Great mileage using 100 percent petrol

[84FordMan]

EPA also sets MPG averages for every car they test using E0.

 

[427435]

While alcohol allows a higher compression ration, it is not needed to make use of the BTU's in it.

EPA also provides mpg ratings for cars using E85. The results are spot on what you would calculate with BTU of E85.

Here's a chart of BTU content. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent for easier reading.

Gasoline gallon equivalent tables
GGE calculated for gasoline in US gallons at 114000 BTU per gallon,
or 7594 kilocalories per litre[2] Fuel: liquid, US gallons GGE GGE % BTU/gal kWh/gal HP-hr/gal Cal/litre
Gasoline (base)[3] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 33.41 44.79 7594.0
Gasoline (conventional, summer)[3] 0.9960 100.40% 114,500 33.56 44.99 7624.5
Gasoline (conventional, winter)[3] 1.0130 98.72% 112,500 32.97 44.20 7496.5
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ethanol)[3] 1.0190 98.14% 111,836 32.78 43.94 7452.4
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ETBE)[3] 1.0190 98.14% 111,811 32.77 43.93 7452.4
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, MTBE)[3] 1.0200 98.04% 111,745 32.75 43.90 7445.1
Gasoline (10% MTBE)[4] 1.0200 98.04% 112,000 32.83 44.00 7445.1
Gasoline (regular unleaded)[5] 1.0000 100.00% 114,100 33.44 44.83 7594.0
Diesel #2[5] 0.8800 113.64% 129,500 37.95 50.87 8629.8
Biodiesel (B100)[5] 0.9600 104.17% 118,300 34.80 46.65 8629.5
Bio Diesel (B20)[5] 0.9000 111.11% 127,250 37.12 49.76 8437.7
Liquid natural gas (LNG)[5] 1.5362 65.10% 75,000 21.75 29.16 4943.3
Liquefied petroleum gas (propane) (LPG)[5] 1.3500 74.04% 84,300 24.75 33.18 5625.2
Methanol fuel (M100)[5] 2.0100 49.75% 56,800 16.62 22.28 3778.1
Ethanol fuel (E100)[5] 1.5000 66.67% 76,100 22.27 29.85 5062.7
Ethanol (E85)[5] 1.3900 71.94% 81,800 24.04 32.23 5463.3
Jet fuel (naphtha)[6] 0.9700 103.09% 118,700 34.44 46.17 7828.9
Jet fuel (kerosene)[6] 0.9000 111.11% 128,100 37.12 49.76 8437.7



Note that E10 has 98.04% of the energy of pure gas. Controlled mpg tests (like the EPA tests) will show that. Uncontrolled tests---------it's whatever the tester wants.

 

[thompithak3182]

im with mark 88 on this one...

 

[427435]

im with mark 88 on this one...

If you are referring to the good/bad of subsidies (none currently), that is a different discussion.

On the other hand, MPG and BTU's/gallon are technical things for which definitive data is available.

 

[mf7lakes]

I'm quoting myself from another thread. The following mileages are taken directly from odometer and gallons on the pump meter -- not the computer in the car. And the price of non-ethanol is not prohibitive - at least not in the 6 southern states I drive through on this trip.

quote: I take a 900+ mile trip (1800 miles round trip) about 2 to 3 times per year. On the way down I use 87 oct. fuel w/ethanol.

On the way back, I use 87 oct. fuel NON-ethanol.

Invariably, I get about 3 more miles per gallon with the NON-ethanol variety.

Latest trip taken between November 20th and December 2nd. Interstate highway, mostly locked down to 74 mph.

With the ethanol 87, I got 24.8 mpg. With the NON-ethanol 87, I got 29.6 mpg. I have done this 6 times over the past 2 years. It doesn't vary by much.

 

[427435]

That's hardly a controlled test. Winds, weather, traffic, and the driver's expectations all play into it.

