Ethanol versus regular gas fuel mileage test

I recently rode from Hill City, SD to Casper, Wyo round trip twice in two days (don't ask)and thought I'd run ethanol on one trip and regular gas on the other. The weather conditions and wind were nearly identical on both days and I covered 544 miles on the first day and 552 miles on the second day. I set my throttlemeister at 70 mph and interestingly enough completed both trips within 15 minutes of each other. Traffic is a non issue in this part of the world so I don't think it really made any difference. My calculated mileage according to the trip computer was within 1 mpg of the mileage computed by "hand". I worked out the tankfuls so that my tank was empty upon arrival at both Casper and back at Hill City. When I pulled into fill at the end of both trips I had gone 41 and 47 miles respectively in the reserve mode. This was a bit unsettling as you can imagine. So as unscientific as this may seem, I think the results should be able to stand for themselves as the differences are quite large. The first thing I can say is that there is huge difference in drivability on my AE. Idle and off idle response was much smoother with the regular gas. With ethanol I noticed a lot of surging at low RPM's which made the AE harder to control on takeoff but I'm so used to the AE by now I'd never ride anything else anyway. Power and responsiveness IMHO were much improved within 10 miles of filling with regular gas on the day 2 trip. The biggest single difference although was in the fuel mileage. On day one with the ethanol in the tank I averaged 39.2 mpg. On day two with the regular unleaded-I averaged 45.6. I feel sorry for you poor b******s that don't have any choice in the matter. Believe it or not I have to make another trip tomorrow and am going to try ethanol again with a shot of Seafoam in the mix. I'll keep you posted.

Nice interesting write-up, thanks for sharing.

Yeah thanks. Pretty much all Sporto and I have is ethanol here in MN unless we find a gas station and pay for the non-oxy premium fuel.

Thanks for the comparison. We usually see a qualitative evaluation of the preference for alcohol-free gasoline, but quantifying the >14% difference is amazing. We don't have a choice in California, but it is hard to imagine the "clean-air" mandated formulas with alcohol accomplish anything with a loss of efficiency like that, and the greater evaporative pollution of ethanol

I read if you use Blue Stabil Marine formula for ethanol makes a difference, here is a link from another thread for Ethanol free gas.

https://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

Pretty to close to my own observations, a 10-12 percent decline in mileage with ethanol. So, I can buy 10 gallons of pure gasoline or buy 11 gallons of E-10and go the exact same distance. I have to pay for the ethanol yet get zero benefit. We do not import less fuel as a result, and air pollution is increased. Makes no sense.

... unless you farm corn.

Nope, doesn't make any sense, but on the good side, Congress finally ended the ethanol subsidy! So I hope it'll slowly fade away.

TomInCA said:

We don't have a choice in California, but it is hard to imagine the "clean-air" mandated formulas with alcohol accomplish anything with a loss of efficiency like that, and the greater evaporative pollution of ethanol

Click to expand...

Big Sky said:

I have to pay for the ethanol yet get zero benefit. We do not import less fuel as a result, and air pollution is increased. Makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Crash Cash said:

Nope, doesn't make any sense

Click to expand...

Well, air quality has improved since the advent of oxygenated fuels.

Adding ethanol to gasoline helps reduce the U.S. reliance on foreign oil, then --

Add to that: motor oil with the API/ILSAC Starburst lower viscosity; and 2011 and all future GM gas powered vehicles, a semi-synthetic engine oil will be required; and modern I.C. engines with increased low-friction design/constuction -- then apply all that to the hundreds of millions of autos running around America every day (our modern version of public transportation) and you have a few less oil-tankers coming from the Middle East every day.

I'm glad to see others understanding and agree that when politics get in the middle of fuel, bad things happen. Nothing about Ethanol makes sense. Corn flakes are $4 a box now and huge amounts of farmland that had transitioned back to wildlife through the CRP program in the Upper Midwest here was replanted for fricken ethanol.

charismaticmegafauna said:

Well, air quality has improved since the advent of oxygenated fuels.

Click to expand...

Red herring....

Vehicles themselves have become MUCH cleaner running in the last 20 years, so it's a chicken vs. egg question...

Do cars pollute less because they're running oxygenated fuels, or because they're more efficient, with cat-cons to boot?

And is fuel usage HIGHER because the fuel we have to use (for the most part) is less efficient?

Where's Jestal when we need him??

Well, that was special... I had a carefully crafted response to Charismatic, only to fumble a keystroke and loose it all!

Oh well, in the interim, I see RH has responded as I tried to do... it costs ADDITIONAL gasoline when burning E10 because of the loss of efficiency of approx 10 -12%.

How the hell does that "reduce our dependance on foreign oil"?

In round figures, over the past 30K miles in my Acura coupe, the forced use of E10 has cost me an additional $11.99 per 1,000 miles direct cost for fuel. In addition, throttle response is crap compared to good old fashioned regular, and a large part of the increase in food prices is due to the diversion of corn from use as food stock to making ethanol.

