Pure gas vs. ethanol

[Demonoid369]

Does pure gas truly give better mpg and use less than what gas with ethanol does? On Cherokeeforum a guy posted about using pure gas and saw improvement but I trust naxja more for a reliable answer lol there is a station here that sells premium pure gas for $4.99 compare to standard regular gas with ethanol for $3.79. Wondering if the higher price is truly worth it or not.

 

[the_weirdo]

Yes "pure" gas will give better mileage than an ethanol blend. It will not be worth the $4.99 per gallon price tag. You might get 10% better mileage with pure gas so it isn't worth a 33% price increase.

 

[Wayne Sihler]

I have been running the 100% gas in my 96 XJ, and I notice a 2mpg gain over the ethanol blend.
Had been running the Blended Shell(10%) but that blend has creeped up to 15% locally.
And the 87 octane is only 10 cents more per gallon than the blended.

 

[GregGA]

Interesting that you posted just as I got interested in this subject Some of the stations close to Lake Allatoona are selling "recreational" fuel, 90 octane
non-ethonal. I was down to 1/2 tank, so I added it. I watch my mileage carefully, and can already tell there will be an improvement.

The cost is $3.99 vs. $3.55, so will see if it is "economical". Can't tell a difference by my seat dyno yet Since my 87 was not designed to run
ethanol all the time, it will be an interesting experiment.

 

[bjoehandley]

For what little bump you get in mileage, that $1.20 spread isn't worth the cost. If we had that kind of E85 vs E10 it would be way more than worth while to run E85 in a flex fuel vehicle (it's currently boarderline for my 200 for where I get the stuff around here). That $.45 Spread however is barely worth it gas mileage wise. Some quick guestimating using my 10% mileage, Wayne's 2mpg improvement, and a calculator for figuring the cost effectiveness of such things, E0 came our about $.249 a mile vs $.254 a mile and should be able to go 4.010 miles per dollar vs 3.944 miles on E10. If you have to go out of your way to get it, that $.005 per mile and .066 miles per dollar spent might not be worth it.










I have experimented and gone over 20% on my '98 without problems, even during the winter, wouldn't be surprised if 25% was possible on the 98's! Kinda with we had blender pumps here, be a whole lot easier than trying to blend at the pump.

 

[Demonoid369]

What if I do a half and half blend? Like half a tank of pure gas and the other half with regular gas with ethanol? Think that could help?

 

[5-90]

Yes, it's a difference - EtOH has a lower specific energy content than gasoline.

No, it's not worth the premium (but I'm sure someone tries to make you think it is, so they can get you to pay it.)

I've been dealing with this on another board somewhere - but the title needs to be restated. The thread title is "Ethanol-free Gas; Big Business," but it's more properly stated "Ethanol-free Ga$; Big Bu$ine$$."

One way or another, everyone makes money off of the deal except you.

 

[tbburg]

Always fun to delve into this stuff. Burn about a gallon of diesel to produce about two gallons of ethanol, then subsidize it both directly through cash payments from the government and indirectly by requiring it in fuel. Every vehicle that burns it uses more fuel then otherwise, and we pay extra for it and call it green, then pay a premium over that price to get fuel without it.

This is what bureaucracy is made for.

 

[techno1154]

It is very interesting to see the numbers that you guys come up with. My experience was very different,....more like a 30% loss in mileage.

I worked in Des Moines IA for 10 months in 2007 and could not get more than 250 miles from a tank of fuel. On my way back to Miami FL, after filling up in another state my mileage returned to about 350 miles per tank.

I did very little city driving so I do not think was a major factor. Most of my driving was on I35, I80 and some farm roads which I drove between 40 and 50 MPH.

 

[Wayne Sihler]

I have been running the 100% gas in my 96 XJ, and I notice a 2mpg gain over the ethanol blend.
Had been running the Blended Shell(10%) but that blend has creeped up to 15% locally.
And the 87 octane is only 10 cents more per gallon than the blended.

I should add that the price increase has only been in the last month,until then the price was equal..... Southern States is a farm supply company in the local area and as such they deal with a lot of bulk fuel to farms,which still have the old gas tractors....so with the spring season the usage is up and "they say" the price increase is due to demand being greater.......I dont buy that,,,need pure gas ,first, before adding the ethanol...

 

[bjoehandley]

It is very interesting to see the numbers that you guys come up with. My experience was very different,....more like a 30% loss in mileage.

I worked in Des Moines IA for 10 months in 2007 and could not get more than 250 miles from a tank of fuel. On my way back to Miami FL, after filling up in another state my mileage returned to about 350 miles per tank.

I did very little city driving so I do not think was a major factor. Most of my driving was on I35, I80 and some farm roads which I drove between 40 and 50 MPH.

Are you sure it was 30% loss of mileage on E10 vs E0? That's more loss that what is typically seen with E85 in FFV's. The EPA rating on my 200 is 19/29 on 87 octane E0 and 16/22 on E85 (both are pretty much dead on now that it's got some miles on it).

 

[5-90]

It is very interesting to see the numbers that you guys come up with. My experience was very different,....more like a 30% loss in mileage.

I worked in Des Moines IA for 10 months in 2007 and could not get more than 250 miles from a tank of fuel. On my way back to Miami FL, after filling up in another state my mileage returned to about 350 miles per tank.

I did very little city driving so I do not think was a major factor. Most of my driving was on I35, I80 and some farm roads which I drove between 40 and 50 MPH.