 

[thompithak3182]

im gathering up everyones thoughts on this zero ethanol vs e10. it seems like almost everyone says that they get better mpg with zero ethanol. I have tested some stuff too. Im no scientist and dont have a controlled experiment and all that good stuff but it seems like I been getting 2 mpg more. thats just my 2 cents. my question is, is it worth paying more for zero ethanol? does regular or premium gas make a difference in mpg? does top teir gas make a differnece? there is many factors that 427235 points out.

 

[427435]

It's basically a thermodynamics equation. BTU's in x Engine Efficiency x conversion factors = Horsepower.


Less BTU's equals less HP. However, 97% BTU's does not equal 90% HP (or mpg).

 

[litesong]

Beyond the 3% energy decrease of ethanol, ethanol needs high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engines to effectively release its energy. Ethanol used(not burned effectively) in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines cannot release its energy effectively. I have many years EACH, comparing 10% ethanol blends to 100% gasoline(E0) for 3 cars, showing 8%, 7%, & 5% increased mpg with E0. All engines run smoother, quieter & with a trace extra low rpm torque......

In essence, this post proves that ethanol engine engineers & gasoline engine engineers know how to design their specific engines.

While alcohol allows a higher compression ration(sic), it is not needed to make use of the BTU's in it.

By your adherence to the "ethanol in gasoline" industry, ethanol engine engineers are worthless, if gasoline engine engineers make gasoline engines to be as effective extracting ethanol energy as gasoline energy.

However, the mounting proof here & in many other forums is that drivers, who carefully track their mpg with 10% ethanol blends & E0, can tell the difference even with as small a quantity as 10% ethanol mixed with gasoline. It ain't 2% or 3%, but 8%, 7% to 5% & probably closer to 7% & 8% when compared carefully over many years of data.

 

[mf7lakes]

That's hardly a controlled test. Winds, weather, traffic, and the driver's expectations all play into it.

I don't know if you are referring to my post. However, if you are, then I think you should re-read my post. I have taken this same trip 10 times - repeat, 10 times - over 3 years. The results do not vary by much. I suppose I could go back and find the physical gas receipts with mileages on them to provide statistical proof, but this is not Judge Judy.

That being said, the winds, traffic, and my expectations would average out over 18,000 miles of interstate highway driving. The results were always the same. NON-ethanol 87 gas always beat the ethanol variety by at least 3 to 4 mpg.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Aquineas]

I don't know if you are referring to my post. However, if you are, then I think you should re-read my post. I have taken this same trip 10 times - repeat, 10 times - over 3 years. The results do not vary by much. I suppose I could go back and find the physical gas receipts with mileages on them to provide statistical proof, but this is not Judge Judy.

That being said, the winds, traffic, and my expectations would average out over 18,000 miles of interstate highway driving. The results were always the same. NON-ethanol 87 gas always beat the ethanol variety by at least 3 to 4 mpg.

This doesn't surprise me, and seems consistent with what I've seen as well. What also seems clear is that whenever anyone posts their real-world observations about Gasahol er I mean e10, there are some very vocal ethanol-backers who are intent to try to somehow discredit that information. All I can say to the other forum members is, don't take my word for it, try it yourself. Try taking a round-trip and if you have the opportunity, try one half with e10 and the other half with e0 and post your observations.

 

[427435]

I don't know if you are referring to my post. However, if you are, then I think you should re-read my post. I have taken this same trip 10 times - repeat, 10 times - over 3 years. The results do not vary by much. I suppose I could go back and find the physical gas receipts with mileages on them to provide statistical proof, but this is not Judge Judy.

That being said, the winds, traffic, and my expectations would average out over 18,000 miles of interstate highway driving. The results were always the same. NON-ethanol 87 gas always beat the ethanol variety by at least 3 to 4 mpg.

So why don't real tests, run with EPA dyno's, get similar results when comparing E85 to pure gasoline??? If you are losing 10% of your mpg (or more) with only 10% ethanol, than a car with 85% ethanol would only get about 15% of it's mpg with regular gas.