Yep, that certainly looks like a "win/win" proposition to me... for the corn growers! :glare:

dsmack said:

Oh well, in the interim, I see RH has responded as I tried to do... it costs ADDITIONAL gasoline when burning E10 because of the loss of efficiency of approx 10 -12%.

How the hell does that "reduce our dependance on foreign oil"?

Click to expand...

Well, not really....if you lose 10% efficiency, but the fuel you're using has been diluted by 10%, then isn't that a wash? So basically, the actual usage of fossil fuel really hasn't changed a bit, has it?

In round figures, over the past 30K miles in my Acura coupe, the forced use of E10 has cost me an additional $11.99 per 1,000 miles direct cost for fuel. In addition, throttle response is crap compared to good old fashioned regular, and a large part of the increase in food prices is due to the diversion of corn from use as food stock to making ethanol.
Yep, that certainly looks like a "win/win" proposition to me... for the corn growers! :glare:

Click to expand...

Now THERE'S the rub...the fuel costs haven't decreased with the use of ethanol, fuel usage is statistically the same, and food costs HAVE increased unproportionately. Interesting conundrum.

Personally, I haven't experienced a 10% drop in mileage, either in my car or bikes. 2% to 4%, yes. 10%, no.

I'm in Iowa right now and have a bunch of wonderful farmer relatives. Obviously not something I say out loud in front of them as I think some are maintaining livelihoods on selling corn, but I think ethanol is a total waste and will never prove itself here; certainly not as well as the Brazilians produce it using sugar cane. There are many smarter ways for us to reduce dependence on foreign oil: driving more fuel efficient vehicles like motorcycles is one way! Promoting remote work and changing commuting times in metropolitan areas are other ways. I'm worried that we're burning up precious ag land and topsoil in our gas tanks to support outdated ways of living.

Interesting, though; I just put in some ethanol-augmented fuel in the car, so we'll see how that runs.

I started reading this thread yesterday at work (hey, I'm good that way) and followed my nose and Senior Google. Found a websites that shows the availability, but gas station, of non-E10 fuels.

Turns out in Ontario, ALL regular unleaded is E10. Despite the local rumors that Shell regular was non-E10. More interesting, that all 91 or 94 grade fuels are non-E10 (Except at Pioneer stations).

It also turns out that the alcohol is added by the distributor, not the refinery. Seems the alcohol content can be significantly higher than the posted 10% to increase profits (watering down the booze).

Learn something new everyday.

RH ~ I would argue that the use of the petroleum resources is increased by a reduction in fuel mileage as follows:

Assuming a 10% reduction in fuel mileage (mine has varied between 6 - 10%, 10% makes for easy computation). The fact as stated above that the ethanol is added locally (as is the additive package for each brand of fuel may account for that), especially if they are cooking the formula for added profit!

Regular unleaded: 1000 miles @ 32 MPG uses 31.25 gallons of fuel

E10 fuel: 1000 miles @ 29 MPG uses 34.50 gallons of fuel.

Using the mandated E10 fuel uses 3.25 more gallons of fuel for same distance traveled

Because each gallon of E10 fuel consumed is 90% petroleum product + 10% ethanol, 3.25 Gallons extra used @ 90% equals 2.93 Gallons of Petroleum + 0.32 Gallons of ethanol.

3.25 Gallons extra consumed at the current local price of E10 (the only "Regular" available here in WA State) costs me an extra $11.99 per 1000 miles driven. 3.25($3.69)= $11.99

Does this make sense, or did my Alzheimers kick in last week as I attained 70 yoa? :blink:

Let me add to my rant above:

I loves me some farmers! I live in an area that has enjoyed the productivity and hard work of generations of farmers, and I LOVE to eat!

I don't however like the fact that each and every one of us who uses an internal combustion powered device, whether it be a car, motorcycle, aircraft, lawn mower (you get the drift...) is being forced to accept lower performance and higher operating costs just because of an edict from the EPA that has no foundation in fact.

I agree that large strides have been made in the efficiency of automobiles (and M/C as well) primarily through fuel injection, electronic timing improvements and catalytic converters. I'm all for that, believe me.

The use of a valuable resource such as corn production for fuel is "fuelish" at best, when it causes shortages in feed use all the way up the food chain. We get stabbed twice: First having to spend more for a less efficient fuel, and Second with increased food prices because of the mis-application of an important resource.

I am not an expert on much of anything but can't ethanol be produced from lots of other stuff besides corn ??? We give away bazillions of bushels of grain to other countrys that treat us like shit. Why couldn't we make ethanol from that. Can ethanol be made from all the biomass that is burned up in the forest every year and how about plain old lawn clippings. It seems that as smart as this country thinks it is we could come up with alternatives to corn for ethanol like maybe just burn gasoline like we used to. Not trying to get political so I will stop