seinsmeld13

I have noticed a difference as well here in Canada. My mileage is much better with Shell 91 which contains no ethanol. I avoid ethanol like the plague!

GTSurgery

So what is better? Every gas statin around here has 93 octane with 10% ethanol, except one. One gas station has no ethanol, but the highest octane it has is 91. So 91% pure or 93 octane with 10% ethanol.

rktskicar

runs some logs with both of them and post-em up.

Bruce

sakimano

the smartest guy I know in the tuning business told me the whole fear of ethanol thing is bunk. The gas is fine, and you make good power with it.

thus, I buy 94 at Sunoco.

p.s. Springfield to St. Louis 1000 feet downhill

redrocker55

Hey Sakimano...I didn't put all the specifics in my original post... The elevation from the gas station with zero ethanol to the gas station where I filled up was 490 feet downhill. So yes it was a little downhill. But it wasn't a short drive and while this might add .2 to .5 mpg (possibly) to the drive it still shows that the non ethanol gas gets better mpg.

Secondly...I drove slightly faster home than when I went to springfield. (75 on the way to sfield...78+ on the way home) Especially during the long up hill runs where I was pushing the throttle trying to see if I had any more HP via my butt dyno! (no results found). I also had a dream on the way home where I hit 110...for a minute it kinda felt like I had an engine tune from APR/Stasis...but nope...just a dream. In the dream the car did get to 110 though. I didn't have any dreams like that when I was running the ethanol!

Thirdly...the wind. The trip to Springfield there was zero wind. On the way home I had a northern breeze (maybe 5 - 10 mpg) which was a wind from hitting the left side of the car.

With the MPG tests, since we are not in a controlled environment, they will never ever be perfect. There is just so much that can effect the results.

OK...thank you for motivating me to complete what probably should have been in my first post.

helix139

Fear of it is irrational. It's not going to harm your engine or make significantly less power. It is a less efficient fuel than pure gas and results in a noticeable decrease in MPG in cars that weren't designed for it, though. Given the choice, I'll take ethanol-free gas every day and get more bang for my buck, literally

b_desmo

Is a Fuel 'Oxygenator' which is why in some northern climates they put it in the fuel distrbution systems to get older vehicles to produce fewer emmissions.

Because it is an oxygenator the O2 sensor/ ECM in modern vehicles will see it as a lean A/F ratio (ie to much air) and will add additional fuel to make up for it when its running in a closed engine conrol loop (ie not off a fuel map). Typically you always get crappier mileage because of this.

If you don't idle or cruise and keep the engine out of closed loop operation, where it will use fuel maps, likely mileage will be better due to advanced timing. - but since most of the time engine op will be in closed loop its always a looser.

sakimano

Something else to consider is that your engine's most volumetrically efficient point is where it makes the most torque. For my car that's up in teh 3000-3500rpm range.

If, during my commute to work I accelerate slowly from each stop, shifting at say 1800rpm, and really taking it easy (which is what people suggest is the best way to preserve fuel) I will actually get WORSE fuel efficiency than when I romp through first and second to get up to speed from each stop. It's a weird thing, but try it. You might find similar results. (i.e. ripping through first and second, then chilling in 6th once up to spee). Less time in acceleration seems to be more efficient. That's because we're using the engine to accelerate where our engine is most efficient.

Also on hills, lets say we have a 20 mile section of uphill/downhill sections. It is actually more fuel efficient to hammer the throttle on the downhill than on the uphill. i.e. most think coasting downhill is better for gas, but in reality coasting up hill is. Hammering the throttle down the hill helps build momentum.

Finally, when coming to a stop, leaving the car in gear is far more fuel efficient than putting it in neutral or popping the clutch in to coast. While it's in gear and coasting it uses zero fuel as the drive powers the car. While it's coasting in neutral, it's using fuel to basically idle the car.

All neat stuff. The best part is that ripping downhill or ripping through first/second from a stop is far more fun than being ginger with the car.

m444

It's about time; on the run

A left-right coalition is emerging against Ethanol energy boondoggle.

Wall Street Journal, DECEMBER 5, 2010

"...A left-right coalition is emerging to end ethanol subsidies.

Last week, no fewer than 17 Senators signed a letter calling ethanol "fiscally indefensible" and "environmentally unwise." Led by Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Republican Jon Kyl, the group said Congress shouldn't extend certain subsidies that expire at the end of the year, including the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline and tariffs on cheaper imports. Conservatives like Tom Coburn dislike this costly industrial policy, while liberals like Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse are turning against the hefty carbon emissions that come with corn fuels.

Even Energy Secretary Steven Chu seems to have found the anti-ethanol religion. ..."

Zerepjd

All I know is I have to stay away from Springfield. Anyplace that has wind that can steal 5-10 MPG from your car should probably be avoided.