Instead, E85 which has about 72% of the BTU's of E0 gets............................about 72% of the mpg of E0 per EPA dyno tests. Go figure.


By the way, are you using E0 one way and E10 the other way?? Lots of opportunities for variation based on elevation change and prevailing wind. directions

 

[427435]

This doesn't surprise me, and seems consistent with what I've seen as well. What also seems clear is that whenever anyone posts their real-world observations about Gasahol er I mean e10, there are some very vocal ethanol-backers who are intent to try to somehow discredit that information. All I can say to the other forum members is, don't take my word for it, try it yourself. Try taking a round-trip and if you have the opportunity, try one half with e10 and the other half with e0 and post your observations.

Bad idea to use E10 one way and E0 the other way due to natural variations.

More importantly, as both an engineer and a gear head, I'm not interested in the hoopla over the good and bad of ethanol (food prices, starving people, etc. etc.). The real, provable facts from controlled tests is what I base my judgement on. And the facts are that you can expect about a 2-3% drop in mpg with E10 and about an 18% drop with E85.

Anything more is the variable introduced by non-repeatable "real world" operation.

 

[Aquineas]

Bad idea to use E10 one way and E0 the other way due to natural variations.

More importantly, as both an engineer and a gear head, I'm not interested in the hoopla over the good and bad of ethanol (food prices, starving people, etc. etc.). The real, provable facts from controlled tests is what I base my judgement on. And the facts are that you can expect about a 2-3% drop in mpg with E10 and about an 18% drop with E85.

Anything more is the variable introduced by non-repeatable "real world" operation.

So why are there not more real-world representations of people getting less than the approximate 10 percent variance that more than one person are reporting here? And what are the parameters in the controlled test. What type of engine is used in the controlled test? Is it tuned for E0 or E10? How sensitive is the knock sensor? What is the air flow? What is the air temperature? Does air density make a difference? Does it account for moisture in the vehicle fuel tank? In the station fuel tank? Does it account for the faster alcohol evaporation? If the elevation of the starting point and the destination point are the same, how much would variances in elevation matter in the mpg equation? Does slope matter? Vehicle mass? O2 Content?

In more than one instance, I've seen approximately a 10 percent variance measured from the engine computer. I know this isn't as accurate as an accurate measure from the pump, but even if the engine computer is off, is it somehow performing a different calculation if it's an ethanol blend?

Rather than tell me what it should be, as an engineer, perhaps you can explain why it is. Engineers once thought that the engine support pylon of a DC-10 could be held in place by a bolt and it took an engine falling off on takeoff at O'Hare to discover that was wrong. Engineers also underestimated the lift calculations of the Boeing 727. So instead of just saying "I'm an engineer, and thus the variance is absolutely due to differences in elevation and wind", I'm curious why one doesn't variances in the other direction as well, but in the admittedly small sampling size, I'm just not seeing people say "My mileage is the same or the variance is less than 2-3 percent."

 

[Aquineas]

So why don't real tests, run with EPA dyno's, get similar results when comparing E85 to pure gasoline??? If you are losing 10% of your mpg (or more) with only 10% ethanol, than a car with 85% ethanol would only get about 15% of it's mpg with regular gas.

Instead, E85 which has about 72% of the BTU's of E0 gets............................about 72% of the mpg of E0 per EPA dyno tests. Go figure.


By the way, are you using E0 one way and E10 the other way?? Lots of opportunities for variation based on elevation change and prevailing wind. directions

Would these be the same EPA test which Ford gamed to report 47/47/47mpg for the Fusion Hybrid (that they later were forced to revise?) And as an engineer, you should know that none of our engines are certified to run E85, so running E85 would/potentially cause engine damage. If you want to run E85 in your car and report back the mileage, you're free to do so, but I don't recommend doing it. As much as I disagree with your opinion, I don't want to see you do harm to your engine or fuel system.

 

[427435]

Last, first. The testing of hybrids leaves a lot to be desired and is still being argued over how it should be done. The testing of non-hybrids is pretty straight forward.

