Non-Ethanol fuel

I recently went to Missouri. I filled my truck up at a gas station that had non-ethanol gasoline. My Chevy truck has a miles-per-tank readout. I didn't really pay attention to the readout at the time. I went to another gas station which had gasoline with ethanol in it. I read the miles-per-tank readout. I could swear that the non-ethanol gas gave me about 30 more mile per tankful. If I can find a gas station around Houston that sells non-ethanol gas, I am going to check this out.

Does anyone out there have any experience with this?

Well known that 10% Ethanol will drop fuel mileage. What you have to take into consideration is locating a station that has non-ethanol fuel (which won't be in close proximity to Houston) and price difference. $$$ vs. MPG, is it worth it?

I personally never saw the loss in fuel mileage many claim. I feel it is negligible at best. Driving habits have a huge impact on mileage.

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=TX There is one listed in Houston. Yes you will get a little better mileage with the non ethanol gas, the ethanol reduces the amount of energy available in a gallon of the mixture. Around here it is $.10 cents a gallon higher. I use the non in my outboard and fourwheeler and all my lawn equipment. It is very detrimental to equipment where they sit for periods of time between use. b

The price of the gas where I was at was the same for non-ethanol and with ethanol. You're right though; I would have to weight the additional price per gallon price against mileage gained.

The one in Houston does not exist.

When I was working in Florida I noticed several stations near the coast that had ethanol free gas.
I think that just about any boat owner would be willing to pay .30-.40 per gallon for ethanol free gas and the obvious market is near any lake.

Non ethanol fuel is less efficient. I have done the test on a couple of vehicles and get better mileage with non ethanol gas. Not sure if the cost outweighs the mileage. For sure with smaller motors especially any kind of 2 stroke the straight gas is much better. They run better and last longer.

Ethanol kills economy in today's engines. But I am curious what happens when the engine is actually designed to run on ethanol. Ethanol can be run with a much higher compression ratio and more advanced timing than gasoline (consider alcohol race engines). There is even talk of using an ethanol mix in a compression ignition engines, basically modified diesel engines.

GM published different performance numbers for the 5.3 based on using E-10 and E-85. I believe for the 5.3 for the 2014 year model it was 355 hp and 360 torque on E-10, but when using E-85 was rater at 380 HP and over 400 ftlb torque. Im sure the mileage suffers though.

E10 should be 3 1/2 percent less power than straight gas. It depends on the vehicle but it should be somewhere close to that.

Indy cars have been running ethanol since 2006 in various blends. They are supposed to be cleaner burning today than most passenger cars running gas.

The alcahol that is blended into gasoline is not the same thing that is used in race engines. It is 98% methanol with 2% denatured alcahol and some high octane gasoline mixed in to come up with a 115 octane fuel, yes with that you could probably run higher compression and more advanced timing. Ethanol is made from fermented grain, methanol is refined from natural gas. b

E100 has a 113 octane rating and a higher btu than methanol.

The Indy cars switched to ethanol. They have run between 10 and 98 percent, mixed with gas, since 2006.

Nascar is running E15 in their cars.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-02/corn-ethanol-is-worse-than-keystone?cmpid=yhoo

They're right! Ethanol does produce more carbon dioxide than gas/dino oil.

The problem with that article is that all the environmentalists are laughing at it. CO2 is about the only thing that ethanol produces more of than gasoline. Nothing new although it seems some, including the guy who wrote that article, is clueless.


[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WOAyoCo3xXA[/video]


Now, if you add in the CO2 the plants consume to provide the base for the production of ethanol, you get a total reduction of CO2 emissions.

When I was going to UTA back in 2006 I had to go watch speakers for one of my engineering courses. One of the guys I watched was from a big company like Exxon (I forget which one). He had talked about their company making better fuel which was more efficient and how automotive companies were making more efficient vehicles. When it got on to the Q&A time the guy would answer everyone's question with lots of detail and was nice about it. Then my question was if everything is about better fuel economy then why do you guys water down the gas with ethanol which lowers the fuel economy? He looked at me with the sourest face and said because the government makes us. Then went on to answering other questions.

In performance e85 is awesome and reduces the chance of a pre detonation or knock event from happening. But in order to prepare your car for e85 it needs a bigger fuel pump and massive injectors because of how much more e85 it requires to run. Just an example of differences is my WRX has from the factory 550cc injectors while the injectors required to run e85 are 1000cc

I recently went to Oklahoma for my job and was surprised to find non-ethanol fuel. I couldn't resist buying a tank to compare. My Corolla always gets 34 - 35 MPG with 10% ethanol blend. It got 40.2 MPG with non-ethanol fuel. I also find it odd that the Dept. of Agriculture oversees gasoline in Texas instead of the Dept. of Energy. When farmers couldn't make any money on corn, the law was passed to make ethanol blended fuel mandatory. Now farmers had a place to sell their corn. Corn prices skyrocketed and availability suffered, as did beef prices. Drought was not solely to blame.

Is your jump in economy due to the fuel change or you went on an almost all hwy road trip? In your example non ethanol fuel had a 16-17% increase in economy caused by 10% ethanol??? There has to be more to it than that!

Its interesting he only pushes down on the jars that turn all black. Maybe I missed it, but it seems like the one that is all clear he didn't.

Both are nearly all highway miles.

Something is amiss with your results. You could have had better economy than what you stated just by droping the 10% of real gas and not replacing it with anything. Sure E10 isn't as good for mileage, but its effects are not as great as what you are stating.

The idea would be to use smaller displacement to create the same amount of power. I don't think economy will be that different...down the road a bit.