Ethanol vs non Ethonal fuels
03-09-18, 05:19 AM
#2
Lexus Test Driver
For me, it depends wholly on the vehicle.
Power, if it's less than 15%, you can't feel a difference unless you have the golden butt, but all the vehicles I've had where I can compare them have been fairly powerful, already.
Where I do notice is MPG. The more primitive the vehicle, the more pronounced the difference is.
My 1998 5.9L Grand Cherokee is, mechanically, essentially a four wheel drive 1971 Barracuda with the 360 and an automatic.
On ethanol-poisoned 93 octane, 13-14 MPG. The same roads/speed on 100% gasoline is more like 18 MPG.
However, driving back from Denver, Tuesday, I filled up twice at non-ethanol stations...one in Amarillo, the other in Quanah. No difference in MPG/performance of the RX350 at all.
None.
Power, if it's less than 15%, you can't feel a difference unless you have the golden butt, but all the vehicles I've had where I can compare them have been fairly powerful, already.
Where I do notice is MPG. The more primitive the vehicle, the more pronounced the difference is.
My 1998 5.9L Grand Cherokee is, mechanically, essentially a four wheel drive 1971 Barracuda with the 360 and an automatic.
On ethanol-poisoned 93 octane, 13-14 MPG. The same roads/speed on 100% gasoline is more like 18 MPG.
However, driving back from Denver, Tuesday, I filled up twice at non-ethanol stations...one in Amarillo, the other in Quanah. No difference in MPG/performance of the RX350 at all.
None.
03-09-18, 06:19 AM
#3
Racer
Thread Starter
For me, it depends wholly on the vehicle.
Power, if it's less than 15%, you can't feel a difference unless you have the golden butt, but all the vehicles I've had where I can compare them have been fairly powerful, already.
Where I do notice is MPG. The more primitive the vehicle, the more pronounced the difference is.
My 1998 5.9L Grand Cherokee is, mechanically, essentially a four wheel drive 1971 Barracuda with the 360 and an automatic.
On ethanol-poisoned 93 octane, 13-14 MPG. The same roads/speed on 100% gasoline is more like 18 MPG.
However, driving back from Denver, Tuesday, I filled up twice at non-ethanol stations...one in Amarillo, the other in Quanah. No difference in MPG/performance of the RX350 at all.
None.
Power, if it's less than 15%, you can't feel a difference unless you have the golden butt, but all the vehicles I've had where I can compare them have been fairly powerful, already.
Where I do notice is MPG. The more primitive the vehicle, the more pronounced the difference is.
My 1998 5.9L Grand Cherokee is, mechanically, essentially a four wheel drive 1971 Barracuda with the 360 and an automatic.
On ethanol-poisoned 93 octane, 13-14 MPG. The same roads/speed on 100% gasoline is more like 18 MPG.
However, driving back from Denver, Tuesday, I filled up twice at non-ethanol stations...one in Amarillo, the other in Quanah. No difference in MPG/performance of the RX350 at all.
None.
03-09-18, 06:57 AM
#4
Driver School Candidate
Non Ethanol vs Ethanol Gas
I ran a few tank fulls of non-ethanol intermitently on a long road trip to Santa Fe.
Premium non-ethanol was at least 30 cent a gallon more than ethanol premium gas.
I couldn't detect any seat of the pants performance difference. I didn't keep track
of the fuel mileage, because of the joy of running this car on long open roads.
Premium non-ethanol was at least 30 cent a gallon more than ethanol premium gas.
I couldn't detect any seat of the pants performance difference. I didn't keep track
of the fuel mileage, because of the joy of running this car on long open roads.
03-09-18, 08:42 AM
#5
Racer
Thread Starter
I ran a few tank fulls of non-ethanol intermitently on a long road trip to Santa Fe.
Premium non-ethanol was at least 30 cent a gallon more than ethanol premium gas.
I couldn't detect any seat of the pants performance difference. I didn't keep track
of the fuel mileage, because of the joy of running this car on long open roads.
Premium non-ethanol was at least 30 cent a gallon more than ethanol premium gas.
I couldn't detect any seat of the pants performance difference. I didn't keep track
of the fuel mileage, because of the joy of running this car on long open roads.
03-09-18, 08:54 AM
#6
Lexus Test Driver
fwhomeboy, this I don't know...yet.
We're taking a trip back to CO next month, and I'm going to lobby for my ride, as it really is more comfy and gets better MPG. I'll let you know what I find out, because I intentionally stop for ethanol-free juice at the one place on the way in/out of town.
We're taking a trip back to CO next month, and I'm going to lobby for my ride, as it really is more comfy and gets better MPG. I'll let you know what I find out, because I intentionally stop for ethanol-free juice at the one place on the way in/out of town.
03-09-18, 11:12 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Ethanol has been linked to MANY issues at the BMW forums, specifically with regard to engine coking. HUGE issue. As for our cars? Who knows, but I avoid ethanol whenever I can, which usually means paying more.
Trending Topics
03-09-18, 11:19 AM
#8
I have been trying non ethanol premium at 91 octane, 87 octane 10% ethanol, and 89 octane 10% ethanol. I haven't found any difference in mpg or power. It is difficult to compare mpg, because in my experience the biggest impact on mpg is your mix of driving, and for highway especially, the prevailing winds. Some stations around here offer 88 octane 15% ethanol, and the sign says it can be used in 2001 and newer cars, but I haven't had the guts to try it.
I live in Iowa, where ethanol is highly subsidized. I typically prefer the 91 octane non ethanol, but it typically runs 69-75 cents more a gallon, which adds up to about $16 more per tank full. Over a year's time that means over $800 more in fuel costs. I don't believe I am recouping that in better MPG or performance. I like the 89 when I can find it, but more rare here the last few years.
I live in Iowa, where ethanol is highly subsidized. I typically prefer the 91 octane non ethanol, but it typically runs 69-75 cents more a gallon, which adds up to about $16 more per tank full. Over a year's time that means over $800 more in fuel costs. I don't believe I am recouping that in better MPG or performance. I like the 89 when I can find it, but more rare here the last few years.
03-09-18, 11:49 AM
#9
Instructor
I ran a year long test on my Honda and found that the mileage was 10% lower with alcohol in the gas and the amount of alcohol was 10% so that means the alcohol is just a filler. Leave out the alcohol where I get just 9/10s of a gallon of gas and I get 10% lower mileage.....LOL. We are just subsidizing corn farmers and starving third world countries that could be eating that corn. And we are out the extra money!!!!!
The following users liked this post:
mckellyb (03-10-18)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post