Continuing on, EPA tests are complete cars on chassis dynos with adjustments made for varying atmospheric air pressure. Actually, air pressure would probably only make a difference on max power as the throttle blade controls the absolute pressure that the intake sees. Other variables are tightly controlled (air temp, fuel quality etc.)

A few years ago, I was in a similar discussion on another forum and took the time to look at that year's EPA tests for vehicles run on both pure gas and E85. The picture below is the worksheet (hard to read unless you blow it up).

E85 has about 72% of the BTU's of pure gas (refer to a previous link I posted). You would think that the E85 mpg averages would be about 72% of the mpg averages of pure gas.

The actual EPA mpg averages for E85 (compared to pure gas) was 73%----------just about what you would think. The 1% difference is likely either experimental error or rounding error.

For you to get a 10% difference between E10 and pure gas would mean you got no BTU's from the ethanol portion at all----------------not possible.

By the way, I've certainly seen mpg readout variation far in excess of 10% running nothing but E10---------that's called driver and road condition variability.

 

[Aquineas]

But as we well know, it wasn't just hybrids that had to have revised mileage. In fact, several of Ford's vehicles, as well as several as Hyundai's, had to revised because the as I understand it, the EPA wasn't testing the vehicles at all and merely defined the parameters of the vehicle test cycle. In fact, that was and is a big problem.

As far as the BTU energy, I'm not arguing the BTU energy, I'm arguing whether the tuning makes a difference, I believe there are factors in tuning which are affecting the mileage above and beyond the BTU difference between E0 and E10.

 

[427435]

But as we well know, it wasn't just hybrids that had to have revised mileage. In fact, several of Ford's vehicles, as well as several as Hyundai's, had to revised because the as I understand it, the EPA wasn't testing the vehicles at all and merely defined the parameters of the vehicle test cycle. In fact, that was and is a big problem.

As far as the BTU energy, I'm not arguing the BTU energy, I'm arguing whether the tuning makes a difference, I believe there are factors in tuning which are affecting the mileage above and beyond the BTU difference between E0 and E10.

Believe what you want. E10 has been around for 10-15 years-------I suspect the engineers have got their computer controlled fuel systems (complete with knock sensors) well optimized.

 

[litesong]

I don't know if you are referring to my post. However, if you are, then I think you should re-read my post. I have taken this same trip 10 times - repeat, 10 times - over 3 years. The results do not vary by much. I suppose I could go back and find the physical gas receipts with mileages on them to provide statistical proof, but this is not Judge Judy.

That being said, the winds, traffic, and my expectations would average out over 18,000 miles of interstate highway driving. The results were always the same. NON-ethanol 87 gas always beat the ethanol variety by at least 3 to 4 mpg.

Amen!! The "ethanol in gasoline" pushers always try to foist off the idea that ethanol used(not burned effectively) in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines extracts all its energy, just as when ethanol is burned(effectively) in a high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engine.

 

[litesong]

I'm not arguing the BTU energy, I'm arguing whether the tuning makes a difference, I believe there are factors in tuning which are affecting the mileage above and beyond the BTU difference between E0 and E10.

I suspect the engineers have got their computer controlled fuel systems (complete with knock sensors) well optimized.

It is NOT engine tuning AND it is not the 3% energy difference between ethanol & gasoline. It is the difference between ethanol engines(using 100% ethanol) & gasoline engines(that should be using 100% gasoline(E0)). Ethanol used(not burned effectively) in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines CANNOT release all its energy, as ethanol burned(effectively) in a high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engine CAN release all its energy.

Again, ethanol engine engineers are good. Gasoline engine engineers are good. "ethanol in gasoline" propagandists are NOT engineers & NOT good.

Anyhow, pure-gas.org will have listings for 10,000 sources of 100% gasoline(E0) by the beginning of 2016. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry & the EPA can no longer suppress the truth that ethanol is NOT burning effectively in gasoline engines.