E10
 

I know the big push is for increasing ethanol use, especially in NE where I live. We are #2 in the nation for production.

For 7 weeks, using regular 85 oct unleaded, I have averaged 47.14 mpg. Currently, there is a $0.10 difference in the cost of reg. unleaded and E10, so I decided to give it an honest try.

In the last 2 weeks, and for 2 tanks full, my average dropped to 41.4 mpg.

I travel a very stable 70 mile, round trip circuit each day, employing the same 'hypermiling' techniques, so believe the results are as accurate as I can make them.

With price points of $2.95 and $3.05, that represents a 3.28% differential in price, but my mileage dropped by 12.81%.

Based on those results, I would have to buy the E10 at $2.68/gal to stay scratch.

What results have other posters had with E10?

I can't get straight unleaded "non-ethanol" gas where I am (Rhode Island), so I have no way of measuring the difference in fuel economy between ethanol and non-ethanol gas. However, I do remember with my previous car ('95 Civic VX) that I got about 5% better FE when I filled the tank in Vermont where MTBE was not required because they didn't have enough unhealthy air days to require the additive. MTBE had the same affect as ethanol in reducing emissions and lowering FE.

To this day, I'll never understand how it's possible to burn more gas with ethanol (or previously MTBE) gas yet produce fewer and cleaner overall emissions than burning non-ethanol or non-MTBE gas. The cleaner emissions must be pretty substantial. But we, as consumers, pay for it twice: 1) in the extra cost per gallon for the blended gas (I see you pay less for the ethanol blend, but my understanding is the blended stuff, at least years ago, added to the cost of a gallon of gas) and 2) for the worse fuel economy with the blended gas.

Welcome Fuzzy, I missed your intro thread.
What octane was the gas with E-10 ? Seems like a pretty big loss in mpg.
All gas here in MN is E-10, but I can hop over to WI and get straight gas. AS far as I can see there is only maybe 1-2 mpg difference, One thing I noticed is that mpg is always the same with gas, mpg seems to jump up and down more with E-10, possibly due to some tankfuls absorbing moisture.

What you have found is quite reasonable results. Higher the ethanol lower the fuel economy. My wife asked about it for our Buick which it's not made to accept. I figured it would have to be 45 cents less per gallon, which it isn't in our area to make it a wash. If your car is not made for it, don't run it for prolonged periods as it can be caustic to your fuel system. That is one of the major differences, plus most cars either use an ethanol sensor or a new algorithim in the ecm to figure how to set up to run on it.

Yah, less energy density in ethanol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Gasoline: 34.6 MJ/L
Ethanol: 24 MJ/L

But it is renewable at least, or at least has more potential to be renewable if we didn't waste so much gas making it.

When ethanol was first phasing in I alternated in my gramma's crownvic and my car, so no difference, but everyone's reacts differently to it I spose.

Gas usage to produce it is a real problem some studies show it can be more than gal. for gal. I hope they get this fixed! One thing though for those that like power it is a real powerhouse like getting some great premium.

I believe you may be wrong on several points here. First ethanol I believe has less BTUs than does gasoline, so less performance. Second, high octane "premium" gas does not improve performance. High octane is only necessary for high compression ICEs to defeat pre-ignition or detonation. Basically when the gas/air mixture gets too hot from compression it will ignite before the spark plugs go off and it will try to send your crankshaft in reverse.

Here's some more discussion on it.

All I know is there is real positive diss. on using it in some of the higher performance cars out there.