with RFG based E10 so there was no help there.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

That very good news Wayne, because I couldn't tell ANY difference in power or mileage with her FEH. I'm wondering if the change to straight 87 octane gives her an improvement when she gets it, or if there is change for the worst. At any rate, my future with ethanol is looking better when and if they make a permanent change in my location.

Good observation Wayne!

GaryG

I'm definitely seeing a hit from E10 (which is pumped starting Nov. 1 here) but it's nothing compared to the cold weather/warmup hit. E10 should have 4% less energy content; assuming my engine doesn't run quite as optimally as on gas, that's maybe a 2mpg hit for me. And when my engine's warmed up, that seems to be more or less what I'm getting. Recent road trips with speeds in the low 60s yielded mpg in the low 30s, maybe 2mpg less than in the summer.

Hi Gary:

___With you and Carl working together, I bet you two can easily find the FEH PID’s for short and long fuel trims and watch changes in real time using the SG-II’s X-Gauge. It would make for an interesting analysis with the change in fuel at a number of given constant speeds while attempting to find out what is really going on?

___WriConsult, you probably have 4 things banging away at your FE currently. Colder temps, winter RFG, E10 and colder temps with the resultant increase in RRC and all contributing to lower your personal FE :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I wouldn't think LTFT values are adjusted over only 400 miles - it sounds to me like the repeated switching back and forth could be the issue? Maybe if you just stick with E10 for 3+ tanks and evaluate it at that point.

And I may be wrong on this, but I believe the LTFT values really only affect open loop driving. This means that steady state cruise should be managed by the O2 sensor (I assume the FEH has a LAF?), and only acceleration and other higher throttle activities should take a hit from incorrect LTFT.

I wouldn't think LTFT values are adjusted over only 400 miles - it sounds to me like the repeated switching back and forth could be the issue? Maybe if you just stick with E10 for 3+ tanks and evaluate it at that point.

And I may be wrong on this, but I believe the LTFT values really only affect open loop driving. This means that steady state cruise should be managed by the O2 sensor (I assume the FEH has a LAF?), and only acceleration and other higher throttle activities should take a hit from incorrect LTFT.

Shifty, here's what the FEH manual says about LTFT: "Learning the corrections in KAM improves both open loop and closed loop air/fuel ratio control. Advantages include:

Short term fuel trim does not have to generate new corrections each time the engine goes into closed loop.

Long term fuel trim corrections can be used both while in open loop and closed loop modes."

When I had my 12V battery disconnected, KAM reset to the default mode. The effect was almost the same as changing to ethanol and it took me 3-4 tanks to get back my mojo. I think I'm starting to understand LTFT finally.

GaryG

That very good news Wayne, because I couldn't tell ANY difference in power or mileage with her FEH. I'm wondering if the change to straight 87 octane gives her an improvement when she gets it, or if there is change for the worst. At any rate, my future with ethanol is looking better when and if they make a permanent change in my location.

Good observation Wayne!

GaryG

I get my gas from a Shell station just a few blocks from our house, so my FEH gets either Summer or Winter RFG. I don't particularly go looking for "just plain gas", or make an effort to get it when I'm somewhere where it's available, so I don't really know if it would make a significant difference or not :confused:

What I can say is that most of the mpg numbers I post are from tanks of RFG, & I've been happy with what I've been getting :) Even though our temps here in WI have been more wintery, I'm seeing commutes in the high 30mpg range :) :) :)

does one think using e10 would extend the life of emissions equipment? i remember reading an article that an e85 engine (or e100 for that matter) barely requires as much catalytic tech as much as gasoline. I also remember somewhere along the lines of ethanol engines can be 40% more thermally efficient than gasoline engines at 25%, since because of the high octane rating I'm wondering if its a better alternative to diesel engines, since they require extensive emissions equipment.

i'd try E10 but too bad here in Canada Husky/Mohawk are not approved on the manufactures of top tier gasoline brands, so its still Chevron NiMH hater for me!

The poor fuel ecomony is not ethanol's fault.
It is your CAR's fault!

New researh indicates that E10 is the worst possible fuel for cars currently on the road.
The 10% blend fools most cars on the road today to burn a "rich" mixture, decreasing fuel economy.

HOWEVER....

New research indicates that somewhere in the E30 to E40 range, depending on the individual car ( Ford's and Toyotas do best on E30, Chevy does better on E40 ), the scale tips the other way.

Burning E30 in a Ford I4 2.3L engine for example, fools the car to burn "lean".

Now, on my first tank of E30 ( 3.5 gal. E85 + 11.5 gal. E10 mixed together ) I am getting the EXACT SAME MPG AS E10.

And on a cost basis, which is what most Americans will look at:

Cost per mile on gas ( at $2.879 ) = $0.0872 Cost per mile E30 = $0.0921.

Cost per 10,000 miles on gas = $872.00
Cost per 10,000 miles on E30 = $921.00

E30 = ~ $49 more per year, with an average driver.
Is it worth $49 ( to you ) to support your local economy, and produce cleaner air?

Are you willing to pay 30 cents more per day to power your home from a windmill?
Wind Power costs more than coal or natural gas after all.
If you say "yes"... then why not say yes to paying 30 cents more per day for ethanol?
Why do so many people balk at paying $49 more per year in the case of a small 2.3L Ford engine, to get a home-grown product that you don't have to go over seas and take with gunships?