Yah - I pick up about 10-15% in mileage as soon as I fill up with non-CA gas (in OR, AZ, or NV) - and it usually costs LESS out of state as well!

Go figure.

 

[WB9YZU]

In the mid to late 80's at Super America stations, you had a choice of 86 or 91. 91 was 10% Gasohol and cost .10 more than the 86 octane. I drove a Ford Courier and a Renault R12, and eventually a F150 with a 300-6. All 3 vehicle posted a gas mileage gain when run on Gasohol over regular gas and a boost of power. These engines would stop pinging under heavy load and start delivering power. Perhaps they simply had too much advance from the factory.

So I am surprised that some engines/vehicles prefer one brand of gas over another or straight Gas over Gasohol. But indeed it seems to be so. I notice it more I think when I drive cross country since I am looking at miles between stops over a period of hours instead of days. Seems the fuel supply is not the universal quality you would expect. Or perhaps the computers are not advancing the timing enough to take advantage of the higher octane rating of Gasohol?

 

[bjoehandley]

Yah - I pick up about 10-15% in mileage as soon as I fill up with non-CA gas (in OR, AZ, or NV) - and it usually costs LESS out of state as well!

Go figure.

Cost is easy, lower taxes and fuel that is cheaper to produce since it's not as likely to be a boutique blend.

Kinda wonder how he the other additives put into gasoline affect the mileage of regular gas too. Some of them aren't nearly as plastic friendly as Ethanol or normal gasoline.

 

[bjoehandley]

In the mid to late 80's at Super America stations, you had a choice of 86 or 91. 91 was 10% Gasohol and cost .10 more than the 86 octane. I drove a Ford Courier and a Renault R12, and eventually a F150 with a 300-6. All 3 vehicle posted a gas mileage gain when run on Gasohol over regular gas and a boost of power. These engines would stop pinging under heavy load and start delivering power. Perhaps they simply had too much advance from the factory.

So I am surprised that some engines/vehicles prefer one brand of gas over another or straight Gas over Gasohol. But indeed it seems to be so. I notice it more I think when I drive cross country since I am looking at miles between stops over a period of hours instead of days. Seems the fuel supply is not the universal quality you would expect. Or perhaps the computers are not advancing the timing enough to take advantage of the higher octane rating of Gasohol?

That's why I'm starting to wonder about some of the other additives, toluene is one of them and Testors uses that in their more traditional gel model cement (the red tube stuff), which soften and melts the styrene plastics together. It's used in Squadron's Green and White model putties, and if you put too much of the stuff on the plastics and let it gas out, it can start to soften plastic if not desolve it.

 

[techno1154]

Are you sure it was 30% loss of mileage on E10 vs E0? That's more loss that what is typically seen with E85 in FFV's. The EPA rating on my 200 is 19/29 on 87 octane E0 and 16/22 on E85 (both are pretty much dead on now that it's got some miles on it).

It could be a combination of things like... 30" tires, 3.55 gears, 500+ pounds of gear, the hilly terrain (rolling hills that make the cruise control go berserk) and I think about 20% or was it 30% ethanol? What ever it was, it made me chase my tail for months looking at everything to see what is/was wrong with the XJ only to see my mileage go back to normal when I refueled in rural Illinois on my way back to Miami.

Corn farmers do not read this!!

I think they have their un-lubricated middle finger stuck up the rear end of every gasoline buyer in the US.

 

[bjoehandley]

It could be a combination of things like... 30" tires, 3.55 gears, 500+ pounds of gear, the hilly terrain (rolling hills that make the cruise control go berserk) and I think about 20% or was it 30% ethanol? What ever it was, it made me chase my tail for months looking at everything to see what is/was wrong with the XJ only to see my mileage go back to normal when I refueled in rural Illinois on my way back to Miami.

Corn farmers do not read this!!

I think they have their un-lubricated middle finger stuck up the rear end of every gasoline buyer in the US.

Yeah, I think it was a mixture of of everything that put a hurt on your mileage. Several.years back on a trip to visit family in Iowa I had my parents and little sister in my '98 from Chicago and only got 17-19 mpg for that trip. When you have a vehicle loaded down with 4 overweight adults, their luggage for the weekend, and crosswinds so bad that putting it in Full Time 4wd to help it go in a straight line.............mileage suffered.

Oddly enough, the mileage jumped from 17mpg to 19mpg when I put it in 4wd too.

 

[XJ Eric]

I notice a pretty good drop every time I run gas with ANY ethanol. Driving my 2011 suburban if I put in E85 I'm only getting around 15 or 16 MPG highway. This is a 70 mph. E10 isn't as bad I'm getting 17 or 18. When I run full gas I get a good 20 to 21 mpg. I tested my results running from Southwestern OK to North Central KS. At first I thought I was possibly dealing with a down hill thing (going to KS). Better gas mileage on the way there with real gas. So the next trip I reversed it. And the results were the same. MUCH better mileage with real gas. And this was with my flex fuel chevy v-8. I thought there was a switch or button I was forgetting to push my E-85 mileage was so horrible.

 

[bjoehandley]

Sounds about right, I'm begining to think the best way to make a flex fuel engine that gets better mileage on E85 would be to build them to bump the compression and run it premium unleaded instead of regular.

 

[joe_peters]

Yah - I pick up about 10-15% in mileage as soon as I fill up with non-CA gas (in OR, AZ, or NV) - and it usually costs LESS out of state as well!

Go figure.

Are you having "oxygenated" fuel shoved down your throats in CA?