I went out to test the local stations recently. The first one I hit had 5% ethanol, then the next was pure gasoline. Apparently the Texaco's around here are pure, but it does cost a bit more.

He'll probably say the price was per 9/10 gallon... and the ethanol was free.

That would be a bargain. Ethanol may have less energy than gas, but it's not like it's totally worthless.

Just thought, one thing to beware of in testing is that small amounts of ethanol left from the previous tank may skew the results of the first non-ethanol tank upwards. This would be due to the high polarity nature of ethanol and it's surface tension reduction benefits. Some vehicles may benefit highly from better atomisation, more so than they lose from the lower heating value, this would be why some vehicle seem better on E10. Those that only benefit a little from this show a loss due to lower heating value. However, polar solvents do not need to be in high concentrations for this effect, some polarising agents work at as little as 100ppm. Some may remember the 5th grade science experiment where one floats a needle in a bowl of water, then a single drop of dish detergent spoils the surface tension enough to drop it. Actual detergent concentration near the needle is likely in the ppm range. Anyway, relatively minor amounts of ethanol may achieve this in gas, not enough to skew the heating value very much. Therefore motors that can see atomisation benefits may show higher mpg when the last gallon of E10 is topped off with non-ethanol gas... but may show lower results on subsequent tanks of non-ethanol gas. These subsequent results may or may not be substantially better than E10, depending on the particular effects of heating value reduction, flame front speed, and atomisation on that particular motor.

i knew someone would comment on that. this is precisely why i don't take offense to my conservative and anti-drug posts. that's not to criticize your comment however.

i've learned to choose my battles. it's all relative i suppose. i can be aggressive in opinion as i have a rep for being an alpha dog that thinks outside the box or draws my own box. but, something like this that falls short of but is not limited to murder, rape, child molestation, theft, etc...well it isn't a priority for me.

you could perhaps make a case for fraud, but...

There is always the chance that he didn't willingly defraud his customers, but rather unknowingly received a delivery of what he did not order.

HC, i considered that, but...^^^

I totally see it from your view, and likely will act the same way when it cames to affecting me. Just shrug it off, and not buy there anymore. I admit it, I'm lazy.
But consider this: Heinz was under filling their ketchup bottles by about a half ounce in California. It was discovered when a customer bought a 20oz bottle for recipe, measured it out, and found it short. Now likely other people noticed this, and just shrugged it off as not worth their time or an honest mistake. This guy didn't, and all he did extra was put a call into the state broad that monitors standards. They did an investigation, and it turns out Heinz short-changed the customers a Ca by millions.

This gas station likely isn't of that scale, but how likely is it some other customer will actually test the gas they buy and put in a call?

IMO, the best policy would be to notify the owner. If he fixes it, great. If he doesn't, then you notify the authorities.

so THAT's how John Kerry funded his campaign! :D