By today's standards, it takes 3 gallons of petroleum eqivalent to make 5 gallons of ethanol. You get 5 for the price of 3. And the MPG loss from ethanol is really quite slight... when properly done.

It is not ethanol's fault that you are using a car that is not properly built!!!
-John

Hi John:

___Maybe you would like to reply to the thread already discussing this?

E85-May Not be Best Ethanol Blend (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7604)

___We know that a high compression engine would help reduce Ethanol’s hit. Nothing we can do about that because it would not run on gasoline worth a **** afterwards. We know both E10and E85 are garbage. You would be a prime candidate to do some of your own E30/E40 and let us know?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Sure. Where is that? Your link is broken, or there is no link.

Well after reading this thread you all have confirmed what I suspected about E10 and mpg. While in Iowa recently I noticed that at the pump E10 was offered at a lower price than the other blends. Here in Chicago there is only E10. Does anyone know if the 89 and 93 blends are also E10 in northern Illinois? I've also noticed that the cold weather conditions in Chicago take a toll on gas consumption, not to mention the expressway driving thru the city, it's like driving the Indy 500. When I travel to Wisconsin I have noticed E10 at the stations along Rt 50 into Lake Como. I don't recall seeing
non-E10 blends. Is there anyone else that lives in Chicago or Chicagoland area that has a FEH that can relate their mpg readings so I can get a better feel for where I should be at?
I envy those that live in the warm areas of the country that get great mpg.

Thanks in advance.

Well after reading this thread you all have confirmed what I suspected about E10 and mpg. While in Iowa recently I noticed that at the pump E10 was offered at a lower price than the other blends. Here in Chicago there is only E10. Does anyone know if the 89 and 93 blends are also E10 in northern Illinois? I've also noticed that the cold weather conditions in Chicago take a toll on gas consumption, not to mention the expressway driving thru the city, it's like driving the Indy 500. When I travel to Wisconsin I have noticed E10 at the stations along Rt 50 into Lake Como. I don't recall seeing
non-E10 blends. Is there anyone else that lives in Chicago or Chicagoland area that has a FEH that can relate their mpg readings so I can get a better feel for where I should be at?
I envy those that live in the warm areas of the country that get great mpg.

Thanks in advance.

I believe that here in SE WI, gas stations sell the same blend of gas that you're getting in the Chicago area. My FEH gets Shell regular (87 or 89 octane; I'll have to remember to check the pump next time I fill up - in 2 weeks :D), & in warmer weather my mpg's are in the mid- to high-40's, with an occasional 50+ :) :) :) My lifetime mileage stands at 39.8mpg at the moment :) :)

I haven't ever gone looking, or (knowingly) taken advantage of an opportunity to fill up with straight gas, & I'm inclined to believe that, as GaryG said, my FEH is "used" to running on the RFG product.

Whatever the case is, I'm very happy with it :) :) :) :)

Hi Lone Ranger:

___As Debbie mentioned, everything from Gary up through Milwaukee and most of the collar counties are E10 only. You have to head south or west to find non-E10 so essentially, we are screwed where that is concerned. The rest of the Midwest is heading for E10 so finding real gasoline will be an exercise in futility down the road. At least in most of the Midwest it will?

___Also, do not let E10 scare you. I have driven Prius-I’s, II’s, FEH’s, HCH-I’s and II’s with the stuff and you can still pick up great numbers. The Insight, Accord and Ranger numbers below were all worked on it and I am sure you see that working E10 is just another impediment. The fall off is a lot less then this thread may make you believe. Maybe 2 – 3% in real terms in my experience but nothing most will ever see unless having the ability to use E10 one tank and straight gasoline the next in similar conditions and that is just about impossible for us.

___As far as what you should expect out of your FEH, the FE is truly up to you. Living in Chicago is both a blessing and a curse. I love the Kennedy from the Junction to the Ryan when it is not congested (only about 6 hours in the middle of the night :rolleyes:) for its miles and miles of 25 - 50’ + elevation delta’s but rush congestion can tear you up in a heart beat. The slower speeds pre and post rush also help with your FE. Rush to Rush and in the real nasty stop and crawls (30 minutes to cover 3 or 4 miles), even a Prius and FEH get taken to the cleaners. When things are moving along between 10 and 45 and in a more normal back-up as is usually experienced on the Tri-State, you can P&G with the best of them. Your FE will go through the roof making up for the period when you are crawling along burning precious SoC waiting for an opening. At least you have a pack to get you through some of that 3 mph stuff unlike the rest ;)

___And then we have the Chicago areas excellent 55 mph limits. As you know, most are doing 65 + but the right lanes at 47 – 55 are yours. Use the ebb and flow of the on-ramps and off-ramps for a little HS gliding and DWL where appropriate. The FEH will return the favor in kind. My last good run down the Tri-state to the IL. border yielded a 46 mpg segment in an FEH on E10 after being filled with nothing but the straight stuff in late fall. If I was allowed 46 from the FEH on an all highway run on Shell based E10 – Winter RFG, I am sure you could see similar taking advantage of what is offered after setting up your FEH to do battle with the other 4 million inhabitants of the Chicago area expressways.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Thanks to all for the feedback and encouragement.

Does the EPA test fuel mpg with straight gas or E10 to arrive at its